Trapping and Furbearer Management
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TRAPPING AND FURBEARER MANAGEMENT In North AmerIcan Wildlife Conservation Trapping and Furbearer Management in North American Wildlife Conservation is a compilation of the knowledge, insights and experiences of professional wildlife biologists who are responsible for the conservation of wildlife resources throughout the United States and Canada. It is based on the original Trapping and Furbearer Management: Perspectives from the Northeast published in 1996 by the Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee. An expanded North American edition was published in 2001. This second edition of that publication was authored by the following subcommittee of the Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee (NEFRTC): Dr. John F. Organ, Subcommittee Chairman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Thomas Decker, Vermont Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Susan Langlois, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife; and Peter G. Mirick, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Acknowledgements The following professional wildlife biolo- Division of Fisheries and Wildlife; Dave Trapping and Furbearer Management gists critically reviewed drafts of this docu- Hamilton, Missouri Department of Conser- in North American Wildlife Conser- ment and made significant contributions: vation; George Hubert Jr., Illinois Depart- vation is a publication of the Northeast Buddy Baker, South Carolina Department of ment of Natural Resources; Neal Jotham, Furbearer Resources Technical Committee Natural Resources; Chris Bernier, Vermont Canadian Wildlife Service, ret.; Greg and was coordinated by the Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife Department; Clifford Linscombe, Edmond Mouton, and Jennifer Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Brown, West Virginia Department of Natu- Hogue Manuel, Louisiana Department of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division ral Resources; Dr. Thomas J. Deliberto and Wildlife and Fisheries; Michael O'Brien, Nova of Federal Aid. The Executive Committee Richard Chipman, USDA/APHIS Wildlife Scotia Department of Natural Resources; of the Northeast Section of The Wildlife Services; James DiStefano, New Hamp- Colleen Olfenbuttel, North Carolina Wild- Society reviewed and endorsed this docu- shire Fish & Game Department, ret.; Chris life Resources Commission; John Olson, ment. Funding was provided by the As- Dwyer, Linda Welch, and Robert Colona, Wisconsin Department of natural resources; sociation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Dr. Kenneth Steve Petersen, Alaska Departmant of Fish Furbearer Working Group; the Federal Elowe, Walter Jakubas, Jen Vashon, and John and Game; Paul Rego, Connecticut Depart- Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program; and DePue, Maine Department of Inland Fish- ment of Environmental Protection; Chris- The Northeast Section of The Wildlife eries and Wildlife; Dr. John Erb, Minnesota tiane Roy, Kansas Department of Wildlife Society. Original layout and design by Department of Natural Resources; Lloyd and Parks; Bryant White, Association of Fish David Gabriel, Massachusetts Department Fox, Kansas Department of Wildlife and & Wildlife Agencies; and Keith Weaver, U.S. of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Parks; Laura Hajduk-Conlee, Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge System. Law Enforcement. Any reference to specific products or manufacturers does not imply endorsement by the authors, agencies, or organizations involved in the production of this publication. T H E W I L D L I F E SOCIETY The Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee is comprised of professional wildlife biologists from the northeastern United States and Provinces of eastern Canada, and is committed to the study and responsible management of our furbearer resources. The Northeast Section of The Wildlife Society is comprised of professional wildlife biologists and resource scientists and managers from eleven northeastern states and six eastern Canadian provinces, and is committed to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education. For further information on Furbearer Management and Trapping in your state or province, contact your local Fish and Wildlife or Natural Resources Department. © Copyright 2015, all rights reserved Second Edition - Updated July 2015 9/15-50.85M Cover photo of muskrats by Bill Byrne. Pictographs on cover portray cave drawings of methods ancient peoples used to capture wild animals. Introduction The trapping of furbearers – animals that have tra- against trapping itself or the continued use of furbearer ditionally been harvested primarily for their fur – has resources. During the 1920s opposition magnified to been an enduring element of human culture ever since challenge the use of steel jaw foothold traps and the our prehistoric hunter-gatherer ancestors devised the wearing of fur.(1) In response to this development, propo- first deadfalls, pit traps, snares, and capture nets. People nents of trapping and the fur industries began organizing were dependent upon furbearers to provide the basic to defend themselves. By the 1930s, furbearer trapping necessities for survival – meat for sustenance, and fur had become a recurrent public issue. Since then, the for clothing, bedding and shelter – pro- and anti-trapping factions throughout most of human history. have disseminated enormous Defining and defending territory amounts of generally contradictory where furbearers could be cap- information. tured to acquire these critical re- During this same period, new sources united families, clans and technologies and advances in tribes long before the invention of ecology, wildlife biology, statistics agriculture and animal husbandry and population biology allowed gave rise to ancient civilizations. wildlife management to develop While modern technology and into a scientific profession. State, agriculture have significantly provincial and federal agencies reduced human dependence on were created to apply this science furbearers for survival, people in to protect, maintain and restore both rural and developed areas wildlife populations. The harvest continue to harvest furbearers for of furbearers became a highly livelihood and personal fulfill- regulated, scientifically monitored ment. The taking and trading of activity to ensure the sustain- furbearer resources remain on ability of furbearer populations. the economic and environmental Trapping and furbearer manage- agendas of governments through- ment – one steeped in ancient out the world. tradition, the other rooted firmly Trapping furbearers for their in the principles of science – al- fur, meat and other natural prod- lowed furbearer populations to ucts presumably began with our Photo by Bill Byrne expand and flourish. earliest ancestors on the African continent. It has a long Today, as controversy over the use and harvest of tradition in North America, dating back to the time furbearers continues, professional wildlife managers the first aboriginal people arrived on the continent. find themselves spending considerable time trying Several thousand years later, fur was the chief article to clarify public misconceptions about trapping and of commerce that propelled and funded European furbearer management. The complex issues involved colonization of the continent during the 17th and 18th in that management – habitat loss, animal damage centuries. Numerous cities and towns founded as fur control, public health and safety, the responsible treat- trading centers during that period still bear witness to ment of animals – cannot be adequately addressed in the fact that furbearer trapping had a major influence short news articles or 30-second radio and television on the history of the United States and Canada. announcements. The utilization of furbearer resources was an unchal- This booklet is intended to present the facts and lenged activity throughout that history until early in the current professional outlook on the role of trapping 20th century, when the first organized opposition to and furbearer management in North American wildlife furbearer trapping emerged. The focus of that opposi- conservation. It is the combined work of many wildlife tion was primarily on the development of more humane scientists responsible for the successful conservation of traps and curtailment of trapping abuses, rather than furbearer populations in the United States and Canada. 3 The Furbearer Technically, the term furbearer Fur generally becomes prime in includes all mammals, all of midwinter when the coat is fresh and which, by definition, possess some fully grown; the timing for primeness form of hair. Typically, however, is governed by photoperiod and may wildlife managers use the term to vary somewhat depending on species, identify mammal species that have location (latitude) and elevation. traditionally been trapped or hunted primarily for their fur. Furs are generally “dressed” (tanned with the hair on), then North American furbearers are trimmed and sewn into garments, A magnified view of red fox fur shows a diverse group, including both the short, dense underfur that provides rugs, blankets, and ornaments, carnivores (meat-eating predators) insulation and water repellent qualities, and sometimes dyed in a variety of and rodents (gnawing mammals). and the longer guardhairs that resist colors and patterns. Furs are also Most are adaptable species ranging abrasion and protect the underfur from used in fishing lures, fine brushes over large geographic areas. They matting. and other products. Some furs are include beaver,