US F-15 Strike Eagle fighter jets en route to Middle East ahead of possible Iranian retaliatory attack on Israel: report
Reply
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Keep pets safe this trapping season
- By Sophie Bowater
- Nov 5, 2024
- https://www.benningtonbanner.com/opinion/keep-pets-safe-this-trapping-season/article_14a622f8-9bbb-11ef-a015-174b94901cd2.html
Don’t miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
The recreational trapping season in Vermont begins on the fourth Saturday of October each year and lasts through March 31. For some animals like otters and beavers, this season lasts for five long months. There are no limits on the numbers of animals a trapper may kill. There are also no limits on the number of traps that may be set, including on our shared public lands.
Leghold and body-crushing kill traps are non-selective by design so a trap set for a bobcat or a beaver can just as easily catch a dog or protected species like great blue herons. Every year, non-targeted victims are referred to as “bycatch” or “incidental takes.” These captures should be published on Fish & Wildlife’s website so that the public is aware, however the only way we ever learn about these horrible incidents is through freedom of information acts submitted to Fish & Wildlife.
You might notice that Vermont Fish & Wildlife often refers to the trapping season as the “regulated” season and what that means is that largely unregulated trapping occurs year-round if wildlife is deemed a nuisance by landowners or municipalities (under the statute title 10 VSA §4828). This means that leghold and kill traps are not just a danger during the “regulated” recreational trapping season, but year round with little oversight in a largely unregulated open season. Unlike other states, Fish & Wildlife is not notified if landowners or towns set traps. They’re not even notified after the trapping occurs and animals are killed! The state has little knowledge as to how many foxes, beavers, bobcats and other animals are injured or killed every year during what amounts to an open season.
The public may also be surprised to know that despite the fact that Fish & Wildlife was required to change the trapping regulations under Act 159, these dangerous traps may be set on public lands with no required signage. Traps are baited with enticing items like animal carcasses and scent lures placing any curious animal at risk. Traps are often hidden under leaf debris or dirt making them virtually invisible. Wildlife advocates encouraged Fish & Wildlife to require that traps be placed a far distance from the public, but Fish & Wildlife refused, allowing traps to be set a mere 50 feet from heavily traveled hiking trails. For powerful kill traps that are placed in shallow streams and culverts, there are no trap setbacks at all! As someone who walks in the woods with my dogs and children, these new regulations are far from adequate.
Another inadequate regulation change is that Fish & Wildlife still allows exceptionally cruel methods of capturing animals. Despite Act 159’s attempt to make trapping less inhumane, steel-jawed leghold traps are still the trap of choice for trappers. So-called “best management practices” (BMP) for trapping still inflict tremendous suffering on animals. You can read more about that on the legislature’s website here: [https://shorturl.at/e629l]. According to this report, “BMP research revealed that certain animals like raccoons and skunks have a higher probability of serious injuries due to self-biting as a result of being restrained in leghold traps, yet leghold traps are still included in the BMP recommendations for raccoons.”
If your dog or cat is unlucky enough to find themselves ensnared in a steel-jawed leghold trap or worse, a body crushing Conibear trap, releasing them safely, or releasing them at all, is not easy. Just last year, a dog was trapped in a kill trap set for beavers in Castleton (https://shorturl.at/2U7Nf). The dog was a large German Shepherd and the dog’s size saved his life. A smaller dog would’ve died. Another dog wasn’t so lucky. She lost her life to a kill trap in Underhill (https://shorturl.at/0ILL2). You won’t ever hear about these tragedies because the state knows it’s horrible P.R. for trapping.
But the question we should really be asking ourselves is why any animal, wild or domestic, should be allowed to be tortured in traps in the name of recreation and tradition. If an animal is to be trapped, it should be for a very good reason, not for a recreational hobby.
Save the bobcat! Tell the DNR not to allow hunting and trapping of it
Amendment 2: Fishing and hunting are now a state constitutional right. Here’s what it means for Floridians
Alberta forestry minister says wolverine, lynx trapping limits lifted to gather data
Conservation organization has concerns over the province’s updated trapping regulations
Commission to have hearing on bobcat trapping season
By
–
November 8, 2024
The Indiana Natural Resources Commission is considering a new rule allowing trophy hunters and trappers to kill up to 250 bobcats.
A hearing on the new rule will be from 5 to 7 p.m. Nov. 14 at the Southeast – Purdue Agricultural Center at 4425 E. 350N, Butlerville.
Under the proposed rule, trappers could use various trapping methods, including cage traps, steel-jawed leghold traps, and strangling cable wire snares to catch bobcats and hold them until they are killed.
News, straight to your inbox!
Sign up for the FREE Republic Evening Headlines newsletter.
The potential bobcat trapping season is being driven by legislation passed earlier this year, forcing the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to open a bobcat season by July 2025. However, the DNR has the authority to set the quota at zero while still complying with the law
In 2018, the Natural Resources Commission rejected a proposed bobcat season due to overwhelming public opposition.
Opponents and supporters say wolves were on voters’ minds when they rejected big cat hunting ban
Rising water threatens to close deer hunting in portions of east Arkansas
Animal related measures fail in Colorado, including proposed bans on trophy hunting and Denver slaughterhouse
- Marianne Goodland marianne.goodland@coloradopolitics.com
- Nov 6, 2024 Updated Nov 6, 2024
- https://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/animal-rights-measures-fail-denver/article_9f68d22a-9c68-11ef-99b8-fbbe5f58a9cd.html#google_vignettehttps://www.coloradopolitics.com/news/animal-rights-measures-fail-denver/article_9f68d22a-9c68-11ef-99b8-fbbe5f58a9cd.html#google_vignette
1 of 3
FILE PHOTO: Mountain lions on the prowl.
- Denver Gazette file photo
Jacob Toledo packages lamb for distribution at Superior Farms’ processing plant in north Denver. (The Gazette file)
Rina Mancias, right, cuts pieces of lamb before packaging it at Superior Farms slaughterhouse in north Denver on Friday, Aug. 23, 2024.
Three ballot measures pushed by animal rights activists in Denver and statewide failed on Election Day.
The statewide measure aimed to forbid hunting of big cats, while measures in Denver asked voters to prohibit the sale of furs and shut down a local slaughterhouse.
Proposition 127, a statewide measure that sought to ban the “trophy” hunting of mountain lions, bobcats and lynxes, trailed by more than 267,000 votes, or 10 percentage points, the latest tally showed.
Trophy hunting is illegal in Colorado under Colorado Revised Statute 33-6-117 and Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations. Lynx are a federally protected species and cannot be hunted or trapped.
Supporters said claimed voters would be making a “moral decision” about hunting the big cats, arguing hunters chase them into trees, shoot them and then hang them on walls.
State regulations require mountain lions to be consumed, stating “all edible parts of lions must be properly prepared for human consumption, excluding internal organs. At a minimum, this means the four quarters, tenderloins, and backstraps.”
Those who opposed the measure pointed to the state’s widely-criticized wolf reintroduction, tied to Proposition 114, which won by a margin of less than 2 points in 2020. The ballot measure required wolves to be reintroduced west of the Continental Divide — the counties where wolves were reintroduced voted overwhelmingly against the proposal. Most of the measure’s support came from Front Range voters, particularly in Boulder and Denver counties.
Based on the unofficial results on Tuesday night, just five counties voted to support Proposition 127, and all but a few thousand of its 1.1 million “yes” votes came from Boulder, Denver and Arapahoe counties.
Opponents called the measure another effort at “ballot box biology” and cited regret over voting for 2020’s Proposition 114 as a reason not to go down that same path again.
The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado defined “ballot box biology” as the “practice of using public votes to decide on wildlife management policies, rather than relying on the expertise of wildlife biologists and scientists. Colorado’s history shows that decisions made through emotional appeals, rather than scientific expertise, often lead to unintended and harmful consequences.”
The board of the Colorado Wildlife Employees Protective Association, which represents 230 current and former Colorado Parks and Wildlife employees, passed a resolution last month that said it is “self-evident that all wildlife in Colorado is best protected, enhanced, and managed via the science-based wildlife management professionals employed by the State of Colorado for such purposes.” In particular, the group said that science-based approach is “pursuant to the mission of Colorado Parks and Wildlife” and as prescribed by the tenets of the “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.”
While not formally opposing Proposition 127, the group’s president told Colorado Politics that, if this is a trend, “we’d like to get out in front of it.”
Animal rights groups pushed two other ballot measures in Denver: Ordinances 308 and 309.
The former asked voters to prohibit fur products and, beginning July 1, 2025, ban the manufacture, distribution, display, sale, or trade of certain animal fur products.
But it would have gone beyond just fur, critics said. The measure’s petition included “animal skin or part thereof of hair, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its raw or processed state; or such hair fleece, or fur fibers detached from any animal skin and re-attached to another material.”
That could prohibit specific fly-fishing lures or cowboy hats made from animal skins, such as beaver, critics said.
That drew the ire of the National Western Stock Show, which put $45,000 into the Hands Off My Hat anti-308 committee. The group raised nearly $730,000, more than double the amount that proponents raised.
Unofficial results showed the measure failing by more than 15 percentage points.
Ordinance 309 called for a ban on slaughterhouses in Denver. But there’s only one in the city —and supporters pointed to that one facility in their efforts to pass the measure.
Globeville’s Superior Farms processes lambs, is employee-owned, and closing its doors would put 160 employees out of work. The facility processes about 15% to 20% of all lambs processed in the United States.
As for the jobs that would be lost, supporters said a company shutdown would allow employees to receive unemployment assistance. The measure also called for those workers to be “prioritized” for workforce training or employment assistance programs operated by Denver, including so-called “green jobs” outlined in the city’s Climate Protection Fund.
This measure was seen as a salvo in a battle to ban slaughterhouses nationwide.
Unofficial results showed the measure losing by nearly 30 percentage points.
The measure drew opposition from the central committee of the Denver Democratic Party, citing the impact on workers. They were joined in that opposition by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, Service Employees International Union Local 105, the Denver Area Labor Federation, Denver Pipefitters Local 208 and the Teamsters Union.
The measure drew more than $2.7 million in spending, heavily weighted toward the opposition, which raised $2.4 million to fight it. That included $175,000 from Superior Farms.
Jennifer Martin, an associate professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University, wrote recently about a study on the effects of Ordinance 309, saying Colorado’s rugged environment is well-suited for sheep ranching and noting the state is the third largest producer in the country.
Closing Superior Farms would mean “sheep producers who historically sent their lambs to Denver for harvest would instead not be able, or willing, to ship them to other states due to increased costs and concerns for animal welfare effects.”
In addition, she said, “the effects, which have been observed after closures of meat-processing facilities in other regions, would have included fewer sheep produced and a decline in the economic value of live sheep.
“The closure would have resulted in a loss of livestock employment opportunities and a transition away from sheep production toward other enterprises,” she said, adding that it’s not just the size of Superior Farms that makes it important to the supply chain, “it is also its ability to access consumers in a variety of markets that is crucial for the sheep industry.”
The study also said “the most pessimistic potential economic impact to the Colorado economy is a reduction of $861 million in current economic activity and 2,787 jobs after accounting for multiplier effects.”
Exposing the Big Game 
