In New Jersey where the "leghold trap" was banned by
legislation, muskrats cause incredible damage to cranberry holding bogs
where alternative traps have a limited effect.
In Colorado and Arizona where ballot initiatives banning the
"leghold trap" were passed, coyote populations have expanded to
where the predation to sheep and cattle have caused millions of dollars in
loses. Wildlife populations, such as antelope, are being adversely
impacted.
Because of the resulting havoc caused by the ban on the use of the
foothold trap, attorneys are now drafting documents for challenges in state
courts, except in Massachusetts, where damage continues to mount unchecked.
These examples of problems caused by the ban of the foothold trap belie
the claim that alternative trapping devices work "just as well".
The fact is that certain species cannot be effectively trapped unless the
foothold trapping systems are employed. The body gripping trap, or
Conibear, is lethal - it kills the species caught. In contrast to the
foothold trap, there is no opportunity to release a non-targeted animal.
Similarly, the snare is not effective for many species. (The Humane Society
of the United States considers the snare "the most primitive
indiscriminate and inhumane trap used in the United States.)
It is interesting that those who seek to ban or restrict the use of the
foothold trap cite the fact that approximately ninety (90) countries have
banned the "leghold trap". Banning the foothold trap in many of
these nations is like banning polar bear hunting in the District of
Columbia or the harvest of sea turtles in Switzerland, as trapping is not
an activity that would be carried out in those nations. [i.e., United Arab
Emirates or Singapore.] On the other hand, in many cases where traps are
banned, they are still in use with government permission, in recognition of
the need for their use to control populations and mitigate damage. [i.e.,
Netherlands - muskrat damage to dikes.] This is similar to the recognition
the federal court gave in the California case discussed above.
Many of those same countries banning "leghold traps", however,
permit and endorse the use of snares. For example, Sweden. [See testimony
of Jan England, Ass’t Prof., Sec. For Vertebrate Zoology, Sweden Mus. Of
Nat’l History, Stockholm, Sweden, H.R. Rep. 98-170, 89th
Cong., 2nd Sess. 68 (1984)]
The fact is, however, the largest fur producing nations - Canada, the
Russian Federation and the United States - all employ the use of foothold
traps in the management of furbearers.
