Trapping -- H. 3315
This bill is the worst threat to the current trapping law that we have seen. H.3315 would significantly gut the current trapping law (removing restrictions on leghold, conibear body-gripping traps, and even snares). This bill received initial approval by a legislative committee on March 14, 2011. It would be a huge step back for Massachusetts – even prior to 1996, there were statutory restrictions on the steel jawed leghold trap. H.3315 would allow all traps for recreational trapping. Specifically, this bill would allow “wildlife management agencies or divisions” to use all restricted and prohibited traps (legholds, conibears, snares) for health and safety threats (without going through the existing permitting process) and allow all prohibited traps for the management of furbearing wildlife during the established regulated seasons (i.e. recreational trapping).
Background of the current trapping law:
In 1996, 64% percent of the voters in Massachusetts declared their opposition to the use of body-gripping traps for capturing fur-bearing mammals by voting in favor of the Wildlife Protection Act. In 2000, the legislature made revisions to the law, with negotiations centering around allowing reasonable exceptions to the prohibitions on trapping in order to facilitate solutions to damage caused by beavers and muskrats, while still retaining the intent of the ballot initiative. Specifically, these changes moved some control from the state to the local level in order to make the permitting process in cases of threats to health and safety more expedient.
Key reasons that changes to the current law are unnecessary:
Lethal traps, while restricted, are still allowed. The use of lethal traps is reserved for situations involving genuine public safety and health issues because the devices put pets and other animals at risk. Further trapping is not necessary.
Trapping does not work to reduce human-beaver conflicts. When resident beavers are removed from good habitat, other beavers promptly move in.
Flow devices to resolve beaver-related flooding are highly effective and save money because they work for as long as a decade.
Beaver populations stabilize without trapping, which may actually stimulate the growth of the beaver population. The findings from multiple scientific studies done at the Quabbin reservoir illustrate that beaver populations slowly increase, reach a peak, and then decline and ultimately stabilize in keeping with available habitat and food supply. Trapping has never controlled the beaver population in Massachusetts, which was increasing before the passage of the Wildlife Protection Act in 1996.
Body-gripping traps cause unnecessary suffering. Non-target animals, of the target species or other species, can easily be unintentionally caught in these devices. All animals caught in these devices – whether set under water or on land - can suffer for long periods before dying. Leghold traps and snares are even more hazardous than conibears, as so many animals can be caught in them, especially when set on land Leghold traps can cause bone fractures, maiming, hemorrhaging, lacerations, self-mutilation or animals may die from exertion, predation or environmental factors.
The MSPCA opposes any change to the current law that would reduce the use of non-lethal solutions as a means to resolve conflicts with animals; we feel it is contrary to the intent of the ballot question. Allowing the use of body-gripping traps without restrictions will not result in less beaver-related flooding or a reduced population.
Read more about Beavers and the Law
Download a fact sheet and/or postcard about trapping and H.3315
Read the text of this bill
