 REPORT OF OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF BALLOT QUESTION I
This is a copy of the Committee of Natural Resources Report which took
place March 2, 1998. We have placed it on our website so that the public could read it and
our criticism of it. We have copied it in its entirety as we have received it. It came as
you see except that the footnotes were at the bottom of the page instead of in the text.
There are certain limitations in HTML. We don't assume responsibility for typos or for
changes in layout.
Page numbers have been inserted so that the reader
could more easily find the section that I criticized. To see my criticisms click Critique
of the Natural Resources & Agriculture Committee Report on Question 1.php
REPORT OF OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF BALLOT QUESTION I
The Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture held an oversight hearing on March
2, 1998 on the implementation of Question 1. The November, 1996 citizen referendum passed
by a 64% - 36% margin. The law was codified in Section 80A of M.G.L. c. 131.
The following report addresses the implementation of Question 1 by the Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife's ('MDFW').
Increase In Beaver Complaints
The MDFW maintains that the beaver management problem began with
Question 1. To the contrary, MDFW records indicate that the number of beaver plaints have
continuously increased at least since 1989, and, in fact, more doubled between 1989 and
1995 from 157 to 356. The maximal cultural carrying capacity, according to Rob Deblinger,
the MDFW Chief Wildlife Biologist, is about 18,000 beavers which populate about 30% of the
state's wetlands. Female beavers have an average of 4 kits each spring'(,See, "Beavers in Massachusetts, Natural History, Benefits, and Ways to Resolve Conflicts Between People and Beavers," Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
publication.) and the young beavers leave their colony after
2 years to seek now territory and build new dams. There were 18,500 beavers in 1995 and
24,000 beavers in 1996 prior to the passage of Question 1. It seems that the MDFW did not
predict the number of new beavers that would settle into new territory in 1997 and 1998,
respectively, when the young adults sought new habitat. More to the point, when there
was no restriction on padded, leg-hold traps, the MDFW did not control the population
growth.
According to MDFW documents, harvested 1,086 beavers in
1993, 1,017 beavers in 1994, 2,083 in 1,133 in 1996. The numbers of beavers and beaver
complaints continued to rise throughout this period. There were 24,000 in 1996 prior to the passage of Question 1 -
6,000 above the ideal "cultural carrying capacity."
Mr. Deblinger predicts in various publications that the beaver will grow exponentially
to 60,000 in a few short years. (Mr. Deblinger is also quoted as saying,
"(t)he law is too restrictive the beaver population
is going to grow exponentially if nothing is done." (Middlesex
News, 3/12/98). Given the hunting and trapping harvests over the
past decade, this number might have been reached despite Question 1. However, according to
a report submitted by New York
Page 2
wildlife biologist Sharon Brown, and others, it is unlikely that the
beaver population will increase to this extent. Relying
on nationwide studies, Ms. Brown determined that beavers have a self-regulating
reproductive mechanism, (i.e. younger females do not reproduce where populations exceed
food supply.) Since beavers are highly territorial, she concluded, they can stabilize at
no more than 45% occupancy and probably less in Massachusetts, the third most
densely .populated state. The 62,000 acre Allegheny Parkin New York, is
a helpful illustration. There has been no beaver trapping in this park for twenty-four
years, since 1974. Over two decades the growth of the park's beaver population followed a
sigmoidal, or S-shaped pattern. Researchers reported that beaver occupancy varied from 40%
to 60% - in a park without any humans.
According to the MDFW, beaver predators, including, coyote, fox,
eagle, hawk, bobcat, and owl, are increasing in Massachusetts. This along with disease,
road accidents, and trapping, (whatever the extent), all exert pressures on the beaver
population.
Non-Lethal Management Techniques
Even after a major harvest of beaver, populations quickly rebound.
All that is required for beavers to flourish is suitable wetland habitat and available
food sources. Therefore, a more long-term and effective solution in many cases, is to
manipulate the habitat of the beaver in order to control water levels and prevent
flooding.
According to biologists from ME, MN, CO, CT, AZ, and Canada, water
control devices, such as "beaver-deceivers", wire mesh, flow pipes, baffles, and
"Beaver Stops," successfully divert water at more than 70% of all sites. For
example, one seasonal worker with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
installed PVC pipes and fencing at over 100 sites in Connecticut - 70% of these devices
are still viable and all problems have been resolved. Connecticut uses volunteers to
implement their "small pipe and fencing program." In the 80,000 acre Gatineau
Park near Ottawa, Canada, 75% of the beaver problems have been solved by constructing
water control devices for the past 18 years. Beaver population stabilized in this Park
even after trapping was abandoned as significant method of stopping beaver flooded roads.
On the 130,000 acre Penobscot Indian Nation in Maine, biologists have installed 26 highly
successful beaver deceivers. In New York, in 1996, the Legislature appropriated several
million dollars in the "Clean Water/Air Bond Act," to manage beaver problems by
using water flow devices. In Minnesota, prisoners make beaver pipes that are sold to the
public at cost. And in Maine, federal funding is used to train trappers and highway crews
to install water flow devices. All of these non-lethal devices are relatively inexpensive
and most require little maintenance.
However, the MDFW has not attempted to implement such non-lethal
means to address the majority of beaver-created problems, such as private property
flooding. Between 1991 and 1996, according to MDFW records, the agency received
approximately 3,000 complaints related to Beavers. In these
page 3
six years, the MDFW installed 50 water flow pipes - addressing only 1.6%
of the complaints- Mr. Deblinger stated that the MDFW`s galvanized one-size-fits-all pipes
work at only 4.5% of all sites (Daily Evening Item,
1/10/98), less than then 10% of all sites (Lowell
Sun, 2/15/98), 15% of all sites (Salem Evening News, 5/29197), 20% of all
sites (6/22/97, Boston Globe). The range of disparity in these reports regarding the efficacy of water flow
devices is perplexing. But even when we rely on MDFW`s lowest estimate of efficacy at only
4.'5% of all sites in the Commonwealth, their own records indicate that they are only using them at 1.6% of the sites. These findings contradict
statistics of biologists in numerous states and Canada, as discussed above.
Mr. Deblinger acknowledged during an MDFW presentation on March 4,
1998, that he has not heard of Beaver Control, Inc.
a company located in our backyard in Pepperill, Massachusetts.
This company installed over 1,200 "Beaver Stops" in culverts and dams for
clients, including, Ducks Unlimited, the Province of Manitoba, Mobil Oil, Canadian
National Railway, Petro Canada, Yellowhead Bridge and Maintenance, Canadian Pacific
Railway, FSI culvert, Inc., and Alberta Fish and Wildlife. The Beaver Stop prevents the
animals from damming the entrance to culverts and requires minimal maintenance. (For more
information, call Beaver Control Inc., at 508-433-3100)
An illustration of the MDFW`s ineffectiveness at controlling floods
was provided by the Director of the Department of Public Works in Lunenburg, who testified
in person at the oversight hearing. He called the Division for assistance when the town of
Lunenburg's main highway was flooded by a beaver dam costing the town more than $4,000 in
labor. Erik Amati, Manager of the Northeast District, told the municipality that there was
no remedy available. The town called the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals whose expert installed a water flow device for a one-time fee of $225.00. The floods
dissipated within hours - the highway has not flooded since, even
during this unseasonably wet winter.
To their credit, the MDFW has recognized the value that wetlands
provide and has made efforts over the years to protect beaver-created wetlands. Wetlands
abate erosion, provide fisheries, decrease flash flood damage, sponge up
floodwaters, decrease water pollution, house endangered species and migrating birds, and
naturally cleanse drinking water supplies.
Federal "Pittman-Robertson Fund"
In 1997, Massachusetts received
$1,549,966 in Pittman-Robertson federal funds under the federal Wildlife Restoration Act-
The money is based on the number of licenses given in Massachusetts and may be used for
different programs including non-game programs, e.g. beaver and coyote related problems
and endangered species. Money also goes to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst-
Records indicate, that in 1992, for example, the MDFW received $2 million in
Pittman-Robertson funds. With a problem of
page 4
exploding beaver complaints a majority of this money could have gone to
beaver management problems. It did not.
In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides money
through the "Partnership Program." Massachusetts received, $2,500.00 in 1995,
$5,000.00 in 1996, and $5,000.00 in 1997. This fund is to purchase supplies to manage
wetlands, such as water flow devices. The State of Maine receives $1 0,000.00 annually
based on their projected need. There is also money available from the federal Wetlands
Reserve Program that pays landowners who save wetlands. Federal agencies provides free
materials for municipalities and homeowners who are eligible for funds, although we are
unaware of any municipality that has been informed of its availability by MDFW.(For more
information contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New England Office, 22 Bridge
Street, Concord, NH 03301-4946, at (603) 225-1411.)
Budget Appropriations
MDFW has requested a very modest increase in appropriations from the
Massachusetts Legislature as evidenced in the 1999 Governor's Budget Recommendations. In the 1999 budget, the Governor requested
$568,570 for the administration of the MDFWs responsibilities, a $6,086 increase from last
year's request. In the account called "Non-Game Management and Research" the
Governor only requests $435,291 - $11,286 more than last year. These increases cover
little more than inflation- It appears, that despite a recognized beaver management issue,
the MDFW has been ineffectual in convincing their own Governor of
the urgency of this problem.
Restricted Traps
Under the law, certain traps are restricted, not banned.(The steel jaw leghqld
tr was banned in Massachusetts 23 years ago and is illegal in 80 countries). At the March 2,1998 oversight hearing, the MDFW handed out
a chart entitled, "Allowable Trap Types for the Harvest of Furbearers," which
states that body gripping traps are banned. To the contrary, the body-gripping conibear
trap may be used after an unsuccessful attempt to use the box traps, such as the Hancock,
Bailey, or Tomahawk box traps, for 15 consecutive days. Once a trapper catches an animal in a box trap, they can shoot it with
a firearm, or take it to the local shelter and gas it. (The Division also condones
drowning in their handbook on how to deal with problem animals, even though the American
Veterinary Medical Association has called drowning inhumane in general, and for mammals,
such as beavers, that can survive underwater for twenty minutes before drowning, this type
of death is very painful.)
Under the law, certain traps are restricted, not banned.(The steel jaw leghqld
tr was banned in Massachusetts 23 years ago and is illegal in 80 countries). At the March 2,1998 oversight hearing, the MDFW handed out
a chart entitled, "Allowable Trap Types for the Harvest of Furbearers," which
states that body gripping traps are banned. To the contrary, the body-gripping conibear
trap may be used after an unsuccessful attempt to use the box traps, such as the Hancock,
Bailey, or Tomahawk box traps, for 15 consecutive days. Once a trapper catches an animal in a box trap, they can shoot it with
a firearm, or take it to the local shelter and gas it. (The Division also condones
drowning in their handbook on how to deal with problem animals, even though the American
Veterinary Medical Association has called drowning inhumane in general, and for mammals,
such as beavers, that can survive underwater for twenty minutes before drowning, this type
of death is very painful.)
Padded leg-hold traps continue to be allowed if the federal or state
departments of health and the MDFW agree that there is a threat to public health
Page 5
or safety. According to DPH testimony, the MDFW has called the
DPH only six times since 1996.
Box Traps
Box traps are utilized throughout the country to live trap and kill
or relocate animals (In Colorado, for example, a trapper who owns 12
Hancock traps, has caught 350beaver using her traps).. According to testimony given
by Mr, Wayne MacCallum, MDFW Director on March 2, 1998, box and suitcase traps were
used by the Division during their extensive relocation program until 1988. He testified
that this trapping program was very successful. One reason the program ended is because
the MDFW had distributed beaver to all regions of the Commonwealth and further relocation
efforts were halted.
The traps that remain unrestricted after Question 1 include any box
orsuitcase trap, such as the Hancock, Bailey, and Tomahawk traps. The MDFW did not conduct
its first education course for the unrestricted traps until almost one year after passage
of Question 1, on October 30, 1997. According to testimony given by Mr. Deblinger at the
oversight hearing, although 70 trappers have been trained by the MDFW to use box traps,
only 6 of the 400 licensed trappers are using such traps; all 6 are home-made.
The MDFW testified that the traps are cost prohibitive. The large
Hancock and Bailey traps can cost up to $250.00 each. According to the Division, they do
not loan their own box traps, and have not implemented a loan, subsidy, or grant program to purchase traps, and did not request new
appropriations in this year's budget to purchase traps or hire and train more personnel or
new volunteers.
The MDFW also testified that trappers are concerned that box traps
are a liability. The Editor of the MDFW's publication, "Massachusetts Wildlife", in the No. 1, 1997 issue,
stated that the conibear trap is "inherently humane and far less hazardous to people
and pets than the Hancock trap." However, two of the MDFWs biologists stated at a
March 4, 1998 presentation, that not one person nor pet had ever been injured by a box trap in
Massachusetts or the entire 7 United States (.See, four articles where 3 dog's necks or heads were
caught in conibear traps and owners testified that dogs took 10 or 15 minutes to die). We have not found one lawyer who could indicate that there is any inherent
liability problem with box traps. The larger box traps may indeed be more cumbersome to
use in certain remote locations than conibear or padded leg-hold traps. But there is
nothing in the law preventing the MDFW from handling all beaver problems with conibear
traps after a brief trial at using box traps. And questions of determining public health
and safety threats are largely at the discretion of the MDFW and DPH. In those cases,
padded leg-hold and conibear traps can be used immediately.
Page 6
Board of Fisheries and Wildlife
Question 1 repealed the requirement that 5 of 7
members of the Fisheries and Wildlife Board ("Board") have fishing, hunting, and
trapping licenses. The spirit of the law clearly called for a broader constituency of the
Board to represent the 97% of the population that do not hold hunting and trapping
licenses. On September 6, 1997, Commissioner John
Phillips endorsed Governor Cellucci's re-appointment of Chairman
George Darey, not only a licensed hunter, but someone quoted as calling for repeal of
question, only three months after its passage (Berkshire
Eagle, 2/28/97). Later, in a letter dated February 18, 1988, the
Commissioner professed to a Lexington constituent after she queried his choice of
endorsing Chairman Darey, that ". . . it is only fair for these groups [hunters and
trappers] to have general oversight of the agency's operations, and therefore [we] will
continue to appoint sportsmen and women to the Board . . . " Whatever the MDFW`s
feelings about what is or what is not fair, they cannot with credibility, profess that
they are "fully committed" to implementing the law in letter and spirit, by the
actions and words of the Commissioner and the Board Chairman alone.
The Division. Trappers Association, and
Question 1
Rob Deblinger, Chief Wildlife Biologist of the MDFW
has been published as calling for an outright repeal of the law. In a letter to the editor
in the February 15, 1998, Lowell Sun, Mr. Deblinger acknowledged that the MDFW
" against Question One, the ballot referendum against trapping, at the time and
believes that the only real long lasting solution is to repeal the new law." He also
stated that "Question 1 resulted in the prohibition of all effective techniques for
controlling beavers." (See, 3/3/98 Middlesex News, and 3/3/98 Boston Globe.)
In the Massachusetts Trappers Association President's Report, dated
November, 1996, the President states, "Our attention was focused on the Ballot
Question and what we needed to do to defeat it ... If we lose just think of all the beaver
there will be next year when none are taken this year. Yes, I know the season
starts Nov. 15, you figure it out. I can't tell you not to trap beaver." The
Committee has received reports that trappers are informally, at least, stonewalling this
law by refusing to trap. For example, a constituent from the town of Shirley suffering
from private property damage and septic tank overflow, had a difficult time locating an
experienced trapper to find a solution to his problem. When he did speak with a trapper,
the trapper informed him that "our methods {are) completely ineffective," and
left the homeowner without a remedy. Fortunately, despite the President's veiled urgings
not to trap, the harvest for 1996 and 1997 was only
350 beavers less than the 1993 and 1994 harvest.
Page 7
Dam Breaching
Those suffering from private property damage have
alleged that the MDFW has asserted that permits to breach dams can not be issued until the
spring, or until April 15th because of Question 1. However, as the following letter from
Rob Deblinger attests, the Division policy for issuing breaching permits during the winter
has nothing to do with this law:
"DFW as a practice, does not issue permits to breach beaver
dams during winter. This is done for animal welfare reasons. Remember that beaver dams
protect wetlands. When water is drained from wetlands during winter, obligate wetland
wildlife is often adversely impacted. This not only includes beavers but applies to
reptiles and amphibians many of which are state listed as threatened or endangered.
Many people want to drain wetlands for all sorts of reasons. We only
issue breach permits when beaver damming activities have expanded wetlands and caused
public health or safety problems or property damage. There are different types of breach
permits. We issue breach permits to: 1. install beaver pipes, 2. remove a small section of the dam 3. remove the entire dam.
A site visit by a DFW biologist is required
prior to the issuance of a permit. The biologist and the District Manager consult to
determine whether a permit should be issued, and if so what conditions apply. If it is at
a time of year when daily low temperatures drop below 32 degrees (F), they generally do
not issue permits for fear of causing death to wildlife by freezing. Most situations can
be put off until spring.
There are obvious exceptions: 1. a public health or
safety emergency or 2. a breach (usually of a step dam) that effects only a small subset
of the wetland where it has recently expanded.
This is usually not an issue as beaver are not active during winter.
We have had an abnormally warm February and March (so far) and beaver are active, so we
have had a lot of breach permit requests recently. We remind people that winter can return
quicklyl The worst case scenario is where we issue a breach permit this time of year
because it is unseasonable warm only to have a below freezing weather event occur. Our
valuable wetland then becomes a biological desert as wetland wildlife has frozen in the
interim."
Conclusion
Most of the evidence collected by Committee staff
shows that the Division's claims that wildlife management problems have been caused by
Question I are inaccurate. It is disturbing that there has been such active opposition on
the part of the MDFW, Board, and Trappers Association to truly implement the letter and
spirit of the law. Whatever one's feelings about the initiative petition, it is the proper
expectation of the voters of Massachusetts that the law be implemented to its fullest
extent.
Wildlife
Damage Control
5141 "O" St. Suite A #202
Lincoln, NE 68510
e-mail
*all correspondence becomes property of WDC
Store|Animal
Info|Diseases|Politics|WildlifeLaws|Press
Kit |Baits|Christianity
and Animal Rights|Customer
Response|Business
Helps for Wildlife Damage Control Specialists
.
Disclaimer: WDC seeks to provide accurate, effective and responsible information
on resolving human/wildlife conflicts. We welcome suggestions, criticisms to
help us achieve this goal. The information provided is for informational purposes
only and users of the information use it at their own risk. The reader must
consult state/federal officials to determine the legality of any technique in
the reader's locale. Some techniques are dangerous to the user and to others.
WDC encourages readers to obtain appropriate training (see our informational
literature at our Store ), and understand that proper animal damage
control involves patience, understanding that not every technique/method works
for every situation or even 100% of the time. Your use of this information is
governed by this understanding.
We welcome potential users of the information
and photos to simply ask for permission via e-mail. Finally, WDC welcomes
e-mail but understand that all e-mails become property of Wildlife Damage Control.
|
