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

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

Minnesota Woman Holds Beaver Skinning Title

Minnesota woman Kay Bachman has skinned more than 150,000 beavers in her lifetime, and holds the title for fastest beaver skinner in the land!  Got your attention yet trappers? 

Read more here

New York Extends Emergency Trapping Regulations

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation announced last week that it would extend the emergency trapping regulations put in place at the beginning of the 2007 season.  The regulations were adopted to avoid the incidental killing of dogs and other pets with conibear (body gripping) traps set on the ground for raccoon and fisher.

Body gripping traps have revolutionized trapping because they provide a quick, clean kill for most furbearers.  Unfortunately, they sometimes have the potential to kill the occasional pet, when set in the wrong place.  Trappers should always be aware of the potential for catching non-target critters and pets, and try to avoid such situations so that these regulations are not neccessary. 

The emergency rules require specific dog-proof cubby sets when using body grippers, as well as a minimum setback distance from public hiking trails, among other specifics.  The rules will be extended for about two months, and comments will be reviewed and permanent regulations put in place.

Read the list of emergency regulations here

Number of Montana Trappers on the Rise

More people in Montana are trapping than ever before, as evidenced by the ever increasing number of licences sold in the past 17 years.  State furbearer biologist Brian Giddings believes that higher pelt prices for species like bobcat and marten are encouraging more outdoorsmen to go trapping.

Read the story here

If you’re a trapper in Montana, you may be running into more competition, but remember: far fewer people are pursuing the sport of trapping than in the past, and hopefully more trappers can continue to bring positive publicity to the sport.

Settlement Reached in Maine Lynx Trapping Lawsuit

Well, here it is.  After a few months of back and forth, the State of Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has settled a lawsuit with the California-based Animal Protection Institute, which sued the state under the premise that state-approved trapping activities threaten Canada lynx. 

State Agrees to Restrict Trapping to Protect Threatened Lynx

Sportsmen Settle Suit and Protect Trapping in Maine

The results of the settlement have been sort of a mixed bag for trappers.  On the one hand, trapping in northern Maine can continue.  On the other, however, trappers have had to give up some important tools and methods, even though trapping has only resulted in two dead lynx in Maine, compared to 11 killed by automobiles. 

As a result of the lawsuit, the use of conibears on the ground has been prohibited, except in certain cases.  Furthermore, the most effective coyote traps (traps with a jaw spread of over 5 3/8″) are no longer allowed in northern Maine. 

One of the many problems I see with this is that restricting the use of these traps will make it harder for trappers to catch coyotes, and coyotes compete with lynx for a common food source, especially during winters with little snow. 

The bottom line is that research has shown that lynx populations are driven primarily by the snowshoe hare cycle, and most lynx deaths are a result of starvation.  In addition, fishers have been documented killing a number of lynx, and the state has taken measures to reduce fisher catch because of concern for declining fisher populations.  So we’re changing laws that may result in an increase in species that cause detriment to lynx populations.  But hey, we reduced the chances of killing 2 lynx over the next 10 years by restricting the rights of trappers.  Smart.

See more on the issue from Tom Remington’s Black Bear Blog here and here

The End of All Trapping in Colorado???

Many of you probably remember when the state of Colorado passed a ballot initiative to ban trapping back in 1996.  Trappers lost all rights to do what they loved, until a small semblance of trapping was restored when the state allowed the use of box traps and padded footholds. 

Well, the state’s ruling is now being challenged in court by some of the same groups that helped ban trapping over 10 years ago.  The battle officially ensued Monday, when the two opposing sides met in the state District Court. 

In the end, a judge will likely decide the fate of trappers in Colorado, and could make the last bit of trapping heritage in Colorado become obsolete.

Read the full story here