In November of 1996, Massachusetts citizens foolishly voted to pass a bill that effectively hamstrung proper wildlife management in the state.
#Letter to the Natural Resources Committee 4-24-99
#Stephen Vantassel's response to a Boston Herald Article
In 1996 the citizens of Massachusetts had a referendum vote to change the way wildlife were managed in the state. Essentially, the bill, called "The Wildlife Protection Act", changed three areas.
The bill passed by a two to one margin. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people who voted for it didn't understand what they voted for.
The following is a press release on beavers from the Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife.
MassWildlife News Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Wayne F. MacCallum, Director
For Immediate Release
Contact: Bill Davis - Phone: (508) 792-7270 ext. 153, Fax: (508) 792-7275
E-mail: bill.davis@state.ma.us Visit our Website! www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dfw
(04/09/99, #5)
April showers have brought with them not only the promise of May flowers, but increased reports of beaver activity and associated flooding as North America's largest rodents add to existing dams and colonize new water courses. Beavers are valued economically as a renewable resource, aesthetically for wildlife viewing and photography and ecologically for their unsurpassed ability to create wetlands. MassWildlife biologists manage this public resource accordingly, recognizing the beaver's multi-faceted assets and working to maintain the entire wetland wildlife community that beavers support. As with all wildlife in the state, MassWildlife functions as the regulatory agency with a mandate to maintain healthy, viable beaver populations and oversee biologically sound uses of the resource. The management of beaver in Massachusetts is driven by facts supported by research and is an on-going process with the goal of balancing the number of beaver, which has climbed from 24,000 in 1996 to more than 52,000 today, with the amount of available habitat.
MassWildlife's dual role is also that of a public agency, working to balance wildlife populations with the needs of the public. "The wildlife side of the equation is easy," states Susan Langlois, MassWildlife's Furbearer Project Leader. "We know the beaver's habitat requirements, we know how many young they have, their survival rate and how they colonize new areas. The challenge comes on the human side of the equation, when beaver activity creates problems for people." And the challenge is increasing. In 1997, MassWildlife devoted 383 staff days and logged 19,111 vehicle miles for problem site visits, installing water flow devices to preserve wetlands and conducting beaver population surveys. With an increase in site visits, those figures jumped to 529 staff days and 29,396 miles in 1998 and the upward trend is likely to continue in 1999.
According to MassWildlife Assistant Director Dr. Rob Deblinger, "Our job is to advise the public of all legal options when they call with a beaver question or complaint. We'll also schedule a site visit to discuss the best course of action for that particular situation and work with the parties involved to make sure they secure all necessary permits. But the issues get cloudy," Deblinger continues, "when beaver dams aren't on the property of the person being flooded, or when one abutter to a beaver pond likes having beavers in his backyard and his neighbor wants them exterminated. We look for compromises."
MassWildlife provides the technical information and legal avenues that enable landowners to deal with beaver-related problems. It is then the landowner's responsibility to follow through and implement a plan of action, or take no action at all. Recent articles in the popular press suggest that MassWildlife is not addressing the beaver issue. This is simply untrue.
"Our people are visiting all problem beaver sites with priority given to flooded wells, septic systems or roads where public health and safety is a concern," asserts Deblinger. "We're not an animal damage control agency. We're in the wildlife resource business. When a car hits a deer we don't run out and fix the fender, nor does the public expect us to. We advise people about living with deer and take a proactive approach to managing the deer population. The same holds true for beaver. When beaver activity floods a basement we don't pump out the basement, we advise the homeowner of his options for dealing with the situation. A lot of folks writing letters to the editor of their local newspaper don't understand that fact, or ignore it to further their personal agendas and sway the opinion of a well-intentioned but uninformed public."
There is no universal solution to human/beaver conflicts. Flow pipes, traps, baffles, fencing, dam breaching, etc. all have merit in specific circumstances when legally applied. To minimize conflicts, the overall beaver population must be regulated and kept within limits that the habitat will sustain and the public will tolerate. To accomplish this, all management tools and options need to be readily available, particularly when addressing urgent problem situations.
So what's the bottom line when it comes to beavers and their impact on people? If you're one of the increasing number of property owners affected, call MassWildlife and speak to the biologist at your nearest District office. Chances are he or she is in the field following-up on a beaver complaint, but you'll receive a return call and the facts about beavers in Massachusetts.
Western District Tony Gola 413-447-9789
Connecticut Valley District Mike Ciborowski 413-323-7632
Central District Dave Fuller 508-835-3607
Northeast District Erik Amati 978-263-4347
Southeast District Dick Turner 508-759-3406
MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westboro, MA 01581
Letter to the Natural Resources Committee 4-24-99
The Honorable Douglas W. Petersen Co-chair
Natural Resources Committee
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative Petersen and fellow Committee Members, 4/22/99
I am a full time Problem Animal Controller licensed in Massachusetts and Connecticut. I have published numerous articles on animal damage control, including two books, The Wildlife Removal Handbook and The Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook.
I believe the evidence is very clear that Question 1 has been a very foolish law and has become yet another tax on the citizens of Massachusetts. The committee has already read my extensive and substantive critique of Mr. Petersen’s report on the impact of Question 1 so I will not endeavor to repeat those criticisms here. If you don’t have a copy of my five page analysis, you can download it from my website. (YOU CAN VISIT THIS PAGE BY CLICKING Critique of the Natural Resources Committee Report on Question 1.php
Question 1 needs to be modified as in Gauch’s bill (or better yet eliminated as in Hall’s bill) for the following reasons:
Question 1 is hostile to sound environmental policy.
When the law passed, it banned mole traps, yes mole traps. Unfortunately, most people aren’t aware of this fact but it is true. Mole traps are the only effective way to control moles. They are not only effective but they are safe and non-polluting. Now that they are banned, homeowners are trying ineffective gas bombs, insect control poisons and other toxicants. It would seem to me that people who are concerned about the environment would want the least toxic method to control a damage problem. Regrettably, the proponents of Question 1 disagree.
Given that Question 1 is a tax on farmers, it has put another nail into the coffin of the Baystate’s dwindling farming base. It is wrong that people in the Boston concrete jungle can impose a burden on farmers without personally paying for the additional costs. The loss of farms will continue to imperil our environments diversity and beauty.
Question 1 is a burden on the poor.
Numerous cities and towns now have to pay for the control of beaver damage. Money that could have been used to feed the poor, house the homeless, and improve schools is now being spent to trap nuisance beavers and/or install beaver pipes. Let me be clear here. People who support Question 1 actually want to keep lining the pockets of professional animal damage controllers like myself and others. We will continue to accept this form of corporate welfare but it is immoral given the needs that exist among our fellow humans.
Prior to Question 1 many beaver problems were resolved by unpaid sportsmen and women. These people harvested a resource that could be later sold and put dollars back into the State’s economy. The beauty of their work (besides the low cost) is that they could utilize the environment’s bounty without destroying the underlying ecology. Not even foresters can say that.
Question 1 was not an informed referendum.
Proponents of Question 1 like to repeat the mantra that the measure was passed by a two to one margin. What they neglect to say is how little the public knew about the laws impact. I cannot recall one caller to my business who knew that mole traps were banned by Question 1. I had one client, after the vote, say " I thought the law only effected people trapping in the woods. " She didn’t think it would affect my ability to remove wildlife from her home. Reports from others have reaffirmed my perception.
The fact is, animal rights groups misled the public in a variety of ways. First, they didn’t inform the public of the laws full impact. They conveniently neglected to tell the public that they were raising their taxes and increasing property damage. Second, they relied on the public’s ignorance of the laws as they presently stood before Question 1 was enacted. Third, they didn’t warn the public of the dangers this law would pose to their health and safety. The coyote attack on the Cape is just one foreshadowing of the future if this law remains in place. Fourth, they failed to tell the public that this law restricts the ability of professional trappers to resolve animal damage problems in an efficient manner.
Question 1 has banned traps that are less injurious then cage traps.
One of the dirty little secrets of the animal rights movement is their continued failure to deal with the reality of new trap inventions. Beavers can be captured alive with the use of snares. Chances are you committee members haven’t been told this but it is nevertheless the truth. Snares, contrary to popular mythology, are live traps. Snares are used to capture beavers in a number of states. Snares offer a number of advantages. First they are inexpensive. Cost per snare is a couple of dollars. Second, they are versatile. They can be set in the water, under ice, or on the water’s edge. Third, they are safe. Stop locks can prevent the capture of deer and the injury to domestic animals.
Cage traps, like the Bailey Beaver trap, are actually rather cruel devices when used in the winter time. Bailey traps hold the beaver in water. This is a good thing during the summer for it keeps the beaver cool. But in the winter, beaver actually undergo hypothermia. One biologist who studied beaver with box traps found that beavers caught in Bailey’s in the winter time had body temperatures in the high eighties (Fahrenheit) rather than the 98 degrees they were supposed to have. Just another example of how animal rights activists really don’t care about animals. (update, Question 1 also banned the egg trap which has been shown to be very humane in the control of raccoon)
Thank you all for your time. If I can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me.
Yours in Responsible Animal Damage Control and Management,
Stephen Vantassel
Stephen Vantassel's response to a Boston Herald Article. Stephen's letter was published in the Boston Herald on April 19,1998
Economic Costs of Question 1
It seems the residents of Brimfield are experiencing a number of wildlife attacks on pets, including horses.
6/20/02
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
