Fur-Bearer Defenders' Hot Topics

    (For more Hot Topics, see our Current Campaigns links from our Home page).

Fur Buyers Flock to Canada to try to Avoid 
Arrest, Subpoena or Detainment by US Justice Department

International Fur Buyers flocked to Canada for a series of fur auctions in February, 2005, most of them in Vancouver.

The American Legend auction at the cruise ship terminal at Canada Place offered for sale over a million and a half animal skins in Vancouver, BC.

Fur Trade Running from US Justice Department

The National Criminal Enforcement Section of the United States Justice Department is investigating the International Fur Trade for anti-trust (price-fixing) violations. According to Fur Trade Journals, somewhere between 40 and 80 fur businesses had, prior to the auction, already been subpoenaed to testify and/or provide documents as part of this huge investigation.

FBD told All through TV, Newspaper, and Radio Ads

Fur-Bearer Defenders produced and aired brand new TV, newspaper, and radio spots discussing the auction as well as the cruelty of fur and fur trim. The spots aired during the week before the Vancouver fur auctions. 

On Site Protest

Fur-Bearer Defenders was also onsite at the auction February 21st, 2005 to let attendees, passerbys, and the cruiseship terminal itself, know that the Fur Trade is not welcome here.  Thank you to all who attended and took part!

And the protest was well attended by the media, on top of the media attention that was gained for the issue in the week prior.  We, and the fur cruelty issue,  were on several TV stations' 6 oclock news broadcasts, as well as on many radio stations, and in print media nationally. 

 Ban the black bear busby, group says: 'We shouldn't be wearing the furs of our black bears on our heads'

The Ottawa Citizen, Fri 04 Oct 2002
Page: A11, News

Byline: Patti Edgar

The Queen's royal visit to Canada should include a little reflection on the Canadian black bears whose fur ends up on her guards' noggins, says a Vancouver-based animal rights group.

Mr. Mersereau said the foot snare "hardly does any damage at all."

Illustration: Colour Photo: Julie Oliver, The Ottawa Citizen: British guards require about 150 Canadian black bear pelts a year for their headgear. An experiment a few years ago saw hats made with synthetic fur, but they were criticized as looking like a 'rather bad hair day.'
  Reprinted with permission from the Ottawa Citizen

The Vancouver Sun, Cover Page

August 21, 2002

Fur trappers must check traps every 2 weeks

Critics say 14-day limit – the longest in North America – is cruel to animals

For the first time, British Columbia trappers face rules that require them to check some traps once every 14 days.

But the new regulations still allow the traps to be left unchecked longer than anywhere else in North America.

Up until now, B.C. has been unique in North America in that it has had no such rules for the traps, meaning they could be left unchecked indefinitely.

The traps in question are the conibear and the power snare, so-called killing traps that are supposed to result in the quick death of captured animals.

The State of Maryland, the strictest jurisdiction, requires checking every 36 hours.

The most lenient jurisdictions after B.C. – Saskatchewan, Yukon and Nevada – require examinations every five days.

But nowhere outside B.C. are a full 14 days permitted, and trapping opponents say that’s outrageous.

 “This is a brand new experience in the whole of North America,” said George Clements, founder of the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals. “No jurisdiction has ever passed such a law before.”

Spokesmen for the B.C. Trappers Association, who were consulted by the government before the regulation was introduced, say Clements’ concerns are misplaced.

They say it’s a good thing the new regulation was introduced because one was needed, and that it is reasonable because the conibear and power snare are designed to kill animals quickly.

B.C. Trappers Association vice-president Stan Smith said the regulation is fair.

“Basically, they’re talking about traps that are in effect killing traps,” Smith said.  “So really the regulation is there to ensure that people would not leave an animal in a trap for a prolonged period of time.  Not because the animal is suffering, because the animal will be dead already.”

Clements disagrees.  He and his association say the conibear and snare kill quickly only if ideal conditions are met.  Otherwise it’s possible, the association says, that animals entering the traps will simply be held in them, and suffer lingering deaths, possibly over a period of days or even a week.

“The animal could be left writhing back and forth in a trap held by the body,” says Clements.  “Instead of hitting it where it’s going to be killed, the trap will hit it elsewhere.

“The animal could just be left there alive until the trapper returns to kill it,” Clements says.  “Suffering in a trap for three days is surely bad enough, but 14?”

(B.C. regulations require trappers to check leghold traps, which are not intended to kill animals quickly, every three days.)

Andy Ackerman, the ministry of water, land and air protection’s regional manager for environment stewardship for the Peace region, said the previous absence of regulations was due to B.C.’s harsh weather, which often makes it difficult for trappers to reach traplines in a short period of time.

The new regulation also takes that into account, he says, “You have to remember that in large parts of the province, traplines are very large (several hundred kilometers).  So given our weather, it can take trappers a long time to get to them.”

Of primary concern to both the government and trappers is that pelts don’t go to waste.

“There’s no point in killing the animal if it’s not being utilized,” Smith said.  “Waste is waste.”

“They also say all trappers in the province must pass a three-day government course before they can begin trapping, and that both the conibear and snare straps have been approved for use by the Canadian Trappers Association, which has addressed all humane concerns.

“The key thing is that these traps are humane killing traps,” Smith says.

The Fur-Bearers association claims otherwise.  It has a film taken by an Alberta trapper of a marten, beaver, coyote, squirrel and mink all alive and struggling in conibear traps.  And even in ideal laboratory conditions which can’t be duplicated in the wild, they say, trappers will consider a trap humane if it kills instantly only 80 per cent of the time.

The conibear trap is a framed wire trap fitted with a killing bar designed to slam the back of an animal’s neck and kill it.  The size of conibear traps differs according to the size of the animals being trapped.

Snares are also made of wire, but the wire is looped so that when the animal enters the trap, the snare will tighten around the animal and eventually choke it.  The more the animal struggles, the tighter the wire grips.

Trappers, with government support, say both traps are humane, and should kill an animal within 10 minutes.

But Fur-Bearers’ association executive director Jennifer Allen says trapping journals report the opposite.  As examples, she cites:

“Traps of the standard conibear design exhibit trigger aversion problems and don’t acceptably position sufficient numbers of animals for killing blows.” – The American Trapper magazine

“The problem [with conibear traps] is beavers and otters get much farther into the trap before it springs.  The animals often put up a greater struggle before they die, resulting in rubbed fur.” – The Trapper & Predator Caller

“We want [beavers] to get both front feet through the [snare’s] noose before its barrel-shaped body starts to tighten the noose.  Generally the noose tightens around the animal just behind its front legs.  You’ll find these animals very much alive in dryland sets.” – Fur, Fish and Game, a monthly U.S. magazine for hunters, trappers and fishermen.

Even some government studies suggest problems with the traps.  According to the Wildlife Society Bulletin,  a quarterly publication written by and for government wildlife managers, the capture efficiency of power snare traps is unproven.

“Therefore remote forested traplines may be the only areas where the use of power snares may be justified.  However, these very powerful devices have the potential to seriously injure non-target animals, including big game and people,” says the journal.  “Power snares developed to quickly kill large furbearers appear to have limited application as we search for humane trapping methods.” 

Allen says as long as trappers can’t guarantee that quick-killing traps work all the time, there remains potential for an animal to be left to suffer for days without being found.

Water, Land and Air Protection Minister Joyce Murray was on holiday and unavailable to comment, but government spokesmen say everything is done to make trapping in B.C. as humane as possible.

Smith concurs.  Areas that require more frequent inspection are more populous or have better climates, he says, so more regular checks are either necessary and/or possible in those places.  Not in B.C.

“We in B.C. have been at the forefront in trapper education, in humane trapper devices, in devices and implementing regulations ahead of the rest of the country.”

Says Clements: “It doesn’t make sense for anyone to leave an animal in a trap for 14 days.  The trappers already have an image of being cruel.  This is just going to make things worse.”

Boy Caught in Cruel Trap

Abbotsford News article, B.C.
April 13, 2002

Trapped by curiosity: A beaver tale

By Cheryl Wierda
An Abbotsford boy is wishing he hadn’t been so curious after getting his ankle caught in a City of Abbotsford beaver trap. Brayden Welsh regularly goes exploring in the city-owned ravine below his Bateman-area home, and Wednesday evening was no exception. The 13-year-old and two friends were playing in Picton Park and hopped the fence around the retention pond to have a look at the beaver dam. While they didn’t see the beaver, Brayden did find a chain leading away from a tree and pulled it up. It was a beaver trap.

“I turned to walk away and my leg trailed behind and I hit the little trigger thing and it snapped.”

Brayden began screaming, and after his friends couldn’t get the trap open, they ran up the embankment for help. Three neighbourhood dads came down and pried the trap open just wide enough for Brayden to wiggle his foot free.

“They barely got it open because it was really strong,” said Brayden.

One of the men that helped free Brayden said they were unaware traps were in the area.

“I think it is very shocking knowing that kids will play in an area like that,” he said. “At least if we’d been notified we could have told the kids to stay away.”

The trap, the neighbour said, “potentially could have snapped his leg in two. “What we were told by the fireman was it actually breaks the beaver’s back.” Brayden’s mother, Karen, is glad her son escaped with only bruising and pinch marks on his right foot. “If it would have snapped half an inch lower, he could be in trouble.” she said. However, she is raising concerns about the incident.

“We did not know there were traps,” she said. “If I had known, we wouldn’t let them out there.”

The trap was set in the pond to prevent beavers from gnawing down trees providing shade for fish. It was the only trap set in Abbotsford, although Fishtrap Creek is another site where a trap is often set. It’s a move the executive director of the Fur-Bearers Association questions, noting the terrible suffering beavers go through in the traps. As well, Jennifer Allen said trapping is a short-term solution to the problem.

“When you kill a beaver, you leave a perfect beaver habitat,” said Allen, noting beavers will come back.

A long-term solution, she said, is wiring the trees or ensuring the fencing is put down deep enough so animals, like the coyotes at this pond, can’t burrow under. City of Abbotsford spokesman Jay Teichroeb said the city has a licensed trapper on staff, and trapping is done with the guidance of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air.

“The trapping is typically done behind a safe secure area,” said Teichroeb. Staff regularly monitor the area to ensure it is secured, and had last been at Picton Park last week. Since then, “the fence had been breached and vandalized.”

Signage is also put up at the site to warn people to stay out. “Staff have had a challenge because they are stolen,” said Teichroeb.

A new sign has been ordered for the pond. While Karen Welsh acknowledges the city regularly checks on the pond, she and area residents say there has never been a sign and assumed the fencing was there to prevent younger children from falling in and drowning. Despite Brayden’s ordeal, the lure of the ravine is still very tempting. He says he’ll “probably” go back, because it is a great place to catch frogs. However, he may wait until the beaver problem is sorted out and there are no longer traps in the pond.

Letter to the editor
The Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, April 17, 2002

Traps Don't Solve Problem

The story of the boy caught by the leg in a body-holding Conibear trap is hopefully a warning to all municipalities to stop this dangerous trapping (Boy's leg caught in beaver trap, April 12).

Many municipalities hire contract trappers to set these traps where beavers or other animals are causing a problem -- usually for tree protection. A better solution is to wire-wrap the base of the trees or properly fence the area to keep beavers out. Some municipalities trap and kill these beavers year after year rather than try to properly solve the problem. It is a warning to parents and pet owners however, to be aware that if there are beavers in your area, then it is likely traps are being set there.

Jennifer Allen
Executive Director
The Fur-Bearers

Fur-Bearer Defenders' Bulletin (International Trapping Agreement),  April 26, 2001

Conventional Steel-Jawed Leg-Hold Restraining Traps Banned in Canada?!  (no!)

April 26, 2001 This was the deeply misleading promise made by the Canadian government, when it signed the International Agreement on Humane Trapping, agreeing to implement this ban as of this Monday, April 30, 2001 (in the agreement's Declaration section).

This change has indeed taken place, but it is a Political Change Only.

Animals Will Not Benefit. It is NOT a step in the right direction. This agreement has simply put an international seal of approval on cruel traps.

When they say conventional steel-jawed leg-hold restraining traps will be banned, they are using these terms in a very specific and unusual (ie. misleading) way, so that leg-hold traps that they consider to be non-conventional and/or non-restraining will continue to be legally used.

Terribly cruel steel jawed leg-hold traps will continue to be used, and indeed, for most the animals that are trapped in Canada.

Water animals are not included in the Ban. That's 60% of Canada's trapped animals 

60% of the million animals trapped in Canada every year are mink, otter, muskrat, and beaver. It will continue to be legal for all of these animals to be trapped in steel jawed leg-hold traps (conventional as well as non-conventional) in or near the water. 

This is because the government has decided that they do not qualify as restraining traps, because if everything goes right, they will be pulled under the water until they eventually die there without air. The government has misleadingly decided to now call these traps killing traps instead of restraining traps -- Even though the trap is still the same old style 300 year old leg-hold trap that restrains the animal in a crushing and painful grip, in or out of the water.

It takes a long time for these animals to drown, and it is a painful and terrifying ordeal. Many won't even be held securely under the water, and will be able to swim up for more air, prolonging their suffering even more.

Wolf, Lynx, Coyote, and Bobcat 

These animals, though no longer to be trapped with "conventional" steel-jawed leg-hold restraining traps will instead be trapped with "non-conventional" steel-jawed leg-hold restraining traps. The difference, from an animal welfare perspective, is nonexistent.

The following traps have all been misleadingly deemed "non-conventional", and thus will continue to be legally and commonly used for wolf, lynx, coyote & bobcat.

(1) Offset traps - steel jawed leg-hold traps with a 3/16ths inch gap between the closed steel jaws.
(2) Laminated traps - steel jawed leg-hold traps with extra steel added to the jaws to make them slightly wider (thicker).
(3) So-called "Padded" traps - steel jawed leg-hold traps with a bit of synthetic material stuck onto the steel jaws.

Many of these traps are even worse than before. Many traps (Conibears and Leg-Hold traps) are now being made even stronger and more powerful (and more painful!) than ever before.

For example, some Leg-Hold traps are now being made with four powerful springs instead of the regular two. And some of these have already been officially approved for use for the first time, thanks to the obscenely low standard set out in this International Agreement.

Many animals aren't covered by this agreement at all. Fox, mink, squirrels, skunks, opossums, and wolverines are not covered at all by the terms of this agreement. 

Fox and mink will continue to be legally and commonly trapped in various varieties of steel jawed leg-hold traps .

Why was this new wording introduced, and the Agreement signed? The European Union was about to ban all furs from Canada because the European Parliament agreed that they did not want to support the use of cruel leg-hold traps that Canada was still commonly using. The Canadian government, after a long struggle, finally misled the European Union to exempt Canada from their fur ban, by convincing them that by signing this international trapping agreement, leg-hold traps and other cruel traps would be outlawed within a number of years. 

Sadly, cruel trapping continues as usual.

(For more Hot Topics, see our Current Campaigns links from our Home page).

Home    Contact Fur-Bearer Defenders    Donate/Join/Renew