Beaver Trapping Still Popular in Some Areas

Many of the first inhabitants of what is now North Dakota depended on hunting and gathering for subsistence. Many of the first explorers of European descent, more than 200 years ago, were trappers and hunters.

They trapped beavers and just generally lived off the land, from Pembina to Fort Abercrombie, depending on nature’s bounty to maintain life on the prairies.

Trapping is not as prevalent today. A generation or two ago, many a farm kid, or the farmer himself, made spending money – and sometimes pretty good money – running a trap line. The countryside has fewer farms and kids now, and therefore fewer trap lines. In addition, maintaining a trap line is a time-consuming commitment, and I think we can all attest that for some reason nobody seems to have has much time now as they did years ago.

Fox Trapping is on a steady decline.

Fur prices are down as well. In the late 1970s a prime coyote or fox could fetch more than $75. Nowadays, trappers or hunters do well to get more than $20.

When I was growing up, my dad ran a trap line in south central North Dakota. From fox and mink, to muskrat and badger, you never knew what you would find on the trap line.

The first subscription ever to bear my name was for “The Trapper” newspaper. Dad bought it as a gift for me, for helping him on the trap line 20-plus years ago. I have fond memories of spending my after-school time riding with Dad across LaMoure County in the old blue Ford pickup.

What happened? I don’t know. I guess over the year’s money and time became an issue, though I don’t remember Dad trapping simply for financial gain. It was another outlet for his enjoyment of all things outdoors.

The last time I trapped anything was in the early 1990s as part of a summer job, catching raccoons, skunks and other varmints on nesting islands, to help improve waterfowl reproduction success. Since then, it just hasn’t been a priority for me, though I often think about getting back into it.

Trapping requires a high degree of responsibility. Traps must be checked each and every day, so gas money and time are important factors. In the last two decades, furbearer populations have varied greatly. An epidemic of mange greatly reduced fox populations and also hurt coyote populations.

“Mange has taken it’s toll the last 20 years,” according to Jacquie Ermer, North Dakota Game and Fish Department furbearer biologist, “but indications are that we’re moving up, our fox populations seem to be significantly higher than even just three years ago.”

Predator hunting still rises in popularity

While trapping is not as popular today as it once was, furbearer hunting is on the increase. Fox and coyote callers have stayed in the field, despite reduced predator numbers.

“Our statistics are showing furbearer hunters and trappers are spending more time in the field,” Ermer added, “but success has been declining.” As mange retreats, those statistics should balance out.

The North Dakota Furtakers Association is a network of passionate individuals dedicated to educating people about the art of trapping. A soft-cover manual is an excellent source of furbearer and trapping information. From historical accounts, species biology and equipment lists, to draw baits, ethics and even snaring, this is an exceptional publication for prospective young trappers, or anyone else interested in furbearers and furtaking in North Dakota.

The future? In a lot of back yards this winter, you’ll find a youngster trying to catch a rabbit or squirrel in a cardboard box or some other contraption. Come spring they’ll trap gophers too. Some of them will maintain that interest until they’re old enough to run a real trap line, just like I did some 20 years ago.

Related Articles

• The Realities of a Hunting Bounty (4)
• The Importance of Trapping (0)
• Introducing Kids to Trapping (0)

The shear principle of wildlife management makes it a work in progress, much like any other modern process of continued evaluation and testing and trying. What was considered acceptable yesterday may fall into the realm of objectionable in short order.

Such is the case with bounties. Bounties, whether for gophers, skunks, rabbits or coyotes, are not a new phenomenon. They have been around in one form or another since the settling of North Dakota’s prairies.

The state Game and Fish Department itself was a willing, and then a reluctant participant in the bounty system until 1961, when the North Dakota legislature decided to stop using state money to pay bounties. Prior to that point, the state paid out more than $2 million in bounties for fox, coyote and other species, with little to show for it. In fact, the fox population likely expanded considerably in the years prior to 1961.

Over the past year I’ve had many questions about bounties and it’s time to take a closer look at why bounties are no longer considered a scientifically efficient or accepted method of controlling a wildlife population.

The biology of a bounty

A bounty in its simplest form is the payment of money as an incentive to get people to harvest what could be termed as harmful wildlife species – something that hurts either game species or farm operations. Since North Dakota became a state, wolves, coyotes, fox, skunks, rattlesnakes, jackrabbits, crows, gophers and several other species were on the list of animals for which the state at one time or another paid a bounty.
 
A bounty was probably part of the reason wolves were eliminated from the state, and most people thought that was a good thing. Until the coyotes started moving in.

In the 1940s and ‘50s, driven by the prospect of bounties, people used airplanes and poisons to subdue the coyote population. At the time some people thought that was a good thing. Until the fox population expanded across the state.

From the mid-1940s until 1961, the state paid out more than $500,000 in fox bounties. The number of fox turned in for bounties went from around 20,000 to 50,000 during that same time.

Clearly, using a bounty to control the fox population didn’t work. But why?

One reason is that some species, like coyotes or fox, have high reproductive and recruitment potential and their response to a temporarily reduced population in an area is to have larger litters of young.

Instead of 4-5 pups per litter, you may see 6-8 pups carrying through into the next year because of decreased competition.

Another way to visualize: next spring when you are spraying dandelions in the back yard, spray 5 percent of them, or just one square yard. Will that cure the problem? Not for long.

Even if you killed all the dandelions growing in your yard, seeds can still blow in. It would take a coordinated effort over a large area to significantly reduce dandelion potential for individual yard owners. The same goes for bounties. For fox and coyotes, biologists estimate a population reduction of half to two-thirds would be required to produce any noticeable long-term benefits.

Some people even feel that wildlife managers are against hunting predators because they don’t support bounties. That’s simply just not true. Hunting is an effective part of wildlife management, whether it’s deer, geese or coyotes. The difference with a bounty is that money, not wildlife management and recreation, becomes the priority of those participating. When this subtle shift is made, the greed of green can overshadow the goal of managed hunting and taking of animals. The goal shifts from hunters taking coyotes, to bounty hunters earning money.

The devils advocate

A follow up question is usually thrown right back on the table by bounty proponents. “Well didn’t they work years ago?” The short answer is, that depends on your definition of “work.”

For one the rules of engagement and acceptable methodology have changed. Money, whether through protecting sheep and cattle or earned via bounties was the driving force behind clearing the prairie of large predators such as wolves. The methodology was crude and many of those historical practices are now illegal.

Poisons were widely used and we now know and better understand that poisoning of animals can have detrimental effects on non-target species as well.

Putting dollar signs on wildlife in the form of a bounty erodes the value and worth of that particular fish or wildlife species, no matter if its gophers, skunks, coyotes or wolves. What sometimes happens is that otherwise legal and ethical hunters skirt their responsibility to promote a positive image of hunting, in the name of earning a reward in the form of a monetary bounty. Violating laws, both ethical and regulatory in nature, doesn’t promote the heritage of hunting positively.

Another factor against bounties is how much they actually increase the normal harvest. For instance, if the annual coyote harvest from hunting and trapping in an area is 100, how many of those animals that would have been taken anyway will be turned in for a bounty?

And how many road kills would get turned in? How many animals from out of the area? How many from out of state?

When you add up all those factors, the actual cost per additional animal taken out of a population is much higher than a single bounty payment. Over the long run, bounties just aren’t cost effective, or practically effective. That’s why the state stopped supporting them nearly 45 years ago.

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Youth in the Outdoors (0)
• You Alone Make it a Successful Season (0)
• Wishing for Snow (0)
• Winter Weather Predictions (0)

Fisheries and wildlife managers continue to emphasize the importance of retaining current hunters and anglers, and recruiting new members into their fraternity.

But what about the future of trapping?

I would venture to guess that, in a lot of back yards this winter; you’ll find a youngster trying to catch a rabbit in a cardboard box or some other contraption. Come spring they might try to trap ground squirrels, too.

For most kids, that’s a natural curiosity. However, those innocent quests for backyard wildlife are more likely to lead to an interest in hunting as an adult, instead of an interest in trapping.

The same goes for fishing. Putting a worm on a hook, attaching a bobber and waiting for a bluegill to pull the bobber under can influence a child to become an angler for life. Getting a child interested in trapping involves so much more.

Kids who grow up exposed to football can tell you the name of the coach, where the players are from, etc. You’d be surprised what they know about their favorite pastime.

The same level of knowledge is apparent for those who are exposed to furtaking and trapping. It’s just that the number of kids who have an interest in trapping is much smaller than the number of kids interested in football – or fishing or hunting.
 
Rick Tischafer and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department are trying to change that. Tischafer is president of the North Dakota Fur Hunters and Trappers Association. Instead of standing idly by, he and many others have been cooperatively working with Game and Fish to develop an education program directed at trapping and hunting of furbearers.

The project is almost ready to launch. Volunteer instructors will cover trapping history, biology and identification, ethics and responsibilities, hunting and trapping equipment, hunting and trapping techniques, and fur handling and marketing.

As with most things, developing an interest is much easier when learning from someone with experience. Through this program, prospective trappers and furbearer hunters can learn why they’d have a difficult time trying to catch a coyote with the same setup needed to catch a mink. And vice versa.

Seasoned trappers realize the most successful trap types, sizes and baiting methods for mink to muskrats to coyotes or bobcat. They also know the habits and habitats of each of North Dakota’s furbearer species, and what’s needed to meet the legal and ethical standards for modern day trapping.

North Dakota still has a small but solid base of furtakers despite a depressed fur market, increased cost of gasoline, and a host of other things that can compete with time outdoors. Like hunter education and fishing instructors across the state, they are now set up to share their passion and volunteer many, many hours helping not only youngsters, but adults as well who want to learn about trapping and furbearer hunting.

To learn more about the program, or if you’re interested in becoming a volunteer, visit the North Dakota Fur Hunters and Trappers Association website at www.ndfhta.com.

Related Articles

• The Realities of a Hunting Bounty (4)
• The Importance of Trapping (0)
• Fur Trapping – What Happened? (3)

There are mixed feelings throughout the country regarding trapping

There probably isn’t an outdoor activity that has fallen under more scrutiny than trapping.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, because over the past decade, people in the wildlife management field have done a lot of research to evaluate traps and trapping. The intent has been to find ways to improve and refine methods for capturing furbearing animals, as well as maintain support for trapping as part of scientific wildlife management.

Rick Tischaefer is a North Dakota trapper and beyond that he has worked extensively with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the umbrella organization encompassing the world’s fish and wildlife managers, top research biologists and scientists. His work with IAFWA and others has helped develop recommendations and education programs relating to trapping called Best Management Practices, based on the most extensive study of animal traps ever conducted in the United States.

Tischaefer points out, “Roughly 10 percent of our population are either trappers or strongly support trapping; and another 10 percent oppose any kind of trapping in most situations. The 80 percent in the middle are more or less neutral but may lean one way or the other depending on the circumstances.”

It’s important to understand that trapping is a highly regulated activity. Not only have the tools and techniques improved over the years, but furbearer harvest is closely monitored to ensure that populations remain healthy. Any one who traps must also follow strict rules established and enforced by state fish and wildlife agencies.

For example, in North Dakota, the carcasses of bobcats taken by hunting or trapping must be turned over to the Game and Fish Department for research purposes. In addition, the types of traps that can be used, and when, where and how they can be used, are also spelled out in law.

Getting into trapping isn't as hard as many think, just follow the signs and learnd from them

Many people probably associate trapping with taking animals solely for their fur, but there’s a much broader scope. In North Dakota, most of us have heard of someone, or have ourselves had to deal with beavers plugging waterways or destroying trees. Trapping is one of the effective and efficient means for addressing such a situation.

Another example on a large scale is dealing with nutria, a non-native muskrat-like furbearer that escaped into the wild in the southern United States. Nutria have destroyed critical wetland vegetation, and trapping is making a difference in dealing with the problem.

In Florida, raccoons like to feast on eggs deposited on beaches by endangered sea turtles. When the need to protect these eggs became apparent, citizens at first guarded the nests. However, as human interest waned, trapping became a more efficient and effective method to assist these rare species.

Trapping is also a way to capture animals for research purposes. In Chicago, metropolitan coyote are caught and fitted with a radio-collar so their movements can be tracked.

Closer to home, trapping helps deal with conflicts caused by raccoons, coyotes, skunks and other animals. In a way, it’s a standard similar to trapping mice, but on a bigger scale.

Animals that are trapped also provide benefits besides their fur. Beaver castor is an ingredient in many high end perfumes. Believe it or not, muskrat is served in some of the finest restaurants on the east coast.

IAFWA and its state and private conservation partners have been developing the Best Management Practices for years, with heavy emphasis on research and testing parameters. These guidelines include technical recommendations from experts, and suggestions for equipment and techniques that ensure the welfare of animals and avoid unintended captures.

The BMPs provide wildlife professionals with information to help them manage and conserve furbearers and improve animal welfare in trapping programs. They can also help people understand that managed trapping doesn’t threaten wildlife populations, and can in some situations even help improve wildlife populations.

The Best Management Practices for Trapping can be found at “www.furbearermgmt.org” or “www.ndfhta.org”.

Related Articles

• The Realities of a Hunting Bounty (4)
• The Furbearers of North Dakota (0)
• Predator Hunting Tips (9)
• Predator Hunting Tactics (5)
• ND Predator Hunting & Trapping (0)