So why do you print a diatribe against trapping when the author is so obviously bias and ignorant of the facts?

Facts he has wrong. There are only two states that have banned leghold traps. The Missouri Department of Conservation measured only the value of fur sold. No measurement was taken of earnings from wildlife control companies, benefits to agriculture and yes, recreation, plus the primary goal of wildlife management is rarely to maximize jobs and income. I can’t think of any agency state or federal that has that as a goal. He trots out a lot of myths like animals die of dehydration, chew limbs off to escape and pets are as likely to be caught as target species. He must get all his facts from PETA.Is he even aware of the millions that has been spent on trap research as a result of the US signing an agreement of understanding with the EU to abolish inhumane traps in 1997. It is strictly opinion to call all traps inhumane whereas the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Canadian Assocation for Humane Trapping have real scientific testing identifying humane traps.
The fact is this is a onesided article from a biased source with little if any resarch of the subject.

Answers


  1. 0 Votes

    I’m not sure why you’re attacking the author of this article when you yourself didn’t include citations for the “facts” you provided.  This is an environmental information forum, which means the articles are going to take a pro-environment stance.  If the author wants to take a pro animal-rights standpoint that’s his prerogative, and it certainly falls under the interest of this forum.

  2. 0 Votes

    Here are 6 sources that disprove the first claim you have made against this article:

    http://www.bornfreeusa.org/legislation.php?p=1189&more=1

    http://www.infurmation.com/legislation.php

    http://forcechange.com/8664/urge-the-nevada-wildlife-commission-to-ban-brutal-leg-hold-traps/

    http://www.bancrueltraps.com/a_about.php

    http://www.endtrap.org/

    http://www.ocpausa.org/fur.htm

    The list of states that have banned or in some way prohibited the use of leghold traps includes: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington. Yes, Some of these prohibitions are more lenient than others, but for the sake of the argument being made by the article and the number of sources that made the same claim, I don’t think that it is correct to say that their information is wrong.

    It’s always good to question the information that you find. However, It would be a lot more useful if everyone involved would cite sources for their arguments. Of course, articles are not require to do so and most don’t. But take a look at the information available before you claim that an article is based on lies or insufficient research.

    • 0 Votes

      Yes, I was correct and you really should check on your biased sources. Your sources on the banning of traps are anti trapping organizations. You might want to expand your scope of research. It’s hugely iruonic that you chastise me for not citing sources when you have done no research yourself and are not required for an article. It’s your opinion so post it as such instead of as fact!
      For instance if you do a little research you will find Florida and New Jersey have banned foothold traps.In Arizona they are legal on Private land but not public in the others they are legal with a permit per location.

    • 0 Votes

      “Steel-jaw foothold traps, padded jaw traps, body-gripping
      (Conibear) traps (see below), snares, deadfalls, and any traps
      other than those specified above are prohibited. Such traps
      may not be set, tended, used, or possessed in the field.”

      http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/regulations/abstracts/hunt_fish_abstracts.pdf

      That quote is straight from the Massachusetts trapping regulations.

    • 0 Votes

      “IT IS UNLAWFUL TO TRAP FOR WILD ANIMALS:
      ƒWith body-gripping traps EXCEPT by permit to abate an
      animal problem under WAC 232-12-142. This includes, but
      not limited to, padded foothold traps, unpadded foot-hold
      traps, all snares, and conibear type traps.”

      http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00769/wdfw00769.pdf

      This quote is straight from the Washington State trapping regulations.

    • 0 Votes

      ” It is unlawful for any person to trap for the purposes
      of recreation or commerce in fur any fur-bearing mammal
      or nongame mammal with any body-gripping trap. A bodygripping trap is one that grips the mammal’s body or body
      part, including, but not limited to, steel-jawed leghold
      traps, padded-jaw leghold traps, conibear traps, and
      snares. Cage and box traps, nets, suitcase-type live
      beaver traps, and common rat and mouse traps shall not
      be considered body-gripping traps.”

      http://www.wildrescue.org/PDFs/Trapping.pdf

      This quote is straight from the California trapping regulations.

    • 0 Votes

      Also, I didn’t write this article and as you can see by the sources I cited, I have done research. I wasn’t chastising you for not citing sources. I just think that your claims would be taken more seriously if you did.

    • 0 Votes

      Might want to read Sec.80A of chapter 131. Therein lie the process to obtain permits to use these traps.
      http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIX/Chapter131/Section80A

    • 0 Votes

      Might want to read sec.4a, 4b, 4c and 4d of RCW77.15.194
      http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.194
      or you could just fill out the permit application on this page http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/trapping/

    • 0 Votes

      This is a quote from the CA Trapping Regulations “• Leg-hold traps may be used only to protect human health or safety, and
      only by government agencies (T 14 CCR Sect. 465.5)
      • Body-gripping traps may be used to prevent property damage (T 14 CCR
      Sect. 465.5” http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/uplandgame/docs/CADFGTrappingGuideJan2009.pdf
      So you still don’t think they are being used?

    • 0 Votes

      The source I cited at the bottom of my comment had the same information. Leghold traps are banned from public use in California and may be used only by government agencies. As I mentioned before, there are different levels of prohibition in those states, but in some form or another, their use has been banned. I won’t be commenting on this anymore because we are now just going in circles.

  3. 0 Votes

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and seeing as you didn’t cite any sources, you are merely stating your opinion as well.  Perhaps you should find another website where people are more likely to agree with you because I am confident that the majority of people on here will support the author of this blog because they are correct in their claims.  Maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to stop using these traps on animals and begin using them on ignorant individuals.  

    • 0 Votes

      Speaking of ignorant. People get that way by closing there mind to other ideas. Maybe nobody does agree with me on here. I would hope though you would have an open enough mind to check into the so called facts in the article or you could read and discuss with people that always agree with you and shut everone else out. You’re call.

    • 0 Votes

      People on this site have been checking the facts and have cited sources. You have not. This is an environmental website and the articles written here will be written with that in mind. Also keep in mind that different places can cite different information that can be interpreted in different ways. So far, three different people have come up with the same information. Two have cited, one did not because it was an article, and that was not required or even suggested that they do so. All you are doing is attacking the information and the author(s) repeatedly without citing sources. Yes, my sources came from web sites that were against trapping. That doesn’t mean the information was wrong. Andyyeah’s came directly from government sites and he came back with the same information. It’s fine to question the information, and you should if you feel that it’s incorrect, but I think that you are being unnecessarily aggressive and that attacking other members such as you are isn’t helpful or productive.

    • 0 Votes

      So OK, I posted a few links to make you happy. I really do know the trapping laws and how they are being applied.
      The whole point is someone writes an article and you just swallow it because it fits your preconcieved notions.

    • 0 Votes

      Just want to add, I wish you would take a look at some of the efforts to mandate the use of humane traps.
      http://jjcdev.com/~fishwild/?section=best_management_practices

      http://www.caht.ca/caht/cahttrd.jsp

      This is what you should be working towards instead of feel good laws with huge loopholes.
      You know these things are really not that hard to look up if you want to try.
      I’d also like to say I really believe in this “green” consiousness but that is completely seperate from animal rights zealotry. Not what I think of when I hear green. Furbearer populations are in fine shape throughout North America as a result of furbearer management which includes trapping. That is green in my book.
      Don’t like what I’m saying. Maybe that’s what you need. A different viewpoint instead of listening to the chorus.

Please signup or login to answer this question.

Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!