Seventeen years have passed since the successful 1996 Question One “Wildlife Protection Act” Ballot referendum became law.  Voters on that day opened up their ballot to read the first sentence of Question One: “In order to protect people, domestic animals, and wildlife from the dangers of cruel traps and to facilitate the release of non-target animals, the existing language of MASS. GEN. LAWS chapter 13, section 80a, shall be deleted…” Who would vote against that? As it turned out, not nearly enough. Fast forward to 2013 and we now have years of consequences behind us. Massachusetts now routinely experiences beaver and coyote populations reaching saturation levels, 100’s of documented situations to prove the current law is dysfunctional where the reactive trapping system is actually killing more beavers than ever before, while costing taxpayers untold millions. So we must ask the question why? Why are we still maintaining a wildlife management law that is clearly failing both the residents of Massachusetts and its wildlife? The simple answer is that wildlife management issues are complicated. In the political arena they become extremely difficult to address due to the polarizing emotional and philosophical positions taken. To add insult to injury the large human population centers in Massachusetts have been largely immune to, or isolated from the impact of the 1996 law.

What will H 442 "An act conserving our natural resources" actually do?

1. H 452 provides reasonable modifications to the existing trapping l aw, making it effective for proactive population management, while being responsive to animal conflicts with people. The current law limits capture methods to cage style traps during the proactive regulated trapping season. This restriction severely limits trapping to be used as an effective capture method for proactive management strategies. Cage style traps are limited to warm weather conditions for open water trapping and effectively confines their mechanical operation to one month between November and December, before freezing conditions occur. Cage traps cost up to $400 each. Cage traps used for beaver and coyote are extremely large and can weigh up to 40 lbs. which limits their practicality and versatility. H 442 allows for existing, effective and efficient traps that are currently restricted to use under 10-day reactive emergency permits, to be used during the entire established regulated proactive season. Language in the bill also allows for the regulation of new types of restraints that did not exist in 1996 when the current trap ban was enacted.

2. H 442 does not repeal the current trapping law . The existing trapping law passed in 1996 and amended in 2000 remains intact, during hazardous health and safety situations permits will still be employed by heath officials, Outside the established Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) trapping season which occurs between November and April, the existing restrictions on trapping for health and safety situations remain in effect. During this time local boards of health, under the direction of the Department of Public Health (DPH) remain the regulatory authority and the first line of contact to determine a course of action.

3. H 442 establishes the MA DFW as the key participant in creating effective, proactive regulation and wildlife management strategies for furbearing wildlife that include (but not limited to) beaver, muskrat and coyote. The existing trapping law restricts trapping to a point where the DFW can not effectively fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. H 442 establishes the DFW, using their extensive scientific knowledge of wildlife as the primary source for establishing proactive wildlife management regulation using the best tools and techniques available that have the welfare of the animal as a top priority. 

4. H 442 establishes a "partnership of responsibility" . H 442 ensures the DFW and the DPH will work together to proactively manage wildlife populations and efficiently address problem animal conflicts as they occur. H 442 provides a unique opportunity where two state departments share the responsibility to manage wildlife and conflicts effectively year round. This is done by joint regulatory authority and year round documentation requirements for problem animals taken inside and outside the regulated trapping season.

5. The MA DFW is the regulatory authority for animal restraints and body gripping traps . H 442 provides DFW the authority to regulate for use, specific types of currently banned or extremely restricted traps. Any body gripping trap or restraint device allowed by law must first have regulations designed and approved by the DFW Fish and Wildlife Regulatory Board for their appropriate deployment. Subsequently, no device is made immediately available merely because it is written into the trapping law. To be clear; in order for any restraint that "grips" the animal in any way to be regulated for use during a trapping season, the law must first allow the regulation to occur. As a result, regulation of approved traps play a highly significant role in what, where, when, why and how they can be used. All trapping regulations specific to approved traps take into serious consideration their; a) safety to people, pets, domestic animals, as well as maintaining animal welfare as a top priority.

6. DFW determines the established trapping season length during the autumn and winter months annually. Trapping is a highly regulated activity, above and beyond what types of traps are available for use. Regulated trapping seasons for furbearing animals like beaver and coyote take into account a series of parameters ranging from population estimates to “primeness” of pelts, which allows for maximum use of the animals taken. Typically, trapping seasons in Massachusetts fall within the months of November and April. With the exception of beaver and muskrat, all trapping activity is confined within the month of November.    H 442 relies on our DFW wildlife biologists and managers to determine season lengths and the general number of animals taken based on scientifically collected information.

7. H 442 has the welfare of the animal as a top priority . No matter what one’s own background or knowledge on wildlife issues are, no one with an ounce of conscience has a desire to see another living thing suffer needlessly. This includes trappers, wildlife managers, conservationists and wildlife biologists. The desire to partake in proactive wildlife management and participate in the actual act of killing does not make these people inherently bad or immoral. In fact the lengths and efforts taken by these groups to minimize or eliminate potential suffering are substantial. Millions of dollars annually are dedicated by these groups to address animal welfare and minimize any undue pain or suffering of animals captured. A tremendous amount of emphasis is place on animal welfare.Trapping “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) by species have been developed nationally and international standards are followed to ensure the welfare of the animal remains a top priority in state wildlife management plans. H 442 ensures managing wildlife via scientifically assessed traps and high ethical standard remains embedded into the trapping law by maintaining the DFW in the regulatory process.

Existing trapping Law: What are the results of the existing trapping law?

1. Existing trapping law is: reactive in nature . Currently, in order to justify the use of banned traps that “grip the animal in any way”, a serious health or safety situation must be documented. In other words, a specific animal conflict with people must occur before we can “react”. An animal has to cause a problem or damage. All other “non-lethal” options must be exhausted before a 10-day emergency permit is granted to trap the offending animal with a so-called “banned” trap. The law effectively reduces a once valuable resource (furbearing animals) to that of a societal problem or pest, where solutions rest primarily on the shoulders of problem animal control. Existing regulation forbids any utilization of and animal taken under health and safety permit, requiring the entire animal to be immediately disposed of. Intuitively and intellectually we know practically any potential problem is best addressed before it becomes dire The slight changes in H 442 allow the public to use the same devices under the restrictive damage process, prior to them causing damage or problems. By regulating these devices for use in the restricted open season, license trappers under regulated seasons and conditions can take more animals and not just animals causing damage. This will allow more a higher and controlled level of animals to be taken during the open season and thus reducing the populations there will be less property damage and health and safety issues. Making the decision to proactively address animal population concerns before they become a real problem is no different. Common sense and our state’s conservation ethic combined with scientific study,should allow us to make reasonable modifications to our activities to avoid calamity – for both animals and people.

Unfortunately, the existing law forces us to wait, watch as the wildlife populations grow unchecked at local levels, as the calamity unfolds, then it expects us to act with fantastic speed to address the problem under sometimes extreme duress.

2. Existing trapping law: establishes trapping as an ineffective tool in managing wildlife populations and maximizes property damage and health and safety issues.. The current law creates a “self-fulfilling prophecy”, where lethal trapping is only a short-term solution and as status quo proponents advocate; “nature loves a vacuum”. Using this as a rationale or philosophy to justify maintaining the current trapping law flies in the face of modern conservation science and management. The excessively restrictive trapping law eliminates trapping as a tool to be regulated and used effectively for proactive wildlife management. 

3. Existing trapping law: Leans heavily towards non-lethal approaches. While non-lethal management can be effective and appropriate in concert with wildlife population management. As a single strategy, it should not be confused with or substituted for the ultimate goals of wildlife management. In fact, when viewed as a management goal, it is impossible to obtain. There is the simple truth that animals will die with or without our involvement. That is a fact we cannot change, since we cannot stockpile wildlife. Animals will suffer terribly from disease, starvation or preyed upon by other animals. They will be run over by vehicles or be killed by roaming feral domestic animals and our pets. Their populations increase and increase the frequency and severity of health and safety issues as will has overall property damage. Is this merely nature’s will, or do we have an obligation to find ways to minimize these inevitable negative outcomes. Should we seek out approaches that benefit wildlife and people, while at the same time maximizing the positive interactions between the two? Ironically, while the current trapping law has

4. Existing trapping law: More beavers are killed now than before the 1996 law banned proactive trapping with appropriate traps. Between the years 1960 and 1996, averages of 1,000 beaver were taken annually during proactive regulated trapping seasons. Since that time, through pelt tags and animal control agent estimates, triple that number are consistently killed causing problems annually throughout the year while the beaver population has gone from approximately 19,000 animals to over 80,000 across the state. Using this statistic alone, one can deduct that the 1996 change in the trapping law (banning many humane and effective traps) has increased lethal take by a factor of three, increased annual beaver population levels by a factor of 4 and taken a once valuable natural resource, reducing to that of a nuisance animal or pest. All the while private home owners, farmers, highway and transportation systems and municipal water supply have incurred record amounts of health, safety and property damage.

5. Existing trapping law: Costly for towns, people and wildlife. Specifically beaver, coyote and muskrat are abundant species that routinely interact with our human population. As the populations of these animals in various regions across Massachusetts reach saturation levels, problems inevitably increase. For better or worse our society is a permanent fixture on the landscape. Each year, untold numbers of conflicts occur, while dozens of high profile conflicts make their way into the press. This year for example; the town of Warren, MA experienced a beaver dam breach during a rain event, flooding out homes and businesses, causing 100’s of thousands of dollars’ worth of damage. In Haverhill, last year a coyote attacked a 9 year old girl, biting her on the hand, arm and buttocks, before being retreating. Homes in Hopkinton, MA, Warwick and other towns are seeing their real-estate home values dropping as a result of beaver flooding.

H 442  and H 456 Will:
- Keep trapping heavily regulated
- Allow a proactive approach to
     scientifically manage wildlife populations  -REDUCE wildlife property damage and            health and safety issues. 
- Use scientific assessment of trapping               devices based on animal welfare,                 safety,  selectivity, efficiency and                 practicality of the restricted trapping             devices.
- Will ensure wildlife and domestic animals         are safe.
- Maintain existing permit system and                 collaborative engagement of Mass Fish       and Wildlife and Public Health
      Agencies

Destroy the Myth