IWMC.org

Each year the ability to manage wildlife in the United States comes under attack in state legislatures. Trapping is one of the most unfairly maligned forms of wildlife management. It is the only practical method with which to manage a group of species referred to as furbearers. There are compelling political, historical, practical and scientific reasons why such efforts to ban trapping should be rejected out of hand. It should be pointed out that "the leghold trap" commonly referred to in such proposed legislation is really a foothold restraining device. Contrary to allegations, this type of device does not mangle appendages of animals taken. In fact, this type of trap is extensively used for the capture and relocation of many species throughout the US including the Mexican, Gray and Red Wolves, bobcat, lynx and the once threatened River Otter.

The political agenda of organizations that support these legislative efforts is to eliminate all consumptive use of renewable natural resources. Consequently, banning or restricting the use of foothold and other traps is just a first step towards achieving that objective. Legislators and the public should not be misled by the rhetoric and misinformation that is presented by these organizations.

The US Fish & Wildlife Service, and the US Department of Agriculture, cite control of furbearers as vital to protection of endangered species, for protection of crops and domestic livestock, and to reduce predation on certain other wildlife.. In addition, human health and safety are endangered when disease bearing wildlife are uncontrolled, and people are exposed to diseases such as rabies, plague, and encephalitis. The regulated and appropriate use of foothold traps is endorsed by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the Wildlife Management Institute, and the Congressional Sportsmens Caucus.

IAFWA has sponsored a systematic evaluation of traps and trapping systems which shall result in recommendations of the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) for capturing the twenty-three furbearer species found in North America. In 1997, representatives of all state fish and wildlife agencies, Canada, the Russian Federation and the European Union established an agreement governing the development of "Humane Trapping Standards".

The basic design of the modern foothold type trap is over 175 years old; however, there have been many modifications to make it more efficient and effective and such research continues.

There have been allegations that despite modifications, the foothold trap is still an inhumane device. It should be noted that the term "humane" is a subjective one. The only place where it is defined in federal law as to taking animals in the wild is in the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which states:

"In the context of taking a marine mammal, means that method of taking which involves the least degree of pain and suffering practicable to the mammal involved." (Emphasis added) [16 USC §1362 (4) ]

The operative word is, of course, "practicable". For example, the most humane method of trapping wild furbearers might be in a live cage trap where the animal could be dispatched instantly after capture. However, the use of such traps on an extended trap line is totally impractical. Thus, the alternative devices must be judged in practical terms of humane trapping under given conditions. In sum, what is "humanely practical", given the availability of alternative trapping devices (i.e. methodology), are the appropriate guidelines to determine humaneness. Given the practical flexibility, substantive progress can be made to establish humane trapping of any species as technology changes over time. This recognition then, is an educated process:

Humane education is both a process and a product. It is ongoing... an act which never truly attains the goal at any given point, but methodically and systematically moves toward it. (Whitlock, Dr. E. S. and Westerland, Dr. S. R. Humane Education; Overview, Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Humane Ed. Univ. of Tulsa 1975)

Those states that have banned the "leghold" trap by way of legislation or by ballot initiatives have created a host of problems.

For example, in California the "leghold" trap was banned by a ballot initiative in 1998. The NTA successfully intervened in a case in federal court brought by the National Audubon Society, the California Waterfowl Association and others, challenging the ban as it related to the control of non-native fox that predated upon seven (7) endangered birds and the foothold trap was the only effective means of controlling the problem. The court granted a permanent injunction against the ban on federal lands or use by federal employees. Are those birds only found on federal lands? Of course not and these birds are still at risk.

In Massachusetts traps were banned by a ballot initiative and the beaver population increased by 200% and continues to grow. Beaver, doing what beavers do, have caused millions of dollars in water damage to roads, crops and other real property. Coyote populations have also dangerously expanded to where there have actually been attacks on humans. To help remedy the situation, the legislature did pass a bill allowing body gripping traps and are considering permissible use of foothold traps.

In the state of Washington, the "leghold trap" was banned by a ballot initiative in 2000. Since passage, beaver, coyote, moles, gophers and other furbearers have caused extensive damage and predation and, again, the legislature has been asked to deal with the problem. In fact, the Senate voted 38-11 to overturn the voter-passed initiative but the legislative session ended before the House could vote on a similar bill.

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, 89^th Cong., 2^nd 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.

In every state and province in the United States and Canada which have furbearer trapping programs, seasons, harvest limits and trapping methodology are strictly regulated by the state or provincial management authorities.

The National Trappers Association respectively submits that recent history and experience demonstrate that regulated use of foothold traps is the most efficient, effective, humane and desirable method of harvesting, containing, capturing and reducing furbearer populations. The alternative methods are either ineffective, practically prohibitive, non-selective or cause injury or death to both wild and domestic animals.

__________________________________
http://www.iwmc.org/mammals/020329-1.htm