Solid alternatives to trapping cruelty

I would particularly like to correct her statement on beaver complaints in Massachusetts, which she claimed “soared” 500 percent upon ending trapping there in 1996.

There are some hard data on management of beavers as a “nuisance” animal in Massachusetts.

A company called Beaver Solutions Inc., based in Southampton, Mass., conducted a client survey of 482 “nuisance” cases, extending over a number of years, from the 1990s to the early 21st century. The survey concluded that humane solutions to beaver conflicts — namely water flow control devices, otherwise known as “beaver deceivers” or “beaver baffles” — were far more effective and long-lasting solutions than trapping. Beaver Solutions found that water flow control devices had a 97 percent success rate; trapping was successful only 16 percent of the time (in other words, it had an 84 percent failure rate).

This is because new beavers will inevitably colonize a habitat once it is cleared by trapping. A much more sustainable and stable solution is to find a way to coexist with current beaver populations.

The idea that trapping helps to “cull” nuisance animal populations and keep them in balance is also a complete myth. The indiscriminate mortality of trapping triggers a biological response in target populations to increase the number of kits they produce, which is why numbers seem to “explode” once trapping ends. Over time, the reproductive capacity of these animals readjusts in accordance with the carrying capacity of their environment.

But trapping is not only an outdated, ineffective and overly blunt management tool for so-called “nuisance” animal populations. It is also unspeakably cruel. Leg-hold traps, in particular, immobilize an animal for hours upon end before they are finally put out of their misery. This is torture, pure and simple.

Anyone who condones trapping must turn a blind eye to the wanton cruelty and needless suffering that it causes. Animals such as fox, beaver, mink, otter and bobcat are trapped not for their meat, but for their pelts. And yet, these pelts fetch less and less money these days, precisely because their fur is “unfashionable” when it is associated with such a brutally inhumane practice. Most hunters are loathe to associate themselves with trapping, because they consider it a cowardly and dishonorable way to kill an animal.

Tamara Burke tells us not to worry about trapping, but we should. Concerns about the welfare of our domestic pets aside, trapping does not belong in Vermont culture. Trapping may have a long tradition behind it, but this does not mean that it is something to be proud of, or that makes it justifiable. Cockfighting, for example, also has a centuries-long tradition in Vermont, but it is banned for the same reasons trapping should be, because it is deemed an unacceptably cruel “sport.”

Vermonters are better than this. We pride ourselves on being an environmentally friendly state that cherishes our natural resources and wildlife. Yet trapping leaves a large, bloody stain on that reputation.

The latest science and data tell us that humane methods of managing “nuisance” animal populations are also the most effective and sustainable in the long term. It is time to end trapping in Vermont.

John Aberth

Roxbury