Agenda - 05-26-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- 1 -..* " Model State Trapping Bills .,„v . ® INTRODUCTION In the United States, the authority to control trap- mals found in traps. However, like many regulatory ping has rested traditionally with the states. At the measures, these restrictions can be difficult to en- state level, there are three possible approaches to force. A simple ban on steel jaw traps is more desir- trapping reform: initiative and referendum, admi- able, although sometimes politically more difficult to nistrative regulation, and legislation. All three ap- achieve. proaches have been used in efforts to ban steel jaw Included is a copy of the strong New Jersey law. traps. Of the three, the initiative and referendum The HSUS fully supports and advocates enactment approach is the most difficult. An initiative/referen- of these provisions. The HSUS has prepared two dum campaign is expensive and can require re- separate pieces of suggested legislation. The first sources and a political organization equal to those would simply ban the use of steel jaw traps, but with required for any statewide political campaign, such two exemptions: the animal nuisance exemption as a U.S. Senate race. Furthermore, the real issue of similar to that in the Rhode Island law and an ex- the cruelty of animal traps can be easily distorted in emption that allows steel jaw traps to be used by the public mind through opposing media campaigns state officials to respond to public health emergen- that create public fears of rabies and proliferation of cies involving animal-related diseases such as wild animal populations, rabies. HSUS would prefer a complete prohibition against the steel jaw trap. While public health of The second option is administrative regulation. Many of the provisions outlined in the HSUS sug- ficials acknowledge that trapping does not control gested bills could be issued as regulations by state rabies, the bill provides these exemptions because agencies without additional legislation. The Florida they may become politically necessary as a means of Fresh Water Fish and Game Commission, for exam- answering claims that legislative restraints would ple, has banned both steel jaw and conibear traps. handicap government officials in responding to pub- This approach is possible in most states because of lic health and property damage problems. the extensive regulatory authority already possessed The second bill, described more fully below, is a by wildlife agencies under existing statutes. A major broader measure which regulates all forms of trap- stumbling block to this avenue of reform, however, ping and seeks to mitigate its worst aspects. is the traditional fraternity between wildlife manage- ment officials and trappers. These three pieces of legislation provide you with several options from which to choose. Depending on The third and most common option is passage of political climate and the feasibility of gaining leg- legislation by the state legislature. Such legislative islative approval, one may be more appropriate than measures take a variety of forms. New Jersey's law is the others. the most comprehensive ban on the steel jaw trap. As enacted in 1984, it prohibits the manufacture, Simply finding a sponsor for a bill will not result sale, possession and importation of all steel jaw leg- in passage. The sponsor of the bill should be a leg- hold type traps. (N.J.S.A. 23:4-22.1). Rhode Island islator who is concerned about the issues and willing has enacted a ban on the steel jaw trap. The only ex- to devote the requisite time and energy to promote emption pertains to landowners who are allowed the bill. Ideally, the sponsor should be a member of permits to trap nuisance animals. R.I. Gen. Laws the committee that will consider the bill or else a member of the legislative leadership or be an other- S20-32-8 (Cum. Supp. 1978). According to Rhode Island officials, this permit provision has been used wise influential legislator who can sway his or her sparingly. Massachusetts law restricts use of the fellow legislators to support the bill. steel jaw trap to land owned or leased by the person Even with such a sponsor, citizens advocating leg- using the trap and to underwater sets in which the islation cannot expect the sponsor to do all the work. captured animal would quickly drown. Mass. Ann. Informed and persuasive testimony should be prepared; Laws ch. 131, §80A (Michie/Law. Co-op, Cum. supportive letters and visits from constituents to Supp. 1979). Such statutes are regulatory measures their legislators should be arranged. Lastly, since in which help curb trapping's worst cruelties. Other re- almost all states the legislation is subject to the gov- forms that can be enacted through legislation or reg- ernor's approval, the governor must be persuaded to ulation are restrictions on the size of traps and the support the bill. In all these efforts, it is important to number of sets, required daily trap checks, and the contact and work with other animal welfare organi- authority to afford immediate relief to injured ani- zations and interested individuals within the state.