Restrict Leghold, Snare and Body-Crushing Traps - SB 226

Traps are still widely used and enthusiastically supported in Nevada which has some of the most lax trap laws in the country. A significant number of unintended trappings of pets and wildlife happen in suburban and even urban areas. No identification is required on traps so trappers cannot be held liable for unintended trappings, including pet owner vet bills. Trapper John (above left), now a dry, handsome ginger tabby was unintentionally trapped at a municipal public park in the river shallows where pets and children play. “It was pretty heinous the way [the trapper] had it set,” said Denise Stevens of Nevada Humane Society. “The animal had nowhere to go but into water.” TrailSafe, a grassroots Nevada citizen group that advocates protection and humane treatment for pets and wildlife, has posted dozens of similar stories on their website (http://trailsafe.org/incidentreports.htm).

This bill is sponsored by TRAILSAFE and longtime resident Trish Swain.

Local and national animal advocates are banding together to support Bill 226 which would restrict the use of steel-jaw, snare, and body-crushing traps in congested areas of Nevada's largest population centers—Reno/Sparks and Las Vegas. This bill is modest in scope and rural areas are unaffected.

Arguments in Favor of Bill 226

• Protects public safety: There is currently no regulation to protect public safety. In August, 2010, a cat was trapped near a school. Hikers' and hunters' dogs are frequently trapped.
• New amendment would reinstate ID on traps. Fifteen years ago, trappers had the law requiring ID on traps nullified, changing it to "may" require ID on traps. Reinstating "shall" have ID on traps will: give pet owners recourse for injured animals; save Dept. of Wildlife and Animal Services time and manpower dealing with offenders; encourage more responsible trapping practices.
• Trapping doesn’t control wildlife, the yo-yo effect: Most wildlife species have an adaptive, compensatory mechanism which kicks in when their numbers are reduced (i.e. they have larger litters, breed at an earlier age, and the young have higher survival rates due to better nutritional resources). The result is that a trapped population quickly rebounds, yo-yo style.
• Pest Control Companies and nuisance wildlife control operators (NWCOs) will NOT be economically hurt:  Nearly all animal removal work is in and around homes, where leg-hold traps would be dangerous for humans and pets. Box traps (Havahart or Tomahawk style) are the tool of choice and commonly used. Box traps would be required under Bill 226. However, NWCOs can get trap permits when needed.
• Agricultural interests won't be economically hurt: Rural areas are not affected by this bill.
• Homeowner vermin control will not be affected: Neither the Department of Wildlife nor County Animal Services will interfere with a homeowner's right to control vermin. Vermin control will not be affected by this bill. This bill would regulate steel jaw, snare, and body-crushing traps, not household vermin traps.
• Precedents: Eight states (Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, and Washington) have banned or severely restricted the use of body-crushing and/or leg-hold traps. Some of these bans have been in effect for 20-30 years. Communities around the country have local trap restrictions, including Juneau, Alaska, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, Carson City, Nevada, Storey County, Nevada, Evanston, Illinois, and the District of Columbia.
• People living in congested areas want this bill: When this issue was first heard in April, 2010 by the Washoe County Commission, they received more letters and emails supporting trap regulation than they had received on any other issue. Email is currently pouring in supporting Bill 226. Example:

"I strongly favor the legislation to restrict the use of certain animal traps in congested areas because it is common sense public safety legislation. If persons cannot discharge firearms in congested areas, they should not set leg-hold traps. Traps do not belong in public parks or residential neighborhoods.
I regard leg-hold traps as a hideous method of hunting.  How can we hope to turn our economy around and attract new people and businesses to Nevada when we allow such cruel practices?
This is NOT spam mail.  This is a legitimate communication from a concerned citizen."

• Traps are Cruel: Trap advocates don't like the word humane. They call it unscientific and call animal advocates bunny huggers. Nevertheless, whenever concerned citizens object to traps, they object on humane grounds.  Below is a small sample of the massive body of evidence in support of this argument.

CRUELTY – Traps that will be restricted by Bill 226 are cruel and indiscriminate and proven ineffective as tools for management.

• Body-crushing traps: Meant to kill animals by breaking their spinal column at the base of the skull, they only do so when the target animal enters the trap perfectly—conditions very difficult to control in nature. When not killed outright, these traps cause severe injuries and immense pain.
• Leg-hold traps: Padded leg-hold traps contain a very thin (1/11th inch thick) strip of hard rubber lining the metal-gripping edges. The result may be fewer visible lacerations—yet padded traps now contain higher spring force which means the animal is held more tightly and suffers more pain.
• Beavers: Claims that recreational trapping controlled beavers in states prior to the passage of a trap ban are incorrect. According to wildlife data accumulated in Massachusetts, the population grew from around 12,000 animals in 1993 to as many as 22,635 in 1994, at a time when trapping was allowed. Subsequent population estimates have varied widely and been subject to scientifically questionable protocols.
• Managing for sustainable yield:  Based on scientific literature, as much as 40% of a beaver population, 70% of a coyote population, and 50% of a raccoon population can be removed and still bounce-back to their former population level. Wildlife managers allow for high recreational trapping levels since the result is a high sustainable yield— i.e. they count on this bounce-back effect.
• Trapper income is unsteady and almost all trappers do it as a sideline: Pelt prices vary every year. See http://www.trailsafe.org/fursaleresults.htm for Nevada fur sales results in 2008, 2009, and 2010.