Information below: Born Free USA
Myth: Only abundant species are trapped.
Truth: Historically, trapping was responsible for the extirpation of species like beavers, wolves, and eastern mountain lions in Vermont. Present day, federally protected species like the endangered Canada lynx are at risk of baited traps that are set for coyotes, bobcats, fisher and other legally trapped species. Trapping is even allowed in prime lynx habitat, including on the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge.
Other endangered species, like the American marten, are killed in traps set for fisher and other animals. Despite a declining fisher population—and Vermont Fish & Wildlife's own data indicating that 100% of fisher tested positive for secondary rodenticide poisoning— they may still be trapped. Bobcats may also be trapped even though over 30% of them recently tested positive for rodenticide poisoning.
River otters face multiple threats including water pollution, habitat loss and changes in prey base, but that didn't stop Vermont Fish & Wildlife from supporting a trapper's proposal to extend the otter trapping season in 2017.
The reality is that Fish & Wildlife is unable to provide accurate populations for bobcats, fisher and other wildlife, so claims that populations are "abundant" are speculative at best. Wildlife faces so many threats from rodenticide, to habitat fragmentation, to emerging diseases—there is no reason to allow a recreational trapping season.
Myth: Trapping is a necessary wildlife management tool.
Truth: Trappers often claim that trapping prevents species from overpopulating and destroying their habitat by removing "surplus" animals from the wild. This simplistic argument, however, belies the dynamics of wildlife populations. First, the term "surplus" as used by trappers is an ecological fallacy — every animal, alive or dead, plays an important role in its ecosystem as either predator or prey. Second, available habitat and food resources generally limit the size of wildlife populations. When a wildlife population approaches the limit that the habitat can sustain — the "carrying capacity" — reproduction and survival decrease because less food is available to each individual, and the population begins to decline.
Trapping generally removes healthy individuals from the population rather than the sick, aged, infirm, or very young animals most often subjected to natural selection. It would be "blind luck" if a trapper were to trap an animal that would have otherwise died of starvation or any other natural cause, so trapping actually works against nature's selection process.
Removing wild animals from a particular ecological niche is likely to have two results: 1) increase reproduction by the remaining individuals; and 2) increase mobility of the animal population at large, as territories are emptied and re-occupied. Neither can be considered "good wildlife management." Trapping also may alter the age structure of the species' population. The net result of these social and biological disruptions can never be viewed as sound wildlife management.
According to an email exchange obtained by POW through a public records request, a VT Fish & Wildlife furbearer biologist stated that trapping is not needed to manage populations or control spread of disease.
Myth: Trapping controls the spread of disease.
Truth: Trappers play on the public's fear of rabies and other diseases by arguing that trapping is necessary to control the spread of disease. However, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization, as well as many other scientific, public health, and veterinary organizations, disagree. The National Academy of Sciences subcommittee on rabies concluded that, "Persistent trapping or poisoning campaigns as a means to control rabies should be abolished. There is no evidence that these costly and politically attractive programs reduce either wildlife reservoirs or rabies incidence."
Rather, trapping can actually increase spread of disease. By removing mature animals who have acquired immunity to disease, trappers make room for newcomers who may not be immune.
The most successful attempts to control rabies in wildlife have utilized bait containing oral rabies vaccine, which is fed to wildlife. Public funds for trapping programs would be better spent on public education emphasizing prevention of rabies through pet vaccinations, securing garbage cans, not feeding wildlife, etc.
Lastly, a longtime Vermont Fish & Wildlife furbearer biologist agrees that trapping is not needed to control spread of disease.
Myth: Trapping is necessary to protect livestock.
Truth: Livestock producers have waged war on predators for centuries, ostensibly to protect livestock. These attempts have been largely unsuccessful in solving conflicts. In a public records request to Vermont's 'Wildlife Services', POW uncovered that very few coyotes were the actual perpetrators of livestock loss; in some cases where coyotes were blamed, the cause was actually domestic dogs.
As with many wild animals, the coyote's population is naturally regulated when left unhampered by human control attempts. Lethal control methods, however, can disrupt this process. Killing coyotes may cause pack members to disperse, resulting in more coyotes reproducing in the absence of a pack hierarchy. Exploited populations also tend to have larger litters because competition for food is reduced and more unoccupied habitat is available. In addition, lethal control techniques have ensured that only the most resilient coyotes survive.
Non-lethal methods include having livestock guardian animals; the use of properly functioning electric fencing; sheltering animals at night; and improved husbandry practices. Non-lethal methods also allow wild animals to maintain their important roles in the ecosystemincluding preying on rodents that may be problematic for farmers.
Check out this article in Farm & Dairy:
“The big take-home is that coyotes aren’t something to get rid of,” Westerfield said. And getting rid of them is not humanly possible.
Myth: Trapping is tightly regulated.
Truth: There are some trapping regulations, such as daily trap checks and annual reporting, but most trapping regulations are nearly impossible to enforce. And it's hard to accept that trapping is highly regulated when:
-
Trappers are not required to enlist the assistance of a wildlife rehabber, veterinarian or other expert when they trap a non-targeted animal such as an owl or eagle, which means injured animals are released.
-
Traps may be set on public land, including National Wildlife Refuges, with no required signage.
-
There is no limit on the number of traps a trapper may set at once, which means areas can be saturated with them.
-
There are no bag limits on the number of animals that may be killed.
-
Out of season trapping "in defense of property" is essentially unregulated. Animals may suffer in traps for days. No warden permission or reporting is required for landowners who trap animals under this provision.
Myth: Fur trapping provides significant income for many Americans.
Truth: The global fur industry has collapsed with fur auction houses filing for bankruptcy. When trappers compare the price they get for a pelt to the time and expense incurred while trapping, it's likely a losing business.
The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation—that Vermont Fish & Wildlife purports to adhere to—states that: "Commerce in dead wildlife is eliminated." Yet that is exactly what fur trapping is.
Trappers admit that they mainly trap out of an intolerance for species who they view as competition over animals they like to hunt. For example, trappers claim they trap raccoons because they don't like raccoons eating turkey eggs because trappers hunt turkeys. They trap fisher because they prey on small game such as rabbits that trappers like to hunt. Same goes for bobcats, coyotes and other species. They also trap purely for recreation and as a "tradition."