Home‎ > ‎Trapping‎ > ‎

Other State Legislation


OR: petition to Fish & Wildlife Commission

posted Apr 12, 2012, 11:54 AM by Scott Slocum   [ updated Apr 12, 2012, 12:56 PM ]

The following organizations petitioned the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission for stronger trapping regulations on 3/9/2012. Key points:
  1. Require all trappers to check their traps and snares every 24 hours;
  2. Require trappers to attach tags to their traps and snares with their name and telephone number;
  3. Prohibit traps and snares on public lands within 100 feet of  trails and other premises used by the public; and
  4. Require trappers to post clearly visible warning signs within a five-foot radius of their traps and snares on public lands, stating that their devices pose a danger to the safety of humans and animals.

Exemptions: trapping of gophers, moles, mountain beavers, rats and mice on property owned by the person setting the traps.



Analysis by SS-Slocum.info

Point #3 doesn't go far enough, but otherwise the key points of this petition make sense, and correspond to the following traits of a humane, responsible trapper:
  1.   checks his traps at least once a day,
  2.   is personally accountable for his actions,
  3.   does not set traps that are likely to injure or kill non-target animals (e.g. dogs),
  4.   keeps his neighbors informed of his activities.

(This is not meant to be a complete list of all the traits of a humane, responsible trapper; only a four-point list to correspond with the four key points of this petition.)

CA: no body-gripping trapping for recreation or fur trade.

posted Apr 8, 2012, 9:18 AM by Scott Slocum   [ updated Nov 24, 2013, 9:13 AM ]

California's 1998 ballot Initiative, Proposition 4, a ban on specified traps and poisons, was passed in 1998 and is still in force.

It prohibits trapping mammals classified as fur bearing (or non-game) with body gripping traps for recreation or commerce in fur. 

This includes, but is not limited to, steel-jawed leghold traps, padded-jaw leghold traps, conibear traps, and snares.

Cage and box traps, nets, suitcase-type live beaver traps and common rat and mouse traps are not considered body-gripping traps.

California isn't the only State with trapping regulations like this. In his article Is Trapping Doomed?, Tom Reed of the High Country News described similar trapping regulations in three other states:

"Voters in three states, Massachusetts, Colorado and California, have banned the recreational and commercial use of all leg-hold, body-gripping and snare traps. Arizona bans such trapping on public lands but allows it on private land."

These are not "trapping bans"; they still allow the following forms of trapping:
  • Wildlife management using a full set of trapping methods.
  • Pest control indoors and in the yard.
  • Recreational and commercial trapping using cage traps, nets, and suitcase traps.
These States continue to address wildlife problems that require human intervention. They've simply put the most dangerous parts of wildlife management into the hands of professionals who are accountable for operating safely and responsibly. In other words, these States are not getting in the way of pest control or wildlife management, but they are making the State safer for everyone--including people's dogs.

WI: challenging private-property rights.

posted Mar 28, 2012, 5:38 PM by Scott Slocum   [ updated Apr 8, 2012, 9:14 AM ]

The trap that killed Phillip.

Wisconsin State
Senate Bill 226 seems to propose a challenge to private-property rights and State land-acquisition rights regarding hunting and trapping.

This bill creates a 15-member sporting recruitment and retention council. The bill requires the council to study, and advise and make recommendations to the natural resources board and the legislature on, ways to improve the recruitment and retention of hunters and trappers. The bill requires the council to conduct an initial study of options and recommendations for increasing access to private land for hunting and trapping and options and recommendations for simplifying DNR hunting and trapping rules.

This bill prohibits DNR from awarding a grant under the stewardship program unless DNR first considers whether the grant will benefit local businesses and the economy of this state. It also prohibits DNR from acquiring land under the stewardship program unless hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, and cross-country skiing will be allowed on the land acquired or unless every member of the natural resources board approves the land acquisition.

WI: dog-safe

posted Mar 28, 2012, 5:35 PM by Scott Slocum   [ updated Apr 25, 2012, 2:12 PM ]

Wisconsin State Legislation proposes improvements in the safety of body-grip trapping, as follows:
  • Ban BG 160 traps (6" x 6") and larger on land.
  • Continue to allow BG 120 traps (5" x 5") and smaller on land (these still kill dogs).
  • Continue to allow all sizes of body-grip traps at least half-submerged under water.
Wisconsin State Senator Fred Risser

CT: leg-hold buffer zone

posted Mar 28, 2012, 11:07 AM by Scott Slocum   [ updated Mar 28, 2012, 5:31 PM ]

Connecticut General Assembly 2/28/2012: Representative Kim Rose and the Select Committee on Children introduced the following trap-regulation bill HB 5324.

Connecticut State Representative Kim Rose

Original proposal for new trapping regulations (to be added to the Connecticut General Statutes, Section 26-72):

Reasons for bill: reports of companion animals being caught in illegal leghold traps. In an incident in Ansonia Connecticut, children found a companion animal (cat) caught in a leghold trap. The cat later had to be euthanized. This bill seeks to keep children safe by restricting where leghold traps may be placed.
Any person who sets, places or attends any trap shall report each incident of the trapping of a nontarget animal to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection within twenty-four hours.

As used in this subsection, "nontarget" animal means an animal of a species not intended to be taken.

(c) No person shall place any leghold trap on or within one thousand five hundred feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, licensed child day care center, as defined in section 19a-77, that is identified as a child day care center by a sign posted in a conspicuous place, state park, municipal park, municipal playground, public boat launch, public road, public highway, roadside rest area, public picnic area, public campground, blazed trail or state hiking trail. As used in this subsection, "leghold trap" means a device designed to close on the foot or leg of an animal with sufficient force to hold the animal until the person tending the trap returns, and includes, but is not limited to, a steel jawed leghold style trap that is either padded or unpadded. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent any person duly authorized by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection from setting a leghold trap within one thousand five hundred feet of such areas listed in this subsection to control nuisance wildlife.

Amendments by the Joint Committee:
  • deleted “one thousand five hundred” and replaced with “seven hundred fifty”.
  • deleted “public road” and “public highway”. 

Status on 3/28/2012:

Referred to the House and Senate Committees on Environment.


Summary by SS-Slocum.info
  1. It's not clear to me why this discussion, news article, and legislation are limited to leg-hold traps, and don't mention body-gripping traps. Body-gripping traps are allowed in CT Statues Title 26, Chapter 490, Section 26-72 and in the CT Trapping Regulations.
  2. Controversial: require the reporting of non-target leg-hold trapping incidents (e.g. family pets that are injured or killed in leg-hold traps).
  3. Not controversial: prohibit leg-hold trapping near places where children play.
  4. Hot-button controversial: prohibit leg-hold trapping along roads except by State contractors.


Response by the National Trappers Association

There is a Raised Bill ( HB 5324 ) that is within the Select Committee on Children that is targetted to impose unrealistic restrictions on the placement of foot-hold traps.
This Bill is just another ploy to initiate an elimination of trapping by placing these unnecessary limitations on where we can place our traps.

We need OPPOSITION of this Bill in numbers at the scheduled Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday 03/06/2012.

If you cannot attend in person, send in your written tesomony and/or contact the members of this Committee to state your opposition.

IL: body-grip buffer zone

posted Mar 27, 2012, 9:17 AM by Scott Slocum   [ updated Mar 28, 2012, 5:29 PM ]


Illinois Senator Dan Duffy introduced the following safe-trapping bill SB 1704 on 2/9/2011.
Illinois Senator Dan Duffy

Synopsis as introduced:

Amends the Wildlife Code. Makes it unlawful to place, set, or maintain a body-gripping trap (other than an underwater set) within 30 feet of bait that is not completely covered and concealed from sight and (ii) to place, set, use, or maintain certain types of traps within one-quarter mile of a residence, school, picnic area, playground, beach, campground, road, highway, public trail, golf course, or parking lot. Exempts certain government employees as well as their duly authorized agents from the latter of these prohibitions if certain conditions are met. Redefines the term "bait" to include certain types of oils.

Status on 3/27/2012:

"Postponed" by the Agriculture and Conservation Committee.
Summary by SS-Slocum.info
  1. This bill would require bait to be covered. That's a routine precaution by responsible trappers to protect raptors.
  2. Not controversial: prohibit trapping near places where children play.
  3. Hot-button controversial: prohibit trapping along roads except by government employees and contractors.

Reaction from the Illinois Trappers Association June 2011 Report

"The ITA has been very active this legislative session in Springfield, and I feel our efforts in that area have been fruitful. SB1704 was our first baptism into fire; this legislation was introduced by Sen. Dan Duffy from Barrington Illinois. The language in this bill would have stopped trapping on over 19 million acres of Illinois lands, and would have imposed regulations on body grips to set back distances of a ¼ mile from roads, parks, schools, golf courses, etc. The bill never made it out of committee before the deadline, but I don’t want everyone to think it is just going to go away. This bill could come at use this fall in the veto session, or again this session in the form of a shell bill. We will keep an eye open on it."


1-6 of 6