I had wondered what kind of lagging news cycle had prompted last week’s story in the NY Times. Remember the poor beaver-besieged city of Lexington and its frustrated civic protectors? Why does Massachusetts get its own cover in the NYT and not Wyoming or North Carolina? Turns out the CONTROVERSIAL (read: much- whined-about) ban on conibear trapping introduced in 1996 131-80(A) is up for revision on tuesday.
Representatives Green, Atkins and Garry are going to discuss adding 131-80(B) to the provision.
to conduct a limited pilot program to determine the most effective way to achieve a healthy and balanced population of beaver. The program shall be limited to the following counties: Berkshire; Essex; Franklin; Hampshire; Middlesex; and Worcester.
A pilot program? That doesn’t sound so bad. What are they piloting? The reintroduction of Conibear traps to deal with a recovering beaver population that has become inconvenient. Well still, that’s only 6 counties, what percentage of the state is that? Nearly half.
Wait a minute, the NY Times article described some really bad problems, that need to be dealt with right away or they’ll affect public safety, and its not like 131-80(A) had an exceptions for extreme cases…
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;
(c) beaver or muskrat-caused flooding of sewage beds, septic systems or sewage 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.
Oh.
So you mean every single complaint made in the article was covered already as an exception under existing law? Which meant those beavers could have been killed by Conibear traps anyway? Gosh, it almost seems like somebody is lying to fish and wildlife and pressuring their representatives to take unnecessary action under the pretense of public safety.
Say it with me now, “I’m sure glad that never happens here!”
Drop Representatives Greene, Atkins and Garry a note to let them know what you think about the commonwealth backing out of its progressive and humane restrictions. I did.
