This commentary is by Rob Mullen of West Bolton, a professional wildlife artist, wilderness expedition canoeist, and chair of the Vermont Wildlife Coalition, an all-volunteer bit-for-profit.
Reading Ray Gonda’s April 18 opinion piece raises the question: “Where to start?” Among the welter of strawman fallacies, distortions and flat-out errors, the first standout is the first sentence; it is completely wrong.
Mr. Gonda opens with the declaration that S.111 would “outlaw trapping of furbearing animals by citizens and to allow only paid professionals to trap — raising costs for everyone.” Reading the bill reveals, “This bill proposes to prohibit the trapping of fur-bearing animals unless the person trapping is authorized to trap in order to defend property or agricultural crops or the trapping is conducted by a licensed nuisance wildlife control operator.”
Nothing in there about outlawing trapping by citizens or allowing only professionals to trap, nor any indication of how it would raise “costs for everyone.” Anyone needing to trap for the purposes outlined in the bill could still do so.
For those who would hire a nuisance control operator, it changes nothing. It does effectively outlaw trapping for entertainment, sport, self-image, to sell pelts, or tradition. Past the first sentence, Mr. Gonda’s reasoning doesn’t get better.
After stooping to ad hominem attacks (“emotionally oversensitive” — presumably those of us who are put off by the idea of torturing animals to death for no good reason), Mr. Gonda then throws in the well-worn and inapt slippery-slope fallacy that they’re coming after hunting next.
Most Vermonters, according to generally trustworthy sources (Vermont Center for Rural Studies: 75%, and the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department in a 2022 poll, citing 68%), oppose recreational/hobby trapping and yet strongly support hunting. The group I chair, the Vermont Wildlife Coalition, has said so on our website for years (Hunting Policy — Vermont Wildlife Coalition) and states that deer hunting in particular is ecologically essential in Vermont. This modestly nuanced position seems difficult to grasp for a few pro-trapping opinion writers.
Next, Mr. Gonda wades into a supposed urban versus rural culture war. While nationally, there may be something to this divide, Vermont is still one of the most rural states in the U.S., if not the most, so his suggestion of an urban elite, revenge-fueled conspiracy to undermine rural life here is a remarkable accusation.
Mr. Gonda’s evidence is his claim that seven of 25 co-signers of the House version of the trapping bill are from Burlington. The correct number is five. Either way, it is a smallish minority and an underwhelming conspiracy. And that was all his evidence!
To try to justify recreational/hobby trapping by obscuring its inherent and pointless cruelty behind a smokescreen of cultural victimhood, and virtue, betrays a lack of valid argument.
Mr. Gonda alludes to the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies best management practices, which he says make foothold traps “relatively painless.” These standards were only developed as a response to the European Union threatening to ban import of furs from countries that used foothold and other body-gripping traps in the 1990s. The standards purport to “promote animal welfare in trapping systems,” but they were so heavily influenced by the fur-trapping industry that the original program director resigned in protest.
They are far more about public relations than animal welfare. The best management practices standard for body-gripping traps, which Mr. Gonda neglects to mention, allows for “irretrievable unconsciousness” by drowning and asphyxiation to take up to five minutes in 70% of trapped animals. 30% can take any amount of time longer to die for such traps to pass muster as “BMP approved.”
And foothold traps, whether they are laminated or have swivels on the chains or not, still create a mortal fear in any animal caught in them. That is what leads to trap circles — areas within the radius of the restraining chain that the animals tear down to bare earth in hours of frantic, adrenaline-fueled efforts to escape.
Researchers who use foothold traps to obtain data differ from recreational trappers in two ways. One, they are doing it for a legitimate purpose. And two, they follow strict protocols for checking traps, often using motion sensors so that the animal is restrained for as little time as possible. Recreational trappers follow no such protocols. The state requires checking of foothold traps every 24 hours.
As far as respect and compassion for these animals goes, a sizable number of Vermont trappers have a penchant for filming themselves “petting” bobcats and indulging in other forms of teasing and mistreatment of their quarry before “dispatching” them with whacking sticks. Senators and representatives in the Statehouse couldn’t even watch the videos. That is how respectful and humane trapping is. These Facebook and YouTube posts generate far too many “likes” to be dismissed as a few bad apples.
Trapping cannot be made “humane.” Except for the rare few animals that are the right size and are caught perfectly in a conibear trap, the animals suffer greatly. If that is for an important purpose, it may be something that society must accept. If not, it is time for a change.
