Happy Thanksgiving!

I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving holiday!  Here are a few things I’m thankful for this year:

My job, a beautiful home, great scenery, an excellent (but unfinished) hunting season, living in the best country in the world (despite attempts by our current administration to change that),  a wonderful new fiancee, and…….TRAPPING!  I’m thankful that we have the ability to follow in the footsteps of the pioneer trappers that explored this country, and hope we can preserve that right well into the future.

Well, I’m off to visit family and do some elk hunting.  Hope you are able to get outdoors this Thanksgiving holiday and spend some quality time with family and friends.  My trapline starts next week!

I-160: Initiative to Ban Trapping on Public Land in Montana

The anti-hunting, anti-trapping crowd is at it again.  This time it’s in Montana – a once conservative, property rights oriented state that has seen drastic changes in demographics over the past few decades.  Fresh faces, liberal ideas, and city lifestyle have paved the way for animal rights initiatives in a state where such nonsense would once have been unthinkable.  But here we are.

I’m talking about I-160, a ballot initiative that will be in front of Montana voters next fall, and would ban trapping on all public lands in the state.  A relatively new animal rights group, Footloose Montana, has sponsored the initiative and has pushed full speed ahead, spreading lies and gathering signatures.  We’re facing a huge battle to keep our trapping rights in Montana, and this new bill would impact almost every trapper in the state -  a very, very large portion of Montana is publicly owned.

Here’s the language that will likely be on the ballot:

BALLOT LANGUAGE
INITIATIVE NO. 160
A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
I-160 prohibits trapping of all wild mammals and birds by any means on public lands in Montana, subject to limited exceptions. It allows trapping for scientific purposes and for breeding of migratory game birds. It also allows trapping by public employees to protect public health and safety. However, it prohibits commercial use of wild mammals and birds trapped on public lands for any of the allowable purposes.
I-160 costs approximately $47,780 of state funds annually, resulting from a loss of
trapping license revenue.

[ ] FOR prohibiting trapping of all wild mammals and birds on public lands in Montana, subject to limited exceptions.

[ ] AGAINST prohibiting trapping of all wild mammals and birds on public lands in Montana, subject to limited exceptions.

Yes, you read it right.  This would ban all trapping on public lands in Montana.  The initiative is absolutely insane, and it seems as though it should be voted down easily.  But then again, such initiatives have passed in a number of other states.  Trappers should be very concerned about this.

Montana trappers are responding.  The Montana Trappers Association and its board of directors have been working hard to form a coalition that will fight this initiative.  All individuals and organizations are encouraged to join Montanans for Effective Wildlife Management at www.noon160.com.

I’ll have more on I-160 later.  We’ll talk about the many lies the animal rights people are spreading to promote the trapping ban, and also post information on the response from trappers and members of MEWM.  Until then, please sign up as a supporter of MEWM at www.noon160.com and show your support for trapping!

Logging, Lynx and Marten: How Forest Practices Can Influence Furbearer Numbers

In a state almost completely covered with trees, forest harvest practices in Maine can seriously influence populations of many of the furbearers that call the Maine woods home.

Two such furbearers, the American marten and Canada lynx, depend on certain forest types for their survival.  Lynx need 20-40 year-old successional forest that holds plenty of snowshoe hares (their main prey base), while marten need forest with heavy canopy cover and some thick trees to protect them from predators.

In 1989, the Maine Forest Practices Act, a landmark piece of legislation that was pushed by many environmentalists and conservationists, began the process of fragmenting the state’s northern forest.  In simple terms, the act basically limited the size of clear-cuts.  This eliminated the large, barren openings in the forest that many environmentalists and members of the public simply didn’t like looking at.

The new restrictions on the size of clear-cuts didn’t reduce the number of trees that were being harvested from the forest, however.  It simply began transforming the landscape from one of a few, very large clear-cuts, to a patchwork pattern of numerous small clear-cuts dotting the landscape.

This new landscape that continues to take form in the northern forest is far from ideal for our valuable furbearers like marten and lynx.  The large patches of forest that once existed are now plastered with small openings that support less food for lynx and make marten more vulnerable to predators.  Further, the once-prevalent large clear-cuts that re-grew into large stands of quality habitat are becoming increasingly rare.   And in the long run, this could mean fewer lynx, marten, and other forest dwellers that have similar habitat needs.

As it’s beginning to appear that the highly touted Forest Practices Act may not have been such a great idea after all, and many are working to see if overturned.  The Nature Conservancy, among others, is exploring ways to ensure future habitat conditions promote healthy populations of valuable furbearers in northern Maine.

Read the Nature Conservancy story here.

See a recent lynx/clearcut story from the Boston Globe here.

Black Bear Blog on Lynx Lawsuit

Here at TrappingToday we broke a story about the Federal Court’s decision supporting trapping in Maine (the Maine Lynx Lawsuit) several days back.  More recently, Tom Remington at the Black Bear Blog has put together an interesting analysis on the judge’s ruling, and has uncovered a few notable observations that I hadn’t thought about.

You can read the Black Bear Blog story here.

Fall 2009 Fur Market Update

Many trappers continue to wonder what kind of prices raw fur will command during the 2009-10 trapping season.  We’re at an uncertain time in the fur market, with recent economic turmoil influencing fur sales internationally.

I’m far from being an expert in the fur market, but I’ll do my best to provide a short summary of the state of the market and point you to the real experts who know what’s going on.

Even the experts are having some difficulty predicting what the fur market will do this year, but the general consensus appears to be that the market has hit its bottom and just needs time to recover.  Most seem to believe that recovery will take a couple of years, with depressed prices continuing throughout this season.  Much of this is due to the low point the economy, combined with large inventories of unsold fur at the auction houses.

Holding Steady

Fisher, marten and muskrat pelts will likely move at relatively good price levels this season.  Fisher and marten are specialty items that don’t usually suffer as much as high volume furs, and muskrat is a cheap alternative to ranched mink.  The recovering Chinese economy should help keep the muskrat market steady.

Depressed

Bobcat, wild mink and beaver prices will likely sell at depressed levels compared to past years.  Many experts see cats selling at less than half the prices offered two years ago.  Increases in ranched mink prices may help wild mink, and a reduction in the beaver harvest could help sales.

Tanked

Coyote and raccoon prices seem to be in real rough shape.  There are large quantities of unsold goods out there that need to be cleared before prices can stabilize.  This can turn around pretty quickly if a cold winter and/or economic recovery help increase Russia’s consumption of fur.

Well, that’s my take on the fur market based on what I’ve read.  You can read the most recent reports from the experts below:

NAFA’s 2010 Wild Fur Forecast

Fur Harvesters Auction 2009-10 Fur Forecast

Parker Dozhier’s T&PC Fur Market Report

Trapping Ban Results in Coyote Problems

Coyote populations have been expanding throughout the United States, and in the absence of hunting or trapping, these wily dogs can become pretty fearless of humans and civilization.

Marc Folco’s recent article in South Coast Today highlights the growing coyote problem in the state of Massachusetts, where a ban on trapping has been in place since 1996.  While a bit inaccurate in his comparison between soft-catch and steel jawed traps, Folco’s main point is on target: coyotes are causing problems in Massachusetts, and trapping is the most effective way to deal with problem coyotes.  Along with just a few other states, Massachusetts voted to ban trapping via an animal rights-funded ballot initiative, and has been paying the price for it in animal damage problems ever since.

Some Massachusetts residents still hunt coyotes, but it just isn’t a very effective method in many areas.  In reality, a restoration of trapping in the state is the only surefire way to solve the problems caused by these predators.

Many who are nervous about the use of steel jawed foothold traps would benefit from watching the video, “Destroying the Myth”.  This production of the National Trappers Association shows furbearers being captured and released unharmed in the same traps used by most trappers today.

Experts who deal with coyotes on a regular basis know that a well balanced population of furbearers with a healthy fear of man is the best situation for both the coyotes and the public.

Sharing the Trail: How Pet Owners and Trappers Can Avoid Conflicts in the Field

With trapping season underway in many states, it’s important that trappers and pet owners both work hard to avoid having dogs caught in traps. Catching dogs is a hot button issue in many places, particularly on public land that supports multiple use. In most cases, dogs are safely and easily released from traps, but some situations can be fatal, and these need to be avoided.

The Juneau Empire, newspaper for Alaska’s capitol city, published a recent article explaining ways pet owners can avoid problems with traps. The article highlights places to hike where trapping isn’t allowed, but the reality is that dog walkers can also avoid problems on trails that are open to trapping simply by keeping their pets on leash. Trappers and pet owners, please do your best to avoid pet catches, as these situations attract lots of attention and can shed a bad light on trapping.

The Alaska Trappers Association has put out a video entitled “Sharing Alaska’s Trails”, which helps educate pet owners on what to look for and avoid when walking dogs in areas where trapping takes place.  You can purchase a copy of the video or view the entire video free here.

Province Announces Coyote Bounty Program

Just this week, the Saskatchewan Agriculture Minister announced a new program that will offer a $20 bounty on coyotes killed in the province.  The Saskatchewan Coyote Control Program aims to reduce coyote predation on livestock in the province’s agricultural land.

In addition to the $20 bounty on coyotes, the program also provides funding for ranchers to install better fences and obtain guardian animals, and assists the training of Conservation Officers in the responsible use of poison for predator control.

This new coyote control program is an interesting departure from the current mentality in most U.S. states, where bounty programs are frowned upon in the face of political correctness.  The program will certainly provide much more incentive for folks to kill coyotes at a time when depressed fur prices have made it difficult to justify such efforts.

I’m anxious to see how the bounty works.  One thing to remember about bounties is that their benefits are quick but temporary.  If a bounty program works here, it’s likely to have positive effects as long as it is continued.  As soon as the bounty program ends, however, the coyote population will likely rebound to pre-bounty levels and will require control once again.

If successful, the bounty model in Saskatchewan could be followed by some U.S. states that have serious problems with coyote populations and their impact on livestock and game animals.  One such area that immediately comes to mind is the state of Maine, where exploding coyote populations have severely impacted the state’s whitetail deer herd in the northern and eastern parts of the state.  Localized coyote control during critical deer wintering and fawning periods could be encouraged by a bounty, and could provide the temporary relief needed for the deer herd to recover.  Maine would have huge hurdles to overcome before implementing such a bounty (finding a funding source and standing up to the anti-hunting community), but many average folks in the state are pushing hard to find ways to recover the deer herd.   A bounty could work in other places.  I’m just glad to see that Saskatchewan is actually trying it.

Click here to find out more about Saskatchewan’s coyote control program.

More on the Maine Lynx Lawsuit

Maine Trappers Win Major Court Victory

(Columbus, Ohio) – Trappers in Maine won a major victory as the state’s Federal District Court upheld the state’s trapping practices and blocked the establishment of a precedent that could be used by anti-hunting and anti-trapping groups nationwide.

In 2008, the Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine filed a lawsuit against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) seeking a permanent injunction that would have essentially prohibited trapping in the state. The lawsuit claimed that Maine’s trapping regulations violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because Canada lynx, a threatened species under the ESA, could be incidentally caught in traps causing “irreparable harm” to the population.

Throughout the case, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (USSAF), along with the Maine Trappers’ Association, Fur Takers of America, National Trappers’ Association, and several individual sportsmen, argued that the anti-trapping plaintiffs had to show that Maine’s trapping practices were a threat to the Canada lynx population as a whole. The plaintiffs insisted that harm to one individual lynx was sufficient for the Court to prohibit trapping in the state.

On November 10th, Federal District Court Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. ruled that Maine’s trapping practices did not irreparably harm the Canada lynx and denied the injunction sought by the anti-trappers. Further, the Judge agreed with the state and the USSAF that “irreparable harm” is harm to a species as a whole and not simply one individual member.

“Although the plaintiffs may appeal the ruling, the Federal Court’s decision is a monumental victory for the trappers in Maine and sets an excellent precedent that will make it harder for the antis to misuse the ESA in their attempts to ban hunting and trapping in other states,” states USSAF Vice President for Government Affairs Rob Sexton.

“We knew the evidence was on our side and are thrilled with outcome,” said Skip Trask, executive director of the Maine Trappers Association. “The USSAF’s legal assistance was invaluable to the favorable outcome.”

Chick Andres, President of the Fur Takers of America commented, “Trappers nationwide should be grateful that the court saw through what the anti’s were trying to do.”

In 2008 the USSAF’s legal arm, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund, was granted permission to intervene in the lawsuit. The case came on the heels of similar case, also in Maine, that was settled in late 2007 when the DIFW agreed to restrict trap sizes in areas where Canada lynx exist.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussafoundation.org.

Judge Rules in Favor of Trappers in Maine Lynx Lawsuit

The Maine lynx lawsuit has finally reached a conclusion.  After over a year of litigation and a six-day trial this past spring and summer, federal judge John Woodcock issued a 30 page ruling yesterday, which put an end to the current efforts of animal rights activists to ban many forms of trapping in northern Maine.  Here’s what you need to know:

“The Court denies the Plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunction against the state of Maine’s current trapping regulations because it finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the Canada lynx as a species will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.”

The case has a long, drawn out history (you can find more background here), and has resulted in lots of changes in the way trapping is carried out in northern Maine.  New trapping regulations have restricted many of the traditional practices Maine trappers have used successfully for years without harming lynx populations.  However, these changes may have been necessary to keep from losing the lawsuit.

In the end, the Judge ruled in favor of the testimony of Dr. Ken Elowe, of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, rather than the opinions of the animal rights group’s witnesses.  Solid scientific information gained through years of lynx research paid off for the Department and for trappers.

Here are a few more excerpts from Judge Woodcock’s ruling:

“Each trapping season, the current state of regulation in Maine has the effect of tolerating the incidental takes of a certain number of lynx, an intolerable state of affairs to animal rights advocates.  Twice in the last three years, they have come to federal court seeking declaratory relief and injunctions against Maine laws and regulations.”

“To prevent further incidental takes of Canada lynx, AWI sought the issuance of a permanent injunction against the state of Maine, and in mid-April and late June, 2009, the Court held six days of hearing in which the parties presented exhaustive testimonial and documentary evidence.  Following the hearing, AWI expressly asked for injunctive relief that would “(1) prohibit the use of leghold traps on land in the identified lynx WMDs as well as in WMD 7 where . . . lynx have been identified as present and have been trapped; and (2) prohibit the use of killer-type traps with an opening of more than four inches in both ground and elevated sets.”

” To the extent the case has been a battle of the experts, the Court has relied on Dr. Elowe’s testimony over the testimony of both Dr. Paquet and Ms. Fox.”

“The Court finds AWI’s generic evidence and speculative inferences much less convincing than IF&W’s specific records and finds Dr. Elowe’s testimony more convincing than the opinions of either Dr. Paquet or Ms. Fox.”

Maine trappers can finally relax a bit and start trapping without worry that their season could be shut down……at least for the forseeable future.  All trappers and outdoorspeople owe a huge debt of gratitude to all of those who worked so hard to fight this lawsuit.  As a trapper who started out in northern Maine, I thank you all for your hard work and dedication to the end.