Massachusetts Trappers Association

Home News Information Events Membership Photo Gallery Links Contact Us

The Infamous Question 1

Question 1 was the 1996 initiative led by the Audubon Society, the MSPCA and the HSUS to get the use of the conibear and live restraint (foot-hold traps, etc.) prohibited in the state of Massachusetts. At the time, the beaver population was estimated to only be around 24 thousand animals, and the coyote population was of no real significance. Voters were duped into believing that their lives would not be affected by this ban on traditional trapping, and that they would be helping to stop a barbaric practice that was incorrectly presented by the MSPCA and HSUS, to the point of their poster dog, a 3-legged mongrel who did NOT, in fact, lose his leg to trapping, but was hit by a car. All of this, however, was too late, discovered after voting had taken place, and question 1 was carried.

Much to the voters' dismay, animal related incidents steadily grew, caused by booming populations of fur bearers and nuisance animals, their populations no longer able to be efficiently managed. In 2001, the beaver population was estimated at over 70 thousand beaver in the state of Massachusetts, and the coyote population was estimated to be over 4 thousand! Incidents of tick-borne and mosquito-borne diseases were on a rise, as their habitat grew with the growing populations of furbearers. Disease spread rapidly throughout the populations, and in 2005, over 45 percent of raccoons tested positive for rabies. 37 percent of Skunks tested positive. An poll carried out by MassWildlife determined that at least 70 percent of voters who had voted for question 1, were now regretting that decision, realizing that they were duped into a poor choice. In 2005, only 9 coyotes were able to be caught in box traps, in no way denting their growing numbers. A large majority of beaver showed signs of injury due to infighting as a result of decreasing habitat and increasing numbers, thus degrading their pelt value. Cities are paying out large sums of money for poorly designed water-flow devices that are often installed incorrectly, and are only 85 percent effective when combined with Emergency permits to use conibear (body-gripping) traps to cut down the population at first.

In April, 2006, the following bills were proposed:

H. 1327 repeals the part of current law that restricts the use of leg hold traps. With the release of the BMP (best management practices), it has been determined that laminated live restraints cause minimal harm to an animal, and are being used throughout the United States to promote the reintroduction of extirpated species into other states with no ill effects.

H. 1297 & H. 1331 allow the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (Mass Wildlife) within the Department of Fish and Game to conduct a limited pilot program to determine the most effective way to achieve a healthy and balanced population of beaver. Previous studies in other states show the necessity of the conibear trap. The use and expense of the Bailey and Hancock type traps are currently inefficient, and dangerous.

H. 1299 expands the use of padded (or soft catch) live restraints for capturing coyote by allowing the Director of Fisheries and Wildlife to authorize their use. Currently, cage and box traps are inefficient at catching coyotes, with fewer than .5 percent of the total estimated population being trapped every year.

H. 1310 repeals the current ban on traps used for the capture of fur bearing animals. This would allow the use of all traps, save the live restraint (foothold) to be used for the purpose of catching animals. It would allow the use of the body-gripping, live cable restraint, and cage and box type traps.

Unfortunately, as usual, Senator Pamela Resor who is head of the Environmental Affairs Committee was so kind as to shelve all bills, and push them further into study for yet another year. This came as no surprise to the sportsmen, as she is a long time supporter of the Humane Society and the MSPCA. However, recent studies and publication of the BMP (Best Management Practices), and growing dissent amongst voters and constituents, are allowing renewed interest on the parts of Representatives and Senators with regards to the growing problem that is Massachusetts' poorly managed wildlife.