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.
Focus on the facts and science, and dial back the emotions is a point often made by the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department commissioner and staff when discussing wildlife management issues. Here are some facts from information received through public records requests from the Fish & Wildlife Department about trapping:
- Only a fraction of a percent of Vermonters hold trapping licenses.
In 2022 there was a total of 1,836 trapping licenses, which is 0.28% of the population of Vermont. There were 888 new trapping licenses sold (0.14%) — 876 to Vermonters and 12 nonresident licenses, and 948 permanent licenses with trapping privileges (0.15%).
- Of those who hold licenses, an even smaller fraction are actively trapping.
It is mandatory for all trappers with a license to submit an annual activity trapping report to Fish & Wildlife, even if they did not trap.
For the 2021-22 trapping season (the most recent year with data) a total of 1,431 annual reports were submitted. Only 242 people reported in-season trapping for the 2021-22 season; that is, only 0.04% of the Vermont population was actively trapping for recreation or fur.
- Trapping licenses contribute a fraction of a percent to the overall Fish & Wildlife budget.
Revenues from 2022 licenses totaled $32,530 (there’s a range of fees, from $10 for a youth trapping license to $305 for nonresidents).
A report on the Fish & Wildlife website lists its actual 2022 budget as $26,042,678. This makes the revenue from trapping licenses 0.12% of the total budget.
In each of these instances — the total number of licenses held, the number of active recreational trappers, and revenues from trapping licenses — we are talking about a fraction of 1%. A ban on recreational and fur trapping will affect an incredibly small number of Vermonters and have minimal impact on the Fish & Wildlife budget.
Add to this that, for fur-bearing animals, trapping serves no wildlife management purpose. The state is not overrun with bobcats, otters, mink or other furbearers. Problems from beavers can be managed in nonlethal ways. Killing coyotes does not decrease their numbers, as their litter sizes adjust to reflect changes in population and food availability.
All this raises the question: Whose interests are being served by Vermont’s recreational and fur trapping policies? It most assuredly is not the majority of Vermonters who, in Fish & Wildlife’s own survey, indicated that they do not approve of trapping for recreation (68%) or fur (62%). This is an extreme case of the tyranny of the minority — a fraction of the population (0.04%) wielding power not at all commensurate with its numbers, and obstructing any efforts at change.
To be clear, the enabling of this tyranny of the minority starts at the top with Gov. Scott, who appointed Fish & Wildlife Commissioner Herrick, who in turn sets the tone for the Fish & Wildlife staff. Rather than listening to what a majority of Vermonters want for wildlife management, the department is pursuing a whitewashing strategy of promoting “Best Management Practices” to legitimize trapping.
Saying there are “best” methods to trap wildlife in painful ways is akin to saying there are “best” ways to hold dogfights, or “best” ways to administer corporal punishment to children in schools. But we don’t do either of these because society has come to realize that dog-fighting or corporal punishment are inhumane.
Similarly, somewhere along the line, Fish & Wildlife stopped issuing licenses for killing wildlife and started “harvesting” them in an attempt to sugarcoat reality. But a bobcat is not an ear of corn. Or more pointedly, as said by Mary Jane Johnson, a citizen of Kluane First Nation, “When a bear gets one of us it, doesn’t harvest us. It kills us. And we kill them too.”
There was a time, back in the 1600s, when trapping played a vital role in survival. But in the 21st century, it is no longer necessary to trap for survival to keep oneself warm. I bought a perfectly good winter jacket at a secondhand store for $10. And there are many other ways to enjoy the “spiritual, mental and health benefits” of wildlife that do not involve capturing and killing animals in painful ways.
It’s time we remembered there is also a “tradition” of democracy, in which the will of the majority governs when it does not cause undue harm. And there is no compelling case for “harm” being caused by enacting a ban on recreational and fur trapping. There is most certainly a case for harm to wildlife if a ban is not enacted.
There currently is a bill in the House, H.191, that will ban recreational and fur trapping. But it first needs to have committee hearings held and then have the bill voted out of committee. Please contact your House legislators to press for action to move H.191 forward.
