Photo by Monty Sloan
|
Snaring, Trapping, Baiting, Liberal Hunting
|
Claims of high wolf populations are often based on personal perceptions, stories and myths, and often to serve personal gain. The truth is, any scientific accounts cited in media as to wolf population numbers in Alberta are educated guesses, mere estimates based on sample models of an area which are then extrapolated for the province. These wolf number "counts" are repeated every 10 years or so and the current wolf numbers range from 3500 to 7000 wolves in Alberta. Counting wolves is extremely difficult. Even official government numbers are estimates which makes the wolf vulnerable to perceptions and rumours of overpopulation, which are then perpetuated by those individuals who stand to gain by killing wolves. Additionally, the emphasis on wolf numbers alone is misleading when it comes to wolves as numbers do not reflect the true health of the population. Wolves have a sophisticated social structure, sophisticated behaviour, and evolved reproductive systems that set them apart from other species and the health of the population should be determined on intact family structures, not just numbers alone.
Stubborn prejudice and outdated misconceptions of the wolf continue to target the wolf in many regions making these animals easy scapegoats to numerous man made issues resulting in loss of habitat, ever expanding livestock ranges, invasive industrial activity, encroaching human settlement, and over hunting. The situation is stark, with many consequences of human harassment and over hunting for this apex predator such as increased stress levels, altered reproductive cycles, and loss of genetic diversity.
Read Below: Heavily hunted wolves have higher stress and reproductive steroids than wolves with lower hunting pressure
Stubborn prejudice and outdated misconceptions of the wolf continue to target the wolf in many regions making these animals easy scapegoats to numerous man made issues resulting in loss of habitat, ever expanding livestock ranges, invasive industrial activity, encroaching human settlement, and over hunting. The situation is stark, with many consequences of human harassment and over hunting for this apex predator such as increased stress levels, altered reproductive cycles, and loss of genetic diversity.
Read Below: Heavily hunted wolves have higher stress and reproductive steroids than wolves with lower hunting pressure
| high_stress_in_hunted_wolves.pdf |
Read Below: Widespread mesopredator effects after wolf extirpation
| ripple_2013_bc.pdf |
There are very few laws, if any, that protect wolves outside of National Parks. Wolves are dying in the proliferation of snares and traps, which educated estimates place in the tens of thousands in Alberta's west country alone. Bait stations drive deep into wolf territory, spread along industrial access roads. Hunters are permitted to lure wolves with baits, and electronic calls and the extended hunting season and no bag limits can leave orphaned pups to die of starvation. These are all cruelties not inflicted on other game animals. For more detailed information on snares, traps and hunting, see the links below.
SNARING - click photo to learn more
Photo by Blackwolf - a wolf with a snare around it's neck.
NON SNARE TRAPPING - click photo to learn more
LIBERAL HUNTING SEASON - click photo to learn more
FAQs About Trapping
Myth: Trapping is humane and selective
Despite what trappers would have you believe, animals frequently sustain severe injuries from being trapped. When not killed outright by the trap, animals can suffer physiological trauma, dehydration, exposure to severe weather, and predation by other animals until the trapper returns. When the trapper returns he usually clubs, suffocates or strangles the animal to death. Fur trappers rarely shoot trapped animals because bullet holes and blood reduce a pelt's value.
Traps set in or near water are designed to drown aquatic mammals, which can take up to 20 minutes for some species.1 The American Veterinary Medical Association deems drowning to be inhumane and a 1999 study concluded "drowning cannot be considered euthanasia. Most traps are notoriously indiscriminate, capturing almost any animal that triggers them. Sometimes called "trash" animals by trappers, non-target species that have been found in traps include threatened and endangered species, raptors, domestic dogs and cats, and even humans. These animals can sustain the same injuries as target species. Even if released, they may perish later from internal injuries or reduced ability to hunt or forage for food.
There are three general types of traps used today: restraining body-gripping traps; kill traps; and live traps. Restraining and kill traps are most often used for commercial and recreational fur trapping as they are cheap, portable, and easy to set. Live traps are more often used by private "nuisance" animal control trappers for trapping raccoons, cats, skunks, etc.
Myth: Trapping is tightly regulated
Trapping regulations vary widely from province to province and are, in general, poorly enforced. Many regions have few restrictions on the types of traps that can be used or the number of animals that can be trapped. Very few provinces monitor the number of target animals trapped each year, and most do not require trappers to report non-target captures at all. Some provincial wildlife agencies rely on voluntary or mandatory "fur dealer/buyer reports" to estimate annual trapping totals.
Myth: Trapping is a necessary wildlife management tool
Trappers and wildlife managers claim that trapping prevents species from overpopulating and destroying their habitat by removing "surplus" animals from the wild. This simplistic argument, however, belies the dynamics of wildlife populations. First, the term "surplus" as used by trappers is an ecological fallacy — every animal, alive or dead, plays an important role in its ecosystem as either predator or prey. Second, available habitat and food resources generally limit the size of wildlife populations. When a wildlife population approaches the limit that the habitat can sustain — the "carrying capacity" — reproduction and survival decrease because less food is available to each individual, and the population begins to decline. In this way, nature has been regulating itself for millennia without our help.
Trapping generally removes healthy individuals from the population rather than the sick, aged, infirm, or very young animals most often subjected to natural selection. It would be "blind luck" if a trapper were to trap an animal that would have otherwise died of starvation or any other natural cause, so trapping actually works against nature's selection process.
In truth, trappers are mainly interested in manipulating wildlife populations for their own benefit. State wildlife agencies actively manage populations of furbearers to ensure that there are enough animals for trappers to kill, not to prevent biological overpopulation.
Removing wild animals from a particular ecological niche is likely to have two results: 1) increase reproduction by the remaining individuals; and 2) increase mobility of the animal population at large, as territories are emptied and re-occupied. Neither can be considered "good wildlife management." Trapping also may alter the age structure of the species' population. The net result of these social and biological disruptions is increased numbers of wild animals.
While many species, such as coyotes and foxes, naturally compensate for externally caused population reductions by increasing reproductive rates, species such as wolverines, lynx, and fishers do not, and are vulnerable to irreversible population reductions. Trapping is anything but an effective "management tool."
Myth: Trapping is needed in order to protect livestock
Livestock producers have waged war on predators for centuries, ostensibly to protect livestock. These attempts have been largely unsuccessful in solving conflicts.
Take the case of wolves. As with many wild animals, the wolf's population is naturally regulated when left unhampered by human control attempts. Lethal control methods, however, can disrupt this process. Killing wolves disrupts the pack and may cause remaining pack members to disperse, resulting in more wolves reproducing in the absence of a pack hierarchy. Exploited populations also tend to have larger litters because competition for food is reduced and more unoccupied habitat is available.
Trapping is not the answer to protecting livestock. Non-lethal methods include having guard animals such as dogs, llamas and donkeys; the use of fencing; sheltering animals at night; and improved husbandry practices (see our "coexisting with wolves" section). Those are just a few ways to protect livestock without killing wildlife. Non-lethal methods also allow wild animals to maintain their important roles in the ecosystem.
Myth: Trapping helps control the spread of disease
Trappers like to play on the public's fear of rabies and other diseases by arguing that trapping is necessary to control the spread of diseases like rabies. However, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization, as well as many other scientific, public health, and veterinary organizations, disagree. The National Academy of Sciences subcommittee on rabies concluded that, "Persistent trapping or poisoning campaigns as a means to rabies control should be abolished. There is no evidence that these costly and politically attractive programs reduce either wildlife reservoirs or rabies incidence. The money can be better spent on research, vaccination, compensation to ranchers for losses, education and warning systems.
Furthermore, trapping can actually increase the spread of disease. By removing mature animals who have acquired immunity to disease, trappers make room for newcomers who may not be immune. In addition, animals infected with rabies do not eat during the latter stages of the disease, and therefore do not respond to baited traps. Hence, traps set in an area infected with rabies will more than likely capture healthy animals rather than infected animals, thereby increasing the likelihood that the disease will spread.
The most successful attempts to control rabies in wildlife have utilized bait containing oral rabies vaccine, which is fed to wildlife. Public funds for trapping programs would be better spent on public education emphasizing prevention of rabies through pet vaccinations, securing garbage cans, not feeding wildlife, etc.
Myth: Fur trapping provides significant income for many people
Trapping and fur industry proponents claim trapping provides a viable income for many Canadians. However, surveys show that most trappers trap for "sport" and a little extra income which is considered "seasonal". According to the figures from the Fur Institute of Canada (2006), there are approximately 60,000 licensed trappers in Canada, though it is important to note that trapping is not a source of major income for Canadians. Also, while the industry claims to support indigenous populations by using fur, in reality, less than 2% of Canada's indigenous population is involved in the fur trade. Indigenous trappers, on average, earn less than $400 per year, and receive only 1% of the profits of the Canadian fur industry. Low pelt prices, fluctuating demand, and high expenses (e.g.: gasoline, trapline permits, etc.) mean that for indigenous and non-indigenous trappers alike, trapping is simply a hobby. It is not a livelihood. Today fur trapping is little more than a hobby.
Myth: Fur is "green"
In the late 1990s, the fur industry attempted to "green" its image by claiming that real-animal-fur garments were more environmentally friendly than fake furs. However, according to a study conducted by Gregory H. Smith, resident engineer at the Scientific Research Laboratory at the Ford Motor Co., it takes nearly four times the amount of energy to produce a fur coat from trapped animals than a synthetic fur. Much of this energy is derived from petroleum products. [Not calculated in Smith's study is the petroleum and energy use of snowmobiles, four-wheel drives and ATVs used to patrol trap lines; therefore, the total energy necessary to produce a wild caught fur is probably much higher than Smith's calculations.]
The cost to the ecosystem that is disrupted by trapping's unnatural selection of some species and over exploitation of others is hard to measure by monetary standards but is nonetheless a great expense — not to mention the cost to the animals who pay with pain and suffering and ultimately with their lives.
Myth: Trapping is "a traditional way of life"
Often an argument made as a last resort, when other excuses have been proven false.
It is true that trapping has been practiced in Canada for hundreds of years. However, today, we live in a different world than we did 200 years ago, when there seemed to be no limit to our country's/province's unique wildlife.Additionally, public lands in the province have different priorities now, with many more individuals wanting to enjoy public lands and wildlife for recreational purposes. In fact, wildlife-watching and nature activities are so popular in Alberta that it is estimated to bring in billions of dollars in revenue to the province every year.
Wildlife in Alberta and Canada have a right to live free in the wild without the threat of being trapped and suffering in pain for hours or days in trapping devices. Also, people finally deserve to be able to enjoy our public lands without fear of harm from traps to themselves, their children, or their pets. Many things that were once "tradition" have changed due to changing times and changing perspectives.
Despite what trappers would have you believe, animals frequently sustain severe injuries from being trapped. When not killed outright by the trap, animals can suffer physiological trauma, dehydration, exposure to severe weather, and predation by other animals until the trapper returns. When the trapper returns he usually clubs, suffocates or strangles the animal to death. Fur trappers rarely shoot trapped animals because bullet holes and blood reduce a pelt's value.
Traps set in or near water are designed to drown aquatic mammals, which can take up to 20 minutes for some species.1 The American Veterinary Medical Association deems drowning to be inhumane and a 1999 study concluded "drowning cannot be considered euthanasia. Most traps are notoriously indiscriminate, capturing almost any animal that triggers them. Sometimes called "trash" animals by trappers, non-target species that have been found in traps include threatened and endangered species, raptors, domestic dogs and cats, and even humans. These animals can sustain the same injuries as target species. Even if released, they may perish later from internal injuries or reduced ability to hunt or forage for food.
There are three general types of traps used today: restraining body-gripping traps; kill traps; and live traps. Restraining and kill traps are most often used for commercial and recreational fur trapping as they are cheap, portable, and easy to set. Live traps are more often used by private "nuisance" animal control trappers for trapping raccoons, cats, skunks, etc.
Myth: Trapping is tightly regulated
Trapping regulations vary widely from province to province and are, in general, poorly enforced. Many regions have few restrictions on the types of traps that can be used or the number of animals that can be trapped. Very few provinces monitor the number of target animals trapped each year, and most do not require trappers to report non-target captures at all. Some provincial wildlife agencies rely on voluntary or mandatory "fur dealer/buyer reports" to estimate annual trapping totals.
Myth: Trapping is a necessary wildlife management tool
Trappers and wildlife managers claim that trapping prevents species from overpopulating and destroying their habitat by removing "surplus" animals from the wild. This simplistic argument, however, belies the dynamics of wildlife populations. First, the term "surplus" as used by trappers is an ecological fallacy — every animal, alive or dead, plays an important role in its ecosystem as either predator or prey. Second, available habitat and food resources generally limit the size of wildlife populations. When a wildlife population approaches the limit that the habitat can sustain — the "carrying capacity" — reproduction and survival decrease because less food is available to each individual, and the population begins to decline. In this way, nature has been regulating itself for millennia without our help.
Trapping generally removes healthy individuals from the population rather than the sick, aged, infirm, or very young animals most often subjected to natural selection. It would be "blind luck" if a trapper were to trap an animal that would have otherwise died of starvation or any other natural cause, so trapping actually works against nature's selection process.
In truth, trappers are mainly interested in manipulating wildlife populations for their own benefit. State wildlife agencies actively manage populations of furbearers to ensure that there are enough animals for trappers to kill, not to prevent biological overpopulation.
Removing wild animals from a particular ecological niche is likely to have two results: 1) increase reproduction by the remaining individuals; and 2) increase mobility of the animal population at large, as territories are emptied and re-occupied. Neither can be considered "good wildlife management." Trapping also may alter the age structure of the species' population. The net result of these social and biological disruptions is increased numbers of wild animals.
While many species, such as coyotes and foxes, naturally compensate for externally caused population reductions by increasing reproductive rates, species such as wolverines, lynx, and fishers do not, and are vulnerable to irreversible population reductions. Trapping is anything but an effective "management tool."
Myth: Trapping is needed in order to protect livestock
Livestock producers have waged war on predators for centuries, ostensibly to protect livestock. These attempts have been largely unsuccessful in solving conflicts.
Take the case of wolves. As with many wild animals, the wolf's population is naturally regulated when left unhampered by human control attempts. Lethal control methods, however, can disrupt this process. Killing wolves disrupts the pack and may cause remaining pack members to disperse, resulting in more wolves reproducing in the absence of a pack hierarchy. Exploited populations also tend to have larger litters because competition for food is reduced and more unoccupied habitat is available.
Trapping is not the answer to protecting livestock. Non-lethal methods include having guard animals such as dogs, llamas and donkeys; the use of fencing; sheltering animals at night; and improved husbandry practices (see our "coexisting with wolves" section). Those are just a few ways to protect livestock without killing wildlife. Non-lethal methods also allow wild animals to maintain their important roles in the ecosystem.
Myth: Trapping helps control the spread of disease
Trappers like to play on the public's fear of rabies and other diseases by arguing that trapping is necessary to control the spread of diseases like rabies. However, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization, as well as many other scientific, public health, and veterinary organizations, disagree. The National Academy of Sciences subcommittee on rabies concluded that, "Persistent trapping or poisoning campaigns as a means to rabies control should be abolished. There is no evidence that these costly and politically attractive programs reduce either wildlife reservoirs or rabies incidence. The money can be better spent on research, vaccination, compensation to ranchers for losses, education and warning systems.
Furthermore, trapping can actually increase the spread of disease. By removing mature animals who have acquired immunity to disease, trappers make room for newcomers who may not be immune. In addition, animals infected with rabies do not eat during the latter stages of the disease, and therefore do not respond to baited traps. Hence, traps set in an area infected with rabies will more than likely capture healthy animals rather than infected animals, thereby increasing the likelihood that the disease will spread.
The most successful attempts to control rabies in wildlife have utilized bait containing oral rabies vaccine, which is fed to wildlife. Public funds for trapping programs would be better spent on public education emphasizing prevention of rabies through pet vaccinations, securing garbage cans, not feeding wildlife, etc.
Myth: Fur trapping provides significant income for many people
Trapping and fur industry proponents claim trapping provides a viable income for many Canadians. However, surveys show that most trappers trap for "sport" and a little extra income which is considered "seasonal". According to the figures from the Fur Institute of Canada (2006), there are approximately 60,000 licensed trappers in Canada, though it is important to note that trapping is not a source of major income for Canadians. Also, while the industry claims to support indigenous populations by using fur, in reality, less than 2% of Canada's indigenous population is involved in the fur trade. Indigenous trappers, on average, earn less than $400 per year, and receive only 1% of the profits of the Canadian fur industry. Low pelt prices, fluctuating demand, and high expenses (e.g.: gasoline, trapline permits, etc.) mean that for indigenous and non-indigenous trappers alike, trapping is simply a hobby. It is not a livelihood. Today fur trapping is little more than a hobby.
Myth: Fur is "green"
In the late 1990s, the fur industry attempted to "green" its image by claiming that real-animal-fur garments were more environmentally friendly than fake furs. However, according to a study conducted by Gregory H. Smith, resident engineer at the Scientific Research Laboratory at the Ford Motor Co., it takes nearly four times the amount of energy to produce a fur coat from trapped animals than a synthetic fur. Much of this energy is derived from petroleum products. [Not calculated in Smith's study is the petroleum and energy use of snowmobiles, four-wheel drives and ATVs used to patrol trap lines; therefore, the total energy necessary to produce a wild caught fur is probably much higher than Smith's calculations.]
The cost to the ecosystem that is disrupted by trapping's unnatural selection of some species and over exploitation of others is hard to measure by monetary standards but is nonetheless a great expense — not to mention the cost to the animals who pay with pain and suffering and ultimately with their lives.
Myth: Trapping is "a traditional way of life"
Often an argument made as a last resort, when other excuses have been proven false.
It is true that trapping has been practiced in Canada for hundreds of years. However, today, we live in a different world than we did 200 years ago, when there seemed to be no limit to our country's/province's unique wildlife.Additionally, public lands in the province have different priorities now, with many more individuals wanting to enjoy public lands and wildlife for recreational purposes. In fact, wildlife-watching and nature activities are so popular in Alberta that it is estimated to bring in billions of dollars in revenue to the province every year.
Wildlife in Alberta and Canada have a right to live free in the wild without the threat of being trapped and suffering in pain for hours or days in trapping devices. Also, people finally deserve to be able to enjoy our public lands without fear of harm from traps to themselves, their children, or their pets. Many things that were once "tradition" have changed due to changing times and changing perspectives.
