Animal trapping was once more lucrative; trappers are an 'endangered species' who still have a vital ecological role

Baker carries a muskrat and trapping equipment while
workinga marsh. (Photo by Eric Lee, The Washington Post)

Once vital to colonial America and then to the fashion industry, fur trappers in states like Maryland are becoming an "endangered species," reports Fredrick Kunkle of The Washinton Post. "As recently as the 1970s, Maryland counted approximately 5,000 trappers; today there are maybe 300 to 400 active statewide . . . . Changes in fashion, and the long, steady migration of Americans from farms and rural areas into cities and suburbs have made trapping a controversial anachronism. Global fur prices have collapsed since 2013-14."

Beyond the fur industry, trappers play an essential role in wildlife knowledge. "Trappers are some of the most devout and most detail-oriented … outdoorsmen out there," Joshua Tabora, a furbearer biologist with Maryland's Department of Natural Resources, told Kunkle, "When you talk to some of these guys who've been doing it since the '70s and the '80s—they're walking repositories of ecological knowledge." Kunkle adds, "Trappers, who provide data to the DNR for research on animal populations and tracking zoonotic and other diseases, tend to be keenly observant and knowledgeable about animal behavior and the signs their quarry leave behind, Tabora said."

Kunkle joined Dan Baker, a life-longer trapper from Maryland, to discover how he makes a living. "The Maryland State Highway Administration pays him to trap beavers, whose dams can flood and wreak havoc with country roads, and ordinary folks pay him to remove pesky home invaders." He told Kunkle, "It got to the point where somebody had a groundhog in their garden so they'd call me . . . . And then somebody would say, 'I got a snake in the house. Can you come down?' And it just got bigger and bigger."

Baker also sells meat most groceries don't carry. "One of his regular customers is Howard Brooks, who took 300 muskrat meats off Baker last year," Kunkle reports. "Brooks said he kept a few dozen for himself and distributed the rest, at cost, to other folks who prize the muskrat's dark, savory flesh." Brooks told Kunkle, "You can bake 'em, grill 'em. I can fry them and make gravy with some onions. They don't taste like chicken. I can tell you that."

Baker spends time teaching new hunters, but the trade is declining, Kunkle reports. "During the fur trade peak between the 1970s and 1980s, prime red fox pelt would fetch an average of $46 — about $185 in today's dollars — and old-timers guarded their turf as closely as their trade secrets. . . . Nowadays, though, fox pelts go for around $3, Baker said. The [trade] has plummeted because of the animal rights movement and advances in fabric technology that led to a switch from natural furs."

N.M. bid to ban traps on public land shows rural-urban split

The renewal of "a years-long effort to ban trapping on public lands in New Mexico," following the lead of adjoining Colorado and Arizona, has laid bare the state's urban-rural divide, Andrew Oxford reports for the Santa Fe New Mexican.

"With House Bill 366, Lawmakers are reigniting a visceral debate over the humane treatment of animals and deep-rooted traditions," Oxford writes. "Critics argue that banning trapping on public land will not stop the sort of illegal trapping that usually spurs outrage."

Trappers are supposed to get a state license, mark traps "with an identifying number and abide by rules about where they can place their traps," Oxford explains. "Banning the practice, ranchers say, will only deprive them of a method that is key to defending their cattle from predators such as coyotes" and be "one more blow at a way of life many of them already view as under threat."

Animal-welfare advocates who favor the ban "argue that trapping has been ineffective, pointing to the coyote’s spread across North America," Oxford reports. "When the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee took testimony from the public about the issue on Thursday, however, the biggest argument against trapping was simply that it is cruel," and dangerous to people and their pets. The committee is expected to send the bill to the full House on Saturday, Oxford writes, but "trapping bans have faltered in the Senate in the past, leaving its outlook uncertain."

Season open for wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin

The federal government removed wolves from the endangered species list last year, and since then mostly Western state governments have devised plans to reduce what they see as oversized wolf populations within their borders. Now Wisconsin's newly minted wolf-hunting season is in its third week, and Minnesota is scheduled to start its first wolf season this weekend. But opponents say these and similar measures could reverse at least 40 years of work to restore Western wolf populations.

Wolves have been causing problems again for ranchers, prompting the hunting seasons, Steven Yaccino of The New York Times reports. Wisconsin awarded 1,160 wolf-hunting permits and capped the harvest at 201 kills, or about a quarter of its wolf population. There are 3,600 licenses available in Minnesota, which would allow 400 wolves to be killed. That would reduce the state's wolf population by about 15 percent. Animal-rights groups argue the kill quotas don't account for other ways wolves can die, including poaching, and killings by ranchers protecting their herds. They say those additional causes of death could put wolves back at risk of extinction.

"Since the wolf hunt began last month, at least 42 have been killed in Wisconsin. All told, officials expect 600 wolves will die at the hands of hunters and trappers in the two states before spring," Yaccino reports. There was a time when ranchers and the governments paid people to kill wolves because there were so many. By the time they became protected, they were nearly extinct. But now wolf numbers have grown to 4,000, and have exceeded recovery goals in the western Great Lakes area. (Read more)

Turtles need protection, environmental groups say

"They aren't as awe-inspiring as whales, not as cute as, say, baby seals," reports Andy Mead of the Lexington Herald-Leader in Kentucky. "But scientists and environmental groups say freshwater turtles will be in trouble unless commercial harvests are reined in in Kentucky and several other states." Increased demand for turtle meat in China has lead to an increase in the numbers of turtles being caught. (Photo by David Stephenson)

There is concern that removing turtles from a pond or stream can affect the population for some time, since turtles live long lives and reproduce slowly. There are two commercial turtle trappers in Western Kentucky. One works on Reelfoot Lake, which is almost entirely in Tennessee;the other specializes on removing turtles from stock farms.

Kentucky laws protect rare species, such as alligator snapping turtles, but there are no limits on common snapping turtles and soft-shell turtles. "The other states said to have inadequate turtle protection laws are Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee," Mead reports. (Read more)