Coyote. National Park Service photo by Jim Peaco.
S.B. 994, An Act Concerning Leghold Traps, proposes to ban the use of leghold and Conibear traps in Connecticut. The original note on the fiscal impact of the law indicated that there would be minimal effect. The Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), however, has now corrected that initial assessment, based in part on an analysis of the experience of Massachusetts in struggling with its 1996 trapping ban.
The predicted cost to the state in lost revenues is estimated at $15,464 per year due to the loss of trapping licenses through the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The estimated cost to the state in additional expenses associated with nuisance-animal management is $482,000 in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
The estimated additional cost to Connecticut municipalities for nuisance-animal control is $92,000, as the services of volunteer trappers would no longer be available to Connecticut towns for the removal of problem beavers, and the towns would thus need to employ professional trapping companies.
The OFA cannot estimate other likely costs of the proposed trap ban: flooded basements, damaged roads, and contaminated drinking water due to flooding from beaver dams; increased damage to corn crops by raccoons; additional poultry losses to foxes and fishers; the loss of family pets to coyote predation. The list goes on and on.
Bad wildlife management is expensive. We might hope that the Humane Society of the United States, the key lobbyist for S.B. 994, will be willing to cover the costs if the law passes. But we all know that won’t happen. Connecticut taxpayers will get stuck with the bill.
Comments
Jeff Serena is right on the mark. Being from Massachusetts myself and someone who knows this issue extremely well, Connecticut will no doubt experience the same painful result that Massachusetts did if this bill passes. It's costing the towns, municipalities and property owners millions here. Will HSUS come to the rescue? Forget about it, they'll be long gone when the mayhem starts, providing helpful comments like "this is a people problem, not a beaver problem in Connecticut - we need to learn to live with the beavers, not kill them". May the citizens of Connecticut have the wisdom to see through this HSUS veil of hidden agenda for what it really is.
Hi Herb,
Thanks very much for your comment. I understand that S.B. 994 has failed in the Judiciary Committee. HSUS has posted the following on its web site:
"Unfortunately, this bill failed to pass the Judiciary Commitee. We will continue to work on outlawing these cruel traps in the state."
Congratulations to the Connecticut Trappers Association, the Wildlife Division of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and many others for their successful defense of rational and humane wildlife management.
The HSUS is misunderstood by many people. This is an organization that is a giant fund raising machine. People send money and think they are "helping animals." The help HSUS offers to a lot of animals is non existent. They operate no shelters for dogs and cats. Instead, they fund paid lobbyists in most states to promote their no-animal-use agenda. They have in their employ John Goodwin, former Animal Liberation Front operative. ALF is on the FBI domestic terrorist list. Coyotes are oportunistic animals and happily survive in suburban and even urban areas eating cats, small dogs, and any other small animal they can find.If they cannot be trapped, they have no natural controls on their population growth. While there are not a lot of rabies cases recorded in coyotes, there are some. These predators need to be controlled and pushed back into less populated areas.They cannot be hunted in residential areas so the only control is traps capable of catching them.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!