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

Destroying The Myth

Destroying the Myth is a 10-minute video filmed in 2004 and distributed by the National Trappers Association, which explains the use of the foothold trap used commonly by trappers.  The video describes the use of foothold traps to capture and relocate animals in wildlife restoration projects, as well as the use of these traps to harvest animals for their fur.  It shows tons of great footage of animals being captured and released unharmed by the traps.  Such information is often ignored by animal rights activists who paint the trap as inhumane.  Destroying the Myth is a must watch for all trappers.  I would encourage you to watch the video and share it with others who are less familiar with trapping.

You can find a link to the video here, or at the National Trappers Association website.  I have also provided a link to the video on the sidebar to the right of this page.  

Fur is Eco-Friendly

The thought of wearing fur incites a negative reaction from a portion of the public, but is such a reaction really justified?  After all, fur is a renewable natural resource.  When managed wisely, furbearers can provide recreational and economic benefits to trappers, and play an important part in the global fashion market without harming the environment.  In fact, regulating furbearer populations via responsible trapping can actually provide a healthier environment for many animals.

In the blog she writes for the Missouri Department of Conservation, Outreach and Education Division Chief Lorna Domke recently provided some insight on the concept of eco-friendly fur.     

“….wild furs, unlike much other clothing, do not require use of lots of other natural resources to produce them. When they’re taken in a carefully regulated way (which is the only legal trapping allowed), we can have furs, yet maintain a healthy natural world. Furs can be eco-friendly.”

 See the full blog post here

Fisher Reintroduction to Washington’s Olympic National Park

Washington is considering reintroducing 100 fishers into Olympic National Park, in an effort to re-establish a viable fisher population. 

See the story here