From the ODF&W newsletter, I do have permission to repost this;
Protect Trapping Rights in Oregon
Commercial and recreational trapping, as well as the fur trade in Oregon, are under attack. Ballot Initiative Petition #5, the anti-trapping measure pushed by Trap Free Oregon (TFO) and other animal rights groups, would mean the end of Oregon’s historic fur industry and proud trapping traditions that date back to the early 1800’s. The initiative, which would appear on the November 4, 2014 general election ballot, would outlaw the fur trade and severely inhibit the ability of timber, livestock, and wildlife managers, as well as local governments, to manage and control wildlife damage.
Process
In December 2012, TFO submitted a proposed initiative with the required 1,000 signatures to the Oregon Secretary of State’s office. The Secretary of State published a draft ballot title, which a coalition to protect trapping appealed to the State Attorney General’s office. Of the 83 public comments submitted on the draft ballot title, 82 were opposed. Coalition members then appealed the certified ballot title to the Oregon Supreme Court, and are waiting for the court to approve or reject the certified ballot title. If the Supreme Court approves the certified ballot title, proponents will begin gathering the 87,213 valid signatures required to get the initiative on the ballot for the November 2014 election. They have until July 3, 2014 to collect their signatures.
Key Components of the Ban
As written, Initiative Petition #5 would ban the use of all Conibear traps and body-gripping traps, including foot snares used for bears and snares used for coyotes. It would outlaw recreational trapping, fur trapping, and fur trading in the state. Trapping would be banned on public land and could not be used to abate an animal problem (such as a predator attacking livestock), unless all other non-lethal means had been exhausted and a publicly-available study had been conducted. Finally, the ban would require all traps, whether set by private or government trappers, to be checked every 24 hours; failure to do so would result in a Class A misdemeanor charge, the same as given for DUI and identity fraud (up to 1 year in jail and $6,250 in fines).
Trappers
The provisions of the trap ban would put many trappers and animal damage professionals out of business. The 24 hour trap requirement would apply to all traps, and would be nearly impossible to keep up with. Commercial trappers often cover thousands of acres, and it is not possible for them to check every single trap every day, within a 24 hour timeframe. Inclement weather, road closures, vehicle problems and other unforeseen situations could make this a liability nightmare.
In order to comply with the 24 hour requirement, trappers would either have to dramatically scale back their operations or hire more employees. Both would have a devastating impact on the viability of their businesses. Hiring more employees would force them to raise their rates, which would in turn increase the costs to the clients who employ them. In other words, this means less efficient animal damage control at a greater cost to consumers.
Sportsmen/Conservation
Effective wildlife management is dependent upon sound science and analysis, provided by professional wildlife biologists and managers who ensure that each species is managed to maximize the health and stability of its population.
Trapping is a key element in this process, as it is used to control coyote, beaver, raccoon, fox, and other non-game populations, and to alleviate the predation that some of these and other species have on game animals, upland birds, and waterfowl. Trapping is managed the same way that hunting is: trappers pay for furbearer trapping and hunting licenses, and seasons, rules, and regulations are set for the species that they harvest. Disallowing the use of trapping would remove a valuable conservation and management tool.
Sales of furtakers licenses and hunting licenses for furbearers, as well as fur dealer’s licenses, on average, total approximately $100,000 in revenues for the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODF&W) each year. If the fur trade were banned, ODF&W would immediately lose this substantial revenue stream.
Forest Industry
Initiative Petition #5 would ban the use of foot snares, the primary tool used for catching bears. Bears can cause substantial damage to young forest stands. Forest managers estimate that in some years, bears are responsible for between $10 million- $15 million in damage to Oregon’s forests. Bears target the healthiest, fastest-growing trees, and a single bear can strip the bark from as many as 70 trees in one day. Because bears cannot be hunted with hounds, foot snaring provides an effective way to help manage bear damage to trees on private timber grounds.
The ban would also prohibit the use of all Conibear traps, including the Conibear 110, the most effective and humane tool for trapping mountain beavers. Mountain beavers cause damage to timber by cutting down newly planted trees, as well as by chewing on the bark and root systems of older trees. They are particularly troubling to the private timber industry, as they can cause millions of dollars of damage to forest stands. The Oregon Department of Forestry has used Conibear 110s to remove mountain beavers from state forest lands. Another Conibear trap, the 220, is frequently used to protect orchards and forest stands from porcupine damage.
Agriculture
Sheep and cattle ranchers use trappers to protect their stock from predation by coyotes and other predators. A 2009 report from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimated that predators killed 7,700 sheep and 3,800 cattle in Oregon that year. The anti-trapping initiative would ban the use of most snares, the primary tool that trappers utilize to control problem coyotes, thereby increasing predation on livestock and forcing ranchers to use far less effective methods to control predators.
Farmers also employ trappers to remove problem animals, such as nutria, beaver, raccoons, muskrats, and other animals that destroy crops and irrigation canals and cause damage to farmland. As with all of the other affected industries, the trap ban would make contracted animal control for farmers more expensive and less efficient.
Local Governments
Many counties, irrigation districts, and other municipalities employ private trappers to remove problem animal that cause significant damage to roads and highways, irrigation structures, and other municipal lands. Trapping done by cities and counties is conducted on public land. The ban would outlaw trapping on public land, unless all other non-lethal methods to remove the animal have been exhausted and a study that supports trapping as the only remaining option is made available to the public. In some cases, if it was determined that they hadn’t met the arbitrary standard of proof, districts would be prohibited from using trapping altogether, even if it was the most effective method for getting rid of harmful pests like nutria and other non-native wildlife.
Oregon’s Fur Trade
Many commercial animal control specialists gain their knowledge and experience from fur trapping, parlaying these skills into successful careers in pest and animal management. If the ban were to pass, there would likely be a future shortage of experienced trappers, since they wouldn’t have a formative training ground for honing their knowledge and skills.
Outlawing fur trapping would create a huge disincentive for trappers to target species like coyotes and beavers on public land, as there would be no market value for their pelts. All of the money from fur sales in and out of the state would be lost, and trap dealers and suppliers would be put out of business. The state’s economy would lose not only the fur trade, but also the money that trappers spend on fuel, food, supplies, and other items. The pelt of any furbearer caught during the course of animal damage work would be wasted, and could not be used to offset the costs related to animal damage control work.
Pet Safety
While the supporters of the anti-trapping initiative claim that traps present a great danger for dogs and other pets, the facts say otherwise. In 2001, legislation was passed that requires veterinarians to file a report with the College of Veterinary Medicine at Oregon State University when they treat an animal they suspect has been caught in a trap. Since then, only 12 reports have been filed: 6 in 2004/05, 3 in 2008, 2 in 2010, and 1 in 2012.
Trappers actually help protect pets by keeping predator populations in check. With coyote numbers increasing dramatically in many urban and suburban areas, it is important that effective control methods are kept in place. On the same note, trapping is often used to protect chickens and other domestic birds from attacks by foxes, raccoons, skunks, and other animals. The anti-trapping initiative will make it much more difficult for bird owners to prevent losses to their flocks, as the most effective traps for doing so will be banned.
Humaneness of Traps
One major misconception about trapping, whether it be commercial, recreational, or for research purposes, is that it is inhumane. However, the anti-trapping initiative seeks to ban the most effective and humane traps that trappers use.
For example, one of the main traps targeted by the initiative is the Conibear-type trap. This trap would be outlawed, except in very narrow circumstances. It kills the targeted species instantaneously, preventing any suffering on the part of the animal. As with other legal trapping
methods, the Conibear has been determined by the ODF&W to be a humane trap, and is preferred for trapping mountain beaver, porcupines, and other species.
The foot snares that trappers employ to remove problem bears are the same snares that biologists and other researchers use to capture bears for research. The same is true of the snares used for coyotes or feral dogs; these tools can be adjusted to trap numerous wildlife species in a humane, non-lethal manner.
Regulation
Like hunting and fishing, trapping is already a highly regulated industry, with strict rules and protections in place to ensure it is done safely and humanely. The ODF&W, which is staffed by recognized scientists and trained professionals, manages the state’s trapping program. In June 2012, based on public input, the ODF&W established new regulations that require traps to be located far from public trails, which is one of the primary complaints of the initiative’s sponsors. We should let the new regulations take effect and see how they work before deciding to change current trapping laws.
Conclusion
We’ve been down this road before. Twice, animal rights groups have attempted to outlaw Oregon’s traditional practice of trapping, and twice, voters have rejected trap bans. In 1980, more than 63 percent of Oregon voters said “no” to a trap ban. In 2000, more than 58 percent again said “no.” The animal rights activists behind the current petition are merely wasting our state’s time and money, and doing so at the expense of local taxpayers during a prolonged recession. The cost of fighting this same issue over and over is a tremendous burden to small farmers, ranchers, businesses and individuals.
We urge you to support sound wildlife management practices and oppose any ban on trapping or the fur trade in Oregon. If Initiative Petition #5 makes it on the November 2014 ballot and passes, it will have a devastating effect on conservation, livestock and timber management, local governments, and Oregon’s taxpayers.
For more information or to join the coalition to protect trapping rights in Oregon, contact Chris West at West@pacwestcom.com or Zach Widner at Widner@pacwestcom.com
