State of Michigan DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Lansing
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor		REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES director

BILL ANALYSIS

BILL NUMBER:	House Bill 4497, AS INTRODUCED
TOPIC:	Prohibit Use of Steel Jaw Traps
SPONSOR:	Lorence Wenke
CO-SPONSORS:	Steve Bieda, Alma Smith, Fran Amos, Paul Opsommer, Kim Meltzer
COMMITTEE:	Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources
Analysis Done:	May 31, 2007

POSITION

The Department of Natural Resources (Department) opposes this legislation.

PROBLEM/BACKGROUND

Trapping is an important, effective technique used by wildlife managers to assist in the management of many wildlife species. The leghold traps referred to in this Bill are commonly called foothold traps, today. This activity also has strong traditional support of both recreational and commercial interests. However, the use of foothold traps is objectionable to some citizens, especially on those rare occasions when pets are caught. Concerns include humaneness to animals and injuries to non-target species such as domestic dogs, although most domestic dogs caught in foothold traps are released with minimal injury.

DESCRIPTION OF BILL

This Bill would ban the use of all jawed leghold traps in Michigan.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Pro

The capture of non-target species, including domestic animals in traps, would be reduced but not eliminated.

Con

Foothold traps are designed to restrain rather than kill an animal. Animals can be released from them, in most cases, with very minimal physical injury. When used properly and checked according to law, foothold traps are humane restraining devices.

This Bill will eliminate one of the most effective tools for managing furbearers. Foothold (leghold) traps are the most common and most effective traps used to capture common abundant furbearing species (fox, raccoon, and coyote). Foothold traps also represent a significant portion of the traps used for beaver, muskrat, mink, and other species.

FISCAL/ECONOMIC IMPACT

Are there revenue or budgetary implications in the bill to the --

(a) Department

Budgetary:

NA

Revenue:

A reduction of revenue due to fewer fur harvester licenses being sold is likely.

Comments:

None

(b) State

Budgetary:

NA

Revenue:

Possible reduction in revenue due to fewer fur harvester licenses sold. Possible reduction in income revenue from sales of fur taken in leghold traps.

Comments:

None

(c) Local Government

Comments:

An increase in nuisance calls to local animal control agencies may occur.

OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS

The Departments of Agriculture and Community Health may have comments regarding impacts to human and animal health, and control of depredation on livestock, especially by coyotes.

ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION

In recent years, trap manufacturers have modified foothold trap design to minimize the likelihood of injury to trapped animals. These modifications include offset jaws, laminated jaws, and jaws padded with rubber. Offset jaws provide enhanced circulation in the trapped appendage. Similarly, laminations provide a wider surface area of contact and thus less pressure on a restricted area of the held appendage. Animals caught in traps that have offset jaws and/or laminations frequently show no visible signs of capture upon release. Another modification is an adjustable pan-tension device which reduces the potential for catching non-target animals by preventing the trap from tripping until sufficient weight is applied to the pan.

The Department uses foothold traps to capture gray wolves for study. The wolves are equipped with radio collars and many of them have been tracked for years following capture. Similarly, bobcats were trapped with foothold traps for a research project several years ago. Many of those animals were later taken by hunters and showed no visible sign of ever having been in a trap.

Several years ago, the European Union expressed concerns about the humaneness of trapping in the United States. One result of the international discussions resulting from those concerns was testing of traps for humaneness in the capture of furbearers. That testing has resulted in “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) for trapping. The BMPs have been prepared for most Michigan furbearer species and many of the traps that are designated for BMPs are steel-jawed foothold devices. Proposals for changing trapping regulations in Michigan are frequently intended to enhance conformance with BMPs.

Many of these species are at population levels that generate considerable human conflicts. Furthermore, many of these species carry diseases that may affect humans and their domestic pets (rabies, distemper, and raccoon roundworm). The Bill likely will result in a reduction in trapping, which significantly affects the Department’s ability to manage these species.

House Bill 4497 would eliminate one of the most effective tools for nuisance control professionals, and also prevent wildlife researchers from capturing furbearers for research, endangered species population management, or other purposes.

This Bill would require trappers who wish to remain active to purchase new traps that remain legal, such as body gripping traps. Animals cannot be released alive from body-gripping traps. This would require a substantial expense, and may result in significantly decreasing the number of trappers purchasing a furharvester license.

In addition to governmental revenue issues, it is likely that the banning of foothold traps would significantly reduce the number of animals trapped and amount of fur sold by Michigan trappers. According to national and regional surveys, the average trapper in the Midwest earns about $850 per year from sale of furs. The estimated 10,000 trappers in this state would likely trap fewer animals, and sell fewer pelts or furs. This negative economic affect would be reflected throughout the fur harvest industry.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES IMPACT

None

_______________________________

Rebecca A. Humphries

Director

_______________________________

Date

WLD/LED