Plan to ban beaver traps is short-sighted

When trapping animals is mentioned, many people think about the Disney movies or children's books, which portray trappers as evil people who only want to hurt animals with giant, toothy traps. In light of a legislative proposal to ban leg-hold and body gripping traps in Connecticut, which make instant kills, it is important for people to understand the ecological and societal impacts of banning trapping in our state.

First and foremost, there are few natural predators of beavers here in Connecticut because of the density of the human population. Coyotes, bobcats, and birds of prey feed on young beavers, but adult beavers are large enough to defend themselves and are usually left alone. Thus, trappers are one of the only sources of adult beaver mortality besides the occasional road kill or old age.

If trappers are removed from the equation, beaver populations will skyrocket all around the state. We need only look to our animal-friendly neighbors to the north to see how this works. In 1994, the beaver population in Massachusetts was estimated at approximately 23,000. In 1996, the animal-rights movement successfully promoted a ban on leg-hold and body-gripping traps. By the year 2000, the beaver population in Massachusetts had more than tripled, to an estimated 70,000.

"So what?" you might ask. Who cares if there are a lot of beavers? Aren't more animals better for the environment? The answer to this question from anyone who understands basic ecology should be a resounding "no."

Obviously animal populations should not be driven down to the brink of extinction. Everyone understands that. What some people fail to understand is that high densities of animals, like high densities of humans, create problems. For example, the large volume of geese using Mirror Lake contributes significantly to the high levels of nutrients in the water, which cause algae blooms.

Large populations of beavers cause problems of a whole different magnitude. The well fields of Sterling, Mass., are located close to the Stillwater River. Prior to the ban on leg-hold and body gripping traps, beavers were never a problem on the river. By 1999, however, 17 beaver dams were built less than four miles downstream of the well fields. These aren't small structures we're talking about either. One dam - less than 500 yards from the wells - was over five feet tall and nearly 100 yards wide.

Hurricane Floyd struck the area in 1999. Had the river been empty of beaver dams - as it was during past storms - there would have been no problem. This time, however, the network of beaver dams caused the river to flood into the well fields, bringing E. coli and coliform bacteria with it.

Sterling was forced to implement a costly program to add chlorine and advise residents to boil water before consuming it. Three months later, the town received permission to demolish the two large beaver dams just downstream of the well fields. This demolition allowed the river to resume its natural flow and the levels of bacteria receded with the river water.

Another fun fact from Massachusetts is that more beavers are killed yearly by body gripping traps now than before the ban on body gripping traps. This is because the state of Massachusetts now allows trapping with body gripping traps if water supplies or private property are being affected by beavers - a practice known as reactive management. So, animal rights activists are causing the "inhumane" death of even more beavers because of their ban.

Now, animal rights activists have turned their sights on our state. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the Connecticut Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator Association - which stands to make money from the ban - have both spoken out against it. That should tell you something; when an organization of private contractors voices their opposition to a bill that would make them money in tough economic times, it must be pretty bad.

This all begs the question, what are our legislators thinking? After hearing expert testimony from a state agency and a private non-profit, and looking at the example set by a neighboring state, our legislative environmental committee still voted 22-8 to push the bill into the General Assembly.

S.B. 944 is terrible legislation. It will disenfranchise trappers, take more funding away from the Department of Environmental Protection and cause over-population by nuisance animals. More taxpayer money will be spent on reimbursing people for beaver damage and dealing with contaminated water supplies. This legislation, considering the current financial situation, is asinine at best and malicious at worst. Call or e-mail your local representatives and tell them to stop this nonsense.