iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Wildlife Trapping: Brutal And Barbarous Or A Treasured Tradition?

By DAVID CRARY   10/08/11 11:05 AM ET EDT  AP

ADVANCE FOR USE MONDAY, OCT. 10, 2011 AND THEREAFTER - In this Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2011 photo, Barry Warner holds a fully modified foot hold trap during an interview about the techniques for using traps for game in Coolbaugh, Pa. He has loved wildlife since boyhood, and lived out his dream of becoming a conservation officer. He's also a lifelong trapper, skilled at capturing wild animals and, if appropriate, killing them as part of an avocation that many Americans view as barbarous. "Some peopl

COOLBAUGH, Pa. -- Barry Warner has loved wildlife since boyhood, and lived out his dream of becoming a conservation officer. He sees no contradiction in the fact that he's also a lifelong trapper, skilled at capturing wild animals and, if appropriate, killing them as part of an avocation that many Americans view as barbarous.

Here in the township of Coolbaugh, on the edge of a vast track of state game land in northeast Pennsylvania, he's in his element. He demonstrates an array of traps unloaded from the back of his truck, reviews his 37-year career with the state game commission, from which he resigned as regional director in 2007, and recounts his periodic forays to North Carolina to trap bobcats, beaver and buck-toothed, wetland-dwelling nutria.

"Some people think trappers don't care about wildlife," says Warner. "It was my love for it that took me into this career. I don't want to see anything suffer."

Over the next few months, tens of thousands of trappers nationwide will fan out through the backcountry. But of all the entrenched outdoor pursuits in America, it's hard to think of any that are more polarizing than the one that unfolds every trapping season.

For proponents, the season is a treasured tradition evoking America's frontier heritage. Trappers consider their quarry a renewable resource and depict themselves as front-line conservationists playing a vital role in wildlife management.

Opponents of trapping see a different picture – pervasive cruelty inflicted on millions of animals each year, largely to help supply domestic and overseas markets for fur.

"Commercial fur trapping dates back to the early 1600s and has hardly changed," says Adam Roberts, executive vice president of Born Free USA. He calls trapping "horrific, highly unregulated, inhumane and dangerous."

Born Free and other animal-advocacy groups have been campaigning for decades to ban certain types of traps. Earlier this year, Born Free conducted an undercover investigation of trapping in Pennsylvania, and cited its allegations of cruel and abusive practices to petition the game commission for tougher regulations. The petition was unanimously rejected on Oct. 4.

Foes of trapping have scored victories in a few other states, and have caused many trappers to feel under siege, but overall there's been strong support for trapping in both Congress and state legislatures. In at least five states – Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Arkansas – the right to trap has been explicitly enshrined in the state constitution.

"Wildlife management should be left in hands of professionals," says Dave Linkhart, a farmer and trapper from Xenia, Ohio, who is a spokesman for the National Trappers Association.

"Where we've lost some ground," Linkhart adds, "it's in parts of the country where trappers are scarce or not well-organized, and an uninformed or misinformed public gets on the animal-rights bandwagon."

There are about 150,000 trappers in the U.S., according to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Most make little profit – perhaps a few hundred dollars per season – selling pelts at prices which range from close to $600 for a bobcat to roughly $15 for a beaver.

"The average guy is doing it because he loves it," says Warner. "If he's lucky, he pays his expenses."

Warner has lived in northeast Pennsylvania his whole life, except for a four-year Air Force stint that included construction work in Vietnam. After the service, he worked as a carpenter before getting hired by the game commission.

A genial bachelor, still fit at 66, Warner views trapping as a cause rather than a diversion. For decades, he's been deeply involved in training wildlife officers and would-be trappers about trapping techniques and ethics issues such as minimizing distress to animals and avoiding non-target species.

To him, the animals are "critters." He favors a Stetson-style hat and jeans, and his favorite films include "Jeremiah Johnson," in which Robert Redford plays a mountain man who supports himself by trapping.

Non-trappers tend to underestimate the skill and hard work involved in trapping, says Warner, who considers it more challenging, on average, than hunting.

"Hunters can get lucky. It's a lot more complicated with traps," he says. "If you don't know what you're doing – how to set them properly, where to set them – you're not going to be successful."

There are numerous types of traps, used for different purposes and animals, ranging from box traps which catch animals alive to snare traps which employ a noose of cable or wire. A newer version of snares called cable restraints are designed to catch foxes and coyotes without killing them.

Among the emphatically deadly varieties are Conibear traps – designed to suffocate an animal by crushing its neck or spinal column. They're used most often to trap muskrats and beavers.

The most common type of trap, used to catch an array of animals, is the subject of a semantic battle – it's called the leghold trap by many of its critics and the foothold trap by many of its defenders. Past versions of these traps often had metal teeth on the jaws; now it's common for the jaws to be laminated or padded.

Animal-advocacy groups contend that animals captured in these traps feel so much pain that they sometimes chew off their own paw in frantic efforts to escape. Trappers deny this is a common occurrence and say current versions of the traps don't cause severe pain.

The European Union and many other countries have banned leghold traps, as have seven U.S. states, but there have been some complications. In Massachusetts, the beaver population exploded after a ban was imposed by voters in 1996; in California, experts reported a rise in coyote attacks on humans after its leghold ban was approved in 1998.

Seeking to cut down on abuses by trappers, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has been working for the past 15 years on what it calls Best Management Practices – guidelines for how to use various types of traps, deal properly with captured fur-bearers and avoid catching non-targeted animals.

Many of the state wildlife agencies represented by the association have incorporated these guidelines into their own education programs, which are sometimes required in order to obtain certain trapping licenses. State trapper organizations, including Pennsylvania's, also offer adult and youth education programs, in part to counter anti-trapping activists.

"We know we're in their sights," said Brian Mohn, president of the Pennsylvania Trappers Association.

In March, Born Free USA released the results of an undercover investigation of wildlife trapping that it conducted in Pennsylvania.

The organization said its video and photos revealed "shocking cruelty and brutality" – including the prolonged drowning of a raccoon by a trapper with a stick, and the killing of two foxes after they were caught in what Born Free said was an illegal snare trap.

Trappers belittled some of the footage, but Mohn acknowledged being troubled by the raccoon drowning sequence.

"We don't condone something like that," he said. "We recommend a shot in the head, to dispatch the animal quickly and humanely."

The investigation attracted relatively little news coverage – Adam Roberts suggested the video footage may have been deemed too gruesome. Born Free used the findings to support its unsuccessful petition to the Pennsylvania Game Commission for tougher trapping regulations.

Among the proposals rejected by the commission were a ban on cable restraint traps, a requirement that traps be checked every 24 hours instead of the current 36-hour time frame, and mandatory reporting of the number and type of non-target animals caught by traps.

Born Free contends that one-third of trapped animals are not the trappers' intended target – and cites instances where pet dogs and cats are ensnared and sometimes killed. Trappers acknowledge that pets sometimes are caught, but rarely.

"Most trappers have dogs and cats of their own," said Mohn.

Mohn, 52, started trapping as a 6th grader in Hamburg, Pa.; sold fur to help pay his college tuition, and taught his three daughters so well that they all won the state's Youth Trapper of the Year award.

He says membership in the state association is down to about 4,000 from a peak of 10,000 in the 1980s. Yet the state issued more than 35,000 trapping licenses last year, up from 18,551 in 2000, suggesting it is not a fading pastime. The latest annual state figures report a harvest of more about 112,000 raccoons, 64,000 muskrats, 50,000 foxes and 30,000 coyotes.

Mohn, a farm manager, says he and his colleagues devote a lot of energy to building alliances with other outdoor sportspeople – and to public relations.

"We have to watch the message we're conveying to the general public," he said. "You can have 25,000 trappers doing everything correct, and one case where something's wrong and that becomes the poster child."

Beyond Pennsylvania, trapping has been a hot issue recently in New Mexico, where there's vigorous debate over whether the state should prohibit the trapping of bobcats, raccoons and other fur-bearing animals on public lands. Several conservation groups have urged such a ban; trappers accuse them of scare tactics and disinformation.

"If trapping was doing evil, that would be one thing. It's not. It's balancing things," said Tom McDowell of the New Mexico Trappers Association. "They have painted us as cruel and barbaric. It's terribly unfair, and it's just not true."

In Congress, Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., introduced a bill in July that would ban the use of body-gripping traps within federal wildlife refuges. The ban would encompass leghold, snare and Conibear traps; cage and box traps would still be allowed.

"The use of steel jaw leghold traps and other barbaric mechanisms has no place in National Wildlife Refuges," said Lowey. "It is time to end this brutal practice once and for all."

More than half of the nation's refuge lands currently allow the use of body-gripping traps.

Born Free's Roberts is hopeful that Lowey's bill can gain bipartisan support, but the trappers have powerful allies in Congress, including Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who was a commercial trapper in 1960s.

Moreover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is on record as defending trapping in the wildlife refuges – whether for resource management and disease control, or for economic and recreational purposes.

While Born Free conducts campaigns to promote anti-trapping legislation, some other animal-advocacy groups – such as the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – focus on trying to weaken the fur industry.

"We show the garment makers the traps, tell them the way animals suffer and die in them is just not OK," said Andrew Page, senior director of wildlife and fur campaigns for the HSUS.

Of all the fur produced annually in the U.S., most comes from fur farms, which animal-advocacy groups also consider to be cruel. PETA estimates that about 15 percent of U.S. fur supplies come from trappers and says the best way to combat trapping is to persuade consumers not to wear fur.

"Most people assume that kind of cruelty could not possibly be legal," said PETA's Ashley Byrne. "If they did realize how excruciating it is to be caught in one of these traps, they'd be absolutely shocked."

___

___

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 116
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
05:44 PM on 10/11/2011
With regard to population “control” via trapping.
Trappers and wildlife managers claim that trapping prevents wild animals from overpopulating and destroying their habitat. Trapping proponents also maintain that trappers play a vital function by removing “surplus” animals from the wild. The term “surplus” as used by trappers is a misnomer: every animal, alive or dead, is of use to itself or other organisms in the ecosystem. Animals culled in nature -typically the ill, aged, infirm and very young- are not prized by trappers. Instead, trappers work against natural selection by taking the healthiest animals.
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 animals population at large, as territories are emptied and re-occupied. Neither can be considered “good wildlife management.” Trapping may also alter the age structure of the species’ population. The net result of these social and biological disruptions is increased numbers of wild animals.
While many species such as coyotes and foxes naturally compensate for externally-caused population reductions by increasing reproductive rates, some species like wolverine, lynx, and fisher do not, and are vulnerable to irreversible population reductions.
Moreover, researchers have discovered that trapping actually increases the spread of disease. By removing mature animals who have acquired immunity, trappers make room for newcomers who may not be immune reduce habitat competition.Trapping is anything but an effective “management tool.”
12:09 AM on 10/12/2011
Monica, You really don't understand the why of population management. It can be to stop overpoulation and destruction of habitat like with nutria but most often is about conflicts with humans. So if I don't trap enough beavers during winter the spring brings a rash of plugged culverts, flooded fields and chewed trees. People want me to kill the beavers and I don't like it because I know there are kits unable to take care of themselves. To top it off I have to throw the beavers I catch away, What a waste!
Let me do it during winter before there are kits and the beaver don't go to waste.
There are other animal problems but space prohibits me going into them. Let's just say it's better to control them during winter then wait 'till a problem pops up.
Funny thing you think traps are nonselective but you think I can target only the healthiest. I'm not that good. Actually I am more apt to catch the ill and aged. They get a little more desperate for food then the healthy. I can do a few things to limit the catch of young.
The rest is pretty much illusion on your part. Less= more and trapping spreads disease. Maybe in Orwells 1984.
For furbearers trapping is pretty much the only effective management tool. Maybe in a world absent of humans no management would be fine. I don't know where that place is though.
12:30 PM on 10/11/2011
We could save the wolf. Tear down the dams. Stop expanding development into wild habitat. Stop cutting off corridors with highways. Stop flattening forests and mountaintops. Stop building massive pipelines through crucial habitat. Stop exploring for oil in crucial habitat. Stop trophy hunting. If the coyotes are after your egg-laying hens, grow eggplant instead or build a better fence.

When we validate a beaver, we must also validate his habitat and therefore must protect both. When a beaver is simply an economic unit, the entire ecosystem is a mere stockpile of economic units to be harvested on a whim. Trappers must stop feigning concern for the very animals they subject to a cruel death and start using critical thinking and better problem solving skills. Trapping is a past-time, not a solution to ecological destruction. The lure of easy power over the defenseless, and a masculine fantasy of themselves as rugged frontiersman is what many trappers are after, though few realize or admit it.
12:30 PM on 10/11/2011
The term "Wildlife Management" is problematic in itself. It suggests that "nature" is unable to regulate itself and needs our wise control. Remember how successful wild-fire management was, starting in the early 1900s? Instead of saving the wild, It has greatly increased the risk of damaging, high-intensity wildfires in a range of American wildlands because people thought nature needed to be "managed".

What we're really managing is our own over-development, overpopulation, infringement upon, demonization and destruction of everything wild. More damaging than any "pest" is wildlife corridors disappearing, damns clogging up every river system (more than any beaver), and wild animal habitat decreasing and being replaced with suburbs and malls and highways. Animals are seen as economic units as opposed to valid individuals and that is part and parcel to a larger ideology, not a solution.

It's not shocking how terms like "pests" function on a massive level. It's not a surprise that giant population disturbances occur among wildlife. Instead of finding real solutions to what we messed up, like demonizing and killing off the wolf, we are lost in a machismo and nostalgia-deluded fantasy of the Bible telling us to subdue and control evil nature.
08:38 PM on 10/31/2011
In some cases the animals being trapped ARE pests--Nutria (introduced from South America) destroy wetlands. In addition, because the majority of America's natural predators have been forced to low social carrying capacities, many of our mesomammals are becoming overpopulated and destructive to their native environment--look at the overpopulation of deer in the Eastern United States that ruins understory habitat--managers often have to come in and try to maintain populations at a sustainable level for their environment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:03 PM on 10/10/2011
"Wildlife conservation" is the euphemism trappers use for the cruelty they so love to inflict on animals.
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
10:35 AM on 10/10/2011
"It was my love for it that took me into this career. I don't want to see anything suffer."


Mr. Warner, lets clamp your ankle in a trap for a few hours and see how much you don't suffer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
karen lyons kalmenson
i poem/paint, sometimes, i ain't
07:17 AM on 10/10/2011
trapping is not a tradition to be treasured
it is sadistic barbarity,
too cruel to be measured:(
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:48 PM on 10/09/2011
maybe the dimolibs on welfare should consider this option.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
willowraven
It must be something in the water!!
03:27 PM on 10/09/2011
Yes, well throwing Christians to the lions was a treasured tradition too. Treasured traditions don't make it right or moral. Some times you just have to drag your self out of the trees and start walking up right, like the rest of the humans.
01:45 PM on 10/09/2011
The comments really show the ignorance of the public about trapping.Traps have been changing spurred by agreements signed by Canada and the US with the EU. Millions have been spent to determine the most humane traps. They are not the traps of old and really are humane. They are the traps used to capture animals for relocation such as wolves to Yellowstone, Lynx to Colorado and otter to numerous states. Trappers have to abide by check times also so animals do not languish in traps for days or chew on their feet.
So a lot of people question the need for trapping. Folks,it is all about population management. I know most of you can’t see the need to kill wildlife but when it affects you personally peoples tone changes. I’ve seen it many times. A person who cherishes the viewing of wildlife changes to the kill them all attitude when the beaver cut their prized fruit tree or coyotes eat their pet.
It is natural for the wildlife populations to increase through the spring and summer. Trappers harvest the excess during the winter. If this is not done the spring brings more animals looking for living space and that is when trappers hear from people wanting nuisance animals trapped. That really is a waste because they are 100% wasted then and often times orphaned young are a result. That really is an inhumane death for the young.
02:06 PM on 10/09/2011
I guess you can tell I am a trapper and yes I have been caught in every kind of trap I own. It really is no big deal. We can’t trap in parks. We have minimum check times, trapper training classes to qualify for a trapping license and we don’t trap endangered wildlife. What we do trap is abundant, apparently a little to abundant from the amount of complaints about animal damage I receive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chad Wheeler
02:35 PM on 10/09/2011
What do you trap?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
seckhoff
Famous in the apple barns
07:55 PM on 10/10/2011
Trappers don't "have to abide by" anything. Nobody's looking. And please stop calling it "harvesting." It's only harvesting if you plant it first. The idea that you're saving the young of these trapped animals from being orphaned is cute, too—what do you think happens to fox kits, etc., when their parents are immobilized in traps? They starve—duh.
10:29 PM on 10/10/2011
There is that ignorance thing again. Trappers are policed by Fish and Wildlife Enforcement, used to be called Game Wardens and they do write tickets.
And the orphaned young, Fur trappers trap in the winter. The young are born in the spring long after trapping seasons are closed and the fur is out of prime. The only trapping at that time of the year is that forced upon us. Close fur trapping down and you increase nuisance animal control trapping because of the lack of population management at the most sensible time of the year. I like the term harvest because it infers management which there is and should be. Would you prefer culling? I don't care for that as it infers the furbearers are worthless which they are not. I value them far above their monetary value. I wish you could see it from a habitat wide basis, guess the word ecosystem is in now, rather then this individual animal outlook.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pembrokelib
11:56 AM on 10/09/2011
Leghold traps are barbarous and should be banned permanently everywhere. The animals often live in agony for days. How could anyone be so cruel? I'd like to see them with their foot in a trap for a week.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jonnynav
What you see depends on your perspective!
11:22 AM on 10/09/2011
Trapping was utilized due to the success rate and most probably served as a lifesaver to the frontier trapper. I am sure that the individuals involved in trapping today sincerely enjoys it and most are sincere about their passion, but are in no need of the fur or meat they get from these animals. It's 2011 now and I am sure there are some newer and more appropriate techniques available for the trapper in order to "control the animal population". It's like defending the torture utilized by the inquisitors to preserve old historical techniques (such as being revived by the Mexican cartels now), or the right to bear concealed weapons "for protection" when going to the mall. Come on, get a grip - we're now a technological society and in order to evolve, we might just have to let certain cruel practices and outdated habits succumb peacefully.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
willowraven
It must be something in the water!!
03:29 PM on 10/09/2011
Frontier trapper?? HELLO it's now the year 2011, get with the program..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jonnynav
What you see depends on your perspective!
01:11 AM on 10/10/2011
Perhaps you should read the whole post before you comment....?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Neil20
11:15 AM on 10/09/2011
These trappers are delusional. They believe that trapping actually helps promote conservation. It's all bullshit. These guys only know the amount of money they get from selling furs. Why don't they first put their hands or their feet in those traps and let us know how they feel. Trapping of animals is downright cruel. Unfortunately, the state Congressmen are also in league with these trappers and will not pass any bill to ban this cruel 'tradition'. Most of the fur is exported and even if today many Americans are not inclined to buy fur (thanks to PETA) there are buyers in Japan, China and in Europe. Trapping should also be made into an issue in the Presidential elections because only a gutsy President would have the courage to bring it to the fore and make Americans realize the value of their wildlife which will not last forever, not with so many traps and guns and hunters and trappers prowling around National Parks and forests. It is high time Americans spoke up against this cruel practice. Sadly a tame President like Obama would not have the courage to bring this up. The nation's wildlife laws must be changed to suit the times. Habitat destruction, fragmentation and climate change also add to the animals' woes. Do the Republicans have a heart and the Democrats the courage to do something to protect and conserve their wildlife? No trappers, we don't need you. Just trap yourselves and let us know how you feel.
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
09:59 AM on 10/09/2011
All trappers should experience first hand what trapping feels like before they try it on animals.
Lahi
sensible is not a dirty word
06:28 AM on 10/09/2011
If you hunt or trap it, you better use every part of it.
Fur, hide, meat, teeth, bones, and organs.
Or you will be just another spoiler.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pepper1311
POGS are dirt
01:17 PM on 10/09/2011
Have you or do you hunt? Though not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
willowraven
It must be something in the water!!
03:31 PM on 10/09/2011
Why would I I have walmart to buy fruit and vegis from.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
JuergenHartl
Social-Democrat by conviction
01:00 AM on 10/09/2011
[quote] ...building alliances with other outdoor sportspeople[/quote]
They call themselves sportspeople? Seriously?