Many animal rights activists believe they are “saving” wildlife and “punishing” trappers by pushing for the complete elimination of regulated trapping activity. Decades of unbiased research and science indicate exactly the opposite. This mentality turns out to be potentially catastrophic consequences. History tends to repeat itself; And in areas where capture has been severely restricted, trappers, most of whom “evolve” as wildlife control officers, increase with the impact on wildlife harassment. As noted above, wildlife and biodiversity in natural areas tend to be negatively affected when the regulated “uptake” of abundant “wildlife” is reduced. Most furbearing animal populations are healthy, exceeding population targets in most parts of North America. This declaration is made while fishing activities in these landscapes have taken place and continue to take place in a regulated manner. As a society, are we really ensuring that wildlife is threatened when regulated management is carelessly restricted by controlled “catches”? Unfortunately, when wildlife is too abundant, regulation takes a back seat to the need for reduction. This is virtually impossible with today`s strict, government-regulated fishing seasons and other rules. As trappers, our goal is to maintain stable and healthy wildlife populations. We don`t want to exhaust our own resources – that would bankrupt us! The real threat to wildlife today is not hunting or trapping, it`s the destruction of wilderness areas by industrial activity – and trappers are the ones who watch what`s really happening in the bush, sound the alarm and work with logging companies and government to protect this natural habitat. Regulated hunting and trapping is a solution, not a threat. Animal cruelty is generally considered a crime, but in the form of traditional “foot” traps or “leg holds,” it is still practiced without punishment in 40 states.
Find out why it`s time to stop catching. what types of traps exist; and how to protect your pets from indiscriminate traps hidden on our public lands. The public abhors trapping in general, but many states insist not only on allowing it, but on letting it happen largely unregulated. In Montana, for example, there is no trap test requirement, except in limited areas where we have forced them to conduct a review through litigation. A homeowner must obtain a free fishing license to legally catch pesky wildlife that causes damage to their property outside of the open fishing season. In 2020, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game expanded fishing opportunities to public lands in areas where fishing was previously limited to private land. The rule changes also allow for the use of snares in more areas of Idaho, significantly increasing the geographic scope of fall and fall across the state while extending the length of those seasons. These latest changes were made with detailed input from Idaho fisheries organizations. Special interest groups representing “large-scale agriculture” also supported these proposals. If the animal is still alive when found in the trap, trappers receive instructions in the form of government-issued trapping manuals to kill an animal by striking a blow to the head (with a club, shovel or metal hose) or choking asking a trapper to stand on the animal`s chest or strangle the animal. Fur hunters generally do not shoot captured animals because bullet holes can damage the skins and reduce the value of the furs.
The Furbearer Conservation think tank was designed not only as a resource for regulated trapping and management, but also to discuss the parameters of the activity and present the benefits it brings. We support fishing because of the implicit heritage and rural tradition that allows activity in the wild landscape. We fight and defend regulated fan gardens because of the modern benefits of the activity for public safety, society, conservation and biodiversity. Removing its relevance from the country means facilitating less regulation of wildlife, less understanding of demographic trends, and less defense of the natural and representative environment of the creatures that live there. In some states, trappers are not even required to inspect their traps within a certain timeframe (and release non-target animals). In Montana and Alaska, for example, there is no mandatory check-up time for most leghold traps, while Wyoming trappers are instructed to check leghold traps only once every 72 hours. Where trap control standards are in place, they are often weak and not enforced. While trap control times have been set for “furbearing animals” and other categories of animals, species classified as “non-game” or “predatory” – such as coyotes – can be excluded, allowing victims to suffer indefinitely. New Mexico, for example, excludes coyotes from existing trap control standards. In addition, there is generally a shortage of enforcement personnel to ensure compliance with existing fishing rules. Little attention is paid to assessing the impact of these trapping practices on wildlife populations, and the relaxation of permit and registration requirements exacerbates this problem. For example, New York law does not require reporting for carriers of furs other than bobcets, and a number of states, from Nevada to Virginia, do not require trapper training courses to obtain a permit.
According to the Northeast Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, “Government wildlife experts reminded residents that regulated trapping is not a public safety issue, warning that if regulated trapping sites were banned, there would be many undesirable consequences in the form of property damage and deterioration of wildlife habitat.