New Mexico Governor Bans Trapping in Wolf Recovery Area

Amidst a slew of propaganda from animal rights activists and members of the media, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson ordered the New Mexico Game and Fish Department to impose a six month ban on trapping in the area along the New Mexico-Arizona border where gray wolves were introduced beginning in 1998.

The ban halts trapping in the area until a study can be completed to evaluate the impacts of traps on wolves.  It’s assumed that after the study, the Game and Fish Department will impose new restrictions on trapping to minimize potential impacts on the wolves, if trapping is allowed to resume at all.  Just how they are going to carry out this study without actually ‘hurting’ more wolves is beyond me.

The New Mexico trapping ban is just the latest in a long line of recent trapping bans and restrictions all across the country, aiming to ‘reduce impacts’ on ‘endangered species’, many of which have been introduced by the government that’s restricting trapping to protect them.

Another interesting observation is the fact that trapping of all types is being banned in the area, not just trapping activities that could impact wolves.  For instance, under the executive order it will be illegal to trap with underwater sets for muskrats, or to use live cage traps for bobcat.

It should be interesting to see how the New Mexico trapping ban plays out, especially since the state will have a new governor after the upcoming elections.  We’ll be sure to keep you posted on any new developments.

Click here to read Richardson’s executive order

Here are a couple of related news stories:

Richardson orders temporary wolf-trapping ban

NM governor suspends trapping in wolf area

Here’s a map of the recovery area where the trapping ban will be enacted:

Montana Trap Ban Will Not Make Ballot

The initiative that could have ended trapping as we know it in the state of Montana will not be on the ballot this November.  With the deadline past for supporters of I-160, the effort to ban trapping on public lands in Montana, to gather enough signatures to put the question to the voters in November, signature numbers have fallen short.

Although the animal rights groups came very close to gathering the number of signatures needed to qualify the question for the ballot (20,318 of a needed 24,337), the shortfall signifies that there isn’t enough support (yet) for a ban on traditional trapping practices in the state.

Trappers dodged a bullet this time around, with Montanans for Effective Wildlife Management leading the charge to educate the public on why the trap ban would be a terrible idea.  Coming this close to getting the needed signatures, however, means that these groups will most certainly be back, and hopefully Montanans will be ready to fight them off again.

Trapping in Montana is a time honored tradition and a well-regulated wildlife management tool in the state even today.  The trap ban would have hindered the ability of Montanans to manage wildlife populations, control predator numbers and prevent animal damage.

The Attempt to Ban Trapping in New Hampshire

A new bill introduced to the New Hampshire House of Representatives, is yet another backdoor attempt by animal rights activists to ban trapping.

HB 1514 would essentially eliminate fur trapping by making it illegal to sell the fur of any trapped wild animal in the state.  The bill was introduced after an outright trapping ban failed in the 2007 legislative session.

Aside from the New Hampshire trappers the bill would directly impact, many residents are concerned that they will be faced with mounting overpopulation and animal damage problems similar to those experienced by nearby Massachusetts ever since trapping was banned there in 1996.

Let’s hope the “Live Free or Die” state lives up to its name and rejects another animal rights bid.

Read the full Concord Monitor story here.

Read the bill here.

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.

Maine Lynx Lawsuit Postponed

After four days in court, the lawsuit to ban certain types of trapping in Maine has been postponed until later this summer.

After hearing testimony from environmentalists and representatives from the state of Maine for four days, prior commitments by the judge required that the case be finished over a couple of days sometime this summer.

Stay tuned for more updates when this case resumes, and remember to support the Maine Trappers Association, U.S. Sportsman’s Association, and the National Trappers Association.  These groups are working hard to protect the rights of trappers in Maine and throughout the United States.

Judge Hears Arguments in Lawsuit to Restrict Trapping in Maine

Yet another lawsuit aimed at ending trapping in Maine is being battled in court this week.  On Monday, a federal judge heard arguments from animal rights activists suing the State of Maine for allowing trapping practices that resulted in the capture of the ‘threatened’ Canada lynx.

Just last year, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife settled with the Animal Protection Institute to allow trapping practices to continue in the state while working to avoid the taking of Canada lynx.  This meant that Maine trappers had to give up a lot of their traditional practices in order to avoid incidentally capturing lynx, which the API argued was a violation of the Endangered Species Act.  After the new rules were implemented, trappers caught and safely released eight lynx, which spurred the new lawsuit, claiming that the new rules didn’t go far enough.

Basically, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Wildlife Alliance of Maine, and the API want to see all trapping cease in the state.  And the federal judge involved in both lawsuits appears to more fully understand their motives this time around.

On Monday, federal judge John Woodcock showed some real common sense and put the animal rights groups’ arguments into perspective:

Woodcock pressed Brawer for evidence that lynx are harmed when they are accidentally trapped and then released.

“All I’ve got is eight lynx that get caught in foothold traps and walk away ultimately, one a little gimpy,” Woodcock said. “Where is the irreparable harm?”

Of course the plaintiffs then argued that the state failed to follow up on possible injuries that couldn’t be identified at the time of capture.  What they failed to mention was that the state routinely attaches radio collars to lynx that are trapped using these methods, and follow the critters throughout their lives.

And more importantly, Judge Woodcock pointed out the obvious persistence and apparent hidden agenda these groups all share.  Their goal is to end all trapping.  There’s no doubt about it, and outside of court, they will openly state the fact.

Woodcock also pressed Brawer for assurances that another group won’t be back with an identical lawsuit next year if more lynx turn up in traps.

Woodcock pointed out that Daryl DeJoy, executive director of the Wildlife Alliance of Maine, is a member of another group that has filed similar lawsuits over lynx in Minnesota. Additionally, wildlife consultant Camilla Fox with the Animal Welfare Institute testified as an independent expert witness in last year’s suit.

“Are we going to get suit upon suit until trapping is made illegal in the state of Maine? Is that your goal?” Woodcock asked.

Who knows where this case will end up, but thankfully the judge seems to see through some of the lies and hidden agendas at play.  And he seems to be losing a bit of patience with these groups.  Let’s hope Woodcock rules in the favor of common sense.  If catching and releasing (unharmed) eight lynx constitutes a violation of the Endangered Species Act, then the ESA is in serious need of repair.

Finally, though, one might argue that this case wouldn’t even be in court if it weren’t for state and federal bureaucracy.  Maine trappers were told that the state was going to apply for an Incidental Take Permit (allowing incidental lynx captures) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of a special predator control program about 6 years ago.  The feds never saw an application.  And even if the state’s current application (regarding the revised trapping rules) is in, it may sit on desks at the USFWS for quite some time.

DIF&W could protect itself as well as trappers licensed by the state by acquiring a permit that allows for the limited “take” of protected species through lawful activities. DIF&W recently applied for such an “incidental take permit.” However, it typically takes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10 months or longer to process and approve an application.

As trappers, we all need to put pressure on the state to take more aggressive action, and we should support the Maine Trappers Association, the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance, and other groups working so hard to keep Maine’s trapping heritage alive.

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