InNorth American Conservation

TRAPPING

AND FURBEARER

MANAGEMENTIn North American

Wildlife Conservation

The Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee

is comprised of professional wildlife biologists from the northeastern United States and Provinces ofeastern Canada, and is committed to the study and responsible management of our furbearer resources.

The Northeast Section of The Wildlife Society

is comprised of professional wildlife biologists and resource scientists and managers from eleven northeast-ern states and six eastern Canadian provinces, and is committed to excellence in wildlife stewardship throughscience and education.

For further information on Furbearer Management and Trapping in your state or province, contact your localFish and Wildlife or Natural Resources Department.© Copyright 2001, all rights reserved.

Trapping and Furbearer Management in North American Wildlife Conservation

is a compilation of the knowledge, insights and experiences of professional wildlife biologists who areresponsible for the conservation of wildlife resources throughout the United States and Canada. It is basedon the original Trapping and Furbearer Management:Perspectives from the Northeast published in 1996 by theNortheast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee. This expanded North American edition was authoredby the following subcommittee of the Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee (NEFRTC):Dr. John F. Organ, Subcommittee Chairman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Thomas Decker, VermontDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife; Susan Langlois, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife;and Peter G. Mirick, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.

Cover photo of raccoon by Bill Byrne.Pictographs on cover portray cave drawings of methods ancient peoples used to capture wild animals.

AcknowledgementsThe following professional wildlife bi-ologists critically reviewed drafts of thisdocument and made significant contri-butions: Buddy Baker, South CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources; JamesDiStefano, New Hampshire Fish &Game Department, ret.; Dr. KennethElowe, Maine Department of InlandFisheries & Wildlife; Loyd Fox, KansasDepartment of Wildlife and Parks; DaveHamilton, Missouri Department of Con-servation; George Hubert Jr., Illinois De-partment of Natural Resources; NealJotham, Canadian Wildlife Service, ret.;Greg Linscombe, Louisiana Departmentof Wildlife and Fisheries; Michael

O'Brien, Nova Scotia Department ofNatural Resources; Steve Petersen,Alaska Departmant of Fish and Game;Paul Rego, Connecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection; ChristianeRoy, Kansas Department of Wildlife andParks; and Keith Weaver, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service Refuge System.

Trapping and Furbearer Managementin North American Wildlife Conserva-tion is a publication of the NortheastFurbearer Resources TechnicalCommittee and was coordinated bythe Massachusetts Division of Fish-eries and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Division ofFederal Aid. The Executive Commit-tee of the Northeast Section of TheWildlife Society reviewed and en-dorsed this document. Funding wasprovided by the International Asso-ciation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,Furbearer Working Group; the Fed-eral Aid in Wildlife Restoration Pro-gram; and The Northeast Section ofThe Wildlife Society. Layout and de-sign by David Gabriel, MassachusettsDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlifeand Environmental Law Enforce-ment.

Any reference to specfic products or manufacturers does not imply endorsement by the authors, agencies ororganizations involved in the production of this publication.

THE

WILDLIFE

SOCIETY

1

The trapping of furbearers — animals that havetraditionally been harvested for their fur — has beenan enduring element of human culture ever sinceour prehistoric hunter-gatherer ancestors devised thefirst deadfalls, pit traps, snares and capture nets.People were dependent upon furbearers to providethe basic necessities for survival — meat for suste-nance, and fur for clothing, bedding and shelter —throughout most of human history. Defining anddefending territory where furbearers could becaptured to acquire these critical resources unitedfamilies, clans and tribes longbefore the invention of agricul-ture and animal husbandry gaverise to ancient civilizations. Whilemodern technology and agricul-ture have significantly reducedhuman dependence on furbear-ers for survival, people in bothrural and developed areas con-tinue to harvest furbearers forlivelihood and personal fulfill-ment. The taking and trading offurbearer resources remain on theeconomic and environmentalagendas of governments through-out the world.

Trapping furbearers for theirfur, meat and other natural prod-ucts presumably began with ourearliest ancestors on the Africancontinent. It has a long traditionin North America, dating back tothe time the first aboriginalpeople arrived on the continent. Several thousandyears later, fur was the chief article of commerce thatpropelled and funded European colonization of thecontinent during the 17th and 18th centuries.Numerous cities and towns founded as fur tradingcenters during that period still bear witness to thefact that furbearer trapping had a major influenceon the history of the United States and Canada.

The utilization of furbearer resources was unchal-lenged throughout that history until early in the 20thcentury, when the first organized opposition to fur-bearer trapping emerged. The focus of that opposi-tion was primarily on development of more humanetraps and curtailment of trapping abuses, rather than

against trapping itself or continued use of furbearerresources. During the 1920s opposition magnifiedto challenge the use of steel jaw foothold traps andthe wearing of fur.(1) In response to this develop-ment, proponents of trapping and the fur industriesbegan organizing to defend themselves. By the1930s, furbearer trapping had become arecurrent public issue. Since then, the pro- and anti-trapping factions have disseminated enormousamounts of generally contradictory information.

During this same period, new technologies andadvances in ecology, wildlifebiology, statistics and populationbiology allowed wildlife manage-ment to develop into a scientificprofession. State, provincial andfederal agencies were created toapply this science to protect,maintain and restore wildlifepopulations. The harvest offurbearers became a highlyregulated, scientifically moni-tored activity. Trapping andfurbearer management — onesteeped in ancient tradition, theother rooted firmly in theprinciples of science — allowedfurbearer populations to expand andflourish.

Today, as controversy over theuse and harvest of furbearerscontinues, professional wildlifemanagers find themselves spend-ing considerable time trying to

clarify public misconceptions about trapping andfurbearer management. The complex issues involvedin that management — habitat loss, animal damagecontrol, public health and safety, the responsibletreatment of animals — cannot be adequatelyaddressed in short news articles or 30-second radioand television announcements.

This booklet is intended to present the facts andcurrent professional outlook on the role of trappingand furbearer management in North American wild-life conservation. It is the combined work of manywildlife scientists responsible for the successfulconservation of furbearer populations in the UnitedStates and Canada.

Introduction

Photo by Bill Byrne

2

Technically, the term fur-bearer includes all mammals, allof which, by definition, possesssome form of hair. Typically, how-ever, wildlife managers use theterm to identify mammal speciesthat have traditionally beentrapped or hunted primarily fortheir fur. North American furbear-ers are a diverse group, includingboth carnivores (meat-eatingpredators) and rodents (gnawingmammals). Most are adaptablespecies ranging over large geo-graphic areas. They include bea-ver, bobcat, badger, coyote, fisher,fox, lynx, marten, mink, muskrat,nutria, opossum, raccoon, riverotter, skunk, weasels and others.A few animals that are normallyhunted or trapped primarily fortheir meat or to reduce agricul-tural or property damage may alsobe considered furbearers if theirskins are marketed.

The FurbearerA magnified view of red fox furshows the short, dense underfurthat provides insulation andwater repellent qualities, and thelonger guardhairs that resistabrasion and protect theunderfur from matting.

Most furbearers possess twolayers of fur: a dense, soft under-fur that provides insulation andwater-repellent qualities; and anouter layer of longer, glossyguardhairs that grow throughthe underfur, protecting it frommatting and abrasion. A fur is saidto be prime when the guardhairsare at their maximum length andthe underfur is at its maximumthickness. Fur generally becomesprime in midwinter when the coatis fresh and fully grown; the tim-ing for primeness may vary some-what depending on species, loca-tion (latitude) and elevation.

Furbearers are a diverse group including several rodents and numerous carnivores (meat-eaters). Themuskrat (above, left), a wetland herbivore (plant-eater), is the number one furbearer in the UnitedStates and Canada based on the number of pelts harvested each year. The beaver (above, right) is thelargest native rodent in North America, best known for its ability to fell trees and dam streams. Facingpage, top, the fisher, a member of the weasel family, is an opportunistic predator equally at home inthe trees or on the ground. Below, the red fox, like the beaver, has achieved considerable success inadapting to suburban environments.

Furs are generally “dressed”(tanned with the hair on), thentrimmed and sewn into garments,rugs, blankets and ornaments,and sometimes dyed in a varietyof colors and patterns. Furs arealso used in fishing lures, finebrushes and other products. Somefurs are shaved, and the hair pro-cessed into felt for hats and othergarments.

Fur is a renewable (naturallyreplenished) resource, a productof long traditional use, valued bymany for its natural beauty, dura-bility and insulative qualities. Furis only one of many values thatpeople ascribe to furbearers (seepage 27).

Pho

to b

y Ja

ck S

wed

ber

g

Pho

tos

by

Bill

Byr

ne

3

Pho

tos

by

Bill

Byr

ne

4

Issues in Furbearer ManagementThere are three major issues involving the conservation and management of furbearerstoday: human population growth with its inevitable degradation and destruction ofwildlife habitat; increasing public intolerance of furbearers in populated areas; andopposition from animal rights activists to any harvest or use of wildlife.

The continuing loss of wildlife habitat is the most critical issue in wildlife conservation today. Unlikeregulated trapping, habitat destruction threatens the existence of wildlife populations and the ecosystemson which they depend. Further, as development encroaches on wildlife habitat, adaptable furbearerspecies create problems for homeowners, increasing public intolerance of these valuable wildlife resources.

species often covering large geo-graphic areas), the range of somepopulations has been reduced.Habitat destruction has elimi-nated the option to restore somespecies to areas where they onceexisted.

Among wildlife scientists,ecologists and biologists, no issueis of greater concern than the con-servation of wildlife habitat. Ev-ery government wildlife agency isdirecting significant educational

Loss of HabitatThe first and most critical is-

sue challenging furbearer conser-vation today is human populationgrowth and the resultant degra-dation and destruction of wildlifehabitat. Without adequate habi-tat, wildlife populations cannot besustained. While no furbearerspecies is in immediate jeopardydue to habitat loss in NorthAmerica (because furbearers aretypically abundant, adaptable

and/or financial resources to theconservation of habitat. Habitatconservation is the key to main-taining the viability of all wildlifepopulations and the ecosystemson which they depend. Unlikehabitat destruction, regulatedtrapping is a sustainable use ofwildlife resources, and does not,in any way, jeopardize the con-tinued existence of any wildlifepopulation.

Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

5

valuable resources that should beutilized and conserved. Regard-less, regulated trapping providesan important and effectivemethod to meet the public’s de-mand for reduction of furbearerdamage.

Animal RightsAs wildlife managers are faced

with having to rely more on regu-lated trapping for furbearer popu-lation management and damagecontrol, animal rights activistsdemanding an end to trapping areappealing for public support.Those advocating “animal rights”would eliminate all trapping anduse of furbearers. Without regu-lated trapping, the public wouldhave far fewer reliable and eco-nomically practical options forsolving wildlife damage problemsassociated with furbearers.

Public IntoleranceWhile habitat loss is a direct

threat to wildlife populations, italso has indirect consequences. Aswildlife habitat continues to befragmented and eliminated by de-velopment, wildlife managers areconfronted with new challenges:coyotes killing pets, beavers cut-ting ornamental trees and flood-ing roads and driveways, raccoonsinvading buildings and threaten-ing public health with diseasesand parasites. These kinds ofhuman-wildlife conflicts reducepublic tolerance and appreciationof furbearers. While BiologicalCarrying Capacity (populationlevel an area of habitat can sup-port in the long term) for a fur-bearer species may be relativelyhigh, the Cultural CarryingCapacity (population level thehuman population in the area willtolerate) may be lower.(2) Wildlifemanagers, responding to publicconcerns, have implemented fur-bearer damage management pro-grams at state and federal levels.

A growing dilemma is that fur-bearers, while of great recre-ational, economic, and intrinsicvalue to society, are also increas-ingly a public liability. The chal-lenge — magnified in and nearareas of dense human population— is to satisfy various constitu-ents with different interests andconcerns while conducting soundwildlife management. Wildlifeagencies typically use an inte-grated approach involving educa-tion, barriers, deterrents and le-thal techniques to address specificproblems, while fostering publictolerance for wildlife that causesdamage. The combination of asmany feasible options as possibleprovides for the most successfulprogram. Wildlife agencies havelong relied on the free services

provided by the public who trapto assist landowners sufferingdamage caused by furbearers. Un-fortunately, due to various envi-ronmental, economic and socio-logical factors, traditional furtrapping — which reduces animaldamage at no cost to the public— tends to be a rural activity. Thenumber of people newly involvedin this cultural activity has de-clined in recent years, particularlyin suburban and urban areas.

With the decline of traditionalfur trappers, “nuisance animalcontrol” has become a growth in-dustry. Businesses specializing intrapping and removal of “prob-lem” animals are thriving in manyareas. This trend is of concern towildlife biologists, for it indicatesthat a growing segment of thepublic is coming to view furbear-ers as problems that should be re-moved and destroyed, instead of

Nuisance animal control is becoming a growth industry in many areasas development fragments wildlife habitat and traditional furtrapping declines. This trend is of concern to wildlife biologists, for itindicates that a growing segment of the public is losing its toleranceand appreciation for some wildlife species, viewing them as problemsthat should be removed and destroyed, rather than as valuableresources that should be utilized and conserved.

Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

6

Public Wildlife Agencies ManageOur Wildlife Resources

Furbearer management pro-grams in the United States andCanada are primarily conductedby state and provincial wildlifeagencies. Current managementprograms respond to and respectthe diversity of people and cul-tures and their values towardwildlife resources. In the UnitedStates, most funding for furbearermanagement comes from twosources: hunting and trapping li-cense revenues, and federal excisetaxes on firearms, ammunitionand archery equipment (federalaid). Most wildlife management isnot funded with general tax dol-lars. Federal aid — now amount-

ing to over 200 million dollars insome years among the 50 states,territories and the Common-wealth of Puerto Rico — has beenprovided since passage of the Fed-eral Aid in Wildlife RestorationAct (also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act) in 1937. Federalfunds and the assistance of certainfederal agencies are also availablefor wildlife damage managementprograms within each state.

State and provincial wildlifeagencies manage furbearer popu-lations for the benefit of a publicwith diverse opinions. Wildlifemanagers must therefore balancemany objectives simultaneously.

These objectives include preserv-ing or sustaining furbearer popu-lations for their biological, eco-logical, economic, aesthetic andsubsistence values, as well as forrecreational, scientific and educa-tional purposes. It is sometimesnecessary to reduce furbearerpopulations to curtail propertydamage or habitat degradation, orto increase furbearer populationsto restore species to areas wherethey have been extirpated (elimi-nated within an area).

Professional wildlife biologistsmeet the public’s objectives bymonitoring and evaluating thestatus of furbearer populations on

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1875 1895 1915 1950 1975 1994

Population Fur Harvest

Number of Beaver(Thousands)

Beaver Population and Fur Harvestin New York and Massachusetts (1875 -1994)

Nearly extirpated prior to the start of the century, beaver populations have responded to applied wildlifemanagement in a dramatic fashion.(3) Like many other furbearer species, the beaver has been restored tomuch of its former range while sustaining considerable, scientifically regulated public fur harvests.

7

a regular basis, and respondingwith appropriate managementoptions. Much of the informationknown about furbearer popula-tions — as well as the manage-ment of furbearer populations —has been derived from trapping.Accounting for yearly variation inthe numbers, sex and age of ani-mals caught by licensed trappers,along with variation in effort pro-vided by trappers, is an economi-cal way to monitor populationfluctuations. In many cases, biolo-gists acquire information directlyfrom harvested animals. More in-

tensive (and expensive) researchprojects are initiated when addi-tional information essential tomanagement is needed. Many ju-risdictions adjust trapping regu-lations in response to populationchanges to either increase or de-crease the population in responseto the public’s desires.

Management plans and regula-tions restrict trapping seasons toperiods when pelts are prime andthe annual rearing of young ispast. Historical records demon-strate how applied wildlife man-agement sustains regulated har-

Many states and provinces require that the pelts of certain species of furbearers taken by trappers mustbe officially examined and tagged (sealed or stamped) before they may be sold. This allows wildlifebiologists to closely monitor harvest rates of some species while collecting invaluable data on populationtrends. When biologists need more information, regulations may be adjusted to require that trappersturn in the carcasses or certain parts of their harvested animals. This allows biologists to examine suchthings as reproductive rates, food habits, sex and age ratios and other information that is often useful inmanaging furbearer and other wildlife resources.

vests: populations and harvests ofmost furbearing species have gen-erally increased in North Americaduring this century. Beaver, for ex-ample, were almost eliminatedfrom the eastern United Statesand greatly reduced in parts ofeastern Canada by the middle ofthe 19th century. Today theynumber in the millions, thrivingthroughout that range whereversufficient habitat remains and thepublic will allow their presence.They have been restored to this levelwhile sustaining a substantial, annual,regulated public harvest.(4)

Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

8

Multiple Uses of FurbearersIf we look back in human history, all of our ancestors once depended on furbearers for survival. Native

peoples traditionally used furbearers for food, clothing, medicines, perfumes and other items. Today, manypeople living in rural and suburban environments throughout North America continue to live close to theland, utilizing furbearers to maintain a sense of self-reliance, remain in touch with their heritage, and par-ticipate in a favorite, challenging, outdoor activity. In a free society, such lifestyle decisions are a matter ofpersonal choice.

Wildlife managers in manystates and provinces have reintro-duced extirpated furbearer spe-cies. Extirpation was ultimatelycaused by widespread degrada-tion and loss of habitat associatedwith the colonization of NorthAmerica and subsequent growthof human populations. In someinstances this was combined withexcessive exploitation becausethere were no wildlife agencies toestablish and enforce regulations

designed to protect furbearerpopulations. Where habitat andpublic support are available, thereintroduction of extirpated fur-bearers has been remarkablysuccessful. In both the UnitedStates and Canada, species suchas beaver, river otter, fisher andmarten have been reintroducedand restored throughout much oftheir historical range.

The time when furbearerspecies could be extirpated due to

excessive, unregulated harvest islong past. Today, professionalwildlife biologists are responsiblefor furbearer management. Mosthave devoted years of academic,laboratory and/or field research tothe study of furbearer species.Their mission is the conservationof furbearer populations. Theyhave been highly successful inthat mission as evidenced by therestoration and current abun-dance of furbearer populations.

Photos by Bill Byrne • Nutria dish photo courtesy of Lousianna Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries

9

Principles of Furbearer ManagementThe goal of furbearer manage-

ment is the conservation of fur-bearer populations. The maintenet of conservation is this:Native wildlife populations arenatural resources — biologicalwealth — that must be sus-tained and managed for thebenefit of present and futuregenerations. If those wildlifepopulations are furbearer species,one important public benefit con-servation provides is the opportu-nity to harvest some animals forfood, fur or both. The harvest ofanimals for these purposes isamong the most ancient and uni-versal of human practices. Today,

under scientific wildlife manage-ment, harvests are controlled andregulated to the extent that thesurvival of furbearer populationsis never threatened. No furbearerspecies is endangered or threat-ened by regulated trapping.North American wildlife con-servation programs applythree basic principles inestablishing and managingharvest of wild animals: (1)the species is not endangeredor threatened; (2) the harvesttechniques are acceptable; and(3) the killing of these wildanimals serves a practicalpurpose.(5)

It is important to understandthat the aim of professional wild-life management is to perpetuateand ensure the health of wildlifepopulations; not the survival ofindividuals within those popula-tions. Wildlife management doesnot generally focus on individu-als because individuals have shortlife spans. On the time scale thatconservation is pledged to ad-dress, individuals do not endure.Populations do. Populations —provided with sufficient habitatand protected from excessive ex-ploitation — are essentially im-mortal. Wildlife managers applyscientific methods to maintain

Harvested furbearers have many uses today, reflecting theutilitarian values of many of the people who harvest them. Pelts areused for clothing such as coats, hats, mittens (made by craftspeoplein Maine, left) and blankets, and are also used to make moccasins,banjos, rugs, wall hangings and other forms of folk art. Fur is alsoused in fine art brushes, water repellent felt for hats, and high qual-ity fishing lures. Some people use the meat of furbearers such asraccoon, beaver, nutria (prepared by a Louisiana chef, above) andmuskrat for tablefare or as a food source for pets. It is delicious andnutritious, high in protein and low in fat. The glands of beaver areused in perfume, and glands and tissues from these and otherfurbearers are used to make leather preservatives, scent lures, andholistic medicines, salves and moisturizers. Even the bones, claws andteeth of harvested furbearers are sometimes used to make jewelery.

10

furbearer species as viable, self-sustaining populations.

Population DynamicsLike all populations, those of

furbearers are dynamic. They arealways in a state of flux, interact-ing directly and indirectly withother animal, plant, bacterial andviral populations. In response tothese interactions and a host ofother environmental factors —many of which are today relateddirectly to human actions —furbearer populations increaseand decrease in density (numberof individuals in any given area)and range. Wildlife managersmonitor wildlife populations todetermine if they are increasing,decreasing or stable; to identify

Professional wildlife biologists are responsible for furbearer management today. They have been highlysuccessful in their mission because they use the best scientific information available to ensure the presentand future health of furbearer populations.

factors that affect those popula-tion trends; and to manipulatesome of those factors to achievethe goals of conservation.

The laws of evolution and sur-vival demand that the reproduc-tive rate (the number of individu-als born) of any population mustequal or exceed its mortality rate(the number of individuals thatdie). If, over time, births do notequal or outnumber deaths, thepopulation will become extinct. Asa result, all species have evolved toproduce a surplus of young duringeach generation. Furbearer speciesare no exception; many are capableof doubling their populations withina single year.

Because they produce a surplusof young, populations shouldtheoretically grow continuously.The reason they do not is becauseas populations grow, variouslimiting factors slow or stoppopulation growth. Resources re-quired for survival — food, wa-ter, shelter and living space — arelimiting factors. As a populationgrows, one or more of these re-sources may become scarce to thepoint that some members of thepopulation fail to acquire themand therefore die, disperse or failto reproduce. Other limiting fac-tors include communicable dis-eases and predation. These aredensity-dependent factors —that is, they increase as the den-sity of the population increases.

Pho

to b

y Jo

hn

Org

an

11

Other limiting factors aredensity-independent. These in-clude weather extremes, habitatdestruction and other cata-strophic events. These reducepopulations regardless of density.Some limiting factors such as roadmortality (killed by vehicles) maybe both density dependent and in-dependent. Road mortality, for in-stance, is likely to increase aspopulation density increases;however, it also will increase asmore roads are built, regardless ofpopulation density.

Healthy furbearer populationscycle (increase and decrease aboutequally) on an annual basis. Mostincrease in the spring and sum-mer with the birth of young; de-crease in the fall and winter asnatural mortality and emigrationincrease. Annual cycles are mostdramatic in furbearer populationswith high reproductive rates.Muskrat populations, for ex-ample, can decline by 75 percentduring winter — and reboundcompletely by the following fall!(6)

Banking ResourcesWildlife managers normally set

furbearer trapping seasons toallow use of a portion of the indi-viduals that would otherwise belost to disease, starvation, preda-tion and other mortality factors.The standard regulated harvest iscompensatory mortality: itreplaces mortality factors thatwould otherwise have reduced thepopulation by a similar amount.A scientifically regulated, annualharvest can be sustained indefi-nitely because it removes only thesurplus, leaving sufficient repro-ducers to restore the surplus.

As a simplified example, imag-ine a stable furbearer populationas a bank account. The balance(population) is a continuallyshuffled stack of bills (individu-als). The account accumulates in-terest (the birth of young) everyspring. Taxes (predation, disease,etc.) are always taking a few billsout of the pile. If the interest isallowed to accumulate, taxes in-crease dramatically every winter.

However, if the interest is with-drawn (hunted or trapped) by theowners (the public), taxes do notincrease. Either way, throughtaxes or withdrawals, the balanceremains about the same from yearto year. Wildlife managers are theaccountants who advise theowners on when and how muchinterest can be withdrawn fromthe account.

Furbearer PopulationManagement

Wildlife biologists manage fur-bearer populations in much thesame way they manage other fishand wildlife populations such asbass, deer and eagles: they moni-tor the populations, determine thebest management goals for eachpopulation (i.e. should it beincreased, decreased or stabilizedin the best interests of the publicand conservation), and then setharvest regulations/restrictionsaccordingly. Under most circum-stances, the aim is to keeppopulations stable over time.

Natural Resource Bank AccountInterest/Deposits Balance Taxes/Withdrawals

Deaths*

Emigration

*Predation • Human Harvest • Disease• Starvation • Injury • Et cetera

In a simple example (excluding habitat-related factors such as carrying capacity), a stable furbearerpopulation can be compared to a bank account: interest and deposits (births and immigration) increasethe balance (population) every spring and summer; taxes and withdrawls (mortalities and emigration)decrease it by roughly the same amount every fall and winter. Accountants (wildlife biologists) monitorthe bank statements and advise the owner (the public) on when and how much of the balance can bewithdrawn (harvested) that would otherwise be lost to taxes (other forms of mortality).

Immigration

BirthsPopulation

12

In the absence of limiting factors such as inadequate habitat, disease, predation and human harvest,beaver populations are capable of very high rates of growth. Regulated trapping helps control furbearerpopulation growth and reduce furbearer damage at no cost to the public, and does not threaten theviability of furbearer populations.

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Adults 2 2 2 6 10 14 26 46 74 126

2 Yr Old 0 0 4 4 4 12 20 28 52 92

1 Yr Old 0 4 4 4 12 20 28 52 92 148

Kits 4 4 4 12 20 28 52 92 148 252

Total 6 10 14 26 46 74 126 218 366 618

Under some circumstances —when a furbearer population iscausing damage by threateningthe survival of endangered spe-cies, damaging fish and wildlifehabitat, or creating a hardship forlandowners or agricultural pro-ducers — it may be desirable toreduce furbearer populationswithin some areas. In these situa-tions, wildlife managers may ad-just trapping and hunting regula-tions to increase the harvest be-yond surplus production. Whenpopulation reduction is the objec-tive, the harvest adds to the an-nual mortality rate. This con-trolled additive mortality willcause the population to decline.

Conversely, there are situationswhen it is desirable to increasefurbearer populations. Theseoccur when efforts are being madeto restore an extirpated species,or when a severe populationreduction has taken place. In suchcases wildlife managers mightrestrict or prohibit harvests for atime to encourage a rapid popu-lation increase.

The beaver is an excellent ex-ample of a furbearer that warrantsintensive management. Wetlandscreated by beaver are highly pro-ductive systems with an abun-dance of water and nurients. Theysupport a huge diversity of plantsand invertebrates, and providehabitat for hundreds of fish andwildlife species. If the manage-ment objective is to maintain spe-cies abundance and diversity, it isprudent to manage beaver for itspositive wetland values.

However, beaver populationsoften require control to reduceconflicts with humans. Althoughproblems with beaver floodingroads and damaging property arewidespread, the problems wouldbe more intense, and the eco-nomic impacts greater, withoutthe harvests of beaver duringregulated trapping seasons. Al-most half a million beaver are har-vested from the states and prov-inces in any given year.(7) This re-duction is important in control-ling the growth of beaver popula-tions and reducing property dam-

age. It does not threaten the vi-ability of beaver populations ortheir positive wetland values.

Muskrat, nutria and beaver arethe only furbearers in NorthAmerica that, like deer, can sig-nificantly lower the quality oftheir habitat (by consuming ahigh percentage of the vegetation)if their populations are not main-tained at an appropriate level.Additionally, lowering nutriapopulations may be a legitimategoal in making marsh habitatsmore suitable for other wildlifespecies and in preventing erosionand the loss of marsh vegetation.

Regulated trapping is themost efficient and practicalmeans available to accomplishregular population reductions,and it does so at no cost to thepublic.

Although the populations ofsome furbearer species are proneto attain high local densities, andthen to “crash” dramatically asdensity-dependent limiting fac-tors (e.g. food availability and dis-ease) are activated, most furbearer

13

Foothold traps are sometimes used to capture rare or endangered species unharmed so that the animalscan be introduced into favorable habitats to reestablish healthy populations (see page 34). However, foot-hold traps also play an important role in protecting the health and viability of many established or newlyre-established populations of rare and endangered species. Foothold traps are particularly importantmanagement tools for protecting rare or endangered species from undesirable levels of predation caused byfox and coyote.

The following is a partial list of endangered or threatened plant, reptile, bird and mammal species inNorth America which are being protected and managed through the use of modern foothold traps:

Rare Species Under Restoration Species Trapped to Aid RestorationPink Lady Slipper BeaverPitcher Plant BeaverDesert Tortoise CoyoteSea Turtle RaccoonAlleghany Wood Rat RaccoonAleutian Canada Goose Arctic FoxAttwater’s Prairie Chicken CoyoteBrown Pelican CoyoteMississippi Sandhill Crane CoyoteAlabama Beach Mouse Red FoxColumbian White-tailed Deer CoyoteSan Joaquin Kit Fox CoyoteWhooping Crane Coyote, Red FoxLeast Tern Red Fox, Raccoon, Coyote, OpossumBlack-footed Ferret Coyote (taken for disease monitoring)Piping Plover Red Fox, Raccoon, Mink, Striped SkunkThe target animals trapped during these operations to reduce habitat damage or predation on the rare

species are either removed or relocated after capture. The trapping may be carried out by federal, state orprovinicial wildlife biologists and animal control agents, or by private, regulated trappers.

Piping Plover

Pho

tos

by

Bill

Byr

ne

species become relatively stableonce their populations reach agiven density. However, that den-sity may be beyond what the hu-man population can tolerate. Ifthe level of human-furbearer con-flicts (or conflicts with otherwildlife species and habitats) be-comes too great, population re-duction can be a responsiblemanagement alternative.

While furbearer population re-duction is not a goal for most fur-bearer management programs,population reductions in specificareas can control the frequencyof furbearer conflicts with hu-mans, lessen predation on rare,threatened or endangered spe-cies, or reduce negative impactson habitats and property.

The case of the piping plover,a beach nesting bird, provides agood example of how furbearerpopulation reductions can assistin the restoration of a rare species.The piping plover, a federallylisted threatened shorebird pro-tected by both U.S. and Canadaendangered species legislation, isvulnerable to predation by foxesand other predators while nesting.Trapping in and around pipingplover habitat has reduced localpredator populations, allowingenhancement of the dangerouslylow plover population, while thepredators can be utilized as valu-able, renewable, natural re-sources.(8)

Pitcher Plant

Trapping Protects

Rare & Endangered Species

14

Protecting America’s Important Wetlands with Regulated TrappingThe coastal wetlands along the Gulf coast of Louisiana are among the most productive and important

fish and wildlife habitat types found in the United States. The largest expanse of wetlands in the contiguousU.S. occurs in Louisiana, comprising 25% of the freshwater marshes and 69% of the saltwater marshes of theGulf Coast. This translates to 15% and 40% of these important ecological areas remaining in the UnitedStates. Louisiana’s wetlands provide a multitude of functions and important values including:

1. Habitat for a diverse array of fish and wildlife species including 15 million water birds, 5 million wintering waterfowl, over 1 million alligators and 11 Threatened or Endangered species;2. Groundwater recharge, reduction of pollution, and nutrient and sediment reduction;3. Storm buffer, erosion control and protection from floods;4. Commercial and recreational marine fisheries with a total economic effect of $ 3.5 billion

In the State of Louisiana over 3.6 million acres of coastal marshes now exist. However, these coastalwetlands are threatened by degradation and destruction through overpopulation of nutria, an exotic ro-dent found throughout these wetlands.

Nutria are large semi-aquatic rodents native to South America. The Gulf Coast nutria population origi-nated in Louisiana during the 1930s when captured animals were released or escaped into the wild. Theseanimals established a population and began to thrive in coastal wetlands. Nutria weigh an average of 12pounds each, average 4-5 young per litter, and have several litters each year. Nutria are herbivores that eatwetland plants and vegetation. They will pull and eat plant roots that anchor into the marsh. High popula-tions of nutria foraging on marsh vegetation have resulted in vast areas of marsh becoming entirely void ofplants. When vegetation is removed from the surface of the marsh, the very fragile organic soils are exposedto erosion through tidal action. If damaged areas do not revegetate quickly, they will become open water astidal scour removes soil and thus lowers elevation. Frequently, the plant root systems are also damaged,making recovery through regrowth of vegetation very slow. When a marsh is denuded of plant life by nu-tria, it is called an “eat-out.”

The first region-wide aerial survey to estimate nutria herbivory damage was conducted in 1993 becausereduced trapping resulting from lower fur prices allowed nutria, and eat-outs, to increase. Each year the

Coastal wetlands in Louisiana are threatened by high populations of nutria, which can denude or“eat out” large areas of vegetation (below), leaving fragile marsh soils susceptible to erosion anddestruction. Inset of fenced area shows what healthy marsh vegetation should look like.

Pho

to c

ou

rtes

ty L

ou

isia

na

Dep

t. W

ildlif

e &

Fis

her

ies

15

number of eat-outs and severity of the damage continue to increase, with only a small portion of the dam-aged acres demonstrating vegetation recovery. In 2000, wetland damage in Louisiana attributable to nutriawas conservatively estimated to exceed 100,000 acres. The estimate is conservative because only the worst,most obvious damage can be detected from aerial surveys. The number of acres being impacted is certainlymuch higher.

The long term effect of these eat-outs is permanent. Vegetation damage caused by overpopulation ofnutria aggravates other erosional processes. Coastal marshes are being lost at an alarming rate as a result oferosion, subsidence (lowering of land), saltwater intrusion, and the lack of silt-laden river water available tocontinue the process of marsh-building. Once gone, these acres of productive marsh cannot be replaced, andall their positive benefits and values are lost with them. Nutria also cause damage to rice and sugarcanefields, as well as to drainage canal dikes and roadways. In some areas they have severely reduced success ofwetland restoration efforts by feeding on planted grasses and trees.

Because of the tremendous destruction of this important habitat type that is home to literally hundredsof species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, control of nutria is among the top priorities of theLouisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). Regulated trapping is the predominant methodused in management of nutria populations. Licensed trappers harvest nutria during regulated seasons. Ifnutria are valuable enough, licensed trapper effort — and therefore nutria harvest — increases, resulting inreduced herbivory damage to the coastal wetlands.

To enhance this economic incentive, the LDWF has taken two approaches. One has been to develop amarket for nutria pelts, and the second is to develop a market for the human consumption of nutria meat.The sale of the pelt for clothing, and the additional sale of nutria meat for human consumption, can providea valuable additional incentive to keep more licensed trappers in the marsh helping to maintain nutriapopulations in balance with habitat. In the past, the harvest of nutria during regulated seasons in the falland winter months has resulted in harvests between 390,000 to over 1 million nutria annually. Such con-trolled and managed utilization of wildlife allows managers to protect coastal wetlands by keeping nutriapopulations at levels suitable with existing habitat conditions.

The importance of the regulated harvest of nutria cannot be overstated: between 1962-1981 over onemillion nutria were harvested each year in Louisiana. During this time there was no damage to coastalwetlands. When changing market prices result in lower nutria harvests, coastal wetland damage from nutriabecomes a problem. Alternatives to using regulated trappers to control nutria can be costly (if even practi-cal) to society.

Nutria are large, semi-aquatic rodents with prodigious appetites. Regulated trapping of nutria helpsprevent erosion of fragile wetlands while providing trappers with valuable food and fur.

Pho

to c

ou

rtes

ty L

ou

isia

na

Dep

t. W

ildlif

e &

Fis

her

ies

16

A red fox displays the fatal results of sarcoptic mange. The disease is density-dependent in that themites which cause it must be spread by direct contact with an infected animal or its bedding. Whenpopulation densities are high, animals come into contact more frequently, and diseases such as mangespread rapidly.

Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

contact. While the disease maypersist in the population, theintensity of outbreaks may bereduced. In a study conducted inCanada, severity of fox rabies out-breaks were reduced by heavy,government-funded trapping,while normal fur harvests showedlittle effect. However, it was alsonoted that high levels of regulartrapper harvest in southernOntario decreased the severity, ifnot the frequency, of rabies out-breaks in red foxes.(10) Intensive,government-funded trapping was

Disease ControlThe influence of trapping on

the occurrence and spread ofwildlife diseases has not beenestablished definitively, despiteclaims by both opponents andproponents of trapping. However,disease occurrence in wildlifepopulations is often associatedwith high densities of animals.(9)

Reducing local densities offurbearer populations throughharvests can reduce disease trans-mission and potential for human

also shown effective in controllingan epizootic of skunk rabies inAlberta.(11)

The only definitive statementsthat may be made on the subjectof disease control at this time arethat regulated trapping will not(and is not designed to) eradicatediseases; very intensive trappingmay help control diseases; and therelationship of normal harvests todisease occurrence and intensityin wildlife populations is not yetwell understood.

17

Regulated Trapping on National Wildlife RefugesIn 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered that a small shell- and mangrove-covered island in Florida’s

Indian River be forever protected as a “preserve and breeding grounds for native birds.” Paul Kroegel, asometime boat builder, cook and orange grower, was hired to watch over this three acre sanctuary. Hismission was clear: protect the island’s pelicans from poachers and plume hunters. With this simple promiseof wildlife protection, the National Wildlife Refuge System was formed.

The Systemnow encom-passes more than92 million acresin the UnitedStates managedby the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Ser-vice as wildliferefuges, wildliferanges, wildlifemanagement ar-eas, waterfowlproduction areasand other desig-nations for theprotection andconservation offish and wildlife,including thosethat are threat-ened with extinc-tion. The missionof the NationalWildlife RefugeSystem is:

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and whereappropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the UnitedStates for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

Regulated trapping is recognized as a legitimate activity and sustainable use of wildlife resources withinthe Refuge System, and has been an important tool for the accomplishment of refuge management andrestoration programs for many years. A comprehensive evaluation of Refuge trapping programs conductedby the Service in 1997 documented the importance of this activity in helping Refuges meet the missionstated above. The study examined mammal trapping programs on the Refuge System that occurred between1992 and 1996.(12) The study identified 487 mammal trapping programs on 281 National Wildlife Refugesduring the 5-year period. The Service report went on to say “This report demonstrates the importanceof trapping as a professional wildlife management tool” and “Mammal trapping also providedimportant benefits for public health and safety and recreational, commercial, and subsistenceopportunities for the public during the period.”

Eleven reasons for trapping on Refuges were identified in the following order (most common to leastcommon): recreation/commercial/subsistence, facilities protection, migratory bird protection, research, sur-veys/monitoring, habitat protection, endangered species protection, public safety, feral animal control, popu-lation management, and disease control. A variety of trap types were used in these programs: quick-killtraps were used on 171 refuges, cage traps were used on 157 refuges, foothold traps were used on 140refuges, snares were used on 74 refuges, and other devices were used on 66 refuges.

The variety of trap types used reflects the diversity of environmental and weather conditions; refuge-specific needs, objectives and regulations; and of course the different wildlife species which are found fromthe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to wetland areas of Gulf Coast Refuges to the forest lands ofRefuges in Maine. Trapping activities on Refuges are regulated; the public who participate are required tobe licensed and to follow many enforced rules to ensure that their activities are conducted appropriatelyand in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

Pho

to b

y To

m D

ecke

r

18

The Facts on Regulated TrappingPeople have continuously used

furbearers in North America forclothing, food and religious cer-emonies for the past 11,000 years.Fur resources had a greater influ-ence than any other factor on Eu-ropean settlement and explorationof the continent. Many cities andtowns in North America, includ-ing Quebec, P.Q., Albany, NY,Chicago, IL, St.Louis, MO andSpringfield, MA, were founded asfur trading centers where Europe-ans bartered with Native Ameri-cans for furs. The trapping andtrading of furbearer resources is aheritage that still continues as animportant component in thelifestyles of many people in oursociety. Whether in an industrial,urban, rural, or remote setting,

trapping and fur are still of cul-tural and economic importanceand furbearers continue to be uti-lized and managed as valuable re-newable natural resources.

The economic impact of man-aging furbearer resources is enor-mous: the multi-billion dollar furindustry annually generates mil-lions of dollars to North Ameri-can trapper households, whole-salers, processors, garment mak-ers and the retail clothing indus-try. There are also economic val-ues derived from reduced damageto property and agriculture; per-sonal uses of fur, hides, meat andother products; license revenues;goods and services sold to thepublic who trap and hunt; and theenhancement of economic activ-

ity and the redistribution ofwealth into rural communities.Many remote communities inAlaska and northern Canada aredependent on the sale ofpelts.(13)Trappers in South Caro-lina report that 9.3 percent oftheir family income is derivedfrom trapping.(14) The food valueof furbearers can be equal to orgreater than the market value oftheir pelts. Even in an industrial-ized state like Massachusetts, 28%of trappers report they use fur-bearers as a food source for them-selves or their pets.(15)

In addition to economicvalues, trapping has many socialvalues. In Vermont for example,gardening, child care, fire woodgathering, harvesting of wild

Pho

to b

y B

enja

min

Tu

ller

NY

DEC

19

Trapping is a LifestyleHistorically, people in the United States and Canada looked to the land to secure food and provide for

their households. Being independent, self-sufficient and hard working, providing for one’s family, being asteward of the land — these values and lifestyles are traditionally and distinctly part of the fabric of oursociety and culture, and they remain present today.

Trapping is an annual seasonal activity in which many people in North America currently participate.Sociologists and other researchers have begun to document the importance of trapping in the lives of thesepeople who still look to the land — including the utilization of wildlife — as part of their lifestyle. Thislifestyle is often not understood by the larger segment of society whose members no longer hunt, trap, fish,raise their own vegetables, cut their own firewood or look to the land in other ways to provide for theirhouseholds.

People who trap in the arctic and sub-arctic regions of the continent often fit our image of traditionaltrappers. In Canada and Alaska more than 35,000 aboriginal people participate in the trapping of furbear-ers. These trappers are motivated by the need to secure sustenance (food and clothing) for their families. Furtrapping can be particularly important tothem due to the remoteness of their commu-nities, and may provide an essential sourceof income during certain times of the year.Many of the cultural values and traditions ofthese people are passed along from genera-tion to generation through the seasonal ritu-als of trapping. Trapping teaches their youthssurvival and subsistence skills and provides ameaningful fall and winter activity that helpsinstill a sense of responsibility to theirfamilies and communities.

The attitudes of trappers in the moredeveloped areas of North America mirror themotives of their northern contemporaries.Approximately 270,000 families in the UnitedStates and Canada derive some income fromtrapping, but households that embrace a trap-ping lifestyle are often not apparent insuburban areas with a diverse mix of cultures. Researchers have documented and described a very vibranttrapping culture even within the urbanized northeastern United States. People who trap in this region listseveral motives for why they participate in trapping: lifestyle orientation, nature appreciation, wildlifemanagement, affiliation with other people, self-sufficiency, and income (sometimes complimentary, some-times critical, to the household budget). A universal theme expressed by many trappers is that trapping is aprincipal component of their lifestyle: it defines them and has deep meaning as an enduring, central lifeinterest.

Trapping in today’s society has often been referred to as “recreational” in the context of a “sport,” yet asthe sociological studies have revealed, the term is a misnomer. It fails to consider the motives of thehundreds of trappers surveyed. People who trap tend to express strong support for conservation programsand environmental protection. They may also cut firewood, raise their own vegetables, hunt and fish. Forthese people, the opportunity to harvest fish and wildlife contributes to a sense of self-reliance andindependence. Studies in New England and elsewhere reveal that trappers barter furbearer pelts, productsand trapping services (to remove nuisance wildlife causing property damage) in exchange for childcare,automobile repair, vegetables and other goods and services.

Whether they are aboriginal people living in Canada and Alaska, or people living in suburban or ruralareas of New England, Louisiana, or industrialized southern Ontario, a common link among all trappers isthat they value the capability of the land to produce wild animals and plants they can use to bringsustenance into their households (e.g. meat for food, pelts for clothing, and/or money to buy householdgoods). For many, trapping is an integral part of their life, a link to the land, a crucial element in theirrelationship to nature. With proper management of wildlife resources, people today can still choose toparticipate in this lifestyle as societies have done since the beginning of time. This is a unique opportunityand experience for people in the United States and Canada that can no longer be pursued throughout mostof Europe or the rest of the industrialized world.(16)

20

Environmental PoliceOfficers, Conservation

Officers or GameWardens enforce

trapping laws andregulations

throughout theUnited States and

Canada.

Trapping is Highly RegulatedWithin the United States and Canada, state, provincial or territo-

rial fish and wildlife agencies have legal authority and pass lawsgoverning furbearer resources. There are various types of laws thatapply to trapping within each jurisdiction, and they are enforced bylocal environmental police, conservation officers and/or gamewardens. Laws that regulate trapping by various means include thefollowing:

• Mandatory licensing of trappers• Mandatory daily checking of traps• Mandatory trapper education• Restricted seasons for trapping• Restrictions on the size of traps• Restricted areas for trapping certain species• Restrictions on the types of traps• Mandatory tagging of traps to identify owner

Professional wildlife biologists monitor the populations offurbearing animals. Scientific studies are conducted to ensure thatthese species are managed properly. In addition, research focusedon the traps themselves identifies which traps work best with eachspecies, and which need improvements. New and improved traps arecontinually being developed.

Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

foods, home and automobilemaintenance, animal husbandry,and community volunteer workare bartered for trapping and fur-bearer products in some commu-nities.(17) This “hidden economy”may have social and economic sig-

nificance in many rural commu-nities all over the continent.

Trapping, along with the heri-tage and self-sufficient lifestyle itrepresents, has a cultural and so-cial role in today’s society and ismuch more than a “consumptive

use” of wildlife. Trapping caninstill a strong appreciation forwildlife and the environment.Sociological studies show thattrappers have an exceptional de-gree of factual understanding ofanimals and are outstanding andunusual in their knowledge ofwildlife. Trappers, through theiroutdoor experience and use andknowledge of wildlife, are unique.The relationship they have withland and wildlife underlies astrong sense of stewardship forthe environment.(18)

Traps & TechniqueThe capture and harvest of fur-

bearers has changed markedlysince early times. Modern trap-ping is not comparable to thereckless exploitation of the 17th,18th and 19th centuries. Todaytrapping is heavily regulated, in-volving some of the most complexlaws that deal with wildlife, en-forced with stiff fines and penal-ties that ensure the integrity of theactivity. Overall, the regulationsare designed to protect furbearer

21

There are three basic trap designs and many variations of each. Kill-type designs (below, left), also knownas quick-killing traps, dispatch furbearers quickly with a hard blow to the head, neck or body, in the samemanner that a common mouse trap kills a mouse. Foothold traps (two models above) are live-holdingtraps that typically have a set of spring-activated jaws designed to close on an animal’s foot across or justabove the foot pad. Set under water, they can also function as kill traps. Cage traps (below, right) are liveholding traps that restrain an animal in a portable cage. Each design is superior to the others for certainapplications, species and situations.

Cage trap

Quick-kill typetrap

continued, page 25

populations and make trapping ashumane and efficient as possible.

Many people unfamiliar withmodern trapping think of traps asbig, powerful devices with jack-o’-lantern teeth on the jaws. Thisstereotypical image of the trap isbased on the obsolete designs thatwere used to capture bears manyyears ago. Those old bear traps arecollector items today. Such dan-gerous and destructive deviceshave no use in modern fur trap-ping. Today, sizes and types oftraps and their use are regulated,and many sizes and types of trapsare no longer allowed. Trappersmust check their traps withinspecific time intervals and arerestricted or prohibited from set-ting traps in certain areas. Mostjurisdictions require that live-restraining traps be checked daily.

Basic Trap DesignsModern traps fall into two

main categories: quick-kill typetraps and live-holding traps. Killtype traps are designed to quicklykill the captured animal, muchlike a common mousetrap. Live-holding traps can be separatedinto cage traps and foothold traps.Cage traps are baited wire enclo-sures with one or two doors that

close and lock when the animalsteps on a pan or treadle. Theywork well for animals that are notaverse to entering holes or cages,but are ineffective for capturingwary species such as foxes andcoyotes. Cage traps come in a va-riety of sizes designed to catchanimals from mice to raccoons.They are expensive though, bulky,heavy to handle, and are not prac-tical in many trapping situations.

Foothold traps typically havetwo metal jaws, sometimes cov-ered with rubber, that are closed

by springs released when theanimal steps on the trigger pan.Other foothold devices — mostnotably the specialized “EGG”trap (see box, page 24) and pas-sive or spring-loaded snares —are also available for use incertain states and provinces.

Typical foothold traps arecategorized by the type of spring(e.g. coil, jump, or long spring),and are made in different sizesappropriate for catching animalsas small as weasels and as large ascoyotes and lynx. When set, thejaws of foothold traps range from3 1/2 to 7 inches in spread. Thesetraps are designed to hold ananimal by gripping the toes orfoot across or just above the footpad. This prevents the capturedanimal from slipping the trap offits foot. As an option, footholdtraps can be set submerged todrown a captured animal, and canthereby function as kill traps.

Choosing theAppropriate Trap

Choice of trap style dependson the specific situation and thefurbearer species that is beingtargeted. Cage traps are an excel-lent choice for raccoon, skunk

Foothold traps

22

Best ManagementPractices

State fish and wildlife agenciesare conducting a national effort todevelop Best Management Prac-tices (BMPs) for regulated trappingin the United States. This effort isbeing made to identify and pro-mote the very best technologyavailable to capture wildlife.(19)

These BMPs address five specificpoints relative to the use and per-formance of traps. These compo-nents are: the welfare of animals,the efficiency of the traps, the se-lectivity of the traps, the safety oftrappers and other members of thepublic, and the practical applica-tion of various types of traps.

BMPs will provide the informa-tion that will help make a trap andtrapper function together in amanner that is safe, humane, ef-fective, and selective. They willdescribe the different types oftraps and what training may beneeded for people who trap withthem. BMPs will be recommendedto all state fish and wildlife agen-cies for incorporation into regu-lated trapping programs and trap-per education.

State wildlife biologists cooper-ating with specially trained wild-life veterinarians are designing andconducting trap research projectsto identify the best traps available.All types of traps are being tested,including cage traps, snares, foot-hold traps and killing type traps.Trap testing programs involvingdozens of trapping systems are be-ing conducted from Alaska toMaine to Louisiana. Since 1997,millions of dollars have been spenton trap testing programs to ini-tiate the development of BMPs.State fish and wildlife agencieshave dedicated thousands of hoursof wildlife professionals’ time tothe successful completion of theseprojects. The testing is conductedunder actual trapping conditions,on working trap lines, by experi-enced trappers accompanied bytrained wildlife technicians.

Everyone — managers, biolo-gists, veterinarians and the publicwho trap — is interested in usingthe best technology available forthe responsible capture of furbear-ers. Working towards this goal,state wildlife agencies will persistin their trap research efforts andcontinue developing BMPs. Basing

Using Science To Identifythe Best Traps for Animal Welfare

BMPs on sound scientific and bio-logical data will measurably improvethe welfare of captured wildlife inthe United States.

Testing Traps in CanadaCanadian wildlife authorities are

understaking an approach similarto the BMPs through a cooperativeeffort among provincial/territorialagencies. The Canadian Trap Cer-tification Protocol uses parametersof trap efficiency, humaneness andsafety to approve traps for use inCanadian trapping and furbearermanagement programs. This pro-gram is coordinated by provincialwildlife agencies. Under the pro-gram, any provincial governmentauthority may certify a trap accord-ing to the procedures prescribedin the Protocol. All traps used tocapture furbearing species inCanada must be certified accord-ing to the Protocol by 2007. Theprovincial/territorial agencies haveagreed that all other authoritieswill mutually recognize the certi-fication of a trap by any one au-thority. As trap testing results be-come available, additional trapswill be certified for use in captur-ing various species.

Traps are subjected to intensive scientificevaluation in a continual effort to developthe best possible designs. As of 2004, 32 statefish and wildlife agencies have participatedin field evaluations and trap testing for BMPs.Areas marked in yellow denote states thathave participated to date. All 50 state fish andwildlife agencies support the developmentof trapping BMPs.

23

Wildlife agencies, as well as the public who trap, have longbeen interested in developing and refining traps and trappingtechniques to further improve the welfare of furbearers capturedfor research, damage control, fur and food. The overriding goalhas been to design traps that will hold target species unharmed,or in the case of kill-type traps, dispatch them as quickly as pos-sible. Foothold, snare, cage and kill-type trap designs have all beenimproved substantially in these respects since the turn of the cen-tury, and new and improved models are replacing older designs.While the production of a new trap once required little more thansome imagination, engineering and marketing skills, today all trapimprovements must be based on sound scientific information.

Trap performance can only be verified through a comprehensive pro-cess that evaluates all components of a trapping system. In order to en-sure the scientific credibility of results, trap research programs must incor-porate appropriate study designs and include rigorous multi-stage test-ing. Today, various stages of trap research may include: (1) mechanicalevaluation of traps; (2) trap performance testing using computer simula-tion models; (3) study of how animals approach traps; (4) trap perfor-mance testing in fenced enclosures; (5) trap performance testing in thefield; and finally (6) confirmation tests utilizing independent trappers. Manytrap designs have been evaluated to this degree and tested under a vari-ety of conditions throughout the United States and Canada. These evalu-ation studies have provided important contributions to animal welfare byimproving the performance of trapping systems.

Modern trap evaluation is acomprehensive process thatbegins with mechanicalevaluation, followed bycomputer simulation (left).Continual research hasresulted in designmodifications. Theseinclude double jaws(above), offset jaws andwide-edge jaws (combinedon the trap below).

Research & DevelopmentImproving Traps with Science

Pho

to c

ou

rtes

ty F

ur

Inst

itu

te o

f C

anad

a

24

Ongoing scientificresearch aimed at

the development ofimproved traps hasresulted in entirely

new designs such asthe EGG trap (atleft in photo), a

modern footholddesign used specifi-

cally to takeraccoons. Soft-catch(at right in photo) isa modern update of

a traditional foot-hold design. This

trap system notonly incorporatesspecially paddedjaws, but also a

shock-absorbingspring and doubleswivels proven to

reduce the chanceof injury to

captured animals. Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

While many people and organizations talk about improving trapping, only a few have provided fundingfor developing new traps and improving older designs. Trap research in North America has been fundedjointly by the governments of Canada and the United States, the International Fur Trade Federation, state andprovincial wildlife departments, and the Fur Institute of Canada. Wildlife agencies utilize the research find-ings of trap studies funded by these organizations to assess and incorporate new information into trappingregulations and trapper education programs. While research has provided the information to develop andtest entirely new trap designs (such as the “EGG” trap) for particular species, modifications to existing killtraps and foothold traps are also of great importance. Adjusting chain length, adding swivels to the chain,providing for adjustable pan tension, and/or replacing standard jaws with offset, laminated or padded jawscan improve the welfare of captured furbearers, and researchers continue to explore other new and innova-tive design possibilities. Everyone is interested in using the best technology available for the responsiblecapture of furbearers.

Performance evaluation and the testing of killing and restraining traps in both the United States andCanada follow methods approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). These testingstandards ensure that countries have internationally comparable data for evaluating trap performance. Mod-ern trap evaluation is conducted in a framework that applies science to ensure the use of humane and safetraps whether for scientific study, animal management programs, protection of endangered species, or thesustainable utilization of wildlife resources by the public.

Trap research efforts today are well coordinated among the state and provincial wildlife agencies, coop-erative Universities and federal agencies in the United States and Canada. Wildlife biologists, statisticians,engineers and specially trained wildlife technicians oversee trap-testing efforts conducted in North America.In the United States, 31 state wildlife agencies have participated in a coordinated national trap-testing pro-gram. In addition, the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services program has conductedimportant research on improving trapping devices. In Canada, trap-performance testing, research and devel-opment is conducted by the Trap Research and Development Committee (TRDC) of the Fur Institute of Canada(FIC) with participation of provincial/territorial wildlife agencies and trappers. Much of this work is conductedat the Alberta Research Council in Vegreville Alberta, the most comprehensive and extensive trap researchcenter in the world. Trap evaluation and testing programs under field conditions are often conducted incooperation with provincial/territorial wildlife agencies and cooperating trappers. Research findings from theFIC-TRDC program are used both in the United States and Canada.

25

Foothold trapsneed not be largeto be effective, asdemonstrated bythe trap used tocapture this coyote.Foothold traps typi-cally capture andhold animals with-out significant in-jury and have beenused to captureriver otter and graywolves (below) forreintroduction andrestoration effortsin portions of theUnited States. Thefoothold trap is theonly effective de-vice, except forsnares, for captur-ing certain furbear-ers such as coyote,wolves, and foxes.

Pho

to b

y D

an H

arri

son

Pho

to c

ou

rtes

y o

f U

.S. F

ish

& W

ildlif

e Se

rvic

e

and opossum when trapping nearresidential areas in wildlife dam-age management situations.Quick-kill type traps — or body-gripping traps as they are some-times called — are very effectivewhen used for marten, mink,fisher, muskrat, otter and beaver.Kill-type traps are considered tobe efficient and humane becauseanimals rarely escape, and loss ofconsciousness and death arerapid. However, kill-type traps donot allow for release of “nontar-get” animals (animals the trapperdoes not want to harvest). Also,fox and coyotes will rarely enterkill-type traps. For these speciesespecially, foothold traps remainthe most effective trap (and allowfor release of nontarget animals).

Foothold traps do not have tobe big and powerful in order tohold an animal. A foothold trapof the right size, correctly set,will typically catch and holdthe target animal without sig-nificant injury.

Trappers Are SelectiveThe placement of the trap in

relation to the lure and/or bait (aswell as the type of bait or lure)greatly affects the selectivity of the

trap set. An effective trapperwants to catch the animal tar-geted, instead of a nontarget spe-cies. Knowledge of animalbehavior allows placement oftraps on the target animal’s line oftravel such that, in many cases,

the trapper needs no bait or lureat the set (blind set). Differentlures used at other sets are usu-ally attractive only to certain spe-cies of furbearers, and can be usedto draw the target animals to theset. Trappers strive for enoughknowledge of the target animal’shabits to allow efficient capturewhile avoiding nontarget animals.This is the essence and challengeof trapping. The personal satisfac-tion and even the economic re-turn depend on having thisknowledge and efficiency (see“Trapper Education” page 26).With the selection of the right sizetrap, trapping location, the cor-rect setting of pan tension, andthe proper use of the device inconcert with lure and bait, trap-pers are extremely selective inwhat species their traps will cap-ture. So, while traps as devices

26

Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

Pho

to c

ou

rtes

y o

f N

ew Y

ork

Sta

te D

ept.

of

Envi

ron

men

tal C

on

serv

atio

n

have some degree of selectivity,trappers further improve that se-lectivity.

Concern has been expressedover the relative risks of trappingto pets. As stated above, propertrap selection and placement willminimize nontarget captures.Trappers generally seek land-owner permission (required inmany jurisdictions) when trap-ping on private land, and scoutfor animal sign and presence be-fore the trapping season. Mosttrappers avoid areas with evi-dence of domestic animal use be-cause it interferes with opportu-

nities to capture target species.Pets that are allowed to rangefreely and unsupervised are atgreater risk from predators, auto-mobiles and other health threatsthan they are from traps. Regard-less, in the few instances whenpets or domestic animals are ac-cidently caught in foothold or boxtraps, they can usually be releasedunharmed.(20)

The art of trapping is often a family tradition, handed down from generation to generation.

Acquiring the base knowledgefrom experienced trappers startsbeginners off right. To ensurethat all new trappers know theproper skills and understand theactivity, its many regulations, andtheir role in scientific wildlifemanagement, first-time trappersin many states and all Canadianprovinces and territories are nowrequired to complete an officialtrapper education program.

Trapper EducationThere was a time when new or

young trappers could easily finda friend or relative to teach themhow to trap. To become effective,the trapper must learn animal be-havior, wildlife habitat, types oftraps, trap preparation, sets andlures for different animals, andcare of the pelts. This knowledgeallows the trapper to become effi-cient; that is, to be able to set the

27

Values* Of FurbearersEconomic Values:Many people benefit economically from the use of furs and other furbearer products.Many people suffer economic loss from damage or depredation caused by furbearers.

Ecological Values:Furbearers as predators and as prey help keep ecosystems in balance.When ecosystems become unbalanced and the existence of certain species is endangered, predation by

furbearers may increase their risk of extinction.Beaver, and to a lesser extent, muskrats, alter habitat, often to the benefit of many other wildlife

species. They, along with nutria, can also degrade habitat to the detriment of fish and other wildlife.

Cultural Values:Trapping is a part of our cultural heritage. Its traditional skills, including respect for and knowledge of the

outdoors, are passed along in many families from generation to generation.Some members of the public retain a cultural heritage of utilizing furbearer meat to directly sustain their

families and pets. Many use furbearer products and trapping to barter for other essentials.

Biological Values:Furbearers can help us better understand human health problems, such as effects of environmental

pollutants.Furbearers can pose risks to humans through exposure to diseases and parasites.

Aesthetic Values:Many people enjoy fur and furbearers.Many people enjoy observing furbearers and their works (beaver ponds).

*Values can be both positive and negative.

The art of trapping is a lifelong learning experience, often requiring trappers to enter habitats few peopleever visit. Trapping may instill a strong appreciation toward wildlife and the environment. It typicallyfosters an exceptional understanding and knowledge of animals and a close relationship with the land.

Pho

to b

y Th

om

as D

ecke

r

28

Selectivity of the Trap-Trapper UnitA trap is a mechanical device that, once set, will close only on objects heavy enough to release the trigger.

Observing this, those unfamiliar with trapping may assume that traps are not selective; that they will catchanything. This is not a correct assumption unless the trapper — the person required to set the inanimatedevice in the first place — is removed from consideration. Trap and trapper are part of the same equation;one cannot function without the other. Once this relationship is acknowledged, it is recognized that thetrap-trapper unit is actually very selective in terms of what it will catch. Regulated trappers and wildliferesearchers invariably set their traps in such a way that only the species (or sometimes even only the indi-vidual animal) they are targeting is likely to be captured. The numerous techniques trappers use to ensuretheir trap sets are selective include the following:

❖ Location: Where a trap is located determines to a great extent what animals are likely to enter it.Traps may be located underwater, in trees, near den sites, travel routes and loafing areas, or withinother specific habitat types where nontarget species are never found or are unlikely to be found.

❖ Type of Trap: The use of certain types of traps virtually eliminates the chance that certain species willbe captured. Foxes and coyotes, for instance, will rarely enter cage or kill-type traps.

❖ Size of Trap: The size of the trap determines to some extent what size animals it will capture.❖ Pan Tension: Pan or trigger tension is adjustable on many traps. As a result, traps are often set so that

only relatively heavy animals (such as beavers or coyotes) can spring them.❖ Lure or Bait: Specific baits and lures, often used in conjunction with trap sets, are attractive to spe-

cific species of animals. Sweet corn, for instance, is attractive to raccoons, but not to bobcats. Lures inthe form of urine or scent gland extracts are particularly attractive to the species from which thescent is derived; may even repel other species.

❖ Position of Trigger: Trigger configuration on kill-type traps can be set to allow nontarget species topass through without setting off the trap.

❖ Trap Set: How a trap is handled or placed influences what animals can be captured. Wary species willavoid any trace of human scent, while others such as raccoons and skunks may be attracted to it.Fencing or other obstructions placed around a trap can prevent some species from approaching thetrap.

❖ Timing: The timing of when traps are set during the trapping season can influence which gender andwhat age class of animals will be captured.

These same elements, all of which make traps highly selective in terms of what animals they will capture,are used not only in fur harvest trapping, but also in the live capture of animals for research and conserva-tion programs, and for problem animal control and property damage situations.

proper trap in the appropriatemanner and catch the intendedanimal. Certainly trappers arecontinually learning, but there isa base level of knowledge that ismuch easier to learn from an ex-perienced trapper than by trialand error on one’s own. Trappereducation programs have been in-stituted in many states and allCanadian provinces and territo-ries to ensure that beginning trap-pers acquire this fundamentalknowledge before they set trapson their own.

Trapper education programsteach basic trapping techniques inboth field and classroom situa-tions with a strong focus on theresponsible treatment of animals,trapping regulations, the avoid-

ance of nontarget animals, safety,selective trapping, trespass lawsand ethical trapper behavior.Trappers are taught how to selectand set the smallest and mosteffective traps for whatever fur-bearer species they wish to target.These programs are strongly sup-ported by experienced trapperswho often teach the courses inconjunction with wildlife agencypersonnel. The ethical and evenspiritual ideals of trapping — totake every animal with dignity,admiration and respect — arewidely embraced. Informationtaught to beginning trappers pro-vides them with a larger view oftheir role and the importance oftrapping in an effective, respon-sible, and ethical manner.

Trapping andPublic Safety

Opponents of trapping fre-quently charge that people, espe-cially children, are in danger ofbeing caught and injured in traps.These charges naturally tend toheighten public concern abouttrapping. However, a nationwidesearch for all recorded incidentsof human injuries resulting fromtraps during the past 20 yearsdocumented only three that wereassociated with legal fur trap-ping.(21) None resulted in seriousinjury. Trapping does not threatenpublic safety because the size,placement and use of traps areregulated to ensure the safety ofhumans and animals (see box,page 20).

29

The use of traps and trappingin furbearer management programsother than traditional fur harvest-ing can be divided into three ma-jor categories: Wildlife DamageManagement, Wildlife Research,and Reintroduction of Extir-pated Wildlife. Among these cat-egories, which may be broad ornarrow in geographic scope, thereare a number of options, along withtrapping, that wildlife biologists canconsider to achieve the manage-ment objective. Selection of anyoption must take into account itspracticality, effectiveness, legality,safety and cost.Typically, a combi-nation of two or more techniquesis used in most management situa-tions in order to achieve maximumeffectiveness and cost efficiency. Thevarious technique options availableto wildlife biologists for the threecategories of furbearer managementprograms are presented below:

Options forWildlife Damage

ManagementWildlife damage management

is typically undertaken as a re-sponse to a citizen’s concerns overanimals causing loss or otherdamage to personal property orresources. Livestock predation bycoyotes and foxes, flooding bybeavers, and agricultural cropdamage by raccoons and muskratsare common examples of wildlifedamage. Several management op-tions, both lethal and nonlethal,are available, but no singlemethod or combination of meth-ods is applicable in all damagesituations.(22) Management op-tions to curtail various forms ofwildlife damage include thefollowing:

Guard Animals

Animals, such as guard dogs,llamas and donkeys, have beenused to protect livestock fromcoyotes and other predators.Guard dogs are typically specialbreeds, such as Great Pyreneesand Komondor, that areimprinted after birth on thelivestock breed they are assignedto protect. Neutered males aremost commonly used. Success hasbeen achieved in some areas withguard dogs, although they are ex-pensive and last an average of only3.3 years due to the rigors of lifein the outdoors. Their effectivenessis best in a paddock situation, anddiminishes on open pastures. Useof guard dogs can require a greatdeal of attention by the herder, par-ticularly on an open range, wheremore effort is required to ensure thedog is properly fed and attended.Guard dogs may indiscriminatelykill other species of wildlife (suchas deer fawns) they encounter.(23)

Llamas and donkeys have anadvantage over dogs in longevityand feeding, but have also beendocumented injuring and killingsheep. More research and experi-mentation is necessary beforetheir effectiveness can be fullyevaluated.(24)

Risk to humans from all typesof guarding animals can increasea livestock owner’s liability.

Exclusion / HabitatModification

There are a number of manage-ment techniques that, under theproper conditions and withadequate funding for installationand routine maintenance, can beused to prevent or reduce varioustypes of wildlife damage:

Furbearer Management OptionsWater Flow Devices and Ex-

clusionary Fencing: Speciallydesigned “beaver pipes” areplaced in road culverts or throughbeaver dams to reduce water leveland associated flooding. Thesepipes must be placed in such amanner that the beaver cannotsense the sound or flow of water(which triggers their instinct todam the flow), or must haveadequate baffles to prevent theanimals from blocking the flow.In situations where the gradientallows installation and function,beaver pipes can be effective atreducing beaver flooding. Thedevices may be expensive,however, and require routinecleaning and maintenance. Sitecharacteristics may nullify theeffectiveness of these devices insome situations.(25)

Exclusionary fencing can beinstalled in front of, or around,the intake of road culverts tophysically prevent beaver fromplugging the culverts. Exclusion-ary apparatus is a preventive mea-sure that varies markedly in ex-pense and ease of installation, re-quires regular maintanance, anddoes not regulate water level.(26)

Livestock Fencing: Perma-nent or portable fencing, includ-ing electric fencing, can be usedas a barrier to prevent predatorsfrom killing or damaging live-stock. Fencing must be a mini-mum of 5.5 to 6 feet high andfrequently maintained in order toexclude coyotes.(27) The cost offencing has limited its applicationbecause many people who ownsheep or other livestock simplycannot afford to fence an arealarge enough to adequatelypasture their animals.

30

Contraception

Past research has shown thathormone injections or implantscan be successful in controllingthe reproduction of individualanimals. The technique requiresrepeated injections or surgery;consequently it is extremely ex-pensive and difficult to apply tolarge numbers of animals. Somefish and wildlife agencies and ani-mal welfare groups are now sup-porting research to develop a

There are many options to dealwith damage caused by fur-bearers, but the effectiveness,efficiency, and cost associatedwith a particular option willdetermine its appropriateness fora given damage situation. Whencoyotes kill sheep and otherlivestock , farmers may resort tofencing (exclusion), but it must betall, or it will be ineffective(above). When fencing isimpractical (as it can be due tocost) specially bred guard dogs(above, right) or other guardanimals are options, but thesetoo have their drawbacks (seetext). A well constructed bafflepipe (right) can help controlflooding damage caused bybeaver, but it requires regularmaintenance and will not workin many situations.

wildlife contraceptive that is in-expensive, relatively easy to ad-minister, and long lasting. Newadvances in genetic engineeringhave opened the door toimmunocontraception as a possiblesolution. Immunocontraceptionuses vaccines that target specifichormones or reproductive tissues.This research is in its infancy, andfield experiments have been lim-ited. While immunocontracep-tion may have some value as a

wildlife management tool in thefuture, it is not available todayand will remain a rudimentarytool in the near future.(28) To putthis in perspective, zoo veterinar-ians and reproductive biologistsinterested in controlling thereproduction of captive animalshave not yet developed an effec-tive contraceptive vaccine formost species. Some of the techni-cal problems include:

Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

Pho

to b

y G

uy

Co

nn

olly

USD

A/A

PHIS

Pho

to b

y Th

om

as D

ecke

r

31

• Safe and effective applicationrequires animals to be individu-ally vaccinated.

• Delivery systems (e.g. dart gunsand blow guns) have limitedrange, making it necessary to getwithin close range of everyanimal targeted for the vaccine.

• Two or more boosters may berequired to cause infertility.

• Application that would be exten-sive or effective enough tocontrol population growth maynever be possible.

•Legal hurdles of government envi-ronmental and drug regulatoryagencies and assessment of over-all environmental impacts maydelay availability for many years.

Most wildlife damage situa-tions require immediate control ofoffending animals. Immunocon-traception will not eliminatedamage in the short term: sterilebeavers still have functional teethand will cut trees and build dams.

Oral Vaccines

There are several activeprograms developing and testingoral vaccines for the purpose ofreducing the number of terrestrialmammals infected with rabies.Oral vaccines designed to preventrabies in coyotes, raccoons andfoxes have shown promisingresults during experimental trialsin the U.S., and have been usedsuccessfully in Canada. Ongoingfield tests will continue to refineour understanding of the benefitsand drawbacks of oral vaccines.

Questions regarding the safety,cost, and overall effectiveness ofthis technique in limiting thespread of rabies still remain, butwhen used in conjunction withtrap-vaccinate and trap-euthanizeprograms around local outbreaksof raccoon rabies, it appears to be

effective in limiting the spread ofthe disease.(29)

The control of rabies and/orother communicable wildlifediseases would also remove anatural l imiting factor ofpredator populations. This mayimpact prey populations (turtlesand migrant songbirds forexample) that may have evolvedreproductive strategies to takeadvantage of periodic, disease-induced declines in predatordensity.

Toxicants

The use of toxicants (poisons)to control wildlife damageinvolves killing animals causingdamage with specific, Environ-mental Protection Agency-regis-tered pesticides. Historicallycommon in use, toxicants weremisused widely enough to createpublic concern that has nowgreatly restricted their availabilityand use.(30) There is a great dealof variation in how individualstates and provinces regulate andcontrol toxicant application, inaddition to federal oversight.There are some toxicants that canbe applied by private citizens, butconcerns over public health andsafety and nontarget animalexposure restrict many applica-tions to licensed governmentofficials. Despite limited use,toxicants remain a valuable tool towildlife managers for specialprojects and emergency situations.

Shooting

Shooting the depredatinganimal or animals requires one ormore shooters to stake out thearea where the damage is occur-ring. Shooting can be a highlyselective control method, pro-vided that the shooter correctlyidentifies the offending animal,

and is positioned for an accurate,killing shot. Shooting nocturnalanimals such as coyotes, raccoonsand beavers is difficult and mayrequire expensive night visionequipment to maximize efficiency.Shooters — particularly thosetargeting coyotes — must also beskilled hunters: the wary natureof the animals requires a shooterto have considerable knowledgeof the animal’s sign and habits inorder to be in position for a shotwithout the animal being aware ofthe shooter’s presence. Shootingoften requires several days ofeffort for each damage situation,making it costly and limiting thenumber of damage situations thatcan be dealt with. Where damageoccurs in close proximity to roadsor buildings, shooting may not bea legal option, particularly atnight.

Trapping

Use of traps to solve wildlifedamage problems involves thecapture of the animal or animalscausing damage. The effectivenessof trapping to solve wildlifedamage problems can depend onthe skill and experience of thetrapper. Knowledge is required toaccurately determine what speciesis causing the damage; what traptype is required to ensure effec-tive capture with minimalpotential for injury to the animals;and where and how the trap(s)should be placed so as not tocapture nontarget species. Trap-ping does not require the trapperto be present when the damageoccurs, allowing several damagesituations to be addressed simul-taneously. If the species causingdamage is a furbearer and thedamage occurs during the legalfur trapping season, a licensed furtrapper may be willing to remove

32

techniques must be employed.Wildlife managers do not want tosee society’s tolerance reach thepoint that furbearers becomeperceived as pests and threats,rather than as valuable natural re-sources that should be enjoyed,appreciated and perpetuated.(31)

the offending animals at no cost.If foothold or cage traps are used,the trapper has the discretion ofreleasing trapped animals un-harmed.

Traps used by either agencypersonnel or registered trappersrecruited to assist with programs,may be used in conjunction withother techniques to address wild-life damage problems. Trappersfrom Ontario have played a keyrole in efforts to prevent thespread of raccoon-strain rabiesinto Ontario.

No Action / Tolerance

This would be a decision to letthe damage occur uncontested;“live with the damage” so to speak.Such a decision would have tobalance many factors. In somecases, the wetlands created bybeaver provide valuable functionsto society and wildlife, and thesemust be balanced against economiclosses to individuals and commu-nities. Rabies outbreaks thatperiodically reduce certain fur-bearer populations may temporarilyreduce property damage andbenefit some wildlife populations(such as birds and turtles that in-cur heavy nest predation by fur-bearers), but also present a publichealth threat requiring publiceducation programs and expensivemedical treatment for individualsthought to be exposed to thedisease. Ultimately, society’s level oftolerance towards wildlife damagewill determine where no action canprevail.

An increased public under-standing of wildlife naturalhistory and behavior will oftenlead to a more tolerant view ofwildlife. Providing informationregarding wildlife species causingdamage may decrease the needand urgency for corrective action.

However, the magnitude andtolerance of damage is highly vari-able among the public. Threats topublic health and safety orsubstantial damage to public andprivate property often reachunacceptable levels. When thisthreshold is crossed, management

A certified trapping instructor demonstrates how to set a quick-killbeaver trap beneath the ice. This set includes a special frame thatallows the trapper to raise and lower the trap to various depths.

Pho

tos

by

Bill

Byr

ne

33

Optionsfor Wildlife Research

Research on movements, sur-vival rates, habitat use and otherlife-history factors is often neededto develop management programsto ensure a population’s continuedexistence, or to find solutions towildlife damage problems. Thismay require the capture, marking,and immediate release of animalsthat are subsequently monitored forextensive time periods. Options forcapturing wildlife include:

Live-Trapping

Cage Traps: Cage traps are thelargest, heaviest, and most expen-sive capture devices, limiting thenumber that can realistically beused on any given research project.Though generally less useful thanfoothold and kill traps, cage trapshave proven effective for capturingfisher, marten, raccoon and beaver,less effective for capturing bobcat.They are ineffective for capturingcoyotes, foxes, wolves and riverotter, although a specially designedcage trap for beaver equipped withadditional modifications has hadlimited success in capturingotter.(32)

Foothold Traps: Footholdtraps have proven effective forcapturing fisher, marten, bobcat,lynx, mink, raccoon, beaver, riverotter, foxes, coyotes and wolvesunharmed. In the Northeast, over343 coyotes, 844 red and grayfoxes, 76 bobcats, 49 fishers and 79river otters have been live-capturedwith foothold traps and releasedunharmed during research projectsconducted from 1980 to 1994.(33)

Eighteen lynx and over 50 coyoteshave been captured in footholdtraps and released unharmedduring 1999 and 2000 in anongoing research study in Maine.

The small size, light weight andrelatively low cost of foothold trapsmakes them highly desirable forfield research. Recent advances infoothold trap design and use haveenhanced selectivity and minimizedinjuries related to capture. Thisincludes restraining snaresdesigned to capture and holdanimals such as wolves, coyotesand bobcats by the foot or leg.

ChemicalImmobilization

Chemical immobilants havebeen used successfully to safelyhandle wild animals. In manycases the animals are restrainedprior to injection of the chemicals.Restraint methods include trap-ping the animal or treeing it withhounds. Dart guns, powered bycompressed air or powdercharges, provide an effectiveremote delivery system for chemi-cal immobilants, but they aremuch more limited in range andaccuracy than conventionalfirearms, while having similarconstraints (see Shooting, page31). It is generally easier and lesscostly to capture animals withother techniques. Dart guns areefficient for animals that predict-ably gather in specific areas.

Alternative to Capture

Techniques that do not involvecapturing animals, such as trackcounts and aerial surveys, typicallyyield limited information that can-not be used in assessing life-historyparameters, and may not be practi-cal to conduct in areas withoutextensive snow cover. Conversely,direct observation of animals iscostly, difficult, and impractical.

Ultimately, if no effort wasmade to capture wildlife forresearch or fur harvesting, wild-life biologists would have to relyon information derived from the

number of road kills and damagecomplaints to draw inferencesabout furbearer population char-acteristics. This can be analogousto assembling a puzzle with onlya few pieces. Management actionswould have to be extremely con-servative because available infor-mation would lack the sensitivityneeded to detect shifts in popu-lation trends in a timely enoughmanner to allow responsiveactions. An inability to capturewildlife would greatly reduce theability of government wildlifeagencies to meet their public re-source protection mandates thathave been established by law.

Options for WildlifeReintroductions

In some areas the public desiresto reestablish wildlife species.Fisher, marten, river otter andbeaver are some of the species thatwere once extirpated from manyparts of North America and subse-quently reintroduced by capturingindividuals from areas where theyare abundant, and releasing themin suitable but unoccupied habitat.These reintroductions involvedthe use of foothold and cage-typetraps. For instance, since 1976,more than 4,000 river otters havebeen captured in foothold traps,relocated, and released to restorepopulations in 18 states.(34) Ifbiologists did not facilitate expan-sion, species would have toenlarge their current ranges intounoccupied habitat on their own.The length of time necessary for thisdepends on species mobility anddistance. In many cases rangeexpansion is difficult or impossibledue to insurmountable geographi-cal features or human-createdbarriers such as major roadwaysand urbanized landscapes.

34

Pho

to b

y Ji

m R

ath

ert

Mis

sou

ri D

ept.

of

Co

nse

rvat

ion

State No. Released Years

Missouri 845 1982-1992Tennessee 487 1983-1994Kentucky 355 1991-1994Illinois 346 1994-1997Indiana 303 1995-1999North Carolina 267 1990-1995Iowa 261 1985-1999*West Virginia 249 1984-1997Nebraska 159 1986-1991

State No. Released Years

New York 279 1995-2000*Ohio 123 1986-1992Pennsylvania 105 1982-1999*Colorado 86 1976-1991Maryland 80 1990-1999*Arizona 46 1981-1983Minnesota 21 1980-1982Oklahoma 20 1984-1985Kansas 19 1983-1984

Otter Restoration Around the Nation

*Ongoing Releases

Right, live-trapped river otters are released aspart of a restoration program. Foothold trapswith offset jaws, above, were used to capturethe animals unharmed.

Trapping for Research and Reintroduction ProgramsModern foothold traps have been — and continue to be — used successfully to capture a wide variety of

wildlife species in order to study the characteristics of individuals and populations. In fact, research conducted withthe use of foothold traps has provided much of the information leading to our present understanding of biologicaland ecological phenomena. Wildlife biologists typically use these traps to capture animals that are then instru-mented with radio-collars and released unharmed. The released animals are then carefully monitored, revealinginformation on their movements, habitat requirements and reproduction that can be acquired in no other way.The coyote pictured on page 25 is one of many captured with foothold traps, examined and released.

The river otters pictured below were all caught with foothold traps in marshes in Louisiana where they areabundant, and were released unharmed into areas of Missouri to restore otter populations where they no longeroccurred. Similar otter restoration programs have been successful in 18 other states including Alaska, Arizona,Colorado, Kentucky, Iowa and New York. Many states now have thriving river otter populations thanks to captureand reintroduction efforts made possible by the use of foothold traps. These are the same traps used by the publicto harvest furbearers.

Foothold traps and snares are generally the only effective traps for catching elusive species such as wolves,coyotes, foxes and lynx. As a result, they are almost always the trap of choice when any of these famously waryspecies are targeted for capture by either the public or wildlife researchers. Lynx reintroduced in some westernstates were captured with foothold traps in Canada (Yukon). Another example is the ongoing, important rolefoothold traps are playing in the restoration of several endangered wolf populations. Red wolves are captured,examined and relocated to reestablish new populations; Mexican wolves are captured for a captive breedingprogram that will provide healthy animals for a reintroduction program; and stock-killing gray wolves are cap-tured and relocated to reduce damage and maintain public support for their continuing restoration.

35

Animal WelfareThe concept of “Animal Rights”

is distinct from the concept of“Animal Welfare.” Animal Rightsis based on personal values andphilosophy, while the agenda forAnimal Welfare is based onscience. The Animal Rights andAnimal Welfare agendas represententirely different perspectives onhuman/animal coexistence.(35)

Animal Welfare proponentsbelieve that human use of animalsis appropriate as long as practicalmeasures are taken to ensure thathuman use does not cause anyundue pain and suffering toanimals. Wildlife biologists andall responsible trappers and

hunters are staunch supporters ofAnimal Welfare.

Animal Rights proponentsoppose any human use of animals.They believe animals have thesame rights as humans, and there-fore should not be used, eaten orowned by people.(36)

The primary concern ofAnimal Welfare advocates is thewell-being of animals. Theprimary concern of Animal Rightsadvocates is the moral obligationof people. The well-being ofanimals is a secondary concern forAnimal Rights advocates.(37)

Professional wildlife biologistsadvocate Animal Welfare. The

International Association of Fishand Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA),noting that “the worldwide growthof the animal rights movementthreatens all traditional uses ofanimals,” adopted the followingposition in 1989:

“The IAFWA acknowledgesthat humans have an inseparablerelationship with all other partsof the natural world. Further-more, humanity is answerable toanother set of laws and conceptsthat is uniquely a product of hu-man society. Animals cannot besubject to those laws and conceptsand therefore do not have therights of humans. It is agreed,

Adaptable and always ready to take advantage of any food sources, raccoons can reach extraordinarilyhigh population levels in developed areas, a situation that increases public health problems, propertydamage and predation on other wildlife species.

Pho

to b

y B

ill H

eath

erly

Mis

sou

ri D

ept.

of

Co

nse

rvat

ion

36

nonetheless, that animal welfareis a realistic and desirable conceptwhich we support. Humanitydoes have responsibilities toanimals: ensure ecological integ-rity, preserve genetic diversity andsustain species and ecosystems.All animals use other animals fortheir existence. The responsiblehuman use of animals is naturaland appropriate.”

Professional wildlife biologistshave concerns about the implica-tions of the Animal Rightsphilosophy. Human use of, anddependence on, renewable natu-ral resources, including animals,may foster stewardship over thoseresources. Millions of acres ofwildlife habitat have beenacquired, protected and managedfor wildlife by public and privatenatural resource managementagencies. Much of this has beenmade possible through fundsgenerated by licensed hunters,trappers and anglers who collec-tively have a stake in the perpetu-ation of wildlife resources. Underthe Animal Rights agenda, therewould be no wildlife manage-

Coyotes frequentlyprey on livestock and

house petsthroughout North

America. Regulatedtrapping helps to

minimize thisdepredation by

removing individualproblem animals, and

the animals areutilized as valuable

natural resourcesrather than destroyed

as useless pests.

ment, and subsequently, manyspecies of wildlife would declineor become extirpated without theprotection afforded by manage-ment. Other species would explodeinto burgeoning populations, esca-lating human-wildlife conflicts.

As our society becomes moreurban, we become removed fromnatural systems and the processesthat function within them. Ourunderstanding and appreciationof those natural processes dimin-ishes. We no longer have to har-vest our own food, and as a re-sult, we do not see the death in-volved in processing meat. We donot notice the loss of habitat, pes-ticide use or lethal control of ani-mals required to produce cropsand livestock. We do not witnessthe destruction of habitatrequired to extract nonrenewablenatural resources that are the ba-sis for most of the synthetic ma-terials we use.

Rural components of our soci-ety recognize the high turnover inmany wild animal populationsthat have naturally high deathrates. The death of an individual

animal is not shocking when onerealizes that it is a normal, natu-ral, and regularly occurring event,and that species have adaptedreproductive strategies to com-pensate for these natural losses.These reproductive strategiesevolved over millennia under asuite of mortality factors, includ-ing human predation. When ahuman uses a wild animal, thedeath is therefore natural, and aninterest in the preservation of thewild animal population is oftenfostered.

We should all be aware that ourlifestyles — regardless of wherewe live, our economic status, orour degree of “environmentalcorrectness” — are closely andinexorably linked to animals.Animals have always provided thematerial and spiritual sustenancethat maintains us as individualsand societies. Our need and useof them for food, clothing, art,medicine and companionship areeternal, our dependence on themcomplete. We must continue tosupport conservation efforts thatensure sustainable use.

Pho

to b

y G

uy

Co

nn

olly

USD

A/A

PHIS

37

Chelmsford, Massachusetts islocated about 20 miles northwestof the city of Boston and encom-passes approximately 23 squaremiles. The first European settlementin the area was a fur trading post,established due to the abundanceof beaver in the local wetlands.Today there are still approximately870 acres of wetlands within thetown, but it is now a densely settledsuburban community with over31,000 residents (1,357 per squaremile). Local government is con-ducted through open town meet-ings and administered by fiveelected selectmen.

During the late 1980s, a nationalanimal rights group developed a“model” for getting trapping baninitiatives passed by town, countyand state governments. The modelguidelines encouraged animalrights activists to disguise regulatedtrapping as a public safety/animalwelfare issue. Exactly in accordancewith such direction, an article toban trapping was introduced at aChelmsford town meeting in 1988.

State wildlife experts remindedresidents that regulated trappingwas not a public safety issue, andwarned that if regulated trappingwere banned, there would be nu-merous undesirable consequencesin the form of property damage andwildlife habitat degradation.Despite the warnings, the articlewas passed, and the trapping of fur-bearing mammals within the townwas prohibited.

Prior to passage of the trappingban, there were usually one to threecomplaints of beaver damage in the

Calamity by Design:The Prohibition of Regulated Trapping

town each year. Following the ban,the beaver population, unchecked,began to grow rapidly, and theanimals began to move into manypreviously unoccupied wetlands.Beaver dams began to flood housesand roadways. In 1992, state wild-life biologists working at the requestof town officials investigated 25beaver complaint sites. Two of thesecomplaint sites were municipalwells which had been shut down(at a cost of $25,000) because ofbeaver flooding, and four othermunicipal wells were threatened.Individual landowners in town hadincurred tens of thousands ofdollars in damages to private wells,septic systems, lawns and road-ways. The increasing beaverpopulation and increasing propertydamage were directly related to thedecision of the town’s citizens toban regulated trapping and allowuncontrolled beaver populationgrowth to commence.

State wildlife officials offered thetown several recommendations: (1)use water flow devices to reduceflooding in some areas, (2) getpermits to breach beaver dams inother locations, and (3) rescind thetrapping ban bylaw to allowbeaver populations to be broughtunder control. The town tookpositive steps to implement theserecommendations. The state issuedpermits to breach beaver dams thatwere disabling wells and septicsystems. State wildlife personnelinstalled water flow devices(beaver pipes) at two sites andassisted town water departmentpersonnel with a third pipe. At a

special town meeting in September,1992, town citizens voted by a two-to-one margin to allow regulatedpublic trapping to resume. Duringthe regular trapping season laterthat fall and winter, four fur harvest-ers working with homeowners andtown officials removed 87 beaver.Today, with public, regulatedtrapping restored, Chelmsfordagain has only one to three beavercomplaints per year. These arehandled as they had been prior to1988, under an effective andresponsible program incorporatingstate wildlife officials and locallicensed trappers.

In Massachusetts, the state wild-life agency has a well developedmanagement plan for beaver. Thegoals of this plan are to managebeaver resources as assets, notliabilities; perpetuate beaverpopulations for future generations;keep the beaver population atlevels compatible with suitablehabitat; minimize property damagecaused by beaver; manage beaverfor their positive wetland values,and allow people the sustainableuse of public resources.

Chelmsford residents wereconfounded by animal rights activ-ists who had promised in 1988 andagain in 1992 to install water flowdevices and proposed to “sterilize”beaver in the town (a technique thatis not feasible on a free-roamingbeaver population - see Contracep-tion page 30). Over the four yearsof the trapping ban, the activistsnever acted on their promises andwere never held accountable for thestatements they put forth.

38

Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

Subsequent to the town ofChelmsford reinstating regulatedtrapping as a management tool tocontrol the beaver population, acoalition of several animal rightsorganizations gathered the signa-tures required to place a statewideanti-trapping referendum before thevoters on November 5, 1996. Theyspent $1.2 million on an adcampaign featuring graphic imageswhich were a misleading represen-tation of regulated trapping inMassachusetts. The campaignfurther implied that traps incommon use in Massachusetts hadteeth and were a threat to pets andchildren, despite the fact thattoothed traps had not been legal touse for many years, only softcatch(padded jaw) traps were allowed foruse on land, and no case of an adultor child being caught or injured ina legally set trap had ever been re-corded in Massachusetts.

The referendum was passed,with the result that restrictionssimilar to those in the original

Chelmsford anti-trapping bylawwent into effect statewide. The newlaw dramatically changed the typesof traps that the public couldlawfully use to control beaverpopulations statewide.

The net effect of the new lawmaximizes the number of beaversfound in Massachusetts. A maxi-mized beaver population signifi-cantly increases property damage,threatens public health and safetyin regards to drinking watersupplies and road stability, andincreases other beaver relatedproblems incurred by citizens.

In short, the same conditionsthat were evident in Chelmsfordduring its trapping ban have nowbeen expanded throughout thestate. The statewide beaver popu-lation has grown significantly froman estimated 24,000 in 1996 tomore than 52,000 in 1999. Citizencomplaints related to beaver activ-ity continue to increase from anaverage of 310 per year (1991-96)to 615 per year since the law came

into effect. Beaver populations canno longer be maintained at reducedlevels.

The state’s beaver managementprogram has historically beenproactive – maintaining the beaverpopulation at levels compatiblewith suitable wetland habitat andhuman needs. The new law consti-tutes a major change in the waybeavers are managed, however,eliminating proactive, regulatedmanagement, and yielding anuncontrolled expansion of thebeaver population. Like theprevious Chelmsford bylaw, it onlyallows citizens to take reactivemeasures to beaver causing prop-erty damage. Instead of viewingbeaver as valuable wildlife, moreand more people are viewingbeaver as a pest to be eliminated.

Trapping and trapping deviceshave been a legislative issue eversince the referendum passed. Dueto the increase in the beaverpopulation and the related increasein health and safety concerns andproperty damage, several bills havebeen introduced into the statelegislature to repeal or significantlychange the existing statewide law.On July 21, 2000 an amendedversion of the trapping law waspassed. It directs local boards ofhealth to issue permits for the useof body-gripping, cage and boxtraps if beavers are causing prob-lems deemed to be a threat to thepublic. In addition, legislation hasappropriated funds to address someof the property damage caused byincreasing beaver populations. Theappropriation of monies was notneeded in the past when proactivemanagement programs employedregulated trapping to controlbeaver populations and addressproperty damage problems. Theamended law maintains the currentban on trapping for animalpopulation control purposes.

Typical beaver damage

The case study on the previous page was written several years ago. InNovember, 1996, the state of Massachusetts passed a ballot initiative thatseverely restricts trapping. As a result, complaints about property damageand health concerns related to beaver activity have dramatically increased.A biologist from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife hasprovided the following update:

Epilogue - A State Ballot Referendum

39

AFinal WordProfessional wildlife manage-

ment has successfully restored,preserved and ensured the con-tinuing viability of wild furbearerpopulations in North America.The harvest and utilization ofsome individuals within thosepopulations by the public doesnot threaten the continuingsurvival of those populations. Infact, the harvest and use ofsome individuals has contrib-uted most of the funding tostudy and manage those popu-lations, including protectingthe habitats and ecosystemscritical for their survival.

Without regulated trapping,wildlife managers could notadequately or economicallymonitor furbearer populations;they could not undertake therestoration programs that haverestored so many species toareas where they have not pros-pered for centuries; they wouldhave fewer options to offer thepublic significant relief fromagricultural and propertydamage, or to protect humanhealth and safety; and they couldnot ensure the continued publicuse of furbearer resources.

Furbearer management is acomplex scientific subject. TheWildlife Society — an interna-tional nonprofit scientific andeducational organization servingprofessionals in all areas of wild-life ecology, conservation, andmanagement — has published apolicy on traps, trapping, andfurbearer management that bestrepresents the views of wildlifebiologists.

The Wildlife Society Positionon Traps and Trapping

Internationally accepted principles of natural resourcesconservation stipulate that resource management activities mustmaintain essential ecological processes, preserve geneticdiversity, and ensure the existence of species and ecosystems.Regulated trapping in North America is consistent with all threecriteria and is a versatile, safe, effective, and ecologically soundmethod of harvesting and managing species of furbearers.

Trapping provides income, recreation, and an outdoorlifestyle for many citizens through use of a renewable naturalresource. It is a part of the North American heritage. It is oftenvital to the subsistence or self sufficiency of peoples in remoteregions who have few other economic alternatives. Trapping isa primary tool of most animal damage control programs andan important technique in wildlife research. In some situations,trapping is important in management or is effective inreducing or suppressing wildlife diseases.

Despite the values of trapping, portions of the publicoppose it, or at least perceive problems with some aspects of it.Some object only to certain trapping methods, particularly thefoothold trap on land, but others have moral objections tokilling animals. Much of the opposition to trapping is associ-ated with urban-oriented cultures, particularly those dominatedby tertiary (service-oriented) employment. Those who approveof, practice, or benefit from trapping are primarily from ruralcultures or are from areas where primary (land-based) employ-ment predominates. This dichotomy of lifestyles and values,combined with a general lack of objective information abouttrapping, creates barriers to understanding and resolving thecontroversial issues associated with trapping.

Pho

to b

y B

ill B

yrn

e

40

References Cited01. Gerstell, Richard. 1985. The Steel Trap in North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 352 pp.02. Decker, D. J. and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management.

Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:53-57.Deblinger, R. D., D. W. Rimmer, J. J. Vaske, G. M. Vecellio, and M. P. Donnelly. 1993. Ecological benefits

and hunter acceptance of a controlled deer hunt in coastal Massachusetts. Northeast Wildlife 50:11-21.Ellingwood, M. R. and J. V. Spignesi. 1986. Management of an urban deer herd and the concept of

cultural carrying capacity. Trans. Northeast Deer Tech. Comm., Vt. Fish Wildl. Dep. 22:42-45.Organ, J. F. and M. R. Ellingwood. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for black bears, beavers, and

other beasts in the east. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 5:63-75.Strickland, M. D., H. J. Harju, K. R. McCaffery, H. W. Miller, L. M. Smith, and R. J. Stoll. 1994. Harvest Manage-

ment. Pages 445-473 in T. A. Bookhout, ed., Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats.(5th ed.) The Wildlife Society. 740 pps.

03. Organ, J. F., R. F. Gotie, T. A. Decker, and G. R. Batcheller. 1998. A case study in the sustained use of wildlife:the management of beaver in the northeastern United States. Pages 125-139 in H.A. van der Linde andM.H. Danskin, eds., Enhancing sustainability - resources for our future. SUI Technical Series, Vol. I,IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 178pp.

04. Kallman, Harmon., ed., Restoring America’s Wildlife 1937-1987. 1987. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish andWildlife Service. 394 pp.

05. Hamilton, D.A., B. Roberts, G. Linscombe, N.R. Jotham, A. Noseworthy, and J.L. Stone. 1998. The EuropeanUnion’s wild fur regulation: a battle of politics, cultures, animal rights, international trade and North America’swildlife policy. Trans. No. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 63:572-588.

06. Smith, H. R., R. J. Sloan, and G. S. Walton. 1981. Some management implications between harvest rate andpopulation resiliency of the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Pages 425-442 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley,eds., Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.

Brooks, R. P. 1980. A model of habitat selection and population estimation for muskrats (Ondatrazibethicus) in riverine environments in Massachusetts. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst. 113 pp.

07. Linscombe, G. R. 1995. U.S. fur harvest and fur value: statistics by state and region. International Assoc. ofFish & Wildlife Agencies.

08. Boggess, E. K., S. B. Linhart, G. R. Batcheller, D. W. Erickson, G. R. Linscombe, A. W. Todd, J. W. Greer,D. C. Juve, M. Novak, D. A. Wade. 1990. Traps, trapping, and furbearer management. Wildl. Soc. Tech. Rev.90-1. 31 pp.

09. MacInnes, C. D. 1987. Rabies. Pages 910-928 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds.,Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.1150 pp.

Todd, A.W., J.R. Gunson, and W.M. Samuel. 1981. Sarcoptic mange: An important disease of coyotes and wolvesof Alberta, Canada. Pages 706-729 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf.,Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.

10. Voight, P. R. and R. L. Tinline. 1982. Fox rabies and trapping: a study of disease and fur harvest interaction.Pages 139-156 in G. C. Sanderson, ed., Midwest Furbearer Management. Proc. 43rd midwest Fish & WildlifeConf., Wichita, Kans. 195 pp.

11. Rosatte, R. C., M. J. Pybus, and J. R. Gunson. 1986. Population reduction as a factor in the control of skunkrabies in Alberta. J. Wildl. Dis. 22:459-467.

Payne, N. F. 1980. Furbearer management and trapping. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8:345-348.12. Mammal Trapping within the National Wildlife Refuge System 1992-1996. USFWS, Division of Refuges,

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. June 1997 013. Todd, A. W. and E. K. Boggess. 1987. Characteristics, acitivities, lifestyles, and attitudes of trappers in North

America. Pages 59-76 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Manage-ment and Conservation in North America, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.

Wolfe, R. J. 1991. Trapping in Alaska communities with mixed subsistence-cash economies. Tech. Paper No. 217.Juneau, AK: Alaska Dept. Fish & Game.

14. Baker, O. E. South Carolina Dept. Natural Resources. Personal communication.15. Decker, T. A. 1991. Trapping and furbearer management in Massachusetts. Mass. Wildl. 41:18-27.

16. Muth, R. M., J.J. Daigle, R.R.Zwick and R.J. Glass. 1996. Trappers and Trapping in Advanced Industrial Society:Economic and Sociocultural Values of Furbearer Utilization in the Northeastern United States. SociologicalSpectrum 16:421-436.

Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker and J.W. Enck. 1995. Preliminary Insights about the Sociocultural Importance ofHunting and Trapping. HDRU Series No. 95-2. Ithaca, NY: Human Dimensions Research Unit, CornellUniversity. 90 pp.

Organ, J.F., R.M. Muth, J.E. Dizard, S.J. Williamson, and T.A. Decker. 1998. Fair chase and humane treatment:Balancing the ethics of hunting and trapping. Trans. No. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 63:528-543.

Wolfe, R.J. 1991. Trapping in Alaska Communities with Mixed, Subsistence-Cash Economies. Division ofSubsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Technical Paper Number 217.

Todd, A.W., and E.K. Boggess. 1987. Characteristics, activities, lifestyles, and attitudes of trappers in NorthAmerica. Pages 59-76 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild FurbearerManagement and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.

17. Mason, D. A. 1990. Vermont's other economy: the economic and socio-cultural values of hunting, fishing,and trapping for rural households. M.S. Thesis. Burlington VT: Univ. of Vermont. 98 pp.

18. Kellert, S. R. 1981. Trappers and trapping in American society. Pages 1971-2003 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley,eds. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.

19. Batcheller, G. R., T.A. Decker, D.A. Hamilton and J. F. Organ. 2000. A vision for the future of furbearermanagement in the United States. Wild. Soc. Bull. 28 (4):833-840.

20. Bishop, P. G. 1991. Unpublished report. New York State Dept. of Environ. Cons.21. Bishop, P. G. 1990. Traps, trapping and furbearer management in New York State. New York State Dept. of

Environ. Cons. 12pp.22. Slate, D., R. Owens, G. Connolly, G. Simmons. 1992. Decision making for wildlife damage management.

Trans. N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 57:51-62.23. Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1991. Livestock guarding dogs protect sheep from predators. U.S. Dept.

Agric., Agric. Info. Bull. No. 588.24. Green, J. S., ed., 1987. Protecting livestock from coyotes: a synopsis of the research of the Agricultural

Research Service. Natl. Tech. Info. Serv. PB 88 133590/AS. 105 pp.Meadows, L. E. and F. F. Knowlton. 2000. Efficacy of guard llamas to reduce canine predation on domestic sheep.

Wild. Soc. Bull. 28 (3): 614-622.25. D'Eon, R. G., R. LaPointe, N. Bosnick, J. C. Davies, B. MacLean, W. R. Watt and R. G. Wilson. 1995. The

Beaver Handbook: A guide to understanding and coping with beaver activity. OMAR Northeast Science &Technology. FG-006. 76 pp.

Miller, J. E., 1983. Control of beaver damage. Proc. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conf. 1:177-183.26. Langlois, S.A. and T.A. Decker. 2001. The use of water flow devices in addressing flooding problems caused by

beaver in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Div. Fisheries & Wildlife. 16pp.27. Green, J. S., F. R. Henderson, and M. D. Collinge. 1994. Coyotes. Pages C-51 to C-76 in S. E. Hygnstrom,

R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds., Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Univ. Neb. Coop.Ext. Serv.

28. Muller, L.I., R.J. Warren, and D.L. Evans. 1997. Theory and practice of immunocontraception in wild animals.Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(2):504-515.

29. Rosatte, R., D. Donovan, M. Allan, L. Howes, A. Silver, K. Bennett, C. MacInnes, C. Davies, A. Wandeler, and B.Radford. 2001. Emergency response to raccoon rabies introduction in Ontario. J. Wildl. Dis. 37(2):265-279.

30. Jacobs, W. W. 1994. Pesticides federally registered for control of terrestrial vertebrate pests. Pages G-1 toG-22 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds., Prevention and control of wildlife damage.Univ. Neb. Coop. Ext. Serv.

31. Siemer, W. F. and D. J. Decker. 1991. Human tolerance of wildlife damage: synthesis of research andmanagement implications. Human Dimensions Res. Unit Publ. 91-7, Dep. Nat. Resources, N.Y.S. Coll. Agric.and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 24pp.

32. Melquist, W. E., and M. G. Hornocker. 1983. Ecology of river otters in west central Idaho. Wild. Monogr. 83.60pp.

33. Decker, T. A. Vermont Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Personal communication.34. Hamilton, D. 1999. Controversy in times of plenty. Missouri Cons. 8pp.35. Herscovici, A. 1985. Second nature: the animal-rights controversy. CBC Enterprises, Toronto. 254 pp.

Francione, Gary L. 1996. Rain without thunder:the ideology of the animal rights movement. Temple Univ. Press,Philadelphia. 269pp.

36. Kellert, S. R. 1984. Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment. Urban Ecology. 8:209-228.

37. Thompson, T. R. and G. D. Lapointe. 1995. Learning from animal activists: a workshop approach. Wildl.Soc. Bull. 23:588-593.

41