Studies & Reports Pertaining to Trapping & Furbearer Conservation
trapping & furbearer management
"Furbearer Management in North America maintains wild furbearer populations at sustainably harvestable, scientifically determined and socially acceptable levels. Furbearer management impacts numerous wildlife populations and habitats, and human health, safety and property."
Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee: Trapping & Furbearer Management
"Trapping and Furbearer Management in North American Wildlife Conservation" is a compilation of the knowledge, insights and experiences of professional wildlife biologists who are responsible for the conservation of wildlife resources throughout the United States and Canada.
Fox and Lyme Disease:
VT Fish & Wildlife
“In January 2018 the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board received a petition to eliminate the hunting and trapping of fox “to help protect public health from Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.” The petitioner was driven by the belief that the current level of harvest impacts the fox population and, consequently, that of small mammals, in particular, the white-footed mouse, one of the reservoirs of Lyme disease. After a thorough review regarding the influence of Vermont’s red fox harvest on the prevalence of Lyme disease in the state, the VFWD finds no compelling evidence that the current rate of harvest of red fox is influencing the presence, distribution, or prevalence of infected black-legged tick.”
Calamity By design:
The Chelmsford Example
What happens when Animal Rights groups and politics muddy the waters of wildlife management and regulated trapping? A prime example lies in a small Massachusetts town, where beaver trapping was outlawed - brifley.
Science Advances: Artelle et al. (2018) miss the science underlying North American wildlife management.
“Artelle et al. (Hallmarks Of Science) conclude that “hallmarks of science” are largely missing from North American wildlife management based on a desk review of selected hunting management plans and related documents found through Internet searches and email requests to state and provincial wildlife agencies. Although several conceptual, methodological, and interpretation errors are evident in Artelle et al. (1), we highlight three fundamental problems that compromise the validity of conclusions posited: missing information to support selection of hallmarks of science, confusion about roles and nature of science and management, and failure to engage effectively with scientists and managers actively managing wildlife populations in North America.”