Committee for Responsivle wildlife management

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.