Minnesota Ordered to Avoid Incidental Trapping of Lynx

After a brief intermission, the Canada lynx issue is back to the forefront of outdoor politics in the state of Minnesota. This past Monday, a federal judged ruled that the Minnesota DNR “promptly take all action necessary to [ensure] no further taking of threatened Canada lynx”. Basically, this means that the state must apply for an “incidental take permit” (ITP) from the federal government, which would protect the state against any further lawsuits resulting from lynx killed as a result of state regulated trapping.

This new ruling comes at the heels of two recent federal lawsuits regarding the taking of lynx: one in Minnesota and one in Maine. Both lawsuits were filed by animal rights groups, and both were settled with the agreement that the respective states file for ITP’s with the feds. Minnesota reached their agreement with very little compromise in trapping regulations, while the Maine settlement resulted in some very significant changes in the way trappers were able to operate.

Now, just months later, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Animal Protection Agency are back in Minnesota and are demanding that additional regulations be placed on trappers to prevent the taking of lynx. A simple look into the history of actions by such groups indicates that they do not back down until they achieve their view of success.

The likely result of the new lawsuit is that Minnesota will have to significantly change their trapping regulations similar to the changes implemented by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Temporary regulations that both sides can agree on will be put in place while the ITP is filed, and ITP regulations will be at least as strict, if not stricter than the temporary regulations. The ITP process is supposed to take about a year, but as we all know, dealing with the federal government almost always takes more time that expected.

This new lawsuit raises a number of questions that we, as concerned trappers, should be asking ourselves. For instance, do lawsuit settlements work, and should trappers compromise their rights? How far are these groups willing to go? Is their goal really to protect lynx, or will they continue to use the Endangered Species Act to further regulate trappers and hunters until these activities are all but eliminated?

A recent quote in the Duluth News Tribune may provide some of the answer to these questions:

“If they (DNR) can’t demonstrate another way to avoid trapping lynx, it could prohibit all trapping in the lynx range. We’d be very much in favor of that,’’ said Nicole Paquette, attorney for California-based Animal Protection Institute which filed the suit against the DNR.

I think it’s safe to say that the API and other groups are determined to eliminate trapping and will use all of the legal and financial resources available until they accomplish this goal. The lynx battle will not stop in Minnesota and Maine, either. Other states that have small lynx populations, like Utah, Montana and Idaho will likely be subject to future lawsuits to influence trapping and other outdoor activities. Maine and Minnesota were likely chosen to set a precedent for future lawsuits because they provide political environments that are less hostile toward animal rights groups and provided such groups with better chances for success.

Despite their relatively small numbers and meager financial resources, trappers and other hunting/fishing/outdoor groups are not backing down from these suits without a fight. Groups like the Minnesota Trappers Association, National Trappers Association, Fur Takers of America, Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance and Safari Club International are all working to fight this battle to the best of their capacity.

There’s little question that the trappers and sportsmen have science on their side. Only a handful of Canada lynx, which are at the southern tip of their geographic range in Maine and Minnesota, have been killed in traps over the past few years, which pales in comparison to the number that die of natural causes, the greatest of which is usually starvation due to lack of food resources. If the number of lynx killed incidentally by trappers were significant, the states would undoubtedly implement their own measures to protect these lynx populations. A plethora of data collected over the years shows that factors influencing lynx numbers are independent of and not influenced by trapping activities. However, the Federal Endangered Species Act can sometimes trump sound science, and groups using the ESA to restrict the activities of others often know or care little about wildlife management and populations dynamics.

If you’re interested in supporting trapping and sporting groups in the fight against lawsuits like these, I would encourage you to join and become active in your local and national trapping associations and other groups that work to preserve this unique heritage while ensuring the long term viability and health of furbearer populations.

See a list of trapping organizations here.

See the news stories below:

Judge orders Minnesota DNR to reduce accidental lynx trappings

Minnesota DNR told to put a stop to trapping Canada lynx

Trapping Law Helps Protect North Carolina Landowners

Here’s some trapping related news I thought I’d pass on for those of you in North Carolina.

Individuals in Alamance County, North Carolina are pushing for the extension of a fox trapping law that has helped protect landowners from property damage since its inception in 2006. The ‘local bill’ applies on the county level and allows for a longer fox trapping season than statewide regulations allow.

The current local bill, which expired Jan. 31, 2008, extended the fox trapping season to include the months of October, November and December. Many locals hope the bill is renewed. Fox are considered a nuisance in many rural areas, and while trapping has not been shown to drastically reduce their numbers, it is often effective at controlling animals causing damage and keeping populations at healthy levels.

Trappers get calls from landowners to trap their property for a variety of reasons.

Some are from farmers with crop damage. Other calls come from livestock producers who want to protect chickens and other fowl, or their populations of game animals like rabbits and squirrels.
“A lot of landowners want to protect their rabbits and quails,” Keck said.
Still others, Keck said, come from folks who spot foxes in their yards and worry about rabies.

Successful March Auction Results in High Fur Prices

Results are in from the North American Fur Auctions‘ March sale, and fur prices have risen beyond the expectations of even the most enthusiastic forecasts. NAFA called their March sale “the best wild fur sale in recent memory”. Many items reached new highs and experts are predicting that many of these prices will hold around current levels for the rest of the season.

Big winners in the sale were raccoon, marten, fisher and mink. Beaver, otter and muskrat performed better than expected as well.

Raccoon sold at levels much higher than expected, which was probably related to the smaller than normal offering of the item due to poor trapping conditions and higher gas prices. Most coons averaged between $20-30, with select items averaging over $35.

Marten and fisher both reached very high levels, with marten averaging over $100 overall and fisher breaking an $85 average.

Mink and beaver both experienced higher price levels as well. The increase in wild mink prices likely reflected the recent highs in the ranch mink market.

NAFA decided to unload their muskrat and otter collections with no price limits, which caused concern for many fur sellers who expected these items to sell at rock bottom prices. Fortunately, however, these items were met with enthusiasm from buyers and sold at levels better than at prior auctions. Otter (upwards of $40) is still selling much lower than in years past, but many sellers were just happy to get rid of these items. Muskrat probably won’t reach the $8-9 highs we saw a year ago, but at $3-4, ‘rats are certainly still worth targeting.

NAFA believes that prices from this auction should be maintained throughout the rest of the fur season, which is very encouraging, to say the least. High price levels will likely send more trappers out in the field, but high operating costs still make it difficult to devote a large amount of resources to catching fur.

See the NAFA March auction results here.

Fur Harvesters Auction February 18 sale results were also very encouraging. See the FHA auction results here.

Trapper Survives Four Days Stuck Under ATV

An Alberta trapper survived for four days after a trapline accident left him pinned under his ATV with nothing to eat but rotting beaver meat and with hungry coyotes threatening his life.  He was rescued when a hiker came upon him on the trail and went to get help.  

Read more here 

Division Among Hunters and Trappers Weakens Sportsmen

Unity among hunting, fishing and trapping groups is a very important aspect of preserving the outdoor heritage enjoyed by participants in these activities.  Being a hunter, fisherman and trapper myself, I find it hard to understand why trappers and hound hunters can’t seem to get along in many areas.

I hate to pick on any one state in particular, but Michigan has recently been the battleground for heated debate between trappers and houndsmen.  As far as I can understand, houndsmen don’t like trappers because their dogs occasionally get caught in traps.  Trappers counter that hounds are often on private land where their owners don’t have permission to be hunting.  Now obviously houndsmen often can’t control precisely where their dogs will end up, and trappers can’t prevent certain types of traps from capturing hounds.  Maybe if each group were a bit more understanding of the other, there would be room enough for both to engage in their preferred activities.

Unfortunately, trappers and houndsmen continue to fight.  In 2004, the Michigan DNR proposed a bobcat trapping season in the Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula, and were taken to court by bear hunters, claiming that negative affects on the bobcat population were not considered.  Now do you really think the hunters suing the DNR really thought the bobcat population was in trouble?  How such an argument can be made with a straight face is puzzling to me, considering that the same hunters who target bears in the northern Lower also hunt bobcats in January and February. 

After a judge ruled in favor of bear hunters and stopped the trapping season in 2006, the ruling was challenged and a higher court overturned the decision.  Looks like bobcat trapping will once again be legal in the northern Lower.

While all of this fighting is going on between hound hunters, trappers and the DNR, I bet the animal rights groups are sitting back and smiling, knowing that division among sporting groups makes their goal of ending all forms of hunting and fishing much easier to achieve.    

In an ideal situation, trappers would support hunting groups and hunters would support trapping interests.  United, both groups could come together as a stronger opposition to those aiming to destroy both. 

Wisconsin Trapper Encounters Cougar, DNR Investigates

Trapper Kevin Edwardson came face to face with a cougar in a Wisconsin barn last week, in what could be the first confirmed cougar siting in the state in 100 years.  The animal fled from Edwardson after he followed its tracks into the old barn and spotted it in the hayloft.  Its tracks measured 3 1/2″ across and it had a running stride of 12 feet. 

Many cougar sightings have been reported in the state, but none have been confirmed over the past century or so.  DNR Wildlife Biologist Doug Fendry took urine and blood samples from the area, which will be tested to determine the genetics of the cat.  This may allow the state to determine whether this cougar was a captive animal or came from a wild population. 

Read more here

Trapper Catches Heat for Selling Meat

A New Jersey trapper was recently contacted by his County Health Department and forced to remove a sign advertising the sale of muskrat meat from animals he legally captured.  The call from the Health Department came after an earlier news article about he and another local trapper, which mentioned the popularity of muskrat as a food item.

While there is a growing demand for an affordable and healthy alternative to store-bought sources of meat, New Jersey law does not allow retail sale of meat unless it comes from a state-approved facility.  Many outdoorsmen believe that restrictive laws like this are unreasonable, while the state argues for the importance of protecting the public from the consumption of potentially unsafe food. 

Read more here 

Trapping is An Important Part of Northwest Territories Economy

Demand for high quality fur plays an important role in the economy of Canada’s Northwest Territories, where many people supplement their income by running a trapline.  For some, trapping is their sole source of income throughout the winter.  In the NWT, the prime target species are marten and lynx, and prices for those two species are in great shape this year.  Read about NWT fur prices in this article from the Northern News Service Online.

Harvesting ‘Coons For More Than Just Their Fur

In Illinois, hunters and trappers can sell the carcasses of raccoons that they capture for fur.  This gives trappers a better return for their effort, allows residents to acquire a healthy source of protein at a very low cost, and helps control the population of critters that abound in suburban areas throughout the state.  Most people who buy the ‘coons are those who grew up in the South where raccoons are eaten regularly, but this food source is also attracting new consumers as well. 

It’s a win-win situation for everyone.  Well….maybe not the animal rights folks, but that’s another story.  Bottom line, raccoon populations are healthy (overpopulation can often causes rabies outbreaks), the economy is better off, and the entire animal is utilized.  The fur is sold to foreign and domestic markets to produce articles of clothing and the meat provides healthy meals for local families.  Sounds like something other states should really consider allowing.

Read more here….

Pennsylvania Considers Fisher, Otter Trapping Seasons

The Pennsylvania Game Commission is considering the possibility opening a season for the limited trapping of fisher, and potentially otter sometime in the future. 

Both species have very healthy populations in parts of the state, and experts believe that they can withstand limited harvest. 

Northeast Region biologist Tom Hardisky had this to say:

“When it comes to trapping otters and even fishers in Pennsylvania, there’s no problem with harvesting them. It just has to be done the right way.”

Harvest of the species would likely fall under a permit system similar to the one in place for bobcat harvest in the state.

The opening of fisher and otter trapping seasons in the state would be a huge step in the right direction for the Game Commission and for trappers in Pennsylvania, who support wildlife management by releasing nontarget animals and cooperating with the wildlife management agency.

Read the news full story here

Next Page »