Overview
The MSPCA opposes the recreational use of body-gripping traps, including snares, Conibear traps, and leghold/foothold traps. These devices are indiscriminate, capturing both the intended target species and unintended animals such as pets and non-target wildlife. They also cause significant pain, injury, and prolonged suffering.
Since the passage of the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) ballot initiative in 1996, the recreational use of these traps has been prohibited in Massachusetts. The WPA received 64% of the statewide vote, passing in 14 of 15 counties, in 75% of all cities and towns—rural and urban alike—and in 95% of legislative districts. Despite this mandate, every legislative session new bills are filed to weaken or repeal the law, which would reopen the door to recreational trapping with inhumane and indiscriminate devices.
In 2000, the legislature amended the WPA (M.G.L. Ch. 131 §80A) to allow limited use of certain body-gripping traps in response to public health and safety concerns. As a result, current law does not ban all lethal trapping, but rather restricts its recreational use and permits regulated use in the rare cases where animals present a verified risk and non-lethal methods have failed. This framework has allowed communities across Massachusetts to address wildlife conflicts effectively for nearly three decades.
The MSPCA encourages continued investment in long-term, humane solutions to wildlife conflict. In particular, flow devices used to manage water levels at beaver dams have proven cost-effective and sustainable. The MSPCA also provides grant funding to support the installation of flow devices in several Massachusetts counties.
Types of Traps
Leghold and Foothold Traps
Steel-jaw leghold/foothold traps—whether modified with padding, offset jaws, or cable stops—cause serious injuries including bone fractures, lacerations, hemorrhaging, and self-mutilation as animals struggle to escape. Captured animals may also die from predation, exhaustion, or exposure.
These traps are also highly indiscriminate. Non-target species, including companion animals, are frequently caught. Federal studies have documented high rates of unintended capture. In one muskrat trap-line survey, 26 muskrats were trapped alongside 19 non-target animals in a single day. In another study, seven coyotes were captured compared to 85 non-target species, including foxes, raccoons, and skunks. Former federal wildlife officials have confirmed that even experienced trappers regularly capture unintended species, sometimes at rates approaching two non-target animals for every target animal.
Conibear Traps
Conibear traps are often described as “quick-kill” devices, but research shows that they frequently fail to kill instantly. When set in water, beavers may take up to 11 minutes to lose consciousness before drowning, while muskrats may struggle for four minutes or longer. This prolonged period of panic and suffering is considered inhumane by animal welfare experts.
Non-target animals such as otters, mink, or muskrats may also be killed in traps set for beavers, and misplacement of the trap on the body—such as around the abdomen instead of the neck—can lead to extended suffering before death. In Massachusetts, drowning is explicitly prohibited as a method of killing animals, including wildlife.
Snares
Snares, designed to tighten around an animal’s body or neck, are inherently indiscriminate and can cause severe injury or prolonged suffering. Like other body-gripping traps, they pose serious risks to non-target species, including pets.
Box and Cage Traps
Box and cage traps, by contrast, are designed to capture animals alive and are legal in Massachusetts. These devices present several advantages: they rarely cause injury, allow non-target species to be released unharmed, and are generally more visible, reducing accidental encounters by pets or people. While concerns are sometimes raised about animals being left exposed in these traps, responsible users check them frequently, minimizing stress and risk.
Conclusion
Massachusetts voters spoke clearly in 1996: cruel and indiscriminate traps should not be permitted for recreational use. Nearly three decades later, the current law continues to protect wildlife, pets, and public safety while allowing regulated intervention where necessary. Humane alternatives—including flow devices and live traps—offer effective, long-term solutions to human-wildlife conflict. Rolling back these protections would reintroduce outdated, inhumane practices that most Massachusetts residents firmly oppose.
Additional Resources:
