Maine’s wildlife and multiple values need to be assessed

Editor’s note: Many, many readers have submitted letters and columns on state policies regarding the snaring of coyotes, and the NEWS has tried to print most of them. This commentary, however, will mark the final one until some new event concerning these policies occurs.

There seems to be an alarming trend of viewing hunting and trapping as simply a management tool without full reflection on reasons why people want to

conserve and sustain viable wildlife populations.”

Marc Bekoff’s piece, “Cunning coyotes: tireless tricksters and protean predators” (BDN, Feb. 12), suggested that snaring should not be allowed in Maine and that coyotes should be left alone. I’m concerned about the opposition towards snaring and its reflection on trapping in general.

Bekoff, who lives in Colorado and teaches biology, correctly identifies the important ecological role of the coyote and biological reasons why controlling coyotes through certain wildlife management techniques is somewhat futile. He specifically mentions the tremendous costs associated with controlling coyotes in terms of dollars (5.7 million with gunning annually) but also loss of human life with injuries resulting from certain techniques such as shooting from helicopters and planes. However, important aspects of the “appropriate” interaction with wildlife is much more complex than what Bekoff portrays in his commentary.

He indicated the Wildlife Commission in Colorado recently created a new opportunity for big game hunters to kill coyotes while they’re hunting any big game species, without the small game license that’s usually required. He fails to mention, however, that in 1996 a citizen ballot initiative eliminated most types of trapping equipment including the popular traps used by trappers such as the leghold and conibear traps. As a result of this citizen ballot initiative in Colorado, fewer people trap coyotes and other furbearer species. According to John Smeltzer, Colorado Division of Wildlife, there were between 1000-1500 individuals who had furbearer trapping licenses before the passage of this legislation but now the number is between 50 to 100 individuals.

Bekoff’s description of the situation in Colorado does not fit what I’d like to see in Maine. In all states, including Maine, trappers are a very small group of individuals especially when compared to others who enjoy wildlife-related outdoor activities such as hunting and wildlife viewing. Admittedly, trapper’s success in total control of coyote population is probably futile in Maine given the current number of trappers. In addition, most Maine trappers do not use snaring techniques. However, the alternative of eliminating certain trapping techniques that may discourage future trapping does not make sense for a number of reasons.

First, it is no coincidence that professional wildlife biologists sometimes check with trappers to obtain a pulse on the health of furbearers. Trappers on the ground have intimate knowledge of wildlife in certain locations and provide valuable feedback to biologists. As seen in Colorado and Massachusetts, once limits are put on trap types, especially steel traps used most frequently, such as leghold or conibear traps, the number of individuals who once trapped rapidly decline. Fewer trappers in Massachusetts have led to more dollars spent by state wildlife management and towns for taking care of nuisance animals. Unfortunately problems occur at various times of the year especially when furbearers do not have prime pelts so animals are killed and thrown away. A reduction in trappers who are more connected and concerned about wildlife than most people seems less than desirable.

Second, moving away from trapping and more so toward hunting as in Colorado with airplanes, poisoning, and use of deer hunters seems unlikely to succeed in Maine. For example, our terrain is much more forested but more important perhaps relates to an ethos of human interactions with wildlife. Most trappers are also hunters, but most hunters are not trappers. There are a number of reasons why hunters do not trap but primarily center on the time required for doing this type of activity. It requires a tremendous amount of time learning wildlife behavior (often a lifetime learning process) to be successful at capturing furbearers, especially coyotes. Most trappers take pride in their skills and ability to properly skin and process pelts into quality furs. Maintenance of equipment and cost of fuel to check traps (often on a daily basis) again requires many hours.

Finally, regulated trapping occurs during specified seasons when pelts are prime and suitable for creating fur products. It is troublesome to think that Colorado and Massachusetts have moved away from public trapping and more towards specialized private businesses with the purpose of controlling “problem” wildlife as opposed to valuing wildlife for multiple reasons.

Finally, motivation for trapping by trappers involves to some extent utility such as wildlife population control or income from processing and selling furs. However, several recent studies on trappers and trapping consistently find that more important than controlling wildlife populations or obtaining an income are motivations similar to other outdoor recreation activities such as “seeing wildlife,” “being out-of-doors,” “learning about wildlife behavior,” “sharing experiences with others,” “challenge” and “being with family or friends” etc. Closely related to deer hunting, it is often the combination of utility (eating the meat or processing pelts into furs or crafts) with these other positive outcomes that make trapping an attractive outdoor activity for some people.

There seems to be an alarming trend of viewing hunting and trapping as simply a management tool without full reflection on reasons why people want to conserve and sustain viable wildlife populations. It is important to acknowledge that most hunters and trappers do not participate in these activities to control wildlife populations. This may be an important outcome but is only a small portion of the positive benefits or outcomes.

The biological research contributions of Bekoff and his associates is important information for making wildlife management decisions. However, it is essential that we include other important information such as the benefits of human interaction with wildlife. The multiple human benefits identified will contribute to a more informed discussion of the total benefits and costs on laws regulating treatment and “appropriate” interaction with wildlife. This is especially important here in Maine with a growing human population and integration of diverse attitudes and values from people coming to our state and those not from here interested in the management of wildlife in Maine.

Dr. John Daigle is an assistant professor and teaches forest recreation management in the Parks, Recreation and Tourism program at the University of Maine, Orono. He also conducts research on many outdoor activities including hunting, trapping, and wildlife viewing.