Category: Massachusetts Trapping Law

The Importance of Being Earnest Larry

heidi08 Beavers elsewhere, City Reports, Creative Solutions, Massachusetts Trapping Law, Who's Killing Beavers Now? February 21, 2012

County to go after beavers

By RANDY HOGAN

The Helena World

Because farmers are not allowed to use dynamite, beaver dams have multiplied tremendously in the county. According to Larry, the district simply cannot get enough trappers to make a dent in the beaver population

Oh no! Not more exploding beavers! (One of my favorite posts ever, probably it was the ministry of hyperbole that clinched it.) Apparently the problem has spread all the way to Arkansas. Without dynamite there is apparently no way to kill these beavers fast enough, (machine guns?) and its not like anyone there knows a better way to solve problems.

“We have a very serious problem with beavers in the local ditches and road ditches that flood cropland, county roads and timberland,” Earnest Larry, representing the Phillips County Conservation District, told quorum court members Tuesday night.

Can anyone doubt Earnest Larry? With a name like that? I will more defer any additional commentary to Mr. Wilde. But I don’t suppose ‘Dubious Mark‘ weighed in? Or perhaps ‘Critical-Thinking Tom’ offered an argument at the meeting? Apparently Earnest wants a voluntary tax to provide funds for the conservation district to eradicate beavers. (Wow. The number of oxymorons in that sentence alone is like a roomful of detergents for stupid people.) See in the past the conservation district got money from the Natural Resource Committee to help trap beavers..but now there’s less money all around and the voluntary tax would help raise money for mo’ beaver killin’.

I’m just curious. Where ELSE does the money go? If you use so much of the budget for beaver eradication, is there anything left for planting trees or teaching third graders about what lives in pond water? And why on earth would a no-dynamite law make it impossible to kill beavers? You do realize that blowing up the dam doesn’t actually kill beavers right? Because beavers don’t LIVE IN THE DAM!!! I mean you could still trap them or shoot them right?

Well, it’s tempting to make an Arkansas joke, and say that people who marry their second cousins shouldn’t be expected to install beaver deceivers, BUT the problem of beaver-stupid isn’t regional in nature. Its epidemic. Just look at this article from Salem which is 19 miles from Mike Callahan of Beaver Solutions and 61 miles from Skip Lisle of Beaver Deceivers International, in other words — surrounded by beaver-education but apparently impervious to it.

Busy as a beaver

Beavers are causing problems across the North Shore, especially during this mild winter when they have been more active than usual. The most common problem caused by beavers is a flooded land area. The Mass Division of Fisheries and Wildlife offers several options for solving beaver conflicts.

A homeowner does not need a permit to contract with a licensed trapper during beaver hunting season (Nov. 1 through April 15) to place a cage or box-type trap on their own property. Trapping is highly regulated in Massachusetts. Residents are not encouraged to handle a beaver problem themselves. It is strongly suggested that a registered beaver trapper be hired.

I’m sure the home state of Harvard, Cambridge and MIT is mighty proud to be solving problems as well as Arkansas. Of course, they do possess a slightly broader skill set. Just look at the mysteriously unelaborated very last sentence.

There are ways to handle a problem with beavers so trapping really should be considered as last resort after other methods have been tried.

Return of the Repressed

heidi08 City Reports, Creative Solutions, Massachusetts Trapping Law December 14, 2011

Freud believed that we push unpleasant things out of our awareness when we deem them unacceptable, but these unwanted impulses and thoughts come sneaking back around looking always for some other way in. These are usually things that are so horrible we can’t even tolerate their mere existence, like I want to kill my baby brother or I really want to have sex with my mother, for example.

And hey, speaking of the return of truly intolerable things, Herb Bergquist has written another letter to the editor about the Upton-beaver-dragonfly bru-haha.

I would like to respectfully provide a slightly different perspective to the one presented in the article: “Huebner: Out-smarting Upton’s beavers” (Dec. 9).

While the MSPCA & HSUS continue to claim that trapping is not a long-term solution to beaver (or coyote) related conflicts, they have inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophecy by restricting lethal trapping to last resort, desperate measure scenarios. For many, this simplistic black & white approach has resulted in the polarization of positions on both sides of the issue.

Those polarizing beaver protectors! You can read Linda’s letter here. You will remember that Mr. B is the former UFS employee who started the Committee for Responsible Wildlife Management in Massachusetts (no link on purpose although his website DOES have the delightful mistake of a “supporting wildlife organization” that links to porn….ahh…) He has been working day and night to overturn the humane trapping restrictions. (Back story: in 1996 the state passed a ban against using conibear traps UNLESS certain conditions were met, in which case all bets were off. In “typical” trapping situations, beaver must be live trapped ‘humanely’ and then shot in the head or gassed to death, whereas when property or roads or waterways are threatened, all manner of body crushing traps may be deployed.

Our state is in a position where rather large beaver populations exist in areas that eventually cause problems – which we can all agree upon. A reasonable, all inclusive approach would be to reduce those populations proactively, before problems occur and modify the current law to allow for this to happen. This is what wildlife managers do in a regulated way; it is not extermination. The current, status quo system forces these wild populations to naturally expand in size and then pushes the boundaries of occupying optimal natural habitat beyond what can support them comfortably.

How is it not extermination to kill something so that it doesn’t reproduce enough to make more of itself? Could this be a new slogan for Orkin? Every time Mr. B or anyone else complains that beaver can’t be adequately killed without enough cruelty they fail to mention that cruelty is entirely allowed with consent from the Health Department and no health department in the history of the world has ever been reported to NOT give consent. No matter. The real issue isn’t numbers or methods. It’s that hiring a trapper with a conibear costs a couple hundred dollars. Hiring a trapper with live traps costs more. And so property owners handle the problem themselves with a shotgun and nobody gets hired.

Especially not Mr. B which – makes him very unhappy.

The “Outsmarting Beavers in Upton” article touts the successful implementation of over 800 operational and maintained water leveling devices across the state. If we were to average the installation of these devices to just $1500 per device, that’s 1.2 million dollars – not to mention maintenance! And we still have perpetual problems and costs that dwarf that number! Should we just keep telling people to invest in flow devices and then decide if it’s the best solution? What the advocates of these devices don’t tell you is that they don’t work in all situations and some trapping must occur even in the best of locations. Ironically, the overuse of beaver flow devices may just be feeding the self-fulfilling prophecy that lethal trapping does not work! So, if flow devices are our only proactive solution, it makes sense to advocate for more of them. Where the overuse or inappropriate use of the devices occur, we are essentially creating “concentration camp” conditions for beavers – is that what we want? In this case, I would agree beaver populations are self-regulating… just like every living thing on earth. Long-term solutions require both lethal and non-lethal proactive approaches and work hand in hand. Creating a one-size-fits-all system has failed miserably at the costly expense to both people and wildlife.

Bonus points for invoking the “concentration camp for beavers” imagery! That’s quite a twofer. You’ll horrify huggers and jews very nicely! So his letter tramples over the “compassionistas” and anyone who installs flow devices and leaves a crumpled muddy trail through the good intentions the state may once have had. In the meantime we are asked to believe that solving problems using individually constructed flow devices is a one-size-fits-all solution while killing everybeaver in question is complex and layered.

For the record, I have read complaints this year that beaver populations are “higher than any other state” from Iowa, Texas and Oregon – (none of who have trapping bans and none of whom have any real idea whatsoever of how their state compares). We all know folks lie when it comes to beavers. That’s nothing new. It does seem that Mr. B’s lies have gotten a little more sloppy than usual, his metaphors a little more alienating, his common touch a little less common and a little more touchy.

Prompting the obvious question, is everything okay, Herbie?

What’s a fellow to do?

heidi08 Beavers, Massachusetts Trapping Law, Who's Killing Beavers Now? September 3, 2011

Let’s say (and why not?) that you were a strapping young lad on the East Coast with a comfortable government job counting the problems wildlife cause and instructing people to kill beavers, coyotes and starlings, (to name a few). You go to meetings, do some field work, carry a firearm, make eyes at the more attractive interns and go out after work for a cold one with your friends. Considering you stopped college after the bachelor’s you make pretty decent money. You can’t complain. Life is good.

You stop working for US FWS in 2008, I’m assuming because the economy tanks and suddenly Uncle Sam isn’t such a reliable employer anymore. I’m guessing you were laid off and the promised pension you were counting on starts to dissolve like cotton candy. You’re on your own, without work or potential work, and a critical voice might say your skill set could barely fill up a cocktail napkin. What do you do?

Now this is all speculation here, but I’m guessing you do what you always did. You kill beavers, of course! Only for some strange reason business in Massachusetts isn’t what it once was. Seems folks aren’t hiring you to kill beavers the way you expected them too. Even though your watershed experience at FWS connected you with all the right folk. It can’t be your fault. It can’t be that they’re hiring someone else to do that work.

IT MUST BE THE ANIMAL-LOVERS!!!!!!!!

See, back when you were graduating your state passed a law that said basically that an animal’s right to die without pain and torture was more important than a trappers right not to be slightly inconvenienced. Bummer. Trapping was of course still allowed – just not with the old tools unless there was some kind of imagined threat involved to human welfare, or roads, or water supplies, (well – it was mostly still allowed but not as allowed as it used to be). As a former employee for US FWS you knew that meant only one thing, crazy breeding wildlife with beavers everywhere and no work for you.

You’re 42, a bright lad, and not one to give up easily. You start a club to lobby politicians to go back to the old ways! You have paid close attention to the Bush administration’s talent for “opposite naming” (Clean water act, for example). It was good enough for the president so you employ the same technique for your club and choose a name that implies stewardship and animal husbandry, toying briefly with the intention of becoming a licensed non-profit.

Committee for Responsible Wildlife Management

(Note – you could have used Responsible Animal Management instead of Wildlife, but then your acronym would have been CRAM and that’s problematic – you’re no fool.)

So CRWM pleads and pushes and lobbies and wheedles and deals and nudges the trapping issue into the legislative chamber. And those crazy animal lovers at MSPCA keep pushing back with their videos and letter whining. You take your skill for turning a phrase on its head and write a few articles on maintaining animal welfare through careful trapping, highway workers and city employees (who long for nothing more than to appear to care about wildlife while still killing it when it gets in their way) eat it up. You’re a hero. Politicians flock to you. You are at the state house more often than Tip O’Neil.

You come “this close” to overturning the law each time, but you never give up. Now you’re at it again with HB2001 which basically inserts text into the old bill saying that no one can use those bad traps except you and your friends and everyone who asks.

The above provision shall not apply to the use of prohibited devices by federal and state departments of health, wildlife management agencies, or divisions or municipal boards of health for the purpose of protection from threats to human health and safety or for the management of furbearing wildlife during their established regulated seasons. The uses of prohibited devices are subject to the regulations and restrictions promulgated by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.

This time you may have found the right girl for the job – (I’ve been told women are always easier to convince that their poodles are in danger if strong trappers don’t get the bad coyotes). Representative Anne Gobi is a democrat and the chair of the joint committee on natural resources and agriculture. This comes to the floor soon, and you can bet you’ll be there, making faces at the Bunny-Huggers, shaking heads and scaring babies.

This is certain to happen, its practically a done deal – unless – unless – unless – one of those crazy animal people get in your way. Unless someone gets the ear of Anne before you do and lets the BIG OL’ SECRET cat outta the bag. As long as no one passes it along, you’re home free. What a are the odds? The white-hats keep marching to the capital but they never say anything but “be nice” and “animals are people too”.

They never say that it’s a lie.

A Big Lie.

They never say that the only reason you’re there in the first place is because you want a job.

They never say that a simple meta-analysis comparing news articles about beavers in MA to four other states of similar size and water acreage without trapping bans would prove that there are no more beavers or beaver complaints than there have ever been since 1996. No more than there are in states where they kill them however they like, anyway, considering normal population growth. The truth is that the change in law didn’t mean that folks stopped killing beavers.

It just mean that they stopped paying trappers to do it.

Like the landscaper whose leaf blower runs out of gas, the brick layer who drops his trowl, or the widow who relies on her trusty vibrator: they simply take matters into their own hands.

It’s a good thing no one is going to tell Anne before this bill comes to the floor. Soon it will pass and the whole “be nice to beavers” BS will be over. Then you can go back to paid work, instead of begging for crumbs on the internet. Heck maybe you can even prevent laws like this from getting any traction in other areas. Then you can work all over the East Coast!

And if it doesn’t pan out, don’t worry. You can always move to California. They let you kill beavers any old way out here.

Beaver Contrarian

heidi08 Massachusetts Trapping Law July 20, 2011

More castor-kvetching from the state that believes no one has suffered like they have suffered under the 1996 trapping restrictions. Never mind that the new rules still allow beavers to be killed – no questions asked, just using a slightly different weapon. Never mind that the new rules allow beavers to be killed in the traditional ways with the old weapons if a few simple conditions are met. Never mind that most towns end up doing just exactly what they would have always done anyway.

It’s the animal-lovers fault. It’s got to be.

SOUTHBOROUGH —

“Earlier this month, a Wood Street resident called town officials to complain about rising water in her backyard threatening her septic system. The Department of Public Works deduced that a culvert 48 inches across had been blocked, but it took a little digging to find out how.

“The employee crawled into the pipe and found a beaver dam,” DPW Superintendent Karen Galligan wrote in a memo to the Board of Health. Southborough Health Agent Paul Pisinski said the Board of Health unanimously approved a 10-day emergency trapping permit for the DPW as well as a 30-day extension if it’s needed.”

Brad Petrishen

Memo! Don’t tell me that burdensome PETA-law forced DPW to write a MEMO to the health department!!!!! It’s outrageous to make our hard-working men and women of public works write a memo! And after all that exhausting DEDUCTION and crawling into a pipe too! Now the health deparment has to take valuable time away from their immunization shots and e coli outbreaks to casually hold a unanimous vote! Ohhh the humanity! No wonder nothing gets done in government when our officials time gets swallowed by molehills of paperwork and casual slaughterhouse agreements!

A lesser mind might read that article and think, gosh, the rules worked the way they were supposed to – an exception to a rule was granted for a serious concern and the problem is swiftly going to be solved. Ahhh but that mind would be wrong. This article isn’t about the system working. It’s about the icky, icky law that made all this necessary.

“Some may wonder why the Board of Health, not a state agency such as the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is signing off on such a request. The answer lies in a 1996 ballot referendum that shifted the authority for permitting from MassWildlife to local boards of health. More importantly, the question barred trappers from using certain types of traps – a decision that wildlife experts say has led to an explosion in the beaver population, with accompanying problems.

People had good intentions when they banned so-called inhumane leg-hold and lethal body-gripping traps, Larson said, but they probably had no idea that the decision would lead to a beaver increase. “Beavers are rodents, and they breed like rodents,” she said. “They don’t have many predators since they live 80 percent of their lives in the water, so they’re becoming very prolific.”

The body-gripping trap is not much more than an enlarged mouse trap, Larson said, without which trappers have either had a difficult time trapping beavers or given up and moved on to a different animal.

“Beaver are taking advantage of even the most marginal habitats for creating housing for themselves,” she said. “It’s quite a challenge for everybody concerned.”

Beavers taking advantage! And trappers out of work because it’s too hard to set up the suitcase! My my my. Something these columns just write themselves. Do you think Marion wants to be my new BFF?

But when I try in here to tell you, dear

I love you madly, madly, Madam Librarian…Marian

It’s a long lost cause I can never win

For the civilized world accepts as unforgivable sin

Any talking out loud with any librarian

Such as Marian…..Madam Librarian.

But when I try, out here to tell you dear

That kindly killing doesn’t change beaver ovarian, Marion!

It’s a long lost cause I can never win

For the petulant state regards it a terrible sin

Spending a moment’s thought or a stroke of a pen

Without Marion…..beaver contrarian…

They’re Ba-a-a-ck!

heidi08 Beavers elsewhere, Massachusetts Trapping Law March 19, 2011

This special seal of our disapproval is reserved for the Massachusetts Committee for Responsible Wildlife Management. It is a powerful lobby that wheedles and nags politicians into agreeing that the only way to protect voter interests is to kill beavers in the most cruel and uncomfortable manner possible. We are new to this beaver advocacy scene, but the struggle to overturn humane trapping standards is older than the standards themselves. The president of the association is Herb Bergquest, who has been busily nudging moderate politicians into extreme positions. Just check out this op-ed from 2009.

It was agreed that radical animal rights organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society for the United States (HSUS) just to name a few, are falsely influencing public opinion to a point were they are impacting wildlife management activities and traditional animal/human relationships that have been fostered for 100’s of years throughout North America and beyond.

Laying aside the obvious inflammatory association of PETA and HSUS as being the same kind of association, let’s just examine his sentence on its own terms. Bunny-hugers are ruining animal/human relationships that have existed for hundreds of years. I assume Herb is saying these relationships should not have changed in 100s of years? Even though the ratio of humans/animals has violently changed? Even thought every wild space we have encroached upon creates the opportunities for more conflicts? We have new problems, but according to Herb we should solve them the old way. A wild west solution to complex inner cities. It was good enough for Clint Eastwood. Why not for Massachusetts?

Just as our police across the country are on the frontlines and stand between order and chaos in our society, modern day sportsmen — hunters and trappers — are proactively maintaining order and balance between wildlife and our own ever expanding population.

This is definitely not to say we are in a “battle” with wildlife, even though some people in the trenches may disagree with that. Hunters and trappers do not participate because they want to win a war, they do so because of a complex desire to be closer to the land and benefit from its bounty.

A complex desire to be closer to the land? Really? I have to pause for a moment. My sarcasm nodes are firing on overload and the smoke from my ears is blurring the keyboard. Apparently trappers want to be close to a land where wildlife is as easy to take out as weeds are to pull from the garden. What am I saying? Sorry. As weeds are to kill in the garden with a generous dose of Round-up.

So this newest effort to kill beavers easier is a smarter one. It is from the old school of combo politics. This is a Machiavellian technique where you combine very popular legislation, like “cheaper gas prices” with more controversial measures like “Invading Saudi Arabia”. Here’s a report on the latest.

Regular readers of this blog should note that there was no mention made of the 9 already established exceptions to humane trapping standards. There is a good reason for that, since the goal is to make the problem seem unsolvable without more brutal measures. Just like the goal of slandering HSUS is to render these reports untrustworthy. Fair enough. This is war, and he has an eye on the enemy. Rumor is he has even familiarized himself with this website which makes sense, as we have been watching Massachusetts closely since the petulant New York Times article.

While our North American conservation management approach has been fostered through intensive scientific study, driven by dedication, a love for the natural world and an intense need to conserve our natural resources for the future, there is a threat to it’s foundation by animal rights organizations, hiding behind seemingly well meaning agendas that has not yet been met with a unified, formidable opponent.

Maybe humanity is too much work for Massachusetts. I’m told that Herbie the love-bug might just be successful this time. I wrote this to Representative Gobi and the committee yesterday, but you might considering sending your own words of wisdom.

Dear Representative Gobi

It is dishonest to say that the current effort to overturn Massachusetts trapping restrictions has anything to do with public safety, and transparently deceptive to combine this legislation with dam safety in general. It seems that at least once a year, representatives are persuaded that humanity is too much work in your state and current trapping regulations are insufficient to control beaver problems – even though there has never been even simple statistics to prove that appeals for traditional trapping are ever turned down. Someone should remind Massachusetts that its current trapping restrictions offer no fewer than 9 exceptions to the need for humane traps. If any one of these conditions are met traditional trapping can be used. It is high time someone in the state house reviewed them. I challenge you to identify a current or historical threat that would not have qualified for traditional trapping methods under these broad standards. I attach them for your review. and encourage to look at this situation realistically.

I’m sure you’d agree that there are enough dam lies in politics already.

Heidi Perryman, Ph.D.

President & Founder

Worth A Dam

www.martinezbeavers.org/wordpress

The above provision shall not apply to the use of prohibited devices by federal and state departments of health or municipal boards of health for the purpose of protection from threats to human health and safety. A threat to human health and safety may include, but shall not be limited to:

(a) beaver or muskrat occupancy of a public water supply;

(b) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of drinking water wells, well fields or water pumping stations;

(d) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of a public or private way, driveway, railway or airport runway or taxi-way;

(e) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of electrical or gas generation plants or transmission or distribution structures or facilities, telephone or other communications facilities or other public utilities;

(f) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting the public use of hospitals, emergency clinics, nursing homes, homes for the elderly or fire stations;

(g) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding affecting hazardous waste sites or facilities, incineration or resource recovery plants or other structures or facilities whereby flooding may result in the release or escape of hazardous or noxious materials or substances;

(h) the gnawing, chewing, entering, or damage to electrical or gas generation, transmission or distribution equipment, cables, alarm systems or facilities by any beaver or muskrat;

(i) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding or structural instability on property owned by the applicant if such animal problem poses an imminent threat of substantial property damage or income loss, which shall be limited to: (1) flooding of residential, commercial, industrial or commercial buildings or facilities; (2) flooding of or access to commercial agricultural lands which prevents normal agricultural practices from being conducted on such lands; (3) reduction in the production of an agricultural crop caused by flooding or compromised structural stability of commercial agricultural lands; (4) flooding of residential lands in which the municipal board of health, its chair or agent or the state or federal department of health has determined a threat to human health and safety exists. The department of environmental protection shall make any determination of a threat to a public water supply.