This commentary is by Bob Galvin of Richmond, a former wildlife researcher and the current Vermont state director for the nonprofit Animal Wellness Action.
As a former wildlife researcher, I was disappointed to read a recent commentary written by the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department’s new furbearer biologist, whose role includes all aspects of administering and promoting trapping in Vermont.
In the commentary, she admonishes wildlife advocates for “knee-jerk reactions” and “not seeing the full picture” about trapping.
I would like to highlight a few instances where this department employee — not wildlife advocates — falls short of providing the “full picture” about trapping to the citizens of Vermont.
- The word “regulated” precedes trapping several times in this piece, but what does regulated trapping actually look like in Vermont? For one, there is no limit on the number of traps that may be set in a given area. For another, there is no limit on the number of animals that can be trapped.
There are no humane regulations for how trapped animals are killed, and there is no requirement for signage that alerts the public that traps are in the area. Whatever regulations may be in place fall well short of preventing unnecessary harm to animals.
It also should be noted that the use of the world “regulated” is quite intentional. The department has been coached by a marketing firm that has done work for similar departments across the country on what language to use to make its work less objectionable in the face of wildlife-advocate opposition.
- In the commentary, the department employee placed a lot of importance on biological samples. She says, “it is important to understand that there is no alternative way to gather these valuable samples for research and monitoring.”
The statement is just plain wrong. Roadkill is one obvious way we could collect that data. For example, in a 2020 article from the European Journal of Wildlife Research, the authors conclude that “consistently, systematically, and extensively monitoring roadkill facilitates five critical areas of ecological study,” including monitoring wildlife population trends and monitoring of contaminants and disease.
If roadkill monitoring has been shown to be able to provide this type of data, then why is a department employee saying that there is no alternative way to gather such samples? Engaging citizen scientists to collect roadkill data, along with other sorts of data like scat surveys and trail camera footage of wildlife, could save the department money on one hand and further allow connection between wildlife lovers and the department.
Furthermore, I am not convinced by any argument that places a limit on human ingenuity. We have creatively worked to solve intractable problems time and time again throughout history. The idea that trapping is the only way to study wildlife is not only inaccurate, but self-serving.
- The department employee goes on to say that “we would also lose the ability to detect and respond to emerging wildlife diseases, environmental toxins, and habitat loss.” However, what is the department actually doing with the data that it collects from dead animals?
In Vermont’s most recent Wildlife Action Plan, released in 2015, there was a high priority need to “determine the impact of heavy metals and contaminants on otter populations in each watershed.” After recently asking the department what it has done since 2015 to address this conservation need, I was sent a paper on mercury exposure from 2002 and two documents about otter distribution and population monitoring trends.
If this data derived by trapping is really so important to the department’s ability to monitor disease and contaminants, why has it not acted on issues that are impacting otters and other furbearer species who are facing various threats? On the contrary, the only policy change that the department has proposed on furbearers is to extend the otter trapping season in response to a trapper’s petition.
I would like to note that at least 108 countries and 10 U.S. states have banned or restricted trapping in some form. The department employee omitted the fact that there are many places where trapping is restricted, and animal populations there are still well-monitored and thriving. This illustrates that trapping is less of a biological imperative and more of a political issue for state fish and wildlife departments across the nation.
I care deeply about wildlife and how wildlife science is undertaken. I have conducted wildlife research with state and federal wildlife agencies across the United States, and I believe the Vermont department does good work on protecting many non-game/non-furbearer species.
However, the recent commentary from the department employee misses the mark. The public needs fewer propaganda pieces that are marketed as science and more open conversations about how politics and other factors — like tradition and entrenched power dynamics — influence the department’s policy decisions.
