Benefits of Trapping | Protecting Property & Public Safety
Calamity by Design: The Prohibition of Regulated Trapping — The Chelmsford Example
Chelmsford, Massachusetts is located about 20 miles northwest of the city of Boston and encompasses approximately 23 square miles. The first European settlement in the area was a fur trading post, established due to the abundance of beaver in the local wetlands. Today there are still approximately 870 acres of wetlands within the town, but it is now a densely settled suburban community with over 32,000 residents (1,357 per square mile). Local government is conducted through open town meetings and administered by five elected selectman.
During the late 1980s, a national animal rights group developed a "model" for getting trapping ban initiatives passed by town, county and state governments. The model guidelines encouraged animal rights activists to disguise regulated trapping as a public safety/animal welfare issue. Exactly in accordance with such direction, an article to ban trapping was introduced at a Chelmsford town meeting in 1988.
State wildlife experts reminded residents that regulated trapping was not a public safety issue, and warned that if regulated trapping were banned, there would be numerous undesirable consequences in the form of property damage and wildlife habitat degradation. Despite the warnings, the article was passed, and the trapping of furbearing mammals within the town was prohibited.
Prior to passage of the trapping ban, there were usually one to three complaints of beaver damage in the town each year. Following the ban, the beaver population, unchecked, began to grow rapidly, and the animals began to move into many previously unoccupied wetlands. Beaver dams began to flood houses and roadways. In 1992, state wildlife biologists working at the request of town officials investigated 25 beaver complaint sites. Two of these complaint sites were municipal wells which had been shut down (at a cost of $25,000) because of beaver flooding, and four other municipal wells were threatened. Individual landowners in town had incurred tens of thousands of dollars in damages to private wells, septic systems, lawns and roadways. The increasing beaver population and increasing property damage were directly related to the decision of the town's citizens to ban regulated trapping and allow uncontrolled beaver population growth to commence.
State wildlife officials offered the town several recommendations: (1) use water flow devices to reduce flooding in some areas, (2) get permits to breach beaver dams in other locations, and (3) rescind the trapping ban bylaw to allow beaver populations to be brought under control. The town took positive steps to implement these recommendations. The state issued permits to breach beaver dams that were disabling wells and septic systems. State wildlife personnel installed water flow devices (beaver pipes) at two sites and assisted town water department personnel with a third pipe. At a special town meeting in September 1992, town citizens voted by a two-to-one margin to allow regulated public trapping to resume. During the regular trapping season later that fall and winter, four fur harvesters working with homeowners and town officials removed 87 beaver. Today, with public, regulated trapping restored, Chelmsford again has only one to three beaver complaints per year. These are handled as they had been prior to 1988, under an effective and responsible program incorporating state wildlife officials and local fur harvesters.
In Massachusetts, the state wildlife agency has a well developed management plan for beaver. The goals of this plan are to manage beaver resources as assets, not liabilities; perpetuate beaver populations for future generations; keep the beaver population at levels compatible with suitable habitat; minimizing property damage caused by beaver; manage beaver for their positive wetland values, and allow people the sustainable use of public resources.
Chelmsford residents were confounded by animal rights activists who had promised in 1988 and again in 1992 to install water flow devices and proposed to "sterilize" beaver in the town (a technique that is not feasible on a free-roaming beaver population). Over the four years of the trapping ban, the activists never acted on their promises and were never held accountable for the statements they put forth.
During the late 1980s, a national animal rights group developed a "model" for getting trapping ban initiatives passed by town, county and state governments. The model guidelines encouraged animal rights activists to disguise regulated trapping as a public safety/animal welfare issue. Exactly in accordance with such direction, an article to ban trapping was introduced at a Chelmsford town meeting in 1988.
State wildlife experts reminded residents that regulated trapping was not a public safety issue, and warned that if regulated trapping were banned, there would be numerous undesirable consequences in the form of property damage and wildlife habitat degradation. Despite the warnings, the article was passed, and the trapping of furbearing mammals within the town was prohibited.
Prior to passage of the trapping ban, there were usually one to three complaints of beaver damage in the town each year. Following the ban, the beaver population, unchecked, began to grow rapidly, and the animals began to move into many previously unoccupied wetlands. Beaver dams began to flood houses and roadways. In 1992, state wildlife biologists working at the request of town officials investigated 25 beaver complaint sites. Two of these complaint sites were municipal wells which had been shut down (at a cost of $25,000) because of beaver flooding, and four other municipal wells were threatened. Individual landowners in town had incurred tens of thousands of dollars in damages to private wells, septic systems, lawns and roadways. The increasing beaver population and increasing property damage were directly related to the decision of the town's citizens to ban regulated trapping and allow uncontrolled beaver population growth to commence.
State wildlife officials offered the town several recommendations: (1) use water flow devices to reduce flooding in some areas, (2) get permits to breach beaver dams in other locations, and (3) rescind the trapping ban bylaw to allow beaver populations to be brought under control. The town took positive steps to implement these recommendations. The state issued permits to breach beaver dams that were disabling wells and septic systems. State wildlife personnel installed water flow devices (beaver pipes) at two sites and assisted town water department personnel with a third pipe. At a special town meeting in September 1992, town citizens voted by a two-to-one margin to allow regulated public trapping to resume. During the regular trapping season later that fall and winter, four fur harvesters working with homeowners and town officials removed 87 beaver. Today, with public, regulated trapping restored, Chelmsford again has only one to three beaver complaints per year. These are handled as they had been prior to 1988, under an effective and responsible program incorporating state wildlife officials and local fur harvesters.
In Massachusetts, the state wildlife agency has a well developed management plan for beaver. The goals of this plan are to manage beaver resources as assets, not liabilities; perpetuate beaver populations for future generations; keep the beaver population at levels compatible with suitable habitat; minimizing property damage caused by beaver; manage beaver for their positive wetland values, and allow people the sustainable use of public resources.
Chelmsford residents were confounded by animal rights activists who had promised in 1988 and again in 1992 to install water flow devices and proposed to "sterilize" beaver in the town (a technique that is not feasible on a free-roaming beaver population). Over the four years of the trapping ban, the activists never acted on their promises and were never held accountable for the statements they put forth.
Benefits of Trapping | Protection of Wetlands
Protecting America's Important Wetland's with Regulated Trapping
The coastal wetlands along the Gulf coast of Louisiana are among the most productive and important habitat types found in the United States. The largest expanse of wetlands in the contiguous U.S. occurs in Louisiana, comprising 25% of the freshwater marshes and 69% of the saltwater marshes of the Gulf Coast. This translates to 15% and 40% respectively of these ecotypes which remain in the United States.
Louisiana’s wetlands provide a multitude of functions and important values including:
Louisiana’s wetlands provide a multitude of functions and important values including:
- Habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife species including 15 million water birds 5 million wintering waterfowl, over 1 million alligators and 11 Threatened/Endangered species.
- Groundwater recharge, reduction of pollution and nutrient and sediment reduction.
- Storm buffer, erosion control and flood protection.
- Annual commercial fisheries dockside landings of $300 million dollars annually.
- Regulated fishing and hunting, and eco-tourism contribute billions of dollars annually to the state’s economy. In the State of Louisiana over 3.3 million acres of coastal wetlands now exist. However, these coastal wetlands are threatened by degradation and destruction through overpopulation of nutria an exotic rodent found throughout these wetlands.
Nutria (Myocastor coypus) are a large semi-aquatic rodent native to South America. The Gulf Coast nutria population originated in Louisiana in 1937 from 13 animals imported from Argentina. After numerous escapes in earlier years, approximately 150 nutria escaped during a hurricane in 1940. Escaped nutria established a population in the wild and began to thrive in coastal wetlands. Nutria weigh an average of 12 lbs., average 4-5 young per litter and may have several litters each year. Nutria are mainly herbivores and eat plants and other vegetation. Nutria will pull and eat plant roots that anchor into the marsh. At higher populations, as more nutria forage on marsh vegetation entire areas become void of all plants and result in expanses of marsh void of vegetation. When vegetation is removed from the surface of the marsh, the very fragile organic soils are exposed to erosion through tidal action. If damaged areas do not revegetate quickly, they will become open water as tidal scour removes soil and thus lowers elevation. Frequently the plants roots systems are also damaged, making recovery through vegetative regeneration very slow. The term biologists use to describe marsh denuded of plant life by nutria is called an "eat out".
The first region-wide aerial survey to estimate nutria damage was conducted in 1993. Each year the number and severity of the damage continues to increase, with only a small portion of the damaged acres demonstrating vegetative recovery. In 1998, wetland damage in Louisiana attributable to nutria was conservatively estimated to exceed 100,000 acres (Kinler, Noel, G. Linscombe and H. Hartley. 1998. A survey of Nutria herbivore damage in coastal La in 1998. Unpublished manuscript 32pp. Louisianan Dept. Of Wildlife in Fisheries. Baton Rouge.) The estimate of 100,000 acres of marsh damaged is conservative because only the worst (most obvious) can be detected from aerial surveys. The number of acres being impacted is certainly much higher.
The long term effect of these "eat outs" are permanent. These coastal marshes are being lost at an alarming rate because of erosion, subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and the lack of silt-laden river water to continue the process of building marsh. Once gone these acres of productive marsh cannot be replaced and all their positive benefits and values are lost with them. Nutria cause damage to rice and sugarcane fields, as well. Because of the tremendous destruction of these important habitat types that are home to literally hundreds of species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, control of nutria is among the top priorities of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). Regulated trapping is the predominant method used in management of nutria populations. Licensed trappers harvest nutria during regulated seasons. If nutria are valuable enough, the efforts of licensed trappers, along with the nutria harvest will increase, resulting in reduced damage to the coastal wetlands. To enhance this economic incentive the LDWF has taken two approaches. One has been to develop new markets for nutria pelts and the second is to develop a market for the human consumption of nutria meat. The use of the pelt for clothing and the additional sale of nutria meat for human consumption, can provide a valuable additional incentive to keep more trappers in the marsh helping to reduce nutria populations. In the past, the harvest of nutria during regulated seasons in the fall and winter months have resulted in harvests between 390,000 to over 1 million nutria annually. Such controlled and managed utilization of wildlife allows managers to protect coastal wetlands by keeping nutria populations at levels suitable with existing habitat conditions, and thereby insuring this ecosystem for hundreds of other fish and wildlife species.
The first region-wide aerial survey to estimate nutria damage was conducted in 1993. Each year the number and severity of the damage continues to increase, with only a small portion of the damaged acres demonstrating vegetative recovery. In 1998, wetland damage in Louisiana attributable to nutria was conservatively estimated to exceed 100,000 acres (Kinler, Noel, G. Linscombe and H. Hartley. 1998. A survey of Nutria herbivore damage in coastal La in 1998. Unpublished manuscript 32pp. Louisianan Dept. Of Wildlife in Fisheries. Baton Rouge.) The estimate of 100,000 acres of marsh damaged is conservative because only the worst (most obvious) can be detected from aerial surveys. The number of acres being impacted is certainly much higher.
The long term effect of these "eat outs" are permanent. These coastal marshes are being lost at an alarming rate because of erosion, subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and the lack of silt-laden river water to continue the process of building marsh. Once gone these acres of productive marsh cannot be replaced and all their positive benefits and values are lost with them. Nutria cause damage to rice and sugarcane fields, as well. Because of the tremendous destruction of these important habitat types that are home to literally hundreds of species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, control of nutria is among the top priorities of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). Regulated trapping is the predominant method used in management of nutria populations. Licensed trappers harvest nutria during regulated seasons. If nutria are valuable enough, the efforts of licensed trappers, along with the nutria harvest will increase, resulting in reduced damage to the coastal wetlands. To enhance this economic incentive the LDWF has taken two approaches. One has been to develop new markets for nutria pelts and the second is to develop a market for the human consumption of nutria meat. The use of the pelt for clothing and the additional sale of nutria meat for human consumption, can provide a valuable additional incentive to keep more trappers in the marsh helping to reduce nutria populations. In the past, the harvest of nutria during regulated seasons in the fall and winter months have resulted in harvests between 390,000 to over 1 million nutria annually. Such controlled and managed utilization of wildlife allows managers to protect coastal wetlands by keeping nutria populations at levels suitable with existing habitat conditions, and thereby insuring this ecosystem for hundreds of other fish and wildlife species.
Benefits of Trapping | Maintaining National Wildlife Refuges
Regulated Trapping on National Wildlife Refuges
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered that a small shell and mangrove-covered island in Florida’s Indian River be forever protected as a "preserve and breeding grounds for native birds." Paul Kroegel, a sometime boat builder, cook and orange grower, was hired to watch over this 3-acre sanctuary. His mission was clear: protect the island’s pelicans from poachers and plume hunters. With this simple promise of wildlife protection, the National Wildlife Refuge System was formed.
The System now encompasses more than 92 million acres in the United States managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas and other designations for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife, including those that are threatened with extinction. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is:
"To preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations." {E.O. 12996, March 1996}
Regulated trapping has been conducted as part of the sustainable use of wildlife resources, as well as an important part of refuge management programs for many years. A comprehensive evaluation of Refuge trapping programs conducted by the Service in 1997 documented the importance of this activity in helping Refuges meet the mission stated above. The study examined mammal trapping programs on the Refuge System that occurred between the years 1992 and 19961. The study identified 487 mammal trapping programs on 281 National Wildlife Refuges during the 5-year period. The Service report went on to say "This report demonstrates the importance of trapping as a professional wildlife management tool" and "Mammal trapping also provided important benefits for public health and safety and recreational, commercial, and subsistence opportunities for the public during the period."
Eleven reasons for trapping on Refuges were identified in the following order of abundance:
The System now encompasses more than 92 million acres in the United States managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas and other designations for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife, including those that are threatened with extinction. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is:
"To preserve a national network of lands and waters for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations." {E.O. 12996, March 1996}
Regulated trapping has been conducted as part of the sustainable use of wildlife resources, as well as an important part of refuge management programs for many years. A comprehensive evaluation of Refuge trapping programs conducted by the Service in 1997 documented the importance of this activity in helping Refuges meet the mission stated above. The study examined mammal trapping programs on the Refuge System that occurred between the years 1992 and 19961. The study identified 487 mammal trapping programs on 281 National Wildlife Refuges during the 5-year period. The Service report went on to say "This report demonstrates the importance of trapping as a professional wildlife management tool" and "Mammal trapping also provided important benefits for public health and safety and recreational, commercial, and subsistence opportunities for the public during the period."
Eleven reasons for trapping on Refuges were identified in the following order of abundance:
- recreation/commercial/subsistence
- facilities protection
- migratory bird predation
- research
- surveys/monitoring
- habitat protection
- endangered species predation
- public safety
- feral animal control
- population management
- disease control.
- body gripping/quick kill-type traps were used on 171 Refuges
- cage-type traps were used on 157 Refuges
- foot-hold traps were used on 140 Refuges
- snares were used on 74 Refuges
- other devices were used on 66 Refuges
Benefits of Trapping | Research & Reintroduction
Trapping for Research & Reintroduction Programs
|
Foothold traps have been - and continue to be - used successfully to capture a wide variety of wildlife species in order to study the characteristics of individuals and populations. In fact, research conducted with the use of foothold traps has provided much of the information leading to our present understanding of biological and ecological phenomena. Wildlife biologists typically use these traps to capture animals that are then carefully monitored, revealing information on their movements, habitat requirements and reproduction that can be acquired no other way.
The river otters pictured at right were all captured with foothold traps in marshes in Louisiana and are being released unharmed into new areas to restore otter populations where they no longer occur. Similar otter restoration programs have been successful in Pennsylvania, maryland, New York and West Virginia. Many midwestern states now have thriving river otter populations thanks to capture and reintroduction efforts made possible by the use of foothold traps. |
|
Foothold traps are generally the only effective traps for catching canid species such as wolves, coyotes and foxes. As a result, they are almost always the trap of choice when any of these famously wary species are targeted for capture by either the public or wildlife researchers. An example is the ongoing, important role foothold traps are playing in the restoration of several endangered wolf populations. Red Wolves are captured, examined and relocated to reestablish new populations; Mexican Wolves are captured for a captive breeding program that will provide healthy animals for a reintroduction program; and stock-killing Gray Wolves are captured and relocated to reduce damage and maintain public support for their continuing restoration.
Benefits of Trapping | Protection of Rare Species
Trapping Protects Rare & Endangered Species
Foothold traps are sometimes used to capture rare or endangered species unharmed so that the animals can be reintroduced into favorable habitats to reestablish healthy populations. However, foothold traps also play an important role in protecting the health and viability of many established or newly reestablished populations of rare and endangered species. Foothold traps are particularly important management tools for protecting rare and endangered species from undesirable levels of predation.
The following is a partial list of endangered or threatened plant, reptile, bird and mammal species in the U.S. which are being protected and managed through the use of foothold traps:
The following is a partial list of endangered or threatened plant, reptile, bird and mammal species in the U.S. which are being protected and managed through the use of foothold traps:
Rare Species Under Restoration/Protection |
Species Trapped to Aid Restoration |
Pink Lady Slipper |
Beaver |
Pitcher Plant |
Beaver |
Desert Tortoise |
Coyote |
Sea Turtle |
Raccoon |
Aleutian Canada Goose |
Arctic Fox |
Attwater's Prairie Chicken |
Coyote |
Brown Pelican |
Coyote |
Mississippi Sandhill Crane |
Coyote |
Alabama Beach Mouse |
Red Fox |
Columbian White-tailed Deer |
Coyote |
San Joaquin Kit Fox |
Coyote |
Whooping Crane |
Coyote, Red Fox |
Least Tern |
Red Fox, Raccoon, Coyote, Opossum |
Black-footed Ferret |
Coyote (taken for disease monitoring) |
Piping Plover |
Red Fox, Raccoon, Mink, Striped Skunk |
Spiny Soft Shell Turtle |
Raccoon |
The target animals trapped during these operations to reduce habitat damage or predation on the rare species are either removed or relocated after capture. The trapping may be carried out by federal, state or provincial wildlife biologists and animal control agents or by private, regulated trappers.