Each year, more than 4 million animals are trapped and killed for their
fur in the United States. Millions more are trapped and killed in the name
of "livestock" and "game" protection and for "nuisance" animal control.
Whatever the purpose, the consequences for the trapped animals are the
same -- pain, suffering, and death. Proponents argue that traps are humane
and selective, and that trapping is tightly regulated, an important source
of income for many people, and necessary for managing wildlife. These
claims, however, are far from the truth.
Myth: Trapping is humane and selective.
Despite what trappers would have you believe, animals frequently
sustain severe injuries from being trapped. When not killed outright by
the trap, animals can suffer physiological trauma, dehydration, exposure
to severe weather, and predation by other animals until the trapper
returns. When the trapper returns he usually clubs, suffocates or
strangles the animal to death. Fur trappers rarely shoot trapped animals
because bullet holes and blood reduce a pelt's value.
Traps set in or near water are designed to drown aquatic mammals, which
can take up to 20 minutes for some species.1 The American
Veterinary Medical Association deems drowning to be inhumane and a 1999
study concluded "drowning cannot be considered
euthanasia."2
Most traps are notoriously indiscriminate, capturing almost any animal
that triggers them. Sometimes called "trash" animals by trappers,
non-target species that have been found in traps include threatened and
endangered species, raptors, domestic dogs and cats, and even humans.
These animals can sustain the same injuries as target species. Even if
released, they may perish later from internal injuries or reduced ability
to hunt or forage for food.
There are three general types of traps used today: restraining
body-gripping traps; kill traps; and live traps.
Restraining and kill traps are most often used for commercial and
recreational fur trapping as they are cheap, portable, and easy to set.
Live traps are more often used by private "nuisance" animal control
trappers for trapping raccoons, cats, skunks, etc.
The most commonly used trap in the U.S. is the steel-jaw leghold
trap, a restraining trap with spring-loaded steel jaws that clamp on
an animal's foot or leg when triggered. Leghold traps can cause severe
swelling, lacerations, joint dislocations, fractures, damage to teeth and
gums, self-mutilation, limb amputation, and even death.3 The
steel-jaw leghold trap has been declared inhumane by the American
Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association,
and the National Animal Control Association, and has been banned or
severely restricted by more than 80 countries and 8 U.S. states.
Dick Randall, a former federal trapper, told Congress, "My trapping
records show that for each target animal I trapped, about two unwanted
individuals were caught. Because of trap injuries, these nontarget animals
had to be destroyed."4 Nontarget animals comprised 76% of all
animals captured in leghold traps in a 1981 study.5 Although
trappers may use pan tension devices, which may exclude smaller
"nontarget" species by increasing the force needed to trigger a trap,
species similar in weight or larger than the target species are still
captured.6,7
In response to criticism over the steel-jaw leghold trap, trap
manufacturers designed the padded leghold trap, which has thin
strips of rubber attached to the trap's jaws. Padded traps can reduce limb
injuries in some species. However, they can still cause serious and
debilitating injuries. For example, a 1995 study by the USDA's Animal
Damage Control program (now called "Wildlife Services") found 97% of
coyotes caught in padded traps had severe swelling of their trapped limb,
39% had lacerations, and several had simple or compound
fractures.8 Despite such findings, and even though as of 1992
less than 2% of traps owned by U.S. trappers were padded leghold
traps,9 trapping proponents claim that padded jaw traps have
made trapping "humane."
Other modified leghold traps include the offset jaw and
laminated jaw traps, though these devices have also been found to
cause serious injuries.
Snares are primitive wire nooses that, depending on how they are set,
are designed to tighten around an animal's leg (restraining trap) or neck
(kill trap). Some researchers suggests that certain leg snares may
be a more humane alternative to jaw-type leghold traps, but research has
been limited.
While small victims of neck snares may become unconscious in
five to ten minutes from strangulation, larger animals may suffer for
days. In one study, researchers recommended neck snares not be used in
areas with livestock or deer after snares set for coyotes killed 50% of
deer accidentally captured.10 The Federal Provincial Committee
on Humane Trapping concluded after years of study that these snares "do
not have the potential to consistently produce a quick
death."11
Conibear traps are kill traps consisting of two metal frames
hinged at the center point and powered by two torsion springs to create a
scissorlike action. Conibear traps are supposed to kill animals instantly
by snapping the spinal column at the base of the neck. However,
traditional Conibear traps kill less than 15% of trapped animals quickly,
and more than 40% die slow, painful deaths as their abdomens, heads, or
other body parts are crushed.12 Some newer modifications have
improved the Conibear's killing ability,3 but for only a few
species, and mostly in controlled lab settings. Conibear traps are also
notoriously indiscriminate and have been shown to capture 2 nontarget
animals per target animal.13
Myth: Trapping is tightly regulated.
Trapping regulations vary widely from state to state and are, in
general, poorly enforced. Many states have few restrictions on the types
of traps that can be used or the number of animals that can be trapped.
Only a handful of states require or offer trapper education courses so
most trappers learn "in the field." Four states do not require
trappers to check their traps at all, and twenty states allow animals to
suffer in traps for 2 to 4 days. Only Georgia regulates how a trapped
animal must be killed.
Very few states monitor the number of target animals trapped each year,
and most do not require trappers to report nontarget captures at all. Some
state wildlife agencies rely on voluntary or mandatory "fur dealer/buyer
reports" to estimate annual trapping totals. Others obtain their data
through random telephone or mail surveys, then use these partial reports
to estimate the total numbers of animals trapped each year. Additionally,
millions of animals are trapped by private "nuisance wildlife control
operators" -- or NWCOs -- in this growing and largely unregulated
industry.14
Myth: Only abundant species are trapped.
Historically, unregulated trapping almost wiped out beaver, sea otter,
lynx, wolverine, and other species in many areas of the U.S. Today, some
state wildlife management agencies continue to allow the trapping of
highly sensitive species, including wolverine, fisher, marten, kit fox,
and lynx. For example, while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
considered listing the Canada lynx under the Endangered Species Act,
Montana continued to allow lynx to be commercially trapped -- even when a
1999 U.S. Forest Service report concluded, "Lynx appear to be extremely
susceptible to trapping, and where trapping is permitted it can be (and
has been) a significant source of mortality.15 Unfortunately,
because population modeling and furbearer data collection are so poor in
many states, we do not know the impact trapping has on sensitive species
-- often until it is too late.
Myth: Trapping is a necessary wildlife management tool.
Trappers and wildlife managers claim that trapping prevents species
from overpopulating and destroying their habitat by removing "surplus"
animals from the wild. This simplistic argument, however, belies the
dynamics of wildlife populations. First, the term "surplus" as used by
trappers is an ecological fallacy -- every animal, alive or dead, plays an
important role in its ecosystem as either predator or prey. Second,
available habitat and food resources generally limit the size of wildlife
populations. When a wildlife population approaches the limit that the
habitat can sustain -- the "carrying capacity" -- reproduction and
survival decrease because less food is available to each individual, and
the population begins to decline. In this way, nature has been regulating
itself for millennia without our help.
Trapping generally removes healthy individuals from the population
rather than the sick, aged, infirm, or very young animals most often
subjected to natural selection. It would be "blind luck" if a trapper were
to trap an animal that would have otherwise died of starvation or any
other natural cause, so trapping actually works against nature's selection
process.
In truth, trappers are mainly interested in manipulating wildlife
populations for their own benefit. State wildlife agencies actively manage
populations of furbearers to ensure that there are enough animals for
trappers to kill, not to prevent biological overpopulation.
Myth: Trapping controls the spread of disease.
Trappers and wildlife managers play on the public's fear of rabies and
other diseases by arguing that trapping is necessary to control the spread
of disease. However, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy
of Sciences, and the World Health Organization, as well as many other
scientific, public health, and veterinary organizations, disagree. The
National Academy of Sciences subcommittee on rabies concluded that,
"Persistent trapping or poisoning campaigns as a means to rabies control
should be abolished. There is no evidence that these costly and
politically attractive programs reduce either wildlife reservoirs or
rabies incidence. The money can be better spent on research, vaccination,
compensation to stockmen for losses, education and warning
systems."16
Rather, trapping can actually increase the spread of
disease.17 By removing mature animals who have acquired
immunity to disease, trappers make room for newcomers who may not be
immune. In addition, animals infected with rabies do not eat during the
latter stages of the disease, and therefore do not respond to baited
traps. Hence, traps set in an area infected with rabies will more than
likely capture healthy animals rather than infected animals, thereby
increasing the likelihood that the disease will spread.
Myth: Fur trapping provides significant income for many
Americans.
Trapping and fur industry proponents claim trapping provides a viable
income for many Americans. However, surveys show that most trappers trap
for "sport" and a little extra income. In response to a 1997 API survey,
state wildlife agencies indicated that income from trapping was either
extremely low or non-existent. A 1992 Missouri Department of Conservation
study reported that "approximately 30% of all trappers in 1991 reported no
household income from trapping . . . Most trappers reported earning small
incomes from trapping. This suggests that motives other than monetary gain
are also important to trappers. The average cost of trapping per day was
$30.67." Today fur trapping is little more than a hobby.
The trapping of wildlife for profit is an anachronism in today's
society. Its blatant cruelty can no longer be masked under the guise of
economics or wildlife management. However, the trapping/fur lobby is
powerful and well-funded, and countering its entrenched political power
requires dedicated, passionate citizens who recognize that wildlife has
intrinsic worth above and beyond its economic value. We encourage you to
get involved.
Fur & Trapping Facts
Total Trapping Licenses sold in the U.S. in 1997-98: 130,400
*Figures may include animals killed by means other than
trapping due to poor record keeping by agencies.
Number of animals used to
make an average length fur coat:
Badger
20
Mink (Ranch)
60
Beaver
15
Otter
14
Bobcat
15
Rabbit
30
Chinchilla
100
Raccoon
27
Coyote
16
Red Fox
18
Ermine
125
Sable
40
Lynx
11
Silver Fox
11
State Leghold Trapping Bans
FL (1973) -- Steel traps banned except by permit for animal
damage control.
RI (1977) -- Steel-jawed leghold traps banned except by
permit for animal damage control.
NJ (1984) -- Use, sale, manufacture, possession, import, and
transport of steel-jaw leghold traps banned.
AZ (1994) -- Leghold traps, instant kill body-gripping traps,
and snares banned on public lands except for human health and safety,
rodent control, wildlife research and relocation.
CO (1996) -- Leghold traps, instant kill body-gripping traps,
and snares banned except for animal damage control, human health and
safety, rodent control, wildlife research and relocation.
MA (1996) -- Steel-jaw leghold traps, padded leghold traps,
Conibear traps, and snares banned except for human health and safety;
Conibears only allowed by permit for damage control.
CA (1998) -- Use of body-gripping traps for recreation or
commerce, and commerce in raw fur from animals trapped with
body-gripping traps, banned; steel-jaw leghold trap banned for all
purposes except padded leghold trap for human health and safety.
WA (2000) -- Use of body-gripping traps for recreation or
commerce, and commerce in raw fur from mammals trapped with
body-gripping traps, banned; use of body-gripping traps banned except
Conibear trap in water, padded leghold trap, and foot snare allowed by
permit for human health and safety, endangered species protection,
wildlife research, or for unrelieved damage control.
What You Can Do
Don't buy or wear fur, fur-trimmed items, or anything made with fur,
such as cat toys.
Help educate people about the cruelties behind fur by distributing
API's fur information card (contact API).
Contact businesses that sell fur and tell them you will cease doing
business with them until they stop selling fur products.
If you own property, clearly post signs prohibiting trapping on your
land. Prosecute violators.
Encourage your local community to utilize nonlethal methods of
dealing with "nuisance" wildlife. (Ask for our Humane
Ways to Live with Wildlife brochures.)
Support policy efforts that restrict or prohibit trapping.
Join API's Voices for
Wildlife program to get involved in efforts to protect wildlife in
your state.
Share this fact sheet with a friend.
Notes:
1. F. F. Gilbert and N. Gofton. "Terminal Dives in Mink,
Muskrat and Beaver." Physiology & Behavior (1982) 28:
835-840.
2. Ludders, et al. "Drowning is not euthanasia."
Wildlife Society Bulletin (1999) 27: 666-670.
3. see discussion in G. Proulx. "Review of current mammal
trap technology in North America." Pp. 1-46 in G. Proulx, editor.
Mammal trapping. Sherwood Park: Alpha Wildlife Research &
Management Ltd., 1999.
4. D. Randall. Hearings before the Ninety-Fourth
Congress to Discourage the Use of Painful Devices in the Trapping of
Animals and Birds. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office,
1975.
5. M. Novak. "The foot-snare and the leg-hold traps: a
comparison." Proceeding of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference
(1981) 3: 1671-1685.
6. F. J. Turkowski, et al. "Selectivity and
Effectiveness of Pan Tension Devices for Coyote Foothold Traps."
Journal of Wildlife Management (1984) 48: 700-708.
7. R. L. Phillips and K. S. Gruver. "Performance of the
Paws-I-Trip™ pan tension device on 3 types of traps." Wildlife Society
Bulletin (1996) 24: 119-122.
8. R. L. Phillips, et al. "Leg Injuries to Coyotes
in Three Types of Foothold Traps." Wildlife Society Bulletin (1990)
18: 166-175.
9. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Fur Resources Technical Committee. Ownership and use of traps by
trappers in the United States in 1992. Washington: Fur Resources
Technical Committee of the International Fish and Wildlife Agencies and
the Gallup Organization, 1993.
10. R. L. Phillips. "Evaluation of 3 types of snares for
capturing coyotes." Wildlife Society Bulletin (1996) 24:
107-110.
11. The Federal Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping.
Findings and Recommendations. Canada: Federal Provincial Wildlife
Conference, 1981.
12. H. C. Lunn. The Conibear Trap -- Recommendations
for its Improvement. Humane Trap Development Committee of Canada,
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, 1973.
13. M. Novak. "Traps and trap research." Pp. 941-969
in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors.
Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. North
Bay: Ontario Trappers Association, 1987.
14. T. G. Barnes. "State Agency Oversight of the Nuisance
Wildlife Control Industry." Wildlife Society Bulletin (1997) 25:
185-188.
15. L. F. Ruggiero et al. "The scientific basis for
lynx conservation: qualified insights." in L. F. Ruggiero, et
al., tech. eds. The scientific basis for lynx conservation in the
contiguous United States. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RMRS-GTR-30. Ogden: U.S.
Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 1999.
16. National Research Council, Subcommittee on Rabies.
Control of Rabies. Washington: National Academy of Sciences,
1973.
17. "Controlling Wildlife Rabies through Population
Reduction: An Ineffective Method." The Rabies Monitor, Vol. 4, No.
1, Spring 1996.
