by Camilla H. Fox
Caught in the steel-jaw leghold trap, the bald eagle's broken wing dangled limply by his side. Scattered feathers testified to his valiant struggle to escape the trap that had almost severed his leg just above the talon.
Most Americans think of National Wildlife Refuges as sanctuaries. So did the hiker who found this eagle while visiting the Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Minnesota.
A bald eagle caught in a trap in a wildlife refuge. |
Astonishingly, this trap was set under a legal permit granted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) - the same agency entrusted with protecting bald eagles and other threatened and endangered species. Today, 280 of the 517 refuge units encompassing 93 million acres in 50 states, allow trapping and 287 permit hunting.
One 1990 government study showed that for every "target" animal caught in a body-gripping trap in the US, as many as ten non-target animals are captured.
The most frequently targeted animals are raccoons, beavers, red foxes, mink, and skunks. Other species include bobcats, lynx, and coyotes, gray/timber wolves and feral dogs and cats. Non-target species most commonly killed include river otters, rabbits, hares, and domestic pets. Other non-target victims include Canada geese, alligators, ducks, hawks, owls, eagles, and bears.
Recreational and commercial trapping on these protected lands conflicts with even the broadest definitions of the word "refuge." When Theodore Roosevelt established the first National Wildlife Refuge on Pelican Island, Florida, in 1903, such activities were strictly prohibited. But amendments in the 1950s to the 1934 Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act opened many refuges to trapping. The Duck Stamp program allowed hunters and trappers to argue that, since they now were the chief financial supporters of the refuges, they had the "right" to kill wildlife on public lands.
Old News
The 1962 Refuge Recreation Act authorized "recreational uses" of NWRs, further expanding hunting, trapping, grazing, mining, and other activities harmful to wildlife. In 1966, congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act and established a "compatibility standard" for allowing public uses on refuges.
The FWS defines "compatible" use as "a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use" that will not "materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge." The use must promote the "principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, and otherwise must be in the public interest."
Before a refuge is opened to hunting or fishing, the FWS must go through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires public comment. Trapping programs, however, do not require public comment. Individual refuge managers may decide if trapping is "compatible" with the purpose of their refuge.
How's That Again?
How refuge managers find trapping compatible with protecting the NWRs 240 listed endangered species (24 percent of all listed species) is a baffling question. The FWS boasts that it is on the refuges that threatened and endangered species "often begin their recovery or hold their own against extinction." But, how can a species "hold [its] own" when more than 60 percent of refuges tolerate mining, oil and gas drilling, cattle-grazing and timber-cutting?
Less than one-tenth-of-one-percent of the population traps. According to an April 1999 Decision Research national opinion poll, 79 percent of Americans oppose trapping on refuges. The poll revealed that 59 percent of Americans support banning all recreational killing of wildlife at refuges and 88 percent believe wildlife and habitat preservation should be the highest priority of the refuge system. Successful ballot initiatives in Arizona, California, Colorado and Massachusetts have severely restricted the use of body-gripping fur traps. Ironically, while public support for trapping and hunting declines, the FWS continues to open more refuges to trappers and hunters.
Public Outcry
The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (also known as the Organic Act) made it more difficult for secondary uses such as grazing, mining, and logging to take place on refuges. Unfortunately, the act elevated hunting and fishing to "priority uses," stipulating that they shall "receive enhanced consideration" by refuge managers. Not surprisingly, the act's promoters included the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America.
Tell It Like It Is?
By 1997, public opposition to trapping on the National Wildlife Refuge System prompted Congress to direct the FWS to convene a task force to "study the use of animal traps in the National Wildlife Refuge system... [and to] consider the humaneness of various trapping methods."
Contending that a taskforce could not be convened in the allotted time, the FWS convinced Congress to settle for a nationwide survey. In January 1997, the FWS distributed a detailed two-part questionnaire to each NRW manager.
In May 1997, the FWS presented a 87-page report to the Chairmen of the Appropriations Subcommittee. The report touted the benefits of trapping as "a professional wildlife management tool" that provides "important benefits for public health and safety and recreational, commercial, and subsistence opportunities for the public." The report claimed that trapping on refuges is conducted primarily for "facilities protection" and to protect migratory birds and threatened and endangered species.
However, a copy of the raw survey data obtained by the Animal Protection Institute (API) through the Freedom of Information Act revealed that the report did not accurately reflect the information submitted.
The report listed trapping for "recreation/commerce/subsistence" as the last of 11 reasons for trapping on refuges. However, API found that the refuge managers actually had listed "recreation/commerce/subsistence" as their main reason for trapping.
Senate Votes to Continue Trapping on Refuges
On July 14, 1999, the House of Representatives approved (259 to 166) Rep. Sam Farr's (D-CA) proposal to prohibit the use of steel-jawed leghold traps and neck snares on National Wildlife Refuges for commercial or recreational purposes. This marked the first time that a chamber of Congress had voted to limit wildlife trapping.
But on September 9, after pressure from consumptive-use lobby groups, the Senate tabled the companion Torricelli Amendment to the Senate Interior Appropriations Bill, effectively killing the legislation.
Putting an End to the Cruelty
Most NWR visitors do not trap or hunt. According to FWS surveys, 81.5 percent of the NWR's 27.1 million visitors in 1995, came to learn about the environment, to view and photograph wildlife, and to enjoy recreational pursuits. Less than one percent came to trap. Visitors expect to be safe to view wildlife without fear of stepping into a trap or witnessing the suffering of trapped animals.
Indiscriminate body-gripping traps do not belong on National Wildlife Refuges. As lands specifically set aside to provide animals a safe home, refuges should be maintained as true sanctuaries, not playgrounds for trappers and other consumptive wildlife users.
Contact the Animal Protection Institute for a free copy of "Trapping on National Wildlife Refuges: The History and Current Status of Trapping on the National Wildlife Refuge System" [PO Box 22505, Sacramento, CA 95822, (916) 731-5521, fax: (916) 731-4467, www.api4animals.org].
Camilla H. Fox is the Wildlife Program Coordinator for the Animal Protection Institute.
National Wildlife Refuges: Sanctuaries or Killing Fields?