DOCSLIB.ORG

Restricting the Use of Animal Traps in the United States: an Overview of Laws and Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Restricting the Use of Animal Traps in the United States: an Overview of Laws and Strategy \\server05\productn\L\LCA\9-1\LCA103.txt unknown Seq: 1 12-MAY-03 11:48 RESTRICTING THE USE OF ANIMAL TRAPS IN THE UNITED STATES: AN OVERVIEW OF LAWS AND STRATEGY By Dena M. Jones* & Sheila Hughes Rodriguez** Enacting absolute bans on the use of trapping devices and on commerce in trapped animal products has been difficult. Nearly every state, however, has enacted some restrictions on who can trap, what animals can be trapped, where and when animals can be trapped, the type and size of permitted traps, and how often traps must be checked. This article summarizes past and potential approaches to curtail the use of traps in the U.S. at federal, state, and local levels. The article also notes litigation related to trapping and trapping prohibitions. I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 136 R II. STATE LAWS ............................................ 137 R A. State Legislation ...................................... 137 R B. Case Law on State Legislation.......................... 140 R C. State Agency Regulation ............................... 142 R D. State Citizen Initiatives ................................ 144 R E. Case Law on State Initiatives .......................... 147 R F. State Anti-Cruelty Laws ............................... 149 R III. LOCAL LAWS ............................................ 149 R A. Municipal and County Ordinances ...................... 149 R B. Local Case Law ....................................... 150 R IV. FEDERAL LAWS ......................................... 151 R A. Federal Legislation .................................... 151 R B. Federal Agency Regulation ............................. 153 R C. Federal Case Law ..................................... 153 R V. RESTRICTING THE SALE OF FUR ....................... 154 R VI. INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND AGREEMENTS ............ 155 R VII. CONCLUSION ........................................... 156 R * Dena M. Jones, 2003. Humane Farming Association. M.S. 1988, Arizona State University; M.S. in Animals and Public Policy 1996, Tufts University School of Veteri- nary Medicine. ** Sheila Hughes Rodriguez, 2003. Former Counsel for the Animal Protection In- stitute. M.A. 1987, State University of New York at Buffalo; J.D., 1988, State Univer- sity of New York at Buffalo School of Law. The authors wish to thank Nicole Paquette and Camilla Fox of the Animal Protection Institute for their research assistance. [135] \\server05\productn\L\LCA\9-1\LCA103.txt unknown Seq: 2 12-MAY-03 11:48 136 ANIMAL LAW [Vol. 9:135 I. INTRODUCTION Ending the use of body-gripping traps to capture and kill animals was a major objective of American animal protection advocates during the 20th century. In one survey of subscribers to an animal rights pub- lication, leghold trapping was viewed as the worst treatment of ani- mals by humans among fifteen options presented.1 While the American public has limited knowledge of traps and how they are used, a strong majority opposes the activity, particularly when done for commercial or recreational reasons.2 Opinion surveys demonstrate public disapproval of the killing of an animal, by trapping or other- wise, for its fur.3 Although the level of commercial fur trapping fluctuates from year to year, the number of animals trapped for this purpose in the United States has declined significantly over a recent 20-year period from ap- proximately 19 million in 1978,4 to 14 million in 1988,5 to 6 million in 1998.6 In addition to obtaining pelts for the commercial fur industry, trapping is conducted for other purposes including population control, biological study, animal relocation, and agricultural and residential damage control. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Wild- life Services Program is the largest single user of trapping devices in the United States. In fiscal year 2000, Wildlife Services used body- gripping traps to capture more than 67,000 animals.7 Devices employed to capture mammals fall into two main catego- ries: kill traps and restraining traps. Common kill traps are mouse- traps, neck and body snares, killing box traps, and rotating-jaw traps 1 Rebecca T. Richards & Richard S. Krannich, The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement and Activists’ Attitudes Toward Wildlife, in Transactions of The Fifty-Sixth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 363 (Richard E. McCabe ed., Wildlife Mgt. Inst. 1991). 2 Responsive Mgt., The Public and Fish and Wildlife Management: A Literature and Research Review 4-22 (Responsive Mgt. 1997); See also Dena Jones Jolma, Attitudes Toward The Outdoors: An Annotated Bibliography of U.S. Survey and Poll Research Concerning the Environment, Wildlife and Recreation 180 (1994). 3 Telephone Interview by I.C.R. Survey Research Group (Nov. 1995). When asked, “Do you think there are circumstances where it’s perfectly okay to kill an animal for its fur or do you think it’s always wrong to kill an animal for its fur?” 60% of the national sample of 1004 adults responded “always wrong.” Id. 4 Greta Nilsson, Facts About Furs 31 (3d ed., Animal Welfare Inst. 1980). 5 Camilla H. Fox, Trapping in North America: A Historical Overview, in Camilla H. Fox, Cull of the Wild: The Politics of Trapping in the United States (Camilla H. Fox & Christopher M. Papouchis eds., Animal Protection Inst. forthcoming 2003) (manuscript at 1, 3, on file with author). The figure is an estimate only because many states combine hunting and trapping data for furbearing species and others do not collect and report any statistics for trapping. 6 Id. The number of trapping licenses sold in the U.S. has also declined from 190,000 in the 1989–90 trapping season to 130,000 in the 1997–98 season. 7 U.S. Department of Agric., Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., Number of Animals Taken and Methods Used by the WS Program, Table 10–Taken–8/20/01 (FY 2000) <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/tables/00table10t.rtf> (accessed Jan. 23, 2002). \\server05\productn\L\LCA\9-1\LCA103.txt unknown Seq: 3 12-MAY-03 11:48 2003] RESTRICTING THE USE OF TRAPS 137 including the Conibear and Sauvageau.8 Common restraining traps are box and cage traps, log traps, drive corrals and nets, foot snares, and various models of the steel-jaw leghold trap including those with padded, laminated, and off-set jaws.9 Animal advocates have used the following three main approaches to affect the use of traps, specifically kill devices and traps that grip a part of the body: 1) banning the individual devices, 2) restricting the use of the devices, and 3) prohibiting commerce in products from ani- mals caught in the devices.10 These restrictions have been proposed through the conventional public policy routes of state, local, and fed- eral legislation and state administrative agency regulation.11 In addi- tion, animal protectionists have tried less traditional avenues including statewide ballot initiatives, federal appropriations, and in- ternational trade agreements. Other innovative strategies attempted by animal advocates include the following: securing trapping rights on state lands, requiring a warning label on fur products, and eliminating government subsidies to the fur industry. II. STATE LAWS A. State Legislation State legislation has been the most popular tool for those who op- pose animal trapping. Between 1901 and 1982, more than 450 anti- trapping bills were introduced in state legislatures.12 During this time, 50% of all policy efforts to restrict or end trapping were at the state level, versus 30% at the local level, and 20% at the federal level.13 A majority of the legislative attempts have been aimed at prohibiting or restricting the use of the leghold trap.14 The first anti-trapping bill was introduced in the New Hampshire Legislature in 1901.15 However, it was the formation of the Anti-Steel- Trap League in 1925 that signified the beginning of an organized ap- proach to reform trapping in the United States. While previous anti- trapping efforts had been motivated by concerns for dwindling furbearer populations, the Anti-Steel-Trap League sought to save indi- vidual animals from unnecessary “pain and suffering.”16 Those push- 8 Gilbert Proulx, Mammal Trapping 3 (Alpha Wildlife Research & Mgt. Ltd. 1999). 9 Id. 10 Dena Jones, Reforming through Public Policy, in Camilla H. Fox, Cull of the Wild: The Politics of Trapping in the United States (Camilla H. Fox & Christopher M. Papouchis eds., Animal Protection Inst. forthcoming 2003) (manuscript at 119, on file with author). 11 Id. 12 John Richard Gentile, The Evolution and Geographic Aspects of the Anti-Trapping Movement: A Classic Resource Conflict 53 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Or. St. U. 1984) (copy on file with Animal L.). 13 Id. at 75. 14 Id. 15 Id. at 51. 16 Id. at 60. \\server05\productn\L\LCA\9-1\LCA103.txt unknown Seq: 4 12-MAY-03 11:48 138 ANIMAL LAW [Vol. 9:135 ing for an end to the leghold trap because of the cruelty inflicted were joined by fox and raccoon hunters concerned about the risks that trap- ping posed to their dogs.17 The Anti-Steel-Trap League’s success in forming a broad base of support for its cause resulted in the passage, between 1925 and 1939, of legislation to restrict trapping in several states, including Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.18 Many of the early United States trapping bans were overturned after 1940, and campaign activity on the issue diminished significantly for much of the next three decades.19 In fact, no new trapping restric- tions were legislated at the state level until 1969
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Attitudes Toward and Awareness of Trapping Issues In
    ATTITUDES TOWARD AND AWARENESS OF TRAPPING ISSUES IN CONNECTICUT, INDIANA AND WISCONSIN Conducted for the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies And the Furbearer Resources Technical Work Group Conducted by Responsive Management May 2001 ATTITUDES TOWARD AND AWARENESS OF TRAPPING ISSUES IN CONNECTICUT, INDIANA AND WISCONSIN May 2001 CONDUCTED BY RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT NATIONAL OFFICE Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director Peter E. De Michele, Ph.D., Director of Research Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Director Ping Wang, Ph.D., Quantitative Research Associate Jim Herrick, Ph. D., Research Associate Alison Lanier, Business Manager William Testerman, Survey Center Manager Joy Yoder, Research Associate 130 Franklin Street, PO Box 389 Harrisonburg, VA 22801 Phone: 540/432-1888 Fax: 540/432-1892 E-mail to: [email protected] www.responsivemanagement.com EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW Executive Overview of Findings, Implications and Conclusions The purpose of this project was to assist the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) and the Furbearer Resources Technical Work Group in better understanding public awareness of, opinions on, and attitudes toward trapping. There were five phases to this project. Phase I was a series of focus groups with members of the general population in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Indiana (Chapter 1). Phase II consisted of focus groups with two important stakeholder groups: Wildlife professionals (Chapter III), and Veterinarians (Chapter 1). Phase III consisted of utilizing the focus group results to develop a comprehensive group of questions regarding the most salient issues related to public opinion on, and attitudes toward trapping. These survey questions formed the basis of the development of three separate survey instruments that can be used by wildlife agencies to periodically assess attitudes toward trapping on a local, state or national level (Chapter IV).
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Pheromone Trap Density on Mass Trapping Of
    SCIENTIFIC NOTE 281 EFFECT OF PHEROMONE TRAP DENSITY ON MASS TRAPPING OF MALE POTATO TUBER MOTH Phthorimaea operculella (ZELLER) (LEPIDOPTERA: GELECHIIDAE), AND LEVEL OF DAMAGE ON POTATO TUBERS Patricia Larraín S.1*, Michel Guillon2, Julio Kalazich3, Fernando Graña1, and Claudia Vásquez1 ABSTRACT Potato tuber moth (PTM), Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller), is one of the pests that cause the most damage to potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) in both field crops and storage, especially in regions where summers are hot and dry. Larvae develop in the foliage and tubers of potatoes and cause direct losses of edible product. The use of synthetic pheromones that interfere with insect mating for pest control has been widely demonstrated in numerous Lepidoptera and other insect species. An experiment was carried out during the 2004-2005 season in Valle del Elqui, Coquimbo Region, Chile, to evaluate the effectiveness of different pheromone trap densities to capture P. operculella males for future development of a mass trapping technique, and a subsequent decrease in insect reproduction. The study evaluated densities of 10, 20, and 40 traps ha-1, baited with 0.2 mg of PTM sexual pheromone, and water- detergent for captures. Results indicated that larger numbers of male PTM were captured per trap with densities of 20 and 40 traps per hectare, resulting in a significant reduction (P < 0.05) of tuber damage in these treatments compared with the control which used conventional chemical insecticide sprays. Key words: potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella, mass trapping, pheromone. INTRODUCTION researched (El-Sayed et al., 2006). It interferes with insect mating, reducing the future larvae population and The potato tuber moth is a pest which economically subsequent damage.
    [Show full text]
  • AN EVALUATION of TECHNIQUES for CAPTURING RAPTORS in EAST-CENTRAL MINNESOTA by Mark R
    AN EVALUATION OF TECHNIQUES FOR CAPTURING RAPTORS IN EAST-CENTRAL MINNESOTA by Mark R. Fuller and Glenn S. Christenson Department of Ecologyand BehavioralBiology University of Minnesota 310 Biological SciencesCenter St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 ABSTRACT. To meet the objectivesof a study,several species of raptorshad to be trapped on a 9,880-hectare study area of heterogenoushabitat types. Bal-chatri,mist net, Swedish Goshawk,and automatic bow-net traps (and combinationsof these traps) were used in severalgeneral habitat situations.Mist nets combined with a baited bal-chatri or tethered bait were most successfulin capturingbirds, and the bal-chatrisalone and mist nets alone were next most effective. Trappingwas found to be most productivein deciduousupland habitats where an openingin the canopy or break in the understoryoccurred. Trapping along a woodlot-fieldedge was also effective. Strigiformeswere most often trappedjust before sunriseor just after sunset,while falconiformeswere most often capturedin the late morning and late afternoon. Trapping was least efficient from Decemberto February. A different trap type from that i•sedin the initial captureis often most effectivefor recaptur- ing raptors.Maintenance of healthybait animalsand frequent trap checksare emphasized. Introduction This paperpresents results from a combinationof methodsused to captureand recapture Great HornedOwls (Bubo virginianus), Barred Owls (Strix varia),Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo }amaicensis),and Broad-wingedHawks (Buteo platypterus) on a 9,880-hectarestudy area in east-central
    [Show full text]
  • C660 How to Trap a Coyote
    how to trap a coyote Coyote trapping is not difficult. By understanding a few biological traits you can learn to outwit coyotes and trap them successfully. The coyote is a member of the ca- nine (dog) family. This intelligent Items needed to set a coyote trap mammal is at home in rangeland, cropland, mixed woodlands, or even • One 5-gallon (19 ½ inch) plastic • Cloth (or plastic) feed sack to suburban areas. Coyotes stay in one bucket to carry equipment. kneel on while digging a trap bed and pounding the stake. area in spring and summer but may • One No. 3- or No. 4-sized trap roam in late summer, fall, and winter. per set (inside jaw spread should • Roll of plastic sandwich bags to Most coyotes are territorial but do be at least 5 inches). cover and prevent soil from get- not become dominant and establish a ting under the pan of the trap. • One 18- to 24-inch stake for the home territory. They are opportunists holding trap in place. • Screen sifter for sifting soil over that kill and eat whatever is easiest to the traps. obtain. • Straight claw hammer to dig a hole in the ground for trap • Brush or rib bone for leveling Coyotes follow regular paths and placement and to pound the the soil over the trap once it has crossings, establishing regular scent stake into the ground. been set in place and covered. posts to guide them. They inhabit high hills or knolls from which they • Leather gloves to protect fingers • Bottle of coyote urine to attract can view a wide area and disappear while digging the trap bed.
    [Show full text]
  • Human-Black Bear Conflict a Review of the Most Common Management Practices
    HUMAN-BLACK BEAR CONFLICT A REVIEW OF THE MOST COMMON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A black bear in Lake Tahoe, NV. Photo courtesy Urbanbearfootage.com 1 A black bear patrols downtown Carson City, NV. Photo courtesy Heiko De Groot 2 Authors Carl W. Lackey (Nevada Department of Wildlife) Stewart W. Breck (USDA-WS-National Wildlife Research Center) Brian Wakeling (Nevada Department of Wildlife; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) Bryant White (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) 3 Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgements Introduction . The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and human-bear conflicts . “I Hold the Smoking Gun” by Chris Parmeter Status of the American Black Bear . Historic and Current distribution . Population estimates and human-bear conflict data Status of Human-Black Bear Conflict . Quantifying Conflict . Definition of Terms Associated with Human-Bear Management Methods to Address Human-Bear Conflicts . Public Education . Law and Ordinance Enforcement . Exclusionary Methods . Capture and Release . Aversive Conditioning . Repellents . Damage Compensation Programs . Supplemental & Diversionary Feeding . Depredation (Kill) Permits . Management Bears (Agency Kill) . Privatized Conflict Management Population Management . Regulated Hunting and Trapping . Control of Non-Hunting Mortality . Fertility Control . Habitat Management . No Intervention Agency Policy Literature Cited 4 Abstract Most human-black bear (Ursus americanus) conflict occurs when people make anthropogenic foods (that is, foods of human origin like trash, dog food, domestic poultry, or fruit trees) available to bears. Bears change their behavior to take advantage of these resources and in the process may damage property or cause public safety concerns. Managers are often forced to focus efforts on reactive non-lethal and lethal bear management techniques to solve immediate problems, which do little to address root causes of human-bear conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Bucket Cable Trap Technique for Capturing Black Bears on Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska Boyd Porter
    Wildlife Special Publication ADF&G/DWC/WSP–2021–1 Bucket Cable Trap Technique for Capturing Black Bears on Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska Boyd Porter Stephen Bethune ©2012 ADF&G. Photo by Stephen Bethune. 2021 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Special Publication ADF&G/DWC/WSP-2021-1 Bucket Cable Trap Technique for Capturing Black Bears on Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska PREPARED BY: Boyd Porter Wildlife Biologist1 Stephen Bethune Area Wildlife Biologist APPROVED BY: Richard Nelson Management Coordinator REVIEWED BY: Charlotte Westing Cordova Area Wildlife Biologist PUBLISHED BY: Sky M. Guritz Technical Reports Editor ©2021 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation PO Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Hunters are important founders of the modern wildlife conservation movement. They, along with trappers and sport shooters, provided funding for this publication through payment of federal taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and through state hunting license and tag fees. This funding provided support for Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Black Bear Survey and Inventory Project 17.0. 1 Retired Special Publications include reports that do not fit in other categories in the division series, such as techniques manuals, special subject reports to decision making bodies, symposia and workshop proceedings, policy reports, and in-house course materials. This Wildlife Special Publication was reviewed and approved for publication by Richard Nelson, Region I Management Coordinator for the Division of Wildlife Conservation. Wildlife Special Publications are available via the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s public website (www.adfg.alaska.gov) or by contacting Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Division of Wildlife Conservation, PO Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526; phone: (907) 465- 4190; email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON FURBEARER TRAPPING and HUNTING REGULATIONS
    OREGON FURBEARER TRAPPING and HUNTING REGULATIONS July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022 Please Note: Major changes are underlined throughout this synopsis. License Requirements Trapper Education Requirement By action of the 1985 Oregon Legislature, all trappers born after June 30, Juveniles younger than 12 years of age are not required to purchase a 1968, and all first-time Oregon trappers of any age are required to license, except to hunt or trap bobcat and river otter. However, they must complete an approved trapper education course. register to receive a brand number through the Salem ODFW office. To trap bobcat or river otter, juveniles must complete the trapper education The study guide may be completed at home. Testing will take place at course. Juveniles 17 and younger must have completed hunter education Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) offices throughout the to obtain a furtaker’s license. state. A furtaker’s license will be issued by the Salem ODFW Headquarters office after the test has been successfully completed and Landowners must obtain either a furtaker’s license, a hunting license for mailed to Salem headquarters, and the license application with payment furbearers, or a free license to take furbearers on land they own and on has been received. Course materials are available by writing or which they reside. To receive the free license and brand number, the telephoning Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, I&E Division, 4034 landowner must obtain from the Salem ODFW Headquarters office, a Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem, OR 97302, (800) 720-6339 x76002. receipt of registration for the location of such land prior to hunting or trapping furbearing mammals on that land.
    [Show full text]
  • American Black Bear Ecology in Southeastern Oklahoma: Population Status and Capture Methodology
    AMERICAN BLACK BEAR ECOLOGY IN SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA: POPULATION STATUS AND CAPTURE METHODOLOGY By MORGAN A. PFANDER Bachelor of Science in Natural Resource Management University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 2011 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May, 2016 AMERICAN BLACK BEAR ECOLOGY IN SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA: POPULATION STATUS AND CAPTURE METHODOLOGY Thesis Approved: Dr. W. Sue Fairbanks Thesis Adviser Dr. David M. Leslie, Jr. Dr. Barney Luttbeg ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to all of the people who have made this research project possible. It has been a wonderful experience working with all of the graduate students, faculty, and staff here at Oklahoma State University and I feel blessed to have had the opportunity to spend a couple of years in the bear woods of Oklahoma. Thank you especially to my thesis advisor, Dr. W. Sue Fairbanks, for the opportunity to be a part of such an amazing project and for all of the encouragement and advice throughout the research process. I am also grateful to my committee members, Dr. Chip Leslie and Dr. Barney Luttbeg, for their invaluable contributions to the development and analysis of this study. Thank you to Sara Lyda for introducing me to the bear woods and for all of her help with training and project logistics. I would also like to thank all of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation officials, especially Jeff Ford and Joe Hemphill, and my summer technicians and volunteers for all of their help in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Cull of the Wild a Contemporary Analysis of Wildlife Trapping in the United States
    Cull of the Wild A Contemporary Analysis of Wildlife Trapping in the United States Animal Protection Institute Sacramento, California Edited by Camilla H. Fox and Christopher M. Papouchis, MS With special thanks for their contributions to Barbara Lawrie, Dena Jones, MS, Karen Hirsch, Gil Lamont, Nicole Paquette, Esq., Jim Bringle, Monica Engebretson, Debbie Giles, Jean C. Hofve, DVM, Elizabeth Colleran, DVM, and Martin Ring. Funded in part by Edith J. Goode Residuary Trust The William H. & Mattie Wattis Harris Foundation The Norcross Wildlife Foundation Founded in 1968, the Animal Protection Institute is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for the protection of animals from cruelty and exploitation. Copyright © 2004 Animal Protection Institute Cover and interior design © TLC Graphics, www.TLCGraphics.com Indexing Services: Carolyn Acheson Cover photo: © Jeremy Woodhouse/Photodisc Green All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. For further information about the Animal Protection Institute and its programs, contact: Animal Protection Institute P.O. Box 22505 Sacramento, CA 95822 Phone: (916) 447-3085 Fax: (916) 447-3070 Email: [email protected] Web: www.api4animals.org Printed by Bang Publishing, Brainerd, Minnesota, USA ISBN 0-9709322-0-0 Library of Congress ©2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . v Preface . vii Introduction . ix CHAPTERS 1. Trapping in North America: A Historical Overview . 1 2. Refuting the Myths . 23 3. Trapping Devices, Methods, and Research . 31 Primary Types of Traps Used by Fur Trappers in the United States .
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options
    _An_Evaluation_of Black_Bear _Management_Options Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee, August 2012 An_Evaluation_of_Black_ Bear_Management_Options _Table of Contents Acknowledgements______________________________________________________ 3 Northeast_Black_Bear_Technical_Committee_ _________________________________ 3 Introduction___________________________________________________________ 4 _ Brief History of Bear Management in the Northeast________________________________________ 5 The Changing Landscape of Bear Management & Human-Bear Conflicts_________________________ 7 Biological_Carrying_Capacity_vs_Cultural_Carrying_Capacity Black Bear Management Strategies_ . 8 Population_Management Human-Bear_Problem_Management Black_Bear_Population_Management_____________________________________ 9 Regulated Hunting & Trapping_______________________________________________________10 Control Non-Hunting Mortality_ . 12 Habitat Management_ . 14 Fertility Control_ . 16 Allow Nature to Take Its Course_ . 18 Human_Bear_Conflict_Management_ ____________________________________ 20 Public Education_ . 21 Exclusion Devices for Food & Waste Management_ . 23 Aversion Conditioning_ . 25 Repellents_ . 27 Kill Permits_ . 28 Capture & Kill_ . 30 Translocation_ . 31 Damage Compensation Programs or Reimbursement Fund_ . 33 Supplemental Feeding_ . 35 Conclusions____________________________________________________________ 37 Literature_Cited_________________________________________________________ 38 An Evaluation of Black Bear Management Options Acknowledgements
    [Show full text]
  • How the United States Was Able to Dodge International Reforms Designed to Make Wildlife Trapping Less Cruel
    The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 2017 Volume 20, Issue 1, http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/ZWkSMtuS9E24wVAEgfJM/full. How the United States Was Able to Dodge International Reforms Designed to Make Wildlife Trapping Less Cruel Tara Zuardo 1. Introduction Each year in the United States, more than 6 million animals are trapped in the wild for their fur, primarily with steel-jaw leghold traps, body-gripping kill traps, and strangling neck snares.1 Although factors such as reduced domestic demand for fur, plummeting pelt prices, and increased public pushback have led to a decline in commercial trapping over the past several decades, the United States continues to be among the world’s leaders in the number of wild animals trapped for their fur. Raccoons, coyotes, muskrats, beavers, red foxes, bobcats, and mink are among the most commonly trapped species.2 However, official reports are mere estimates (using known data to extrapolate more broadly) and fail to include all animals who are actually trapped. Many unreported nontarget animals fall victim to steel-jaw traps and Conibear traps,3 including dogs, cats, deer, and birds, as well as threatened and endangered species.4 Moreover, many wild species, particularly predators such as coyotes, are trapped and killed for wildlife damage management because they are deemed “nuisance” animals.5 Kills by government- Tara Zuardo, [email protected], Wildlife Attorney, Animal Welfare Institute. The author would like to thank Cathy Liss, DJ Schubert, Dave Tilford, Camilla Fox and Professor Jeffrey B.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Hunting and Trapping Guide
    INDIANA & TRAPPING GUIDE 2018-2019 REGULATIONS GUIDE YEAR of theBIRD INSIDE • 4 easy ways to buy hunting licenses • Complete waterfowl season dates • New gamebird program • 3 counties added to Fall Turkey Firearms Season Indiana Department of Natural Resources INDIANA Table of & TRAPPING GUIDE MORE PUBLIC Contents C CCCC CCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCC CCLAND CCCC Features CCCCCC ACRES85 GAMEBIRD AREAS 547 NEW ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND IN 292ACRES WABASH RIVER 2017 CONSERVATION AREA ACRES170 FISH & WILDLIFE AREAS Lifetime License Holders, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental License Plate Holders (IHT), Bicentennial our partners: Nature Trust, Game Bird Habitat Stamp Holders, Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, National Wild Turkey Federation, Hunters & Shooters (WSFR) and The Conservation Fund 19 30 34 Public Lands Expand Bonus Deer Waterfowl Dates A colorful infographic details the number of Check out the new bonus antlerless deer This year’s guide, just as last year’s, includes acres the DNR acquired in 2017. quota for your county. the full waterfowl season dates. Departments Hunting seasons, bag limits .......................................................... 4 Private land permission form ...................................................... 33 Important updates ......................................................................... 6 Migratory birds, waterfowl ..........................................................34 Keep the tradition of hunting alive ............................................... 6 Hunters fund conservation and recreation
    [Show full text]