By Commentary

Barbara Felitti: It’s time to ban recreational and fur trapping

Nov 20 2022

Share

Tweet

Share

Email

This commentary is by Barbara Felitti, a resident of Huntington who retired after working for 28 years at the Institute for Sustainable Communities in Montpelier and as a consultant for international community development and NGO support work.

It’s time for the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department and elected state officials to act on the wishes of the majority of Vermonters and ban recreational and fur trapping for furbearers (bobcat, otter, fisher, coyotes, beaver, red and gray fox, muskrat, raccoon, opossum, weasel, mink and skunk).

Fish & Wildlife recently commissioned a survey of Vermont residents on furbearer trapping. A majority of Vermonters oppose recreational and fur trapping — 68% disapprove of recreational trapping (only 26% approve) and 62% disapprove of fur trapping (only 31% approve). This is consistent with the 2017 Vermont Center for Rural Studies survey finding that 75% of Vermonters want trapping banned. (See page 49 of the draft document “Vermont Residents’ Attitudes Towards Furbearer Management” 2022 by Responsive Management. The document was obtained from Fish & Wildlife through a public records request.)

So why are Fish & Wildlife and elected officials ignoring the wishes of a majority of Vermonters?

Arguments against a recreational and fur trapping ban fall along some predictable lines:

• Tradition. Trapping is a Vermont “tradition.” However, traditions can and do change with time. Dogfighting and cockfighting were once “traditions” that are now banned throughout the U.S., as they were recognized as a form of legalized animal abuse. There is no legitimate need in the 21^st century for trapping wildlife in painful ways so someone can kill them for recreation or fur. 
• Flatlanders. Some feel if you haven’t lived in Vermont for generations, you shouldn’t try to change traditions. This ignores the fact that some hunters and lifelong Vermonters are part of the 62% to 68% supporting a recreational and fur trapping ban.
  
  Additionally, I seem to have missed the place in the Vermont Constitution where rights are assigned to people based on how long they’ve lived in the state. Are people who have not lived in Vermont for generations second-class citizens? 
• Misdirection. Inevitably, the issue of banning recreational and fur trapping raises the topic of the much maligned beaver and damage to infrastructure. Nuisance damage from beavers can be managed in nonlethal ways. More importantly, banning recreational and fur trapping under 10 App. V.S.A. § 44 will not disallow nuisance trapping under 10 V.S.A. § 4828. 
• Guaranteed rights. Fish & Wildlife’s website wrongfully states that trapping is protected by the Vermont Constitution. It is not. The constitution guarantees the right to “hunt and fowl,” which have distinctly different definitions than trapping under Vermont regulations. 
• “Detractors.” Unfortunately some Fish & Wildlife staff see disagreements with department policy as having to deal with “detractors” who are discrediting their work (Fish & Wildlife staff email Oct. 20, 2021, obtained through a public records request). This is a disingenuous and dismissive response by public officials that ignores the legitimate right of citizens to question and petition for changes to department policy. 

Sadly, ignoring majority public opinion on trapping extends to the Legislature. Last legislative session, S.201 proposed a ban on leghold traps. Instead of a ban, the Legislature passed a bill to establish “best management practices” for trapping. Trappers in a working group to advise on best management practices wouldn’t even agree to limit killing of trapped animals to gunshot only. They still want to be able to use inhumane methods — for example, bludgeoning, stomping, or choking — to kill trapped wildlife. A best management practices-approved leghold trap can still maim an animal and will not prevent indiscriminate trapping of pet dogs and cats, raptors, or endangered species. Is this really “best”?