Photo courtesy Ilyes Laszlo and Creative Commons.
S.B. 994, “An Act Concerning Leghold Traps,” has been approved by a vote of 22-8 in the Connecticut General Assembly’s Environment Committee, and will now be considered by the legislature. If enacted, the law will largely ban the use of leghold and Conibear traps in the state. Proponents of the measure argue that passage of S.B. 994 will finally end an unacceptably cruel practice. Opponents argue that trapping is not inhumane, and that it is an important tool for wildlife management in Connecticut.
In 1996, voters in Massachusetts approved an anti-trapping ballot referendum expertly pushed by animal-rights organizations. Formally titled the Wildlife Protection Act, the law is more popularly known as Question One. Like S.B. 994, Question One bans the use of leghold and Conibear traps. The Massachusetts experience, particularly with regard to management of the state’s beaver population, is a useful case study for understanding the practical implications of S.B. 994.
Prior to Question One, Massachusetts had a healthy beaver population estimated at approximately 23,000 animals. Homeowners and others dealing with occasional beaver problems, such as the destruction of trees and the flooding of yards and basements, could call MassWildlife, the Massachusetts agency that is roughly the equivalent of the Wildlife Division of Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). MassWildlife would typically refer the caller to the Massachusetts Trappers Association. The MTA would recommend a trapper, who would come out during the trapping season, generally at no cost to the landowner, and kill the beaver.
As in Connecticut, most Massachusetts beaver trapping was done with Conibear traps set in the water. Conibears are not leghold traps. They are lethal traps that work on much the same principle as the familiar mousetrap. A beaver is guided or baited into putting its head into the trap, triggering stiff wire arms that snap down on the animal’s neck, dislocating the beaver’s spine and killing it.
Question One banned Conibears but not “humane” box traps and suitcase traps. In Massachusetts, these traps are used to capture beavers alive and unharmed so that they can be killed later. Relocating beavers is illegal in Massachusetts. Box traps and suitcase traps make trapping, which is demanding work in the best of circumstances, even more difficult. They’re bulky, heavy, and time consuming to carry and set. They’re also expensive, and with the market for furs so depressed, it’s hard for a trapper to justify replacing his Conibears with cage traps that may well cost more money than a successful trapper will realize from the furs he takes in a whole season’s trapping.
The ban on Conibear traps very nearly ended fur trapping for beavers in Massachusetts. In the last trapping season before the ban took effect, trappers harvested 1,136 beavers in the state. By the 1997-98 season, the number of beavers killed by trappers had dropped to ninety-eight. Animal-rights organizations hailed the passage of Question One as a signal victory for their cause. Then things began to get complicated.
Suddenly relieved of the pressure of its main predator, the beaver population in Massachusetts grew explosively. By 2000, the population was estimated to have tripled to about 70,000 animals. As the beaver population increased, reports of damaged private property, blocked culverts, and flooded roads due to beaver activity skyrocketed. Public water supplies in towns like Sterling and Chelmsford were contaminated by flooding caused or exacerbated by beavers.
Massachusetts had long had some problem beavers, but beavers were now a widespread problem. As environmentalist firebrand Ted Williams wrote in Audubon magazine, “We’ve converted a resource to a pest.”
Continued in Part 2.
Comments