Bad write up about leg hold traps,

[TheNoob]

If you can get a Lewis County paper. there is a not so nice article about leg hold traps and how bad they are to use and how they kill everything. The paper is called the Chronicle

[TheNoob]

Long struggles in leg-hold device make for gruesome deaths


 Share



By TOM KNUDSON
McClatchy Newspapers






Published: Tuesday, May. 15, 2012 - 5:09 am




SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- No tool in Wildlife Services' arsenal kills more nonselectively - or slowly - than the leg-hold trap.

 Since 2000, more than 90 species of wildlife have died by mistake in agency traps, including pronghorn antelope, mule deer, river otters, swift foxes, badgers, porcupines and federally protected bald eagles, government records show.

 But whether animals are caught accidentally or not, they often struggle for days and die of exposure, injuries and other causes long before a trapper returns to the site.

"They suggest traps be checked once a week, but that's all it is, a suggestion," said Gary Strader, a former Wildlife Services trapper in Nevada from 2006 to 2009. "There are traps that are not checked for literally months at a time."

 By then, little is left but steel and bone. "I've found traps that were Wildlife Services that were never checked, come across them years later with skeletal remains of skunks or badgers or coyotes," said Tony Wasley, a mule deer biologist with the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Leg-hold traps have been banned in more than 80 nations and outlawed or restricted in eight states, including California, where voters in 1998 passed a proposition banning leg-hold traps, but allowing padded traps in some situations.

 The device, which consists of two curved steel bars that snap together with extreme force, was invented in the early 1800s and has stirred controversy ever since.

 "The leg-hold trap ... is probably the most cruel device ever invented by man and is a direct cause of inexcusable destruction and waste of our wildlife," wrote Dick Randall, a former federal trapper, in a statement to Congress in 1975.

"Even though I was an experienced, professional trapper, my trap victims often included non-target species such as bald and golden eagles, a variety of hawks and other birds, rabbits, sage grouse, pet dogs, deer, and antelope, badger, porcupine, sheep and calves."

 "My trapping records show that for each target animal I trapped, about two unwanted individuals were caught," Randall wrote. "Because of trap injuries, these non-target species usually had to be destroyed."

 Leg-hold traps are used by Wildlife Services to capture and kill about 10,000 to 12,000 animals a year. Roughly half are coyotes, but more than two dozen other species are also targeted, from black bears to muskrats, mountain lions to wild pigs.

 About 100 species of birds, mammals and reptiles have been caught and killed accidentally, too, including white-fronted geese, great blue herons, wild turkeys, hog-nosed skunks, white-tailed deer, kit foxes, black-tailed jack rabbits, and a wolverine.

 Wildlife Services officials defend the traps, saying they almost always catch the intended animal. Of 74,200 animals captured in leg-hold traps since 2006 to 2010, only 4,000 - or 5percent - were non-targets, agency records show.

 "If you look at the percentage of non-targets, it's really very low," said William Clay, the agency's deputy administrator.

 But former employees said many non-target mortalities are not reported to avoid drawing attention to the agency.

 "If all non-target animals were reported, Wildlife Services would be run out of business in a year," said Strader, the former trapper. "It would be scary to the public, the number of animals caught and killed."

 Randall raised concerns, too, back in 1975. "Data concerning the destruction of non-target wildlife by leg-hold traps is largely nonexistent because unwanted species of wildlife are usually tossed behind a bush or into a ravine. Scavengers and decomposition make quick work of the carcasses," he wrote.

 Clay said agency leg-hold traps are outfitted with "pan tension devices" that allow smaller animals to step on them without being captured. "Our policy is we want to minimize non-target takes," Clay said.

 But Strader, who used the devices extensively, said they are not infallible. "They have been using those for years with very mixed results," he said. "It does help but still a lot of non-target animals get caught.

 "I had a trap with the pan tension set at its highest (level) catch a raven by the head," he said. "There must have been something in the trap pan that drew his interest and he pecked at it with his beak and got caught."

 In many cases, smaller animals that should have avoided capture were caught anyway when they stepped on the pan - which springs the trap - with two legs.

 And larger animals would get trapped even at the highest tension setting, he said.

 "I always used heavy pan tension so my small, non-target catch was real low," Strader said. "That being said, I would have a lot of traps out. So with the law of averages, I ended up catching about everything that could be caught."



 In some cases, animals can be released alive if trappers find them in time. But records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that often doesn't happen.

 "Mule deer died of exposure in trap," wrote one agency employee after checking a leg-hold trap set to catch a coyote in Nevada in June 2010. A month later, he trapped another by mistake: "Mule deer fawn died of exposure," he wrote.

 Even when the right animals are captured, they often succumb in ways that would make many people cringe, including heat, thirst and exhaustion during the hot summer months.

 "Remember, these animals have fur coats on," said Strader. "They exert themselves trying to get out. They over-stress with the heat and keel over and die.

 "Most coyotes die this way, and when the trapper gets there, all that is left is a bunch of hair, bones and maggots," Strader said. "I've seen it hundreds of times and it always bothered me. It has to be a horrendous and torturous way to die."

[Machias]

What a bunch of fricken LIES from so called professional trappers.  Bunch of BS!!

[pnwmtnmn]

This sounds like part that lawsuit to curtail wildlife services trapping methods. Some disgruntled former employees and a bunny hugger group in different state are causing trouble.

The former employees are probably half trained, setting steel in the ground and not bothering to check them every 24-48 hrs (depending on the feds regs) collecting a government salary for playing in the outdoors. I have found Wildlife Services Snares months after they completed a job and they were still set. If they had been pulled closed and set to the side, there is no problem, but they were ready to catch the first animal that went through them. The fact that they hadn't caught anything in months tells you something else about these trappers.

The bunny hugger are just bunny huggers who really understands them? I don't.

[bearpaw]

   Totally agree, the guy obviously hated trapping, probably didn't check his own traps on time. 

[fatslinger]

Have there been any more responses or letters to the editor since that article was printed? I don't subscribe to The Chronicle and can't seem to get the opinion page on the internet.

[Jack Diamond]

The Mclatchy newspapers have forwarded this and way more including all devices used by U.S.Wildlife services nationwide. goes a little deeper than one Lewis County paper. 
photo's included.
The Wenatchee World did a 3 pager last Wednesday.

[Hannibal]

USDA/WS does need to be stopped........... imho,,,,,,,,,   

They do not perform 24 hour checks here
  The do set dry land 330's
 They intentionally muscle in on higher dollar contracts from private industry
Some WS employee/directors are supportive of  trap bans

[pnwmtnmn]

While I realize that I-713 exempted the WS from Washington state laws, I feel that they should be required to use our state laws as a basic guideline for their daily checks, reporting # of animals caught, Type of traps used, and so on.

[trapperguy22]

there was an article in todays tacoma news tribune about the usda trappers pretty much the same kind of article. I'll see if i can find it and post it.

[Machias]

Well this is an inditment of the Wildlife Services conduct, not trapping.  If they actually operate in this fashion they should be disbanded.

[rasbo]

yes it is BS,and will be swollowed by most that read it,I have posted the video,destroying the myth on a few greenie sites in rebuttle to some off the off the wall comments by some,I never get a reply on it....one of problems we have is witnessed at times, right here on this site,anti trappers and hounds people.

[TheNoob]

I would like to know how the USDA is getting away with all this trapping. It makes the the trapping by regular guys look very bad to the comunity and I thought it was illegal for them to solicit for jobs if the job can be bid on by trappers. This is why the government does not do thier own building and all the other things they pay companies to do.

[Humptulips]

I've been kind of avoiding posting on this. I have mixed feelings on the subject. I read the article when it first came out in the Sacramento Bee. They have a lot of anti hunting/trapping articles and are just not a sportsman friendly paper IMHO.
Now the article seems to be getting picked up by newspapers across the country but especially in the west.
I'm not a fan of USDA APHIS and I think the article does highlight some of their abuses. At the same time it makes all trappers look bad. The author had an agenda against trapping and really let it show.
Wildlife Services is a law unto itself. They do not have to abide by the  laws we do although they say they voluntarily do  I know. Don't ask me the logic to this. I can't see it but that's the way it is.
They have a purpose. They can do stuff WDFW will not let WCOs do such as migratory birds. If they would stop solicting business that WCOs can do I really would not have a problem with them.
What's to be done? You can write a letter to the editor when you see the article and put forth our side of the story.
I have not seen it printed here in WA yet. The Centralia Chronicle is evidently not online or I would have seen it.
I'll probably write a letter when I see it in a paper I can access thru the internet.

[runamuk]

Don't biologists frequently use leghold traps to catch animals for collaring and testing etc??

[Humptulips]

Don't biologists frequently use leghold traps to catch animals for collaring and testing etc??

Yes, they use them all the time for that. The number one tool for capturing wolves.
There is nothing wrong with leghold traps. Foot hold is the preferred term as the traps catches the animal by the foot not the leg. The problems come up when they are not checked often enough. We can get a permit for a foothold trap but we have to check every 24 hours. USDA does not. 48 hours even three days is probably OK and I think in this state USDA isn't letting things go to bad but that is not the case everywhere.
OR trappers are in a fight right now over trap check laws. In OR trappers have to check every 48 hours but Wildlife Services can and does leave traps unchecked for as long as 30 days. Private trappers get the blame from the sins of a few. Because of this OR trappers may have to go to a 24 hour check which is stupid for a majority of sets but the law still won't apply to the Feds. Nothing changes for them but we get screwed.

[runamuk]

Thank you humptulips that was what I thought and the ones I saw in use didn't seem to be bad at all and yes foothold is a better description of what they do.

I think they like emphasizing leg hold terminology because people immediately see a huge old rusty metal claw like trap big enough to catch a small rhino...and since that is the perception of the general audience they are trying to sway it works for them to not bother using real images of real traps.  Not saying its right but that is how wars are won these days swaying public opinion with half truths and outright lies if needed.

[Humptulips]

By Tom Knudson The Sacramento Bee
Sunday, May. 20, 2012

Two U.S congressmen – one a Republican, the other a Democrat – are calling for a congressional investigation of the federal government's wildlife damage control program.
Citing a recent series of articles in The Bee, Reps. John Campbell, R-Irvine, and Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., say they plan to ask Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to conduct a hearing on the federal Wildlife Services program, which specializes in killing animals deemed to be a threat to agriculture, the public and the environment.

"We have an agency that appears to be wasting federal dollars and actually causing harm while doing it, but yet perhaps covering up what they are doing and why. That's something Congress should investigate," Campbell said.
Wildlife Services officials declined to comment. "We will not speculate on this," agency media coordinator Lyndsay Cole said in an email.

"They are incredibly secretive and obviously are not willing to change and have thus far been successfully protected," said DeFazio, who, along with Campbell, introduced a bill in March to ban Wildlife Services' use of the poisons sodium cyanide and Compound 1080 for predator control.

The Bee series, which began April 29, found the agency targets wildlife in ways that have accidentally killed thousands of non-offending animals, including family pets and federally protected golden eagles. It also found its blanket killing of predators is stirring concern among scientists about unintended ecological consequences, and its lethal force on behalf of ranchers and other "cooperators" is generally carried out with little or no public notice.

"I learned a number of things that I didn't know, even though I am obviously already involved with this topic," said Campbell.
Peter Orwick, executive director of the American Sheep Industry Association, reacted differently. "I was just very, very disappointed," he said. "It's just rolling out the animal rights agenda and all their unfounded attacks on the agency."

"It's the right time to have the debate," said Carter Niemeyer, former Wildlife Services district supervisor, who was quoted in the series. "It seems as good a time as ever to talk it out and see if this is where the public thinks we should be – and where the Congress thinks we should be."

Orwick defended federal predator control.
"We are talking about our livelihood," he said. "We are talking about the animals we raise, that we take a lot of pride in. When you have the public's wildlife – whether it's wolves or coyotes or bears – tearing apart the animals you spend every day with, it is a passionate issue."

Ranchers, he added, should not be expected to resolve such conflicts on their own. "Shouldn't they, in return for providing tens of millions of acres of habitat for the public's wildlife, be able to ask for just a small share of expertise from county, state and federal government to help with these conflicts when they arise? That's the bottom line."

Niemeyer said many ranchers already benefit from low-cost federal grazing fees on public lands. And predators, he added, should be strategically removed, not trapped, snared, poisoned and gunned down from the air in ways he said are often excessive, inhumane, indiscriminate and expensive.
"Why in the world should you and I pay for the federal government to fly around in helicopters for a handful of sheep men in this country, blasting coyotes year around," Niemeyer said. "Most of those coyotes have never been involved in (livestock) depredations. …

"I think there are many roles (Wildlife Services) can play," Niemeyer added. "Corrective control is one thing. But to go out and do pre-emptive killing of large predators, coyotes on up, just seems to be an outmoded method of dealing with problems."
DeFazio said: "Ranchers have every right to kill a predator which is preying on their livestock. That's not a question here.
"The federal government does have an obligation to protect the safety of the flying public and to protect people against predators that have become a threat. There is no discussion or argument about that.

"It's these indiscriminate practices that are ineffective and the waste of money to subsidize private undertakings that is in question."

Reform efforts will face stiff resistance. "The government revolves around agriculture and the agriculture lobby," said Niemeyer. "They absolutely call the shots. It's bizarre, the power they carry."

Another issue for DeFazio and Campbell: transparency.
"Why won't they let anyone go with them to see what they are doing? Why is there such a shroud of secrecy?" said Campbell. "Whose interests are they serving? That is the sort of thing we need to find out."

[dayn]

It brings back bad memories of our defeat here in washington, baldfaced lies swallowed up by city dwellers that dont know the facts...post this on trapperman so we can spread the word.

[Humptulips]

Pretty much been flogged to death on Trapperman.

If you don't know Trapperman is down and has been for almost two days. I understand the radical AR types have instigated a bot attack and took down the site. Might be a few days before it is up and running again.

[dayn]

Yea, I noticed it was down, was wondering what was up..

[UrbanTrapper]

Sounds like this is a 'campaign' in multiple states primarily targeted against WS.  That makes it a National-level issue and a mission for the National Trappers Association to counter this campaign in the press and quietly, but officially, tell WS we expect them to not give ammunition to the antis.  From the NTA website: "The National Trappers Association is committed to defending and promoting the safe and ethical harvest of furbearing mammals and ..."  I guess we should make sure NTA knows about this and ask them what they are doing.  I haven't joined NTA because I saw that trapping battles were fought at the State and local levels.  If NTA responds to this battle and things like it effectively I will join.  If not ...