Tag Archives: Trapping

Illinois Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Legalized Snares

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich recently vetoed Illinois House Bill 1486 which would have legalized the use of snares in wildlife trapping.

The bill passed overwhelmingly in both the Illinois House of Representatives (87-27) and Senate (49-2). But Balgojevich transmitted the following message of veto,

August 12, 2005

To the Honorable Members of the
Illinois House of Representatives
94th General Assembly

Pursuant to Article IV, Section 9(b) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby veto
House Bill 1486, entitled “AN ACT concerning wildlife.” House Bill 1486 allows hunters to use snares to trap animals such as raccoons, foxes and beavers on land. These traps have been banned in Illinois for over 50 years because the trapÂ’s wire hoop strangles the animal. Twenty-one states in the nation do not allow the use of snares.

Snares are inhumane and indiscriminate. Not only do they cruelly kill wild animals for their fur, they may also kill domestic pets and even endangered species. Even though the bill requires a mechanism on the snare to reduce the chance of strangulation, the safety provisions are still inadequate and animals would suffer unnecessarily. While I support the hunters and trappers of Illinois, I refuse to support this particularly gruesome hunting method thatÂ’s been banned in the state for years.

For this reason, I hereby veto and return House Bill 1486.

Sincerely,

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH
Governor

There is no word yet on whether the House and Senate will try to override the governor’s veto.

Animal rights groups commended the governor’s veto. In a press release, Camilla Fox of the Animal Protection Institute said,

We commend Governor Rod Blagojevich for saying ‘No’ to the fur industry’s attempts to further legalize a device that is known to cause immense pain and suffering to animals. With this action, the Governor has made a clear statement that snares have no place in a humane and civilized world.

The full text of the vetoed legislation can be read here.

Source:

Animal advocates commend Governor Blagojevich’s veto of bill that would expand use of cruel snares in Illinois. Press Release, Animal Protection Institute and Illinois Humane, August 16, 2005.

Bill Introduced in U.S. House to Ban Trapping Nationwide

Posted on by
Reply

In July, more than a dozen U.S. representatives signed on to introduce House Resolution 3442, the Inhumane Trapping Prevention Act. The bill would make it illegal for anyone in the United States,

(1) to import, export, or transport in interstate commerce an article of fur, if any part or portion of such article is derived from an animal that was trapped in a conventional steel-jawed leghold trap;

(2) to import, export, deliver, carry, or transport by any means whatever, in interstate commerce, any conventional steel-jawed leghold trap;

(3) to sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any conventional steel-jawed leghold trap that was delivered, carried, or transported in violation of paragraph (2); or

(4) to violate any rule made by the Secretary under this Act.

The first violation of the law calls for imprisonment of not more than five days, but subsequent violations would be subject to up to two years in jail.

The full text of House Resolution 3442 can be read here.

North Carolina State Senator Introduces Hunter's Bill of Rights

Posted on by
1

In March, North Carolina State Senator David Hoyle introduced a bill in that state’s legislature that would add a hunter’s bill of rights to that states laws which, among other things, explicitly holds that animals are property and that any laws or regulations in North Carolina may hold otherwise.

The language of Senate Bill 918 reads that,

The General Assembly finds that animals are property, whether the animals are domesticated animals owned by persons or wildlife resources held in trust for all citizens. No law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation shall seek to establish or attempt to grant to animals any rights of persons under the law. No statute, local ordinance, rule, or regulation shall have as its philosophical basis the concept that animals are entitled to the legal justice to which persons are entitled, or that animals have the rights of persons under the law.

In addition to holding hunting, fishing and trapping as a right in North Carolina,

Hunting, trapping, and fishing, including the taking of wild animals, wild birds, and fish, are a valued part of the heritage of this State, are a fundamental right of the people, and shall be forever preserved for the people.

The law also explicitly bans any sort of hunt saboteur activities,

It is unlawful for a person to interfere intentionally with the lawful taking of wildlife resources or to drive, harass, or intentionally disturb any wildlife resources for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife resources. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally distract or displace, or attempt to distract or displace, a hunting dog while that dog is running, hunting, on point, or in training. It is unlawful to take or abuse property, equipment, or hunting dogs that are being used for the lawful taking of wildlife resources. This subsection does not apply to a person who incidentally interferes with the taking of wildlife resources while using the land for other lawful activity such as agriculture, mining, or recreation. This subsection also does not apply to activity by a person on land he owns or leases.

The full text of North Carolina Senate Bill 918 can be read here.

New York Assemblyman Wants Anti-Hunting Office

Posted on by
Reply

In February, New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced a bill in that state’s legislature to create a new Office of Advocacy for Wildlife that would, among other things, be charged with finding alternatives to hunting for managing wildlife populations.

Assembly Bill 4306 would create this new agency which would be charged with, among other things,

To study, develop, encourage and provide assistance for non-lethal management of wildlife.

The full text of AB4306 can be read here.

Source:

New York Bill Creates Anti-Hunting Office. U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, March 2005.

Tennessee Lawmakers Consider Constitutional Amendment to Protect Hunting, Fishing

Posted on by
Reply

A number of Tennessee lawmakers are lending their support for a constitutional amendment that would protect hunting and fishing in the state.

A joint resolution introduced into the Tennessee State House proposes amending the Tennessee Constitution to read,

The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as prescribed by this constitution and general law. When reviewing such restrictions, a state court shall utilize a rational basis standard, as such standard has been defined by the courts through case law.

State Sen. Doug Jackson is supporting the same wording in the state Senate. Jackson told the Associated Press that the amendment is needed to protect hunting and fishing from well-funded anti-hunting groups such as the Humane Society of the United States,

There are very organized, very well-funded efforts to take away the right of citizens to hunt, fish and trap. I think it’s time we place in our constitution a guarantee for the citizen that they will be able to continue in that heritage.

Tennessee’s Wildlife Resources Agency supports the amendment in principle. TWRA assistant director Allen Gebhardt told the Associated Press that the agency would have to examine the wording, but that “It sounds, from our standpoint, like a wonderful idea.”

The full text of the resolution proposing to amend Tennessee’s constitution to protect hunting and fishing can be read here.

Sources:

Tennessee joins states seeking ‘right to hunt’ legislation. WHNT-TV, February 2005.

Lawmakers want amendment shielding hunting rights. Matt Gouras, February 21, 2005.

After Failure of Bear Baiting Referendum, Maine Activists Focus on Narrower Legislation

Posted on by
Reply

In November, Maine voters handily ejected a referendum that would have banned bear baiting, trapping and hunting bears with hounds. Activists are now turning their attention to legislation to make changes to bear hunting in Maine that may have wider support.

Apparently the lesson activists took from the failure of the referendum is that it was overly broad. Exit polls showed that many people who supported a ban on trapping of bears, for example, voted against the referendum because they nonetheless support bear baiting.

A number of bills being proposed by Maine’s legislature will narrow that focus to banning the use of leg-hold traps to trap bears. According to the Environmental News Network, Maine is the only state in the country that still allows leg-hold trapping of bears.

One the other hand, these bills might not be quite what activists expect. Green Party Rep. John Seder, for example, is working on a compromise bill with Democrat Rep. Thomas Watson that would ban leg-hold traps, but expand night and Sunday hunting — something that hunting groups in Maine want.

The Humane Society of the United States generous support for the referendum is also drawing legislative reaction. At least one proposed bill would limit the amount of money groups in Maine could accept from out-of-state groups such as HSUS.

Another bill would make it harder to put referendums on the ballot by requiring groups to obtain a certain level of signatures from every county rather in addition to a certain number statewide. The referendum to ban bear baiting was put on the ballot by signatures that were disproportionately collected in urban rather than rural areas of Maine.

Source:

Bear hunting debate shifts to outlawing traps. Environmental News Network, January 28, 2005.

PETA Protests Use of Leg Traps in Rapid City, South Dakota

Posted on by
Reply

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals held a press conference in Rapid City, South Dakota, in January to protest the use of leg traps in national parks.

PETA chose Rapid City because in the summer of 2004 a number of dogs were injured by leg traps in Badlands National Park. The traps were set to capture coyotes.

Badlands National Park Superintendent William Supernaugh says that his agency regrets that dogs were caught in the traps, but that the traps are necessary to hold down the coyote population.

The Rapid City Journal reported that,

Supernaugh said those injuries mainly were the result of the Park Service’s failure to check traps quickly. He blamed shift change among personnel and an unclear policy on how often those traps should be checked. Those procedures have been tightened, Supernaugh said.

But he said banning all uses of leg traps in the Badlands would cripple the park’s program to monitor the range and health of coyotes. He said that program was crucial to the successful reintroduction of swift foxes and black-footed ferrets to the Badlands.

Coyotes prey on swift foxes, so park personnel introduced them to areas outside known coyote territories, which are determined through radio collars attached to trapped animals.

Canine distemper, Supernaugh said, could wipe out the fragile ferret population.

PETA disagrees, with Stephanie Boyles saying in a press release on the issue,

These traps are so barbaric that they have been banned in 88 countries. It is shameful that in the 21st century, a federal agency would use such primitive, cruel devices. We urge [Interior] Secretary Norton to call for a ban.

Source:

Group Calls News Conference to Reveal Shocking Photos of Dogs Caught in Leghold Traps in Badlands National Park. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, January 24, 2005.

PETA protests Badlands trapping. Bill Harlan, Rapid City Journal, January 26, 2005.

Activists Upset Over Maine Bear Ad, But State Says Ad Is Legal

Posted on by
Reply

Supporters of a ballot proposal that would ban bear trapping, baiting and hunting with dogs were upset over an ad that began running in September featuring a state biologist opposing the initiative.

The ad features Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife bear biologist Jennifer Vashon. Although Vashon is not in uniform, she identifies herself as a state bear biologist with the IFW and goes on to voice her opposition to the bill. The ad goes like this,

“I’m Jennifer Vashon, the state’s bear biologist. Maine’s bear population is healthy and growing. Today we have over 23,000 black bears – one of the largest bear populations in the country. Our bear hunt is highly regulated and closely monitored by wildlife experts. But Question 2 would ban the most effective methods we use to control bears and minimize conflicts with people.” After Vashon finishes speaking, the announcer states, “That’s why Maine’s Fish and Wildlife Department strongly opposes Question 2. Vote NO on 2.”

Those supporting the ballot proposal immediately voiced their objections. Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting’s Bob Fisk complained that,

It’s a problem here in our minds. (The department) crossed the line a long time ago and because nobody is making notice of this, they continue to do it. They are not supposed to play that type of role in a referendum campaign.

The IFW responded, however, with a press release to the effect that there was nothing improper about Vashon’s appearance in the ad.

Martin stated that the department’s involvement in the bear referendum is based on science, wildlife management, and the relevant facts of the issue. Department personnel are allowed to provide scientific, historic and background information to the public, and respond to questions from the media or citizens about the issues raised in the referendum by any individual organization on any side of the referendum debate.

The advertisement features Department of Inland Fisheries Bear Biologist Jennifer Vashon providing scientific facts about Maine’s bear population. Vashon’s statements are substantiated by research that appears on the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife website at www.mefishwildlife.com .

Vashon appeared on her own time in the advertisement. The advertisements were produced and paid for by Maine’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council, a coalition consisting of 11,000 individual donors and 600 organizations and businesses opposed to the November 2 referendum question. Vashon’s appearance is legal under state law that allows public employees to disseminate information on matters such as citizen initiatives.

The Department opposes question 2, due to the fact that passage of the referendum would severely impact the department’s ability to properly control Maine’s thriving bear population. Each year, 3,500 – 4,000 bears need to be removed from the population to keep it at 23,000, the largest bear population east of the Mississippi River and one of the largest in the country.

In a press release criticizing the ad, Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting said that Vashon had made contradictory claims earlier this year in an e-mail obtained through the state’s freedom of information act,

Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting pointed to statements made by Ms. Vashon early last year that entirely contradicts recent statements. In an email obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Vashon, in correspondence with the Safari Club International, wrote, “We will not get a population explosion, especially in the span of a few years, as bears do not have the capacity to reproduce that quickly. She continued, “Many have said that our nuisance complaints will go through the roof, but nuisance bear activity depends more on year-to-year variations in natural food crops and less on the total number of bears in an area, especially since most bears in Maine live in areas with low population densities.”

Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting charges that the DIF&W is working illegally with the opponents of Question 2 by spending state resources on a referendum campaign, a violation of state and federal law.

Source:

IFW Commissioner States Advertisements Featuring Department Expert Are Legal. Press Release, September 15, 2004.

State Employees Engaging In Blatant Political Activities Should Be Taken Off The Air Immediately. Press Release, Maine Citizens for Fair Bear Hunting, September 15, 2004.

DIFW biologist urges ‘no’ vote. Bangor Daily News, September 15, 2004.

Activists File Suit Over New York Hunting Training Courses

Posted on by
1

Several New York-based groups, including the NY Whale and Dolphin ActionLeague and the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting announced in August that they were filing a lawsuit against the New York State Department of Conservation’s offerings of hunter training courses.

The hunting courses are divided into four areas — Hunter ED, Bowhunter Ed, Trapper Ed, and Waterfowl ID — and new hunters are required to pass the appropriate course before they can be granted a license to hunt or trap in New York State.

Animal rights activists in New York have formed a new group, Coalition for the Ethical Use of Public Money, to sue the state on the grounds that providing such courses is a discriminatory use of taxpayer funds. In a press release put out by Animal Defenders of Westchester, NY Whale and Dolphin Action League director Taffy Williams said,

We find the use of public funds to train hunters and bow hunters a misuse, discriminatory and unethical management of public funds. . . also, the use of taxpayer funds for hunting-related activities is a discriminatory use of public monies, since there are no programs to benefit birdwatchers, kayakers, nature-enthusiasts, etc. The link between hunting and other forms of violence has been established in such sources as the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (B.W.Boat, June 1995) and the Purdue University Press (Child abuse, Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse, 1999).

Similarly, the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting’s president, Anne Muller, said in a press release,

Towns should be frowning upon the DEC’s practice of building wildlife populations for hunting. The Bureau of Wildlife is running a private hunting business on taxpayer money. The excise taxes on firearms, bows and arrows are insufficient to pay for their sport of killing animals. (New York State is required to match 25% of the federal excise tax that is contributed to the State.) All of the Bureau of Wildlife’s overhead costs are paid out of the general fund.

The courses at issue are free to individual hunters, and according to the DEC’s website,

New York’s Sportsman Education Programs are supported in part by Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, funded by your purchases of hunting equipment. Additional funding comes from sales of hunting and trapping licenses. Hunters and trappers pay for Sportsman Education and wildlife conservation.

Source:

Hunters under fire for abuse of taxpayer money. Press Release, Animal Defenders of Westchester, August 16, 2004.

NYS DEC Running Free Hunting Training Course. Press Release, Animal Defenders of Westchester, Undated (Accessed September 16, 2004).

Sportsman Education Classes. Press Release, New York State Department of Conservation, Accessed September 16, 2004.

Activist Pleads Not Guilty to Trespassing, Obstruction

Posted on by
Reply

New Jersey animal rights activist Angi Metler, 47, plead not guilty this month to charges of trespassing and obstructing a government function. Metler locked herself to a bear trap in August and police had to remove part of the cage to arrest her.

According to the New Jersey Herald, Metler and another activist with Bear Education and Resource Group visited a home that had recently been broken into by a bear. State wildlife officials had set up a trap outside the home in hopes the bear would return.

The New Jersey Herald reported that,

Words were apparently exchanged between [the homeowner] and the activists, and Metler’s solution was to jump into the cage to prevent the death of the bear, which would be killed if caught and positively identified as the problem animal.

Wildlife officials believe that one or two bears is responsible for numerous home break-ins in the area.

Source:

Caged BEAR activist ready to go to trial. Brendan Berls, New Jersey Herald, September 1, 2004.