U.S. Fish and Wildlife Reviewing Maine’s ITP Application for Trapping and Lynx

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently considering an application by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for an incidental take permit for Canada lynx.  The ITP would provide legal protection for the Department’s trapping program and trappers who incidentally capture lynx, which are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act.  In return, the Department has taken measures to minimize the chances that lynx will be taken in traps, and minimize mortality to lynx that are caught.  For the few possible mortalities that could occur, the Department has agreed to provide mitigation to minimize impacts to the lynx population.

The ITP comes on the heels of several lawsuits from animal rights groups to attempt to limit trapping in Maine.

If issued, the Incidental Take Permit would last for a 15 year period.

A brief review of what the document means to Maine’s trapping program can be read by clicking here.

Click here to read the full ITP document.

The USFWS Draft EA can be found here.

The USFWS is accepting public comment on the ITP application through February 7, 2012.  Comments can be mailed in or emailed to: hcpmainetrapping@fws.gov

Several public meetings have already been held, but public comment is still being accepted.  See the press release below:

 

News Release Contact:
11/08/2011 USFWS, Meagan Racey, 413-253-8558/413-658-4386
MDIFW, Walter Jakubas, 207-941-4471
Wildlife agencies announce request for lynx permit
Public invited to comment on draft plan for Maine trapping program
The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a permit to authorize incidental take of federally protected Canada lynx resulting from the state-regulated trapping program.
The Service invites the public to comment on MDIFW’s draft incidental take plan, a requirement for the permit. The Service also invites comment on its draft environment assessment for MDIFW’s application.
The Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to “take”—meaning trap, capture, harass, harm or kill—federally threatened or endangered wildlife, such as the threatened Canada lynx. Some legal activities, such as trapping, have the risk of incidentally taking protected species. An incidental take permit allows for those activities to continue, as long as the permittee undertakes reasonable and practical measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of listed species.
“The incidental take permit that MDIFW has applied for should provide assurance to Maine’s trapping community and the general public that trappers can continue to pursue their avocation in northern Maine without detriment to the state’s lynx population,” said Wally Jakubas, MDIFW Mammal Group leader.
Incidental take plans, known also as habitat conservation plans, identify the impacts to wildlife from a project or program; the steps the applicant will take to reduce or compensate for such impacts; what alternative actions were considered; and how conservation efforts will be funded.
“Habitat conservation plans provide frameworks for partnerships in endangered species conservation,” said Paul Phifer, assistant regional director for the Service’s Northeast Region Ecological Services program. “The measures in this plan will help both agencies continue to protect lynx across the state for the benefit of future generations.”
The Service and MDIFW will hold informational sessions on the draft plan and related assessment in December:

December 13 at University of Maine at Presque Isle, 181 Maine Street, Presque Isle, 04769 (Grand Ballroom—Allagash and Aroostook rooms); 207-768-9502

December 14 at Black Bear Inn, 4 Godfrey Drive, Orono, 04473; 207-866-7120

December 15 at University of Southern Maine in Gorham, 37 College Avenue, Gorham, 04038 (Bailey Hall); 207-780-5961
The Service and MDIFW are accepting written comments on the draft plan and environmental assessment through February 7, 2012. After the comment period ends, the Service will determine whether the application meets the permit issuance requirements. Send comments to hcpmainetrapping@fws.gov or to the Service’s Maine Field Office at 17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 2, Orono, Maine 04473. Comments sent through U.S. mail should be postmarked no later than February 7, 2012, to be considered

Click here for a shortened explanation of the highlights of the ITP. You are encouraged to provide comments on the plan.  Remember, these can be submitted to hcpmainetrapping@fws.gov.

West Virginia Proposes New Otter Trapping Season

Texas isn’t the only place river otters are making a comeback.  The recovery of otter populations in a number of states across the nation has been an exciting trend, and is opening up the opportunity for responsibly regulated trapping seasons.

Just recently, wildlife officials in the state of West Virginia announced their plans to allow the trapping of river otters beginning in the 2011-2012 trapping season.

Rich Rogers, furbearer project leader for the Division of Natural Resources, said recent research showed that otters had become abundant enough to be trapped.

“We had known how widely they had spread throughout the state, but we didn’t know if there were enough individuals to support a trapping season,” Rogers said. “We finally got the data we needed to make a decision on that.”

Click here to read more about the otter recovery and the proposed trapping season.

Ontario Trapping Restrictions: Based on Science?

Recent hunting and trapping restrictions have hindered many Ontario, Canada residents near Algonquin National Park.  Some argue that the decision to restrict these activities (particularly the pursuit of wolves and coyotes) in areas around the Park is based on scientific research, but opponents claim that the research is terribly flawed.

Huntsville, Ontario resident Ron Stinson wrote a convincing rebuttal to the new restrictions in the Huntsville Forester.  Hopefully his letter sheds some light on the subject, and encourages others to look deeper into the science behind the restrictions.

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.

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