This commentary is by Madeline Cowan, a resident of Northfield.
I’ve been reading a lot lately about the possibility of a ban on recreational trapping in Vermont and about the guidelines the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department has proposed to make the practice more humane instead of banning it.
In my reading, I’ve run into numerous arguments against a ban and in favor of the department’s proposed guidelines, many of them provided by the department itself. I wanted to give a few thoughts on those arguments and to encourage others who share my doubts to contact their legislators today and make their voices heard.
- Getting rid of recreational trapping will put Vermont’s wildlife at risk by stopping conservation science.
This statement relies on two assumptions, neither of which (as far as I know) the department has supported with peer-reviewed research. First, it assumes that animals killed through recreational trapping are the only way for the department to collect the data it needs for conservation research. And second, it assumes that the department’s studies on recreationally trapped animals are so important that wildlife in Vermont couldn’t survive without them.
Department biologists should not be making these insinuations to the public without providing credible, peer-reviewed research to support them.
- People who oppose recreational trapping are blinded by emotion and are having an irrational, knee-jerk reaction.
Many opponents of recreational trapping have done their research, have read and listened to opinions on all sides of the argument, and have decided that they think the practice is immoral. Those people are not blinded by emotion; they are making a reasoned decision about whether something is right or wrong. This is no different from concluding that assault is wrong or that stealing is wrong. The fact that you disagree with a conclusion does not make it irrational.
- Trapping in Vermont is already regulated, so we don’t need to ban it.
Saying that something is “regulated” is like saying that a cleaning product is “green” or “natural.” It both means something and means nothing at the same time. The fact that a practice is regulated has no bearing on whether it is morally acceptable and does not tell us whether it is regulated enough.
- Without recreational trapping, wildlife populations would get out of control.
In support of this claim, department spokespeople often cite the increase in the Massachusetts beaver population after the state banned recreational trapping several decades ago. In doing so, the department overlooks one of the most basic principles of good science: Correlation does not equal causation. The beaver population could have increased by 10,000 times in the years following the Massachusetts ban (it didn’t), and that still wouldn’t prove that limiting trapping causes beaver populations to spike. Suggesting otherwise is unscientific, and we would expect the state’s biologists to know that.
- The department’s proposed guidelines took a lot of time and money to create, so they must be good.
Supporters of recreational trapping like to emphasize that the department’s proposed guidelines are the result of 25-plus years of industry testing, and they cost $40 million to create. Spending a lot of money and time on something doesn’t mean you’ve done a good job. If I trained for months and spent hundreds of dollars on gear, I would probably still be a pretty bad runner.
- Science proves that the department’s proposed guidelines are humane.
Science cannot prove that something is humane. Science can show that a certain type of trap tends to cause more or fewer limb amputations, but it can’t tell us what percentage of limb amputations is morally acceptable. It’s up to people to make that decision.
- The department’s proposed guidelines are humane because they are better than the status quo.
A reduction in cruelty is not the same as being humane (having or showing compassion or benevolence.) Sure, slapping someone with my hand is more humane than hitting them with my car, but that doesn’t make it right. Many animals will still suffer in traps that meet the department’s proposed guidelines, so those traps are, by definition, not humane.
- The fact that veterinarians support the department’s proposed guidelines proves that they are humane.
Leaders among veterinarians have expressed support for the guidelines recommended by the department (especially in the context of no-kill conservation research, where the goal is catch-and- release), but they have not expressed specific support for trapping that is done recreationally. If you ask your family veterinarian about the practice (as I did), they will likely tell you that any kind of trap (even ones that meet the department’s proposed guidelines) can cause significant injuries and intense, prolonged suffering for a trapped animal.
The bottom line? Both the state Legislature and the Fish & Wildlife Department are actively discussing regulations and a potential ban on recreational trapping, with both groups looking for public comment. It’s our job to make sure that these leaders are operating on facts and science.
