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.
A recent commentator is incorrect when he stated that I made “misstatements” and “suspect” comments regarding the fact that a majority of Vermonters disapprove of recreational and fur trapping.
I did not cite a 2018 survey conducted for the Fish & Wildlife Department by Responsive Management (as the commentator does), but rather the recent 2022 Fish & Wildlife survey report.
It’s important to be clear about precisely the type of trapping being referred to. Page 49 of the Fish & Wildlife report states that, when questioned about specific reasons for approval or disapproval of trapping, the greatest instances of “… disapproval exceeding approval are trapping for recreation, for fur clothing, and for money.” Specifically, 68% strongly or moderately disapprove of recreational trapping and 62% strongly or moderately disapprove of trapping for fur.
I did not “claim” that 68% of Vermonters oppose trapping in general, but that 68% oppose recreational trapping. The statement that the Fish & Wildlife survey shows a majority of Vermonters disapprove of recreational and fur trapping is accurate.
As to the distinction between “leghold” and “foothold” traps, both refer to a pan-tension activated device. A large foothold trap, e.g., one for a bobcat, could grip a smaller animal high up on the leg in a leghold. And I am not sure that wildlife know that they should get caught only in the correctly sized trap or that only their toes are supposed to go into the trap.
Further, the commentator maintains that the Vermont Center for Rural Studies at the University of Vermont could not conduct an unbiased survey in 2017 because the survey was paid for by a wildlife advocacy group “adamantly opposed to trapping” that “had significant input into wording” of the survey.
Conversely, Fish & Wildlife is adamantly pro-trapping, so does this make the survey it paid for unreliable? Fish & Wildlife had significant input into the wording of the survey and was advised by its consultant to use the term “regulated” trapping, without any definition of the term, because this generated higher levels of support for trapping in other surveys. This proved true in the Fish & Wildlife survey.
The report states (page 20): “Residents were asked about their approval or disapproval of trapping in Vermont. A random half of the sample were asked if they approve of ‘regulated trapping,’ while the other half were simply asked about ‘trapping.’ … (T)his distinction matters: 60% of those who were asked about ‘regulated trapping’ strongly or moderately approve, while only 42% of those asked about ‘trapping’ approve. In other words, a majority of Vermont residents approve of trapping, in general, when they know it is regulated.”
This raises the question: What does “regulated” trapping mean in the context of Vermont?
Does it mean nuisance trapping for problem wildlife? Trapping for relocation to restore a wildlife population? Trapping for biological studies? People might support these kinds of activities.
You could also think that “regulated” would prevent body-crushing traps being set near trails. But, as the recent death of a dog in a trap in Corinth shows, that is not the case.
“Regulated” trapping in Vermont means:
- Traps may be set on public land, including national wildlife refuges.
- No requirement for signage to alert the public that traps are set in an area.
- No setback requirements for traps near trails and trailheads.
- No limit on the number of traps that may be set in a given area.
- No limit on the number of animals that can be trapped.
- Traps may be baited with food and so can lure nontarget animals (e.g., pets and endangered species), as happened in Corinth.
- No humane regulations for how trapped animals must be killed, so they can be bludgeoned, stomped, drowned, choked, or, if the animal is lucky, s/he is shot.
The commentator noted that trapped animals are “generally” shot. Given this, why did trappers in the Fish & Wildlife working group on Best Management Practices for trapping refuse to agree to codify shooting as a best practice? Similarly, why did they refuse to agree with a requirement for even modest setbacks for traps from trails?
Trappers were given the opportunity to put their assertions about trapper responsibility into action, but they rejected even these reasonable measures.
It seems the only thing “regulated” about trapping in Vermont is the need for a license and a requirement to check traps every 24 hours — though there is absolutely no way to verify that this is done.
Despite Fish & Wildlife’s attempts at obfuscation by using the general and undefined term “regulated trapping” in much of its survey, a majority of Vermonters indicated that they disapprove of specific trapping activities for recreation and fur. To be clear, banning recreational and fur trapping under 10 App. V.S.A. § 44 will not disallow nuisance trapping under 10 V.S.A. § 4828.
1,824 Vermonters (0.28% of the population) have a trapping license, and it is not certain how many of this small number are actually active trappers. What remains to be debated is whether or not the governor and the Legislature will pass legislation to reflect the will of the majority of Vermonters on this issue, or if they will continue to defer to and serve a minority.
