Do Vermonters support recreational trapping?
Vermonters do NOT support recreational trapping: Multiple surveys show that most Vermonters agree that recreational trapping should be prohibited. Most trapping is done for recreational purposes.
The University of Vermont’s Center for Rural Studies 2017 poll indicated that 75% of Vermonters think the use of leghold traps, body gripping traps, drowning traps should be outlawed. This scientifically-conducted survey covered the entire state of Vermont, including both rural and urban areas.
The Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife's 2022 Survey of Vermonter's Attitudes Toward Furbearer Management indicates 60% of those who were asked about “regulated trapping” strongly or moderately approve, while only 42% of those asked about “trapping” approve. What is meant by regulated isn't clear. p.4
The Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife's 2022 Survey of Vermonter's Attitudes Toward Furbearer Management indicates that 68% of Vermonters disapprove of trapping for recreation without any distinction of being “regulated” or not. p. 49
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2019 poll indicated that the vast majority of Americans opposed both recreational and commercial trapping. In the Northeast, 71% of survey takers indicated that they are opposed to recreational trapping.
Can trapping be made more humane by using different types of traps or other “Best Management Practices”?
The short answer is no. Regardless of the trap, a trapped animal is frantic and struggles to get free, sometimes for hours. The linked document discusses so-called “padded” traps, which have a thin strip of hard rubber or plastic over the metal jaws: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gaKoobmFjjWrV9PkzJVpYzsR9D2PTTog/view
Sometimes injuries to trapped animals are obvious and include bloodied paws, broken teeth (from trying to bite the trap), and severed limbs, but more often, the animals suffer from injuries that are not visible, such as fractured bones, severed tendons and ligaments, or other internal injuries. The suffering is no less for internal injuries. In fact, it can be worse.
The quote below is from a scientific study performed by pro-trapping parties, including the misnomer USDA's Wildlife “Services.” This study was not conducted by some animal activist organization pushing an agenda.
There were likely subcutaneous injuries from capture in the foothold traps that go undetected with only a gross examination of external injuries at the time of capture. Postmortem examinations by veterinary pathologists of legs from trapped animals often showed edematous swelling or hemorrhage, subcutaneous tissue maceration or erosion, and tendon or ligament severance (Phillips et al. 1996, Shivik et al. 2005), which are types of injuries not generally ascertained without performing a postmortem examination.
The American Animal Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association, and the National Animal Control Association have declared that leghold traps are inhumane.
A BMP-approved trap found in Vermont.
Is trapping legal in other countries and states?
Other countries and states have set a precedent for prohibiting recreational trapping: Ten U.S. states and and at least 108 countries, including all member countries of the European Union, have banned or severely restricted trapping. States include Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington and New Mexico. Source: The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center, “Laws on Leg-Hold Animal Traps Around the World” (Aug. 2016).
READ MORE about trapping and the experience VWC’s board chair had with trapping in his Vermont town.