The Impact of the Wildlife Protection Act in Massachusetts


    In 1996, Massachusetts voters were given the opportunity to vote for a law called the Wildlife Protection Act. This referendum was pushed by a coalition of animal rights groups which called their lobbying efforts, Pro-Paw (Protection of Pets and Wildlife). This law essentially banned the foothold, padded jaw foothold, conibears, harpoon mole traps, scissor mole traps, and other devices not even invented yet from use in the capture of wildlife. 

Below I have provided an annotated bibliography of newspaper accounts on the impact of this legislation.  I am always interested in learning about more articles that may be available. 


For more information on Question 1 

Massachusetts Bans Mole Traps

Critique of the Pro Paw Ballot Initiative

Critique of the Natural Resources Committee Report on Question 1

 

McMillan, Jean, "Beavers pit trappers against animal rights activists" Boston, A.P. March 31, 1999.

Due to copyright laws, I can't reproduce the article here but let me give you a few points on where this article failed to provide the complete story. 

  1. Article failed to point out that Question 1 is actually an additional tax on property owners. Farmers, cities and towns used to be able to rely on sport trappers (ie. free labor) to remove beaver during the fur season. Now those same individuals and institutions must rely on businesses, at substantial cost, to remove beaver that are just thrown away. Your article failed to point out how this money could have been better used to pay for the hungry and indigent rather than on professional trappers.
  2. Article failed to point out that mole traps were also eliminated by Question 1. Rep. Gauch’s bill would allow not only conibears to become legal but mole traps as well. The failure of the media to inform the public of the mole trap ban is just another indication of how the media refuses to provide all the information surrounding the impact of Question 1.
  3. Article failed to point out that Ms. Dempsey’s comment as quoted is not entirely accurate and shows how animal rights activists continue to spin the facts. I quote "Beaver problems have existed for as long as there have been beavers here in Massachusetts, long before Question 1," Dempsey said. She agreed that some recreational fur trappers have stopped trapping because they don't have the traps they prefer.

    Ms. Dempsey’s statement here makes a play on the term beaver problem. On the one hand, she is correct, beaver have caused someone, somewhere in the state a problem even prior to Question 1. However, she is wrong by implying that Question 1 has not substantially increased the number and severity of those conflicts with beaver. She fails to tell you that many property owners would tolerate beaver problems, prior to Question 1, because they knew that trappers would help them when the fur trapping season started. This way the problem was resolved and the beaver were harvested and not wasted as they are now. The second problem with Ms. Dempsey’s statement is that it again fails to accurately portray the number of trappers who have stopped trapping beaver. One need only look at the trapped beaver numbers to know how few, as opposed to some, are trapping at all. The division of Fisheries and Wildlife have provided information on beaver harvests, in the 1996/97 season 623 beavers were harvested in 1997/98 only 98 beavers were harvested. Ms. Dempsey also conveniently neglected to tell you how due to the MSPCA’s prosecution of trappers, trappers who were using cage traps are no longer performing this free service.

  4. The article failed to tell the public that Bailey and Hancock traps do pose a threat to children. The very argument, inappropriately applied to footholds and conibears by these animal rights activists, definitely applies to the Bailey and Hancock traps. Yet, the reporter didn’t point that out. The reporter also failed to ask why snares, which capture beaver alive, were not offered as a compromise? Funny why the animal rights activists didn’t tell you about the use of snares as a live trap.

     

Letourneau, Nicole. "Allies, foes chew over beaver woes" Union-News (Springfield MA) April     1, 1999, p. B6.

This is my response to the article written by Ms. Letourneau

Dear Editor, 4/3/99

While I am always pleased when the media finally looks at the issue of animal damage control, I continue to be frustrated by the continued failure of reporters to get the facts straight. Nicole Letourneau's article "Allies, foes chew over beaver woes" in the April 1, 1999 issue of the Union News p.B6 failed in a number of areas. First, her comment that "the 1996 referendum banning the traps shows the voters overwhelmingly agree" is actually misleading. She failed to tell the readers that the vast majority of voters thought the ban only applied to fur trappers and not to animal damage controllers like myself. She also failed to mention that Question 1 banned mole traps, a fact your newspaper continues to neglect to tell the public. Also Ms. Letourneau failed to make the appropriate distinction between conibear traps and footholds. Like the voters she failed to make the appropriate distinction.

Second, Ms. Letourneau used vague language regarding the lingering death of trapped animals. First, what constitutes a lingering death? I find her comments lacked objectivity because she should have known that before question 1 passed Massachusetts trapping regulations were amongst the strictest in the nation. Let me highlight of few of the laws. First, all traps had to be checked on a daily basis, seven days a week no matter what the weather. Second, footholds and conibears had to be set underwater in a manner that would result in quick drowning. The Canadian Terminal Dive Study suggested that foothold drown sets can actually be a humane/responsible death. As for lingering, the beavers were usually dead in 20 minutes, only struggling for the last five. Where is the lingering death?

Third, Gauch's bill does not reallow footholds, (unfortunately) but it will allow conibears and mole traps. It appears to me that your reporter is either a sympathizer with the animal rights agenda (in which case facts don't matter) or failed to do her research. By allowing herself to be confused on the issue of footholds when Gauch's bill only allows conibears ie. kill traps as opposed to footholds which are restraining devices. Third, I don't know where she got her facts that most trappers used footholds as opposed to conibears. I would be interested in learning of how and where she obtained that data.

Finally, because of her lack of trapping knowledge and the ignorance of those she interviewed, she was unable to ask the next question namely, why don't the animal rights activists support snares, which capture beaver alive and unharmed?

I haven't even mentioned that she should have visited my web page questions reporters should ask anti's but never will. You can visit it at http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.net/politics.php  As always, my company stands ready to refute the claims of animal rights activists, whenever your reporters want to learn about the larger picture.

Steve Pfarrer. "Turf Wars" Ban Cruel traps was the successful Question 1 battle cry three years ago. Now, with beavers, bears and other wild animals taking over back yards, the question has become: How do we deal with them?" Hampshire Life Sept 3-9, 1999. Cover page. 

This was a well written and extensively researched piece. Full and detailed interviews with individuals from both sides of the issue. Major players such as Peter Teraspulski, Dr. Rob Deblinger were interviewed. If you want to learn about the issues, this is one article to read. 

Pfarrer, Steve. "Is Peaceful Coexistence Possible?" Hampshire Life Sept 3-9, 1999. pp. 12-13.

This is sort of a puff piece. It just mentions the problems of increasing bear, moose, coyote and beaver populations. While correctly mentioning that coyote trapping doesn't always impact overall populations, it failed to mention that trapping helps maintain coyote fear of humankind. 

Question 1 also helped create a new breed of lawbreakers.

"Manager: Bellerica DPW staff broke dam: Worker's unauthorized actions drained pond by Vietnam Veteran's Park." John  Wolfeson. The Sun. July 13, 1999 Lowell MA 

 

Question 1 Increased the Costs to Cities and Towns

Read Massachusett's State Auditor Letter on the cost of the Trap Ban in two Acrobat Files Page 1 & Page 2

I recently read how Sen. Glodis said Last year, cities and towns paid $50 million statewide for all the rodent-related damage. This problem will only get worse. There were 700 complaints for beaver problems in 1998 alone. No one wants to bring back cruel traps. Now Sen. Glodis is a state senator from the state of Massachusetts where PROPAW convinced voters to ban safe, effective and humane traps such as conibears and footholds. So this means that in four years 50 million dollars was spent by cities and towns to control beaver where prior they wouldn't have had to spend a thing. Now let me offer a few questions. First, is this true? Second, if it is true then. What conclusions should be developed from this fact. I also saw a press release where Missouri said, "Fortunately in Missouri we haven't had the level of wildlife nuisance problems other states are having because we use scientific-based, lethal methods for managing wildlife," says Dave Hamilton, a wildlife research biologist with the Missouri Department of Conservation. "In many of the states experiencing problems, trapping or hunting bans were passed based on emotional appeals from animal-rights groups. These groups don't care about the problems they can cause, and they don't have to take responsibility for consequences of their actions. We do."

 

Trap Information Wildlife Damage Control Home Page Student Trapping Resources Impact of Animal Damage Trap Legislation and Legal Issues  

 

3/29/03

 

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.