Missouri Lifts Restrictions on Otter Trapping

For the first time in recent history, the state of Missouri has lifted harvest level restrictions on the river otter, marking a high point in one of the most successful conservation stories in the United States.

Just a few decades ago, Missouri’s otter population was considered almost nonexistent, with only an estimated few dozen otters left in isolated locations.  The plight of the otter in the state was probably due to a combination of over-trapping and shooting.  You see, otters were once a very valuable furbearer, and they eat lots of fish, which doesn’t sit well with many anglers and commercial fishing interests.

While unregulated trapping surely played a part in the otter decline, it was trappers who helped restore a species that now numbers over 15,000 individuals.  Otters were captured from neighboring Louisiana, using the same conventional methods that recreational trappers use to catch the critters for their fur.  They were then transferred to Missouri and released in suitable habitats.

Beginning in the early 1980′s, Missouri transplanted 845 otters into 43 different streams.  With strict regulations in place to limit harvest, otter populations began to grow exponentially.

The years of otter transplants and limited harvest paid off, and a healthy population of otters exists throughout the state.  The success of the otter project may have been too great, however and the species, according to the experts, may be exceeding healthy (and socially acceptable) levels.

Like with many animals, an overpopulation of otters can mean increased spreading of disease, starvation, and a depletion of the food base.  Many Missourians are concerned that otters are having an impact on fish populations in small ponds and large rivers alike.  The Missouri Department of Conservation receives numerous ‘problem otter’ calls, and has documented fishery declines in high-density otter areas.

Fortunately, the Department has the ability to manage otter populations at a healthy and publicly acceptable level by allowing limited otter harvest during trapping seasons.

The first otter trapping season opened in 1996, and has expanded over the years to encourage increased otter harvest.  Still, harvest levels haven’t been high enough to meet management objectives.  Otter fur prices are much lower than they were historically, and trappers are few and far between compared to days of yesteryear.  So there haven’t been enough trappers out in the woods to harvest otters in high enough numbers to keep their populations in check.

Which brings us to today, where Missouri has decided to lift the harvest level restriction on otters, allowing each trapper to take an unlimited number of otters.  The DOC will continue to monitor harvest levels and make future regulation changes if otter populations decline or grow to unhealthy levels.

The Missouri model is similar to how many U.S. states are managing their furbearer populations.  It’s this level of sophisticated wildlife management what will ensure both healthy furbearer populations and regulated trapping continue for generations to come.

To learn more about the Missouri otter story, click here.

Trapping is an Important Maine Tradition

A recent AP article followed Brian Cogill, a traditional Maine beaver trapper, on his trapline this season.  Like approximately 4,000 other trappers in the state, Brian enjoys trapping despite the low fur prices and hard work that’s involved.

Trapping will be challenged again in Maine next month, when the Canada lynx issue will re-surface in a new series of court hearings.

I think you’ll enjoy this story.  You can read it here.

Alaskan Trapline Observations

As the end of the trapping season nears, an Alaskan trapper shares the valuable experience gained through observations of critters on the trapline.

You can read this interesting story in today’s Fairbanks Daily News Miner.

Connecticut to Ban Trapping?

The state of Connecticut may be dangerously close to being added to the list of U.S. states that have outlawed the use of foothold or conibear traps in the name of animal rights.

A new bill banning foot and body gripping traps, co-sponsored by state Senator Fonfara and Representative Boukus, passed by a 22-8 vote in the Environment committee and continues to move through the legislative process.

The trapping ban is not unlike bans in other states, such as neighboring Massachusetts, which eliminated trapping due to concerns for animal rights.  As a result, furbearer populations have skyrocketed in Massachusetts, and animal damage problems have spiraled out of control.  Beaver populations, in particular, have far surpassed the level at which beavers and humans can co-exist without extensive conflict.

Beavers are flooding roads, cutting down valuable trees, causing safety problems and destroying infrastructure.  All the while, landowners and government officials have no effective way of dealing with these problems now that trapping has been made illegal.

It’s ironic that Connecticut politicians fail to see the problems that will be caused if this bill is passed.  Or perhaps they do see what will likely happen, and embrace such sacrifice in the name of animal rights.

The Connecticut Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator Association has spoken up in strong opposition to this bill:

We are deeply concerned about the state’s ability to continue to keep the population levels of these animals in check without these vital tools.

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection also spoke out against the bill, which would make it almost impossible to manage wildlife populations, and cause problems similar to those seen in Massachusetts. You can see their testimony here:

Public Hearing – March 9, 2009
Environment Committee
Testimony Submitted by Commissioner Gina McCarthy
Department of Environment Protection
Raised Senate Bill No. 994, AN ACT CONCERNING LEGHOLD TRAPS

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding Raised Senate Bill No. 994, AN ACT CONCERNING LEGHOLD TRAPS

The Department strongly opposes the language in this bill, which prohibits the regulated use of padded foothold and conibear traps. The proposed bill would be extremely detrimental to wildlife management in Connecticut because it would eliminate the most effective, and for some species, the only effective tool, for reducing human conflicts caused by a variety of wild mammals. Specifically it would eliminate the use of the only practical devices to control and prevent damage caused by coyotes and beavers; two very abundant species that cause hundreds of serious problems for Connecticut property owners. More restrictions on the use of traps will not have any impact on people who ignore the law.

The current use of foothold and conibear traps in Connecticut conforms to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) established by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The recent BMP research conducted in the United States and Canada represents the most extensive scientific evaluation of animal traps ever conducted. This effort was undertaken over a 15 year period pursuant to an International treaty to establish humane standards for traps. After spending tens of millions of dollars to evaluate all traps, many have been discontinued and replaced with new humane traps. Traps were evaluated on five criteria: animal welfare, efficiency, selectivity, practicality and safety. In addition, Connecticut laws and regulations, which are among the strictest in the nation, further restrict the use of foothold and conibear traps by specifying how, when and where such traps may be set and by establishing requirements for mandatory trapper education, mandatory landowner permission, and mandatory trap check intervals.

Padded foothold traps used in accordance with the BMPs are versatile and selective for capturing free ranging wildlife and restraining them unharmed. In fact, such traps are routinely used by wildlife researchers to capture birds and mammals, including rare species such as bald eagles and Canada lynx, alive and unharmed for study. Foothold traps are the only practical live capture device for coyotes, a species that is abundant in the state and increasingly the source of citizen complaints due to killing livestock and pets and displaying bold behavior towards humans. In 2005 the Department established a special 2-month coyote trapping season that allows the use of padded foothold traps on land. This regulation, which included a variety of requirements that trappers must fulfill to participate, provided additional coyote control options for landowners with more than 10 acres and has not resulted in any reported problems.

Unlike foothold traps, conibears are not live traps. They function like a mouse trap, quickly killing the animal by striking the head, neck or body with lethal force. Because animals captured in conibears cannot be released unharmed, regulations allow them to be set only under the surface of the water for the capture of aquatic furbearers. They are the most effective tool for capturing beaver and muskrats.

Despite the fact that Connecticut is a densely populated state, many species of wild animals occur at artificially high densities due to our land use practices. We cannot overlook the fact that the balance of nature has been severely disrupted by man’s activities. Regulated trapping, including the judicious use of foothold and conibear traps, serves a very important role in reducing human/wildlife conflicts in the State. Again, more restrictions on the use of traps will not prevent their illegal use.

The Wildlife Division has limited resources to directly assist the public with problem wildlife and uses regulated trapping as way to balance wildlife populations with human interests. Thus, trained trappers perform a valuable and free service for many landowners. According to the annual trapper survey, approximately 59% of the beaver and 50% of the coyotes trapped during the regulated seasons were taken to resolve problems caused by these species. During the two year period (2006-08), the Wildlife Division responded to approximately 631 calls concerning coyote problems and 372 concerning foxes. During the same two-year interval, the Wildlife Division was called to assist with 505 beaver complaints. If foothold and conibear traps were eliminated as proposed in this bill, the number of requests for assistance would escalate dramatically and the Department would not have the resources nor would licensed trappers have the tools to address these problems.

The Department believes that regulated trapping is essential in maintaining a balance between humans and wildlife, especially species that exist at high densities and cause serious problems. We continue to investigate additional management tools, but there is no replacement for the foothold and conibear traps at this time. The types and sizes of these traps and where they can be used is highly regulated and conforms with modern international standards. Our ENCON Police will continue to enforce our regulations and will investigate any and all reported violations.

The Department has been diligent in implementing the results of the international BMP research to develop regulations and training programs that reduce the capture of non-target species and injury to animals captured in foothold traps set on land. Such foothold traps must be padded and have a gap between the arms in the closed position; the trap chain must be no longer than 6 inches with a shock absorbing spring incorporated; and swivels must be located at each end of the chain, with the center one mounted below the trap. The padded foothold traps are also equipped with a pan tensioning device that can be adjusted so that a trap set for a coyote will not spring if stepped on by a much lighter mammal or bird. In addition, trappers must attend a separate and mandatory land trapping course where they are taught how to use trap sets that are species specific, including a provision that no visible bait may be used.

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on this proposal. If you should require any additional information, please contact Robert La France, Legislative Liaison at 424-3401.

This bill threatens to put an end to recreational trapping and animal damage control in the state of Connecticut.  It’s a very dangerous bill, and as a trapper, it’s very saddening to see another state make such a terrible decision.  If you’re in Connecticut, please contact your local representative and urge them to kill this bill.  Help them understand that such a bill would not be in the best interest of the general public, or the animals it intends to protect.

We’ll keep you posted on more information concerning this bill as it comes in.

Montana Auction Results Pattern Poor Fur Market

The Montana Trappers Association held a fur auction last Sunday in Columbus, MT, which was well attended by trappers from throughout the state and beyond.  Unlike the January auction, the building was full of fur this time around.

Unfortunately for trappers, however, fur buyers were not out in full force for the auction.  Only three major buyers were present, and it was obvious that they did not have many orders to fill.  Fur prices were much lower than they were at this time last year.  The summary below shows the official results of the auction.

Western States Fur Auction
15-Mar-09
Badger Consigned	No Sales	Average
88	29	$23.47
Beaver Consigned
304	9	$12.12
Bobcat Consigned
309	86	$165.94
Coyote Consigned
666	71	$10.43
Red Fox Consigned
179	16	$15.71
Grey Fox Consigned
9	0	$13.88
Martin Consigned
167	26	$15.64
Mink Consigned
16	0	$4.59
Muskrat Consigned
309	0	$2.69
Otter Consigned
3	0	$35.00
Porky Hair
13.75 Oz.	0	$4.55 oz.
Raccoon
378	69	$7.32
Skunk
27	6	$2.98
Weasel
10	0	$2.70
Deer Hides		$1.00

Despite the low prices overall, some good looking fur sold at elevated levels.  Heavy furred badgers, especially those with feet on, did really well (some over $50).  Skunks sold at decent levels, particularly those with wide stripes.  Red fox was a pleasant surprise, with many  lots hitting $20+ on average.  Muskrats also sold well, averaging $2.69.

Coyote and coon prices were pretty pathetic.  Perhaps the news that NAFA plans to dump coyotes and coons with no limits in the next auction hurt the market for these.

There were a large number of ‘no sales’, particularly on bobcats. The majority of the 329 lots of fur did sell, though.

Marten sold at very low levels.  Beaver also sold poorly, but not many were offered.  A large number of coyote lots averaged under $10. Very few coons hit a $10 average, and lots of bobcats sold for less than $100.

Word from other fur sales in the area confirmed the new low price levels.  Until the global economy begins to grow rapidly again, we can likely expect these low prices to continue.

NAFA Promises to Rebuild Wild Fur Market

North American Fur Auctions president Herman Jansen recently addressed wild fur producers in a special message about the state of the fur market.

In his message to trappers and fur dealers, Jansen appeared fairly frustrated with the state of the market, and maybe just a bit defensive about NAFA’s poor February fur auction results.

Jansen did a great job explaining why fur prices are so low, and considering the situation he laid out,  it is a wonder we even have a fur market for some items.  He ensured that NAFA will increase efforts to promote wild fur and work to rebuild this market.

I applaud NAFA’s efforts to promote wild fur, but I don’t necessarily think poor promotion is to blame for any of this mess.  It’s the economy.  People just can’t afford to spend a lot of money right now, particularly not on luxury items like furs.

So what are trappers to do?  Sure, we can promote more wild fur, which will reap long term benefits.  But it won’t pull fur prices out of their current slump.  I think we just need to be patient, and hold off on selling fur that we can afford to keep around.  Cut back on the long ‘line for a while.  We need to wait things out.  It may be a matter of months, or it may be a few years before the market recovers, but it will recover.

Mr. Jansen has obviously gotten a lot of flak for the low fur prices.  Honestly, I’m glad I’m not in his position right now!  Regardless, the market it what it is, and NAFA does a great job working to get trappers top dollar for their furs in any economy.  Things certainly could be worse.

Fur Market Update: Prices Reflect Struggling Russian Economy

The latest fur market update is as discouraging as the previous few.  North American Fur Auctions completed its February sale a few days ago, which was met with very mixed results.

The high volume fur items that typically drive the fur market: namely raccoon, coyote and beaver, sold at extremely low levels.

Beaver commanded such selective demand (which means buyers were very picky!) that average and percent sold figures were not even posted.

Raccoon sold with similarly selective demand.  Lots sold at levels between 0-65%, and averages ranged from around $2.50-$18.50.  This is a far cry from the same fur in the same auction a year ago.

Coyotes sold at lower percentages and lower averages than a year ago.  Lower quality goods were withdrawn due to lack of demand.

Other furs, particularly those with more limited supply, sold at better levels and prices, while reduced, were not as depressing as the coyote, raccoon and beaver sales.

Muskrat sold well.  100% of muskrats offered sold, with averages of $2.55 and $3.86 for Western and Eastern goods, respectively.  This likely reflects the relative strength of the Chinese fur market, while the low beaver, coon and coyote sales reflect a weak Russian market.

Marten and Fisher sold at 100%, at reduced, but still fairly decent prices.

Western bobcats, which were averaging over $500 in many markets last year, averaged just over $280.

All things considered, other fur items sold fairly well.

Overall, the February NAFA sale was discouraging, but not altogether a failure.  We are in tough global economic times, and just like the economy, the fur market will take time to recover.

Feds Expand Canada Lynx Critical Habitat Designation

Well, it looks like the Canada lynx will get widespread critical habitat designation after all.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it will expand the area of critical habitat for Canada lynx by more than 20 times, overruling a Bush Administration decision.  The former administration concluded that landowners were already managing their land in such a way that Canada lynx were adequately protected, so the additional designation was not warranted.

The lynx, listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act, has been at the core of many controversial issues since it was listed (with no adequate scientific data or justification), including trapping rights, states’ rights, and private landowner activities.

The critical habitat designation is an extension of the ESA protection, and will add more restrictions to any activity within this designated area that requires a federal permit.

Lucky for many landowners within this area, however, is the fact that the federal government doesn’t have lots of involvement in private activities within these areas.  For instance, very few projects in the northeastern U.S. timber industry have federal dollars attached to them.  This may change, however, with a new administration in Washington D.C., and efforts to drastically expand government involvement in the private sector.

What does this mean for trappers?  Well, critical habitat designation is just an additional obstacle to overcome if we ever want to see Canada lynx populations managed based on sound science rather than politics.

But I digress.

Nebraska Trappers Can Trap Roadside Ditches Once Again

A two year old bill that banned trapping in roadside ditches in Nebraska has now been overturned.

Concerns over trapping non-target animals motivated the original bill’s passing, but problems with flooding and land damage have proven the need for trapping to resume in these areas.  Individual counties still have the right to ban roadside trapping within their jurisdictional areas.

Read the AP story here.

On a related note, Nebraska’s KOTA News site posted the story on their site with an absolutely outrageous opening line:

YOU HAD BETTER WATCH YOUR STEP WHILE TAKING A WALK IN THE COUNTRYSIDE FROM NOW ON.

TODAY STATE LAWMAKERS GAVE FINAL APPROVAL TO A BILL THAT WILL ALLOW TRAPPERS TO CATCH VARMINTS IN NEBRASKA’S ROADSIDE DITCHES.

The ingnorance in this statement is absolutely unbelievable, and leads an unknowing public to believe that it is now dangerous to ‘walk in the countryside’ because trapping is legal here.

Trapping poses no public safety hazard, despite what KOTA would have you believe.

Also, the majority of the active public does not spend their free time walking around roadside ditches.  Instead, they frequent hiking trails and more peaceful, pleasant locations, which trappers tend to avoid.

KOTA’s statement is ignorant and malicious and shows absolutely no journalistic integrity.

Kudos to Senator Mark Christensen for introducing and fighting for the new bill, and shame on KOTA for some of the worst reporting I’ve seen in some time.

Alaska Board of Game to Decide on Chugach Wolverine Trapping

The Alaska Board of Game, which makes decisions on hunting and trapping regulations in the state, began a two-week meeting this past Friday to debate over 200 wildlife management proposals, one of which directly involves wolverine trapping.

Alaska’s Chugach State Park, outside of Anchorage, was opened to wolverine trapping in 2007.  Since then, 10 wolverines have been harvested in the area, a number that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game thinks is too many.

A new proposal now in front of the Board of Game would overturn this ruling and again restrict wolverine trapping in the park.

Trappers argue that if harvest were the main concern, the Department should consider shortening the season, rather than eliminating trapping in the park.

After hearing testimony and discussion, the Board is expected to make a decision over the next few days.

Read the news story here.