Overview
The MSPCA opposes the recreational use of cruel body-gripping traps (e.g., snares, Conibear traps, leghold/foothold traps), which are indiscriminate (catching both the intended target and also unintended targets like companion animals) and cause immense suffering.
Since the passage of the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) ballot initiative (Question 1) in 1996, the recreational use of these traps has been outlawed in Massachusetts. The WPA received 64% of the vote and passed in 14 of 15 counties, in 75% of all cities and towns (both rural and urban), and in 95% of all House and Senate districts. Yet, every legislative session, bills are filed to reverse this ballot measure, effectively allowing a return to the days of recreational trapping with these inhumane and indiscriminate devices.
In July 2000, a conference committee made changes to the Wildlife Protection Act (M.G.L. Ch. 131 §80A) in response to growing pressure from people on both sides of the trapping debate—those who had concerns about animal welfare and also those who sought more immediate relief from health or safety threats caused by fur-bearing mammals. Therefore, current law does not prohibit the use of all lethal traps but rather restricts their indiscriminate use solely for the purpose of recreational activity. Current law effectively and efficiently addresses the low volume of occurrences where animals endanger public safety or when non-lethal approaches have been attempted but do not meet thresholds for success.
Regardless, because trapping is not a long-term solution to beaver/muskrat flooding and also because even so-called “quick-kill” Conibear traps can cause immense and indiscriminate suffering, the MSPCA encourages communities to instead invest resources in water flow devices, which are cost-effective and offer long term solutions. The MSPCA also offers grant funding for water flow devices for some Massachusetts counties.
Kinds of Traps
There are many types of traps, some of which are more humane than others, but all of which are dangerous and cause suffering. The peer-reviewed paper Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps, for example, states: “Across the literature, the majority of studies show a significant percentage of trapped individuals suffering major injuries” and concludes that “many of the practices commonly used to trap mammals cannot be considered humane” (Iossa, Soulsbury & Harris, Animal Welfare, 2007).
Leghold/Foothold Traps
The MSPCA opposes the use of steel-jaw legholds/footholds, as well as padded leghold/foothold traps for two primary reasons:
- These traps are inhumane, even with “padded” or off-set jaws, cable “stops,” and adjustable pan tension. Leghold traps inflict bone fractures, maiming, hemorrhaging, lacerations, and self-mutilation, or animals may die from exertion, predation, or environmental factors.
- These traps are indiscriminate. Non-target animals (including family pets) can and do become caught, maimed, and killed in these traps.
The exact number of non-target animals caught in leghold/foothold traps relative to target animals caught can not be known because trappers are not required to report this information. However, studies conducted by the Department of Agriculture suggest that the number is high. As reported from the study, “On a one-day (March 1987) survey of muskrat trap line in Colusa County, 26 muskrats were caught, compared to 19 non-target animals in the same trap line, consisting of between 150 and 200 traps. During another survey in Tehama County (1975) consisting of 6,713 trap nights, seven coyotes (target species) were caught, compared to 85 non-target species. And during a bobcat study in San Diego County involving 4,248 trap nights, 42 bobcats were trapped, compared to 91 non-target species, including coyote, greater roadrunner, raccoon, California ground squirrel, gray fox, cottontail, spotted skunk, and opossum.”
Anecdotal evidence also suggests that many nontarget animals are trapped for every target animal. Dick Randall, former acting District Supervisor of the Animal Damage Control (ADC) program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has stated: “Even though I was an experienced, professional trapper, my trap victims included non-target species such as bald and golden eagles, a variety of hawks and other birds, rabbits, sage grouse, pet dogs, deer, antelope, porcupines, sheep, and calves. The leg-hold is inherently nonselective….my trapping records show that. For each target animal I trapped, about two unwanted individuals were caught. Because of trap injuries, these non-target species had to be destroyed.”
The Conibear Trap
The Conibear trap is sometimes described as a quick-kill device, though it is, in fact, not reliably so. No amount of trapping experience can prevent an otter or mink from swimming through a Conibear trap set for an animal the size of a beaver. Non-target animals rarely survive encounters with these traps and many experience added suffering before death when caught around the abdomen, rather than the neck.
Target animals such as beavers are also at risk of not being killed immediately, which inflicts tremendous suffering, on top of which drowning may be suffered if the trap is in the water. Traps that create death by drowning are considered inhumane due to the panic induced and the long period of pain until unconsciousness sets in. In Massachusetts, drowning any animal, including wildlife, is illegal.
Studies have examined how long it can take for trapped beavers and muskrats to drown. One study found the amount of time until unconsciousness to be nine minutes for beaver and four minutes for muskrat. Another study, conducted by the supervisor of the Fur Management Unit for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and which has been quoted in many publications, including Canadian Trapper, the official publication of the Ontario Trappers Association, reported that it could take as long as 11 minutes and 15 seconds for a beaver to become unconscious before drowning in a 220 Conibear trap.
This study noted that “the most significant conclusion was that the standard Mohawk and Conibear traps did not kill the test animals instantly as originally supposed.” It went on to say that “…quick killing traps may not be the desirable future fur management tool. They may also not be the solutions to the humane trapping problem. In order for traps to kill instantly, tremendous energy is required, particularly in water sets. This often means expensive, heavy traps that are dangerous both to people and to their pets. Captures of non-target species is a further problem. For example, a 220 or 330 Conibear set for beaver in a channel can also catch muskrat, mink and otter.”
Hancock/Bailey Box and Cage Traps
Hancock/Bailey Box and cage traps, which are intended to catch an animal alive, are legal in Massachusetts. There are several reasons that live traps are preferable to the Conibear or leghold/foothold traps.
Firstly, by nature of their design, Conibear and other types of traps inflict more suffering. Animals may be maimed, eaten by predators as they are unable to escape, drown, and more. There are no studies of which the MSPCA is familiar that indicate injuries have been caused by using this trap. Another advantage of live traps is that captured non-target species can be released. Additionally, because they are large, box and cage traps are more visible to people and companion animals, making them less likely to be stumbled upon. Finally, while some argue that box/cage traps leave animals exposed to the elements for long periods of time, responsible trappers check their sites frequently, ensuring that such exposure is minimal.
Additional Resources:
