To whom it may concern,
I am writing to you as a CT sportsman who has an earnest desire to see that well meaning intentions do not pass flawed legislation that will ultimately harm both those it is designed to protect and the communities in which they live.
First, please allow me to provide some facts of which you may not be aware.
The economic impact of sportsmen in the US remains a mystery to many. It might interest you to know that if hunting, fishing and trapping were a corporation it would place 10th on the Fortune 500 list, outranking industry giants such as Phillip Morris and AT&T.
Sportsmen support more jobs than twice the number of workers employed by WalMart, the largest Fortune 500 employer.
Why trap?
1. Regulated harvest helps to maintain wild populations (decreases the potential for negative interactions between humans and wildlife.)
2. Regulated harvest provides a local, healthy, organic source of food (or clothing) with minimal impacts to other resources. Contrast this to the production of beef, poultry, grains, vegetables, etc. which require the use of pesticides, fertilizers, hormones and antibiotics.
3. Regulated harvest maintains the ecological balance between wildlife populations and habitat. When wildlife is in balance with habitat, wildlife thrive.
4. Regulated harvest helps to protect declining, rare, threatened or endangered species by targeting specific predators that are negatively affecting recovery rates.
5. Regulated trapping has in fact aided in wildlife restoration efforts, some with striking success.
1. Studies have shown conclusively that when a wildlife population exceeds the carrying capacity of the habitat available disease rates soar. In red foxes for example, mange (a disease which produces a slow and painful death) is prevalent with it being rare to find foxes over 2 years of age in overpopulated areas. Conversely when red foxes exist in balance with habitat it is quite common to see foxes up to 9 years of age.
2. In 1980 the red wolf was declared officially extinct in the wild. Through captive breeding efforts red wolves have been successfully reintroduced in North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida and Tennessee.
3. Management of beaver populations through the use of trapping have provided valuable habitats for migrating and wintering waterfowl.
4. River otters captured by leg-hold traps have been used to successfully reintroduce the animal into 18 midwestern states where unregulated harvest had virtually eliminated populations.
5. A researcher in New Zealand has published documentation showing that reducing possum numbers can generate spectacular results for native forests. The researcher, Graham Nugent had shown in his study that prior to culling some of the resident possum, half of the 50 trees he surveyed had been almost totally defoliated. After a satisfactory reduction in the possum population his survey 2 years later revealed only 1 tree of those affected had died with the remaining achieving foliage cover in the normal range.
1. In Chelmsford, MA during the late 1980's a national animal rights group led a successful movement to ban regulated trapping. Prior to passage of the ban there were usually 1-3 complaints of beaver damage a year. Following the ban there were 25 beaver complaint sites in 1992 alone. Two of the these complaint sites were municipal wells which had been shut down (at a cost of $25,000) because of beaver flooding, and four other municipal wells were threatened. Individual landowners in town had incurred tens of thousands of dollars in damage to private wells, septic systems, lawns and roadways. At a special town meeting in September of 1992, town residents voted by a 2-1 margin to allow regulated public trapping. Since the reinstatement beaver complaints have again fallen to 1-3 per year.
2. In Louisiana, an exotic rodent, the nutria (accidentally introduced in1937) had a population explosion after trapping ceased in 1982. Left unchecked the nutria caused extensive damage to crops and wetlands habitat. By 1998 scientists surveying Louisiana wetlands determined that the damaged wetlands exceeded 100,000 acres. While in the case of the nutria the decline in harvest was due to the drop in pelt price and not a trapping ban it highlights the fact that regulated trapping had kept nutria population levels in check and wetlands and crop damage wasn't a problem.
Recently a 29-state survey studied the non-target capture rate of leg-hold traps and discovered it to be only 5%.
No. In fact, leg-hold traps have been used extensively in relocation efforts with great success in reintroducing red wolf, river otter and other species. New designs such as the "soft catch" offer great improvements over older designs. The jaws are heavily padded to eliminate injury. More improvements are currently being studied as well.
Thank you for taking the time to review some of the facts I have provided. I encourage you to thorougly research as much as your schedules permit. Though I presented only 2 examples of negative consequences of ill-thought regulatory changes I assure you it is only a minute fraction of the whole. Likewise the positive highlights represent an equally small fraction.
Strip away the emotional arguments of animal rights extremists and the undeniable fact is that regulated trapping benefits all parties; man and animal.
It's not often we get win-win scenarios. Keep a good thing going.
Thanks again,
Michael Lamagdeleine, MS, MT(ASCP) Board of Directors, United Bowhunters of CT
| Trap Information | Wildlife Damage Control Home Page | Student Trapping Resources |
| Impact of Animal Damage | Trap Legislation and Legal Issues |
Stephen Vantassel is a Certified Wildlife Control Professional. He is a nationally known writer including having been an assistant editor for Wildlife Control Technology magazine, author of numerous ADC articles as well as The Wildlife Removal Handbook rev.ed and the Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook rev. ed. Mr. Vantassel is also a vocal critic of the growing animal rights movement. He has exposed the fallacies and deceptions of the animal rights protest industry through debate, lecture and publication.
3/21/02
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.
Thank you for visiting our site and we hope you enjoy using our service.
Government orders are always welcome!
DUNS: 009122016
CAGE/NCAGE: 4AJF1
