Both other answers seem to deal with different regions and different time frame than you are asking, so I'm gonna give it a go as I've spent a ton of time looking into the fur trade, and while I know nothing about the show(but am now going to become an expert in it, unless it's truly god awful like these things sometimes are), I do know some of the real world stuff you are looking for.

Ultimately the reason any European settlement in along the St Laurence River survived was because of the fur trade. These colonies first established by the French in the early and mid 1600s were small, and very much at the edge of the known world.

For a long time, their survival was rather precarious, and without a mutually beneficial trading exchange they would have failed(being without any meaningful economy and all). Fortunately for the european immigrants, the locals liked their steel for tools, guns too, but mostly metal tools.

Imagine what 50 kilograms of steel sewing needles looks like to a society without the ability to make steel. People like to talk about guns, but frankly, in the terrain, at the end of supply lines, a flintlock musket is not my weapon of choice. For rate of fire, for lack of ammunition, for cultural expertise in the terrain, local weapons were best. So it really was tools that made the trade.

Women liked the steel needles, pots, pans, cooking knives etc... and they were very much near the centre of the fur trade at this stage. If you wanted to trade with a village, your best bet was getting the women onside, get them onboard, they convince the men, and the Chief lets one of your compatriots marry an important woman to seal the trade agreement.

For a long time, this was mutually beneficial, mutually agreed to, and with little systematic violence. Certainly, it was tough, and violence is always present in frontier male dominated societies, but it wasn't typical of any given trade arrangement between European immigrants and the First Nations they were trading with. There was war, but it had less to do with fur trade and more to do with overarching political dramas that Europeans stumbled into locally and ones they brought with themselves from Europe.

Ultimately it was a very personal industry, you and half a dozen other guys trap and trade in an area, a town will have a trading relationship with First Nations people who come by to trade. It was very much a cottage industry, you traded with people you knew and had relationships with.

As things developed, small stock companies(think 12 owner shares, 20 employees, and still more of a trading alliance than a real company) developed in the St Laurence/Great Lakes region, the English wanted a piece of the action and made the move for Ruperts Land (all the land that drains into Hudson's Bay) in the late 1670s. The Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) were chartered, and away they went.

This was a marked change from the way it went before. From local trappers and traders with personal relationships, suddenly a very well capitalized corporation comes in, sets up shop in fresh territory, and told First Nations they could show up at Hudsons Bay to get some amazing trade deals!

Even until after the 7 Years War when Quebec went to the British, HBC basically waited for the furs to come to them, mostly sticking to the coast. The St Laurence traders, hardy, strong, and having developed a culture of being out in the woods and living like the locals, saw an opportunity, a bunch of different companies formed, that eventually distilled into the Scottish/Quebequois venture known as the North-West Trading Company (NWTC), there were others, but when push came to shove, this was the one that eventually brought HBC to its knees (later in the 1800s)

They realized that if they could get to the furs before they could get to Hudsons Bay, they could reap profits off the lazy backs of HBC. Naturally, HBC didn't like this and started going inland as well.

Now instead of personal relationships, you have business arrangements, and your competition isn't the guy who lives on the other side of your town you you know and are friends with, instead it was a rival company run by the bloody English/Scottish/French.

Now, this is all happening literally at the end of the world, place that weren't put on maps until the mid 1800s (by David Thompson, one of my favourite peoples in all of history, the guy is personally responsible for mapping over 1/3 of N. America). This was terra incognita, there was no government presence apart from any officialdom the companies had.

These were massively profitable companies who's influence spread the continent, but if you ever stumbled upon a group of more than a couple dozen Europeans at a time (a couple York Boats, or a flotilla of canoes), it would have been really odd. There were few permanent European (as distinct from Metis cause they are different, /r/muskwatch has a comment talking about them) habitation away from the St Laurence and Hudson Bay coastal forts. In country, you've got maybe half a dozen guys wintering over at a fort, joined by two dozen who are the voyageur team bringing in trade goods, taking out furs in the summer.

There were flare ups, there were occasional spats, but it really wasn't until the 1800's that there was a real big shift towards more systematic violence, and as much as I can't really defend it, I'm gonna blame it on the Americans.

Americans didn't really show up until late in the game, Lewis and Clark were 1804-06, and are seen as the ones who opened the West to the US, they were late comers, who had maps, usually made by French or British fur traders, if they are in the show I have no idea why, except because it's made for American viewers, so gotta have some.

And if you need any evidence that yes, Americans were a known entity: there are very good reasons why Quebec declined the invitation to join the 13 colonies in Revolution

While I wish everyone would go read some original source material, HBC kept records of ledgers, orders, and all the other sorts of things you'd expect from a large stock company, however I prefer the stuff written by the likes of Alexander Mackenzie, Simon Frasier, David Thompson, Simon McTavish, William McGillivray, probably because I've always liked the NWTC better. If you prefer easier reading, maybe something like "The Map Maker" by Kerry Wood

As for a more analytical approach "The Fur Trade in Canada" by Harold Innis is my go to book for people who are curious

I realize I've glossed over tons of stuff, and been lazy on linking things that might require explanation, but I assume you can use google, or ask if you want elaboration on something

I read Butchers Crossing by John Williams which is set around the same time and I believe tries to be accurate in its storyline.

Have also read other works regarding the timeline. Western types.

Particularly in Butchers Crossing and others in general.Though people weren't killing each other in pursuit of furs, there was a general disregard for and acceptance of the loss of human life.

Given this, I'm sure there were pockets of such behavior. Maybe a bit exaggerated.

Above is just my opinion from novels and such. No academics to back it up.