Committee for Responsible Wildlife Management

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.

“It’s too hard”

heidi08 Beaver News, Beavers elsewhere, City Reports, Creative Solutions, Environmental, Massachusetts Trapping Law, Who's Killing Beavers Now? October 24, 2010

The poor sportsman and sore losers club at the Massachusetts Committee for Responsible Wildlife Management continue to bemoan the inadequate list of nine exceptions to the beaver-trapping law. They feel burdened by the remarkably simple standards the law requires them to meet. Just to be clear, when any single one of these conditions are met, beavers can be killed in every convenient fashion. However, in the rare instance when no such condition is present, the animals can still be killed, just not with leg hold or body crushing traps. Apparently its toooooooo hard for their little trapper brains to meet a standard and ask permission, (even though I’ve never read even a single story of any request being turned down).

It seems like every 6 months we get new complaints about the awful flooding caused by the increase in beavers in Massachusetts that blames the crazy hippies who were tricked into banning leg hold and body crushing traps in 1996. To these troglodyte minds, the onerous burden of being asked to spend five minutes completing the necessary request is a bridge too far: they won’t stand for it! Now the powerful lobby has attached more exceptions to the exception list in a rider that slipped in at the end of the house session. It sits politely on the governor’s desk with a name like “protecting babies” or “safer streets” to await his unknowing signature. The Massachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is asking residents to call and remind the governor that there are already perfectly adequate lethal solutions in place and we don’t need to add more. Perhaps you’d like to join them.

Mike Callahan of Beaver Solutions, who is admirably much more even-handed than I, was interviewed about the story yesterday by CBS channel 3 Springfield. Now this is must see TV!