As many of you already know, in 1996 the voters of Massachusetts acted to ban the use of crush traps. The legislature enacted this, saying that live traps had to be used for killing beavers. This means that after their trapped with a Hancock or Bailey they are shot in the head or gassed to death. So they still end up dead, but it’s slighty kinder than drowning or starving. The trapping process is more involved than setting a snare or a conibear. It costs a little more money and time to do. And this means people take shortcuts.
Remember how Massachusetts likes to whine about having too many beavers now because of this law? They say the population exploded after the law was passed because people stopped killing beavers. Wrong. People stopped getting PERMITS to kill beavers. But they still kill plenty. Case in point:
Letter: Cruel treatment of valuable animal
I recently found two dead beavers with their tails severed on Rte. 20 in West Becket. The most recent one was laying on the side of the road, under the turnpike underpass, just past Greenwater pond. It was not a victim of roadkill. This particular beaver was lying over the top of tire tracks, not embedded as roadkill would have been. Its head appeared to be bludgeoned and the tail was completely gone with a clean edge wound remaining. There was still blood from the beaver in a pool of mud next to some beer cans.
The other tailless beaver I found Sunday morning while collecting my Berkshire Eagle. I hoped that it was not the “smiling beaver” I had posted to FaceBook just two weeks ago, I will never know because the tail with its distinctive nick on the left side was no longer attached to the body.
So this is what happens. People shoot or bludgeon a beaver and get rid of what they think is a problem. MDFG notices that they’re selling fewer permits and assumes that means fewer beavers are being killed. 500 articles get written about how the state is overrun with beavers. And all the while beavers are still getting killed everywhere.
We’re sorry you had a gruesome day, Karen. But I’m grateful you wrote this letter. (I better start keeping a file of these incidents of ‘unrecorded beaver deaths’.) Karen adds this lovely paragraph at the end.
Remember, beavers are one of the main reasons we have such rich soils and landscapes in the Berkshires. The beavers helped create our farmlands, they build the dams and create ponds that help develop the watersheds that supply us with drinking water.
Amen! You are a true Worth A Dam friend! If you need cheering up you can always take a field trip to Martinez. And we’ll show you some safe, happy beavers!
Mind you, at NO TIME, does anyone in the media even MENTION that there are 9 exceptions in the law that allow you to use what ever kind of traps you like. Nine!
(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.
