Examining the Role of Trapping in Wildlife Management

Wildlife managers recognize regulated trapping as an important tool for managing species and habitat, protecting public and private property, and restoring wildlife populations—but does the public feel the same?
Trapping is perhaps one of the least understood and most controversial issues in natural resource management. What much of the general population does not know is that trapping is strictly regulated and enforced by each state’s fish and wildlife agency, which is staffed by professional biologists and conservation officers. Each state restricts the species that can be trapped and the kinds of traps that are allowed, and only licensed trappers are allowed to participate during a trapping season. Regulated trapping is an important way for biologists to collect information about wildlife, including information about wildlife diseases that can affect animal species or people. Research shows that even endangered species can benefit from trapping—sea turtles, black footed ferrets, whooping cranes, and other species are protected from predation and habitat damage caused by foxes, coyotes, and nutria through regulated trapping.

Responsive Management’s research on trapping indicates that public attitudes toward trapping exist within a complex web of psychological and informational factors. Any understanding of public attitudes toward trapping must recognize the three underlying issues regarding public attitudes toward trapping:

Natural resource agencies and organizations should take these core issues into account, and any understanding of the human dimensions of trapping should keep in mind these three fundamental underlying values.

The first issue affecting public attitudes toward trapping is that the public cares deeply about America’s wildlife resources. Responsive Management research shows that many people are concerned about the impact trapping may have on wildlife resources, and there is a direct statistical positive correlation between opposition to trapping and agreement with the statement, “Even though trapping is regulated by the state, regulated trapping can still cause wildlife species to become endangered.” This is why the terms “regulated” and “legal” trapping are so important when discussing trapping and why the use of these terms can alter public opinion on trapping so dramatically. The public wants to be assured that trapping will not harm or endanger America’s wildlife resources. Natural resource agencies and organizations play a key role in allaying the fears of Americans toward the perceived harm caused by trapping. State natural resource agencies are seen as the most credible source for information on trapping for many reasons, but one of the more important reasons is that they are responsible for the protection of wildlife and natural resources.

The second key to understanding public attitudes toward trapping is that the public takes seriously the harvesting of animals. Harvesting animals is a value-laden activity, and any motivation for killing animals that is not seen as legitimate is rejected. Responsive Management survey results indicate major swings in public approval of trapping based on different reasons for trapping. The overall legitimacy of trapping is not necessarily the determining factor in support of trapping as much as the specific reason for trapping. Trapping that ultimately helps wildlife (trapping for relocation or trapping as part of a biological study) and trapping to protect human health or property (trapping for food, trapping to reduce crop/garden damage, and trapping to reduce human property damage) are considered acceptable, while trapping for economic or recreational reasons (trapping to make money, trapping for fur clothing, and trapping for recreation) are considered unacceptable to a large percentage of the public.

The third fundamental issue regarding public attitudes toward trapping is that the public is highly uninformed about trapping. In the absence of information on trapping, the public is free to project onto trapping whatever image first comes to mind. And for much of the public, the image of trapping burned into the American psyche is of a helpless animal doing anything it can to escape a “steel-toothed” trap, including chewing off its own leg.

Responsive Management research has determined that an important underlying cause of the general disapproval of trapping appears to be due to a lack of information. There are significant relationships between approval and disapproval of trapping and awareness that trapping occurs, awareness that it is regulated, familiarity with the state agency responsible for regulating trapping, confidence in the state agency that regulates trapping, familiarity with trappers, knowledge of beneficial uses of animals harvested through trapping, and knowledge of methods used to make trapping more humane. The more information people possess about any of these trapping issues, the more likely they are to approve of trapping.

In a Responsive Management study conducted in Indiana, Connecticut, and Wisconsin, most people (between 54% and 61% depending on the state) either strongly or moderately agreed that trapping—even when regulated by the state—could still cause a species to become extinct. This indicates that the average person does not know what “regulation” means. It is not enough to say that trapping is regulated. Regulation needs to have a context. People need to know what regulation means, who does it, why it is important, where it is done (in the field for monitoring, in an office for setting limits), and when it is used.

People, when uninformed, tend to assign a stereotypical, negative image to trapping. Trapping, due to lack of information, is seen in terms of an animal chewing off its leg, and trappers are relegated to “self-serving.” The solution to counteracting the stereotypical, negative image of trapping is to present trapping as a sanctioned, scientific solution. The abstract, negative connotations associated with trapping need to be overcome with concrete positive reasons for trapping. The public needs to know that trapping is sanctioned (by the state), scientific (i.e., based on population estimates set by biologists), and a solution (i.e., to a problem). The state sanctioning brings credibility through sponsorship, the use of scientific methods brings credibility through reason, and the presentation of trapping as the solution to a well-defined problem gives trapping a reason for being.

Responsive Management recently conducted several studies addressing this and related questions. A survey implemented for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) determined public opinion on trapping and trapping-related issues in Connecticut, Indiana, and Wisconsin—this study followed a nationwide survey of trappers that Responsive Management conducted for AFWA to collect updated trend data regarding the use of traps nationally, regionally, and by state.

In another study, Responsive Management conducted focus groups of the general population, veterinarians, and veterinary technicians to assess their awareness of and attitudes toward trapping and trapping issues in the United States. Select messages concerning trapping were also tested for reactions and opinions.