Human-Beaver Conflicts in Massachusetts: Assessing the Debate Over Question One
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Human-Beaver Conflicts in Massachusetts: Assessing the Debate Over Question One Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals The Humane Society of the United States Animal Protection Institute United Animal Nations September 2005 For more information, please contact the following: Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals at 617- 541-5104; 350 South Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02130; or [email protected] The Humane Society of the United States at 202-452-1100; 2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037; or [email protected] Animal Protection Institute at 916-447-3085; PO Box 22505, Sacramento, CA 95822; or [email protected] United Animal Nations at 916-429-2457; PO Box 188890, Sacramento, CA 95818; or www.uan.org Recommended citation: Anon. 2005. Human-beaver conflicts in Massachusetts: assessing the debate over Question One. Massachusetts Society for Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Protection Institute and United Animal Nations, publishers, 28 pp. Human-Beaver Conflicts in Massachuset ts: Assessing the Debate Over Question One “A live beaver is more valuable to mankind than a dead one.” --- Enos Mills (1913) “Beaver are not just a natural part of the riparian landscape, they are the architects of the system. If we refined the word “nuisance” to a more tolerable level, then the costs of dealing with nuisance beaver would quickly drop. Given the flexibility of beaver behavior, perhaps we would be better to manage human activity, to use preventative measures to avoid problems with beavers and to reap the benefits of living with beavers.” ---B.A. Schulte and D. Muller-Schwarze (1999) Human-Beaver Conflicts in Massachusetts: Assessing the Debate Over Question One Summary In 1996, a majority (64 percent) the public’s ability to manage of Massachusetts’s citizens voted conflicts with beaver. to restrict the use of certain traps to capture wildlife for recreation, This report addresses a series of sparking a controversy that questions raised during the long continues today. The state’s debate over Question One, much Division of Fisheries and Wildlife of which has taken place in the (MassWildlife) claims that its media. Its purpose is not simply “hands were tied” by the passage to provide another set of of this initiative, and wishes to see comments on the issues, but to it overturned. encourage critical thinking about them. It is necessary, after nearly Animal protection and a decade of controversy, to step environmental advocates continue back, review the record and to assert that the traps it restricts evaluate the quality of the inflict unacceptable pain and information the public has suffering on animals and that received. Deficiencies should be there are proven non-lethal corrected, information gaps should approaches that are more lasting, be filled and inconsistencies environmentally responsible and should be clarified. The debate humane. They argue that by will undoubtedly continue, but failing to support modern arguments should be premised in techniques and approaches for fact rather than speculation or wildlife conflict resolution, incomplete information. MassWildlife has severely hampered both its own and Human-Beaver Conflicts in Massachusetts: Assessing the Debate Over Question One Introduction In 1996, a majority (64 percent) wildlife populations were not being of Massachusetts’s citizens voted managed through trapping efforts to restrict the use of certain traps prior to the referendum passing in to capture wildlife for recreation.1 1996, and advocate for the use of The passage of the ballot initiative proven non-lethal approaches in 5 known as “Question One” sparked resolving human-beaver conflicts. a controversy over wildlife trapping in Massachusetts that continues today. The state wildlife agency (now called MassWildlife, then called the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife) claims that its “hands were tied” by the passage of this initiative,2 even though Massachusetts law continues to permit humane traps as well as allow the use of lethal The agency has appeared to focus its traps when public health or safety resources more on renouncing the is threatened or when alternatives restrictions than helping the people of have been tried for 15 days and Massachusetts resolve conflicts with proven unsuccessful. beaver. MassWildlife actively supports After nearly a decade, the Question One’s repeal,3 joining controversy continues. In fact, the with commercial and recreational issue has moved to the national trappers and pro-trapping groups discourse as part of a broader to argue that without the debate,6 with the entire field of “necessary tools” restricted by the wildlife management experiencing initiative, wildlife populations significant change as many of its cannot be managed.4 Animal basic premises are being protection and environmental challenged and reexamined. advocates applauded Question Serious questions are increasingly One’s passage, and continue to raised regarding the efficacy of assert that the traps it restricts recreational trapping in wildlife inflict unacceptable pain and population control and conflict suffering on animals. These resolution, and much greater groups have also argued that Human-Beaver Conflicts in Massachusetts: Assessing the Debate Over Question One emphasis is now being placed on contact their legislators to humaneness as an important overturn the trapping restrictions. principle in guiding human-wildlife Through both direct and oblique interactions. arguments, MassWildlife claims a beaver population beyond control The people of Massachusetts in Massachusetts, and consequent overwhelmingly affirmed in 1996 increases in human-beaver that humane standards and conflicts that are directly concern for the welfare of wild attributable to the restrictions on animals -- even problem-causing trapping. The agency has animals -- were of paramount appeared to focus its resources import. As a public agency, more on renouncing the MassWildlife has pledged to follow restrictions than helping the the law and serve the public people of Massachusetts resolve interest, while at the same time conflicts with beaver. showing no hesitation in proclaiming its position that it The animal welfare community’s cannot manage wildlife problems position is no secret: MassWildlife under that law.7 Advocates feel must move past recalcitrance to MassWildlife should have provide better public service, responded to the electorate’s embrace a more positive approach wishes and worked to produce a to solving wildlife conflicts, listen conflict resolution program that to and include the opposing views better benefited and assisted the on the issues, educate itself as to people of Massachusetts. Instead, the wide range of options that the agency seems to have exist and demonstrate real withdrawn into a defense of leadership by seeking long-term, traditional wildlife management economical, environmentally concepts and tactics that include responsible and humane solutions actively advising homeowners to to human-beaver conflicts. Human-Beaver Conflicts in Massachusetts: Assessing the Debate Over Question One How many beaver are there in Massachusetts? The message that is heard most information available to the public, often by the public in Massachusetts so validity cannot be confirmed. is that the beaver population has “ballooned” or “exploded” as a result of the trapping “ban.”8 With the beaver population “spiraling out of control”9 it would seem that crisis is imminent. Is this just rhetoric or is it true? Comment: Information quoted to the press and elsewhere on the size Information quoted to the press and elsewhere on the size of the of the beaver population in beaver population in Massachusetts reveals numbers so Massachusetts reveals numbers so widely varied as to call into question widely varied as to call into the validity of both census question the validity of both procedures as well as subsequent census procedures as well as subsequent estimations of estimations of population size. population size. The state has used fall and winter ground and aerial surveys to Any estimation of a wildlife estimate beaver numbers since population will include an inherent 1994 and provides estimates of the degree of uncertainty that biologists overall population size and density usually address by providing a (number of beaver per square calculated error figure for the size mile), albeit with significant estimate or by calculating ranges information gaps in recent years around which the population (see Appendix I). Beaver surveys average could be spread based on typically document several statistical confidence – again indicators of the animal’s presence, something the state has not with winter food caches probably provided when describing any of its the most reliable evidence of colony population estimates.11 To further 10 presence. To be statistically valid, complicate matters, the state survey techniques must be reports the “density” of beaver as a consistent and systematic through function of area occupied in square time. Unfortunately, the state has miles, where almost all other not made its survey protocol research on the species speaks to Human-Beaver Conflicts in Massachusetts: Assessing the Debate Over Question One the number of colonies per linear from the Massachusetts beaver mile or kilometer of streams.12 This population with that from other makes it difficult to compare data areas. Is the beaver population