Exclamation NH HB 1579 -- Bill to ban use of all traps in NH - trappers and WCOs except cages



Introduced Jan 10, 2014

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Fourteen

AN ACT prohibiting the use of certain leghold or foothold traps for the taking of animals.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Title. The provisions of this act shall be known as Andrews’s bill, for a 4-year-old dog that suffocated in a conibear trap in 2012 set for fishers.

2 New Section; Fish and Game; Certain Traps Prohibited. Amend RSA 210 by inserting after section 11-a the following new section:

210:11-b Traps Prohibited; Penalty.

I. No person, whether or not licensed by the fish and game department, shall use any type of steel-jaw leghold or foothold trap, off-set or padded trap jaw trap, egg-trap, body-crushing conibear traps, tightening or non-tightening snares, or any similar traps made of metal, steel, or other materials. This prohibition shall also apply to landowners using traps on their own land and persons issued a special permit for trapping by the department.

II. A wildlife control operator licensed under RSA 210:24-b may use traps prohibited under paragraph I in animal damage control work until September 30, 2017, and such time after that date only as specially permitted by the fish and game department to provide for a period of transition to the use of alternative techniques that replace the prohibited traps.

III. Small traps designed for rats and mice are not prohibited under paragraph I if used to kill rats and mice in or under buildings. Mouse and rat traps are prohibited for use on any other animal.

IV. A person licensed for trapping by the fish and game department may use prohibited traps to safely capture an animal in order to rescue that animal.

V. A person may apply to the fish and game department for permission to use prohibited traps in the conduct of scientific research. The department may adopt rules for the issuance of permits and for the safe conduct of research.

VI. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs I, the executive director may authorize the use of steel-jaw or padded steel-jaw leghold traps or conibear or conibear type traps by the following persons: Members of the department or assigned wildlife control operators, if the executive director determines that such a trap is necessary in an emergency to protect the safety of humans, wild animals, or domestic animals.

VII. The fish and game department shall provide access to or referral for training in alternative techniques that replace the use of prohibited traps. The training opportunities shall be designed to meet the needs of licensed wildlife control operators.

VIII. Any person who has injured or killed a non-targeted animal, wild or domestic, including dogs and cats, when validly using a trap described in paragraph I, shall report such animals, date, and disposition to the department for inclusion in the fish and game department’s annual report.

IX. Any person who violates the provisions of this section or rules adopted pursuant to this section shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a violation and, if licensed, shall lose such person’s license as a trapper or wildlife control operator for 12 months. For a second or subsequent offense, a person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, if licensed, shall lose such person’s license as a trapper or wildlife control operator for a period of 2 years.

3 Reference Added; Penalties. Amend RSA 210:19, I to read as follows:

I. For each offense under RSA 210:1-4 inclusive, and RSA 210:11-14, inclusive, except as provided in RSA 210:11-b, a person shall be guilty of a violation if a natural person, or guilty of a misdemeanor if any other person; and for each otter, mink, muskrat, raccoon, sable, marten, or fisher taken or possessed contrary to the provisions thereof, any person shall be guilty of an additional violation.

4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2015.

LBAO

14-2046

12/13/13

HB 1579-FN - FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT prohibiting the use of certain leghold or foothold traps for the taking of animals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Fish and Game Department, Judicial Branch, Department of Justice, and New Hampshire Association of Counties state this bill, as introduced, will decrease state restricted revenue by $24,581 in FY 2015 and each year thereafter, and will increase state, county, and local expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2015 and each year thereafter. There will be no impact on county or local revenue.

METHODOLOGY:

The Fish and Game Department states this bill would effectively prohibit the use of all traps other than cage traps and would largely eliminate all trapping in the state. The Department assumes individuals would no longer purchase trapping licenses and an unknown percentage of wildlife control operators (WCOs) would likely no longer remain in business. The Department states the licenses issued for the 2012-2013 trapping year are as follows:



Link to additional and complete info
http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1579/2014

"III. Small traps designed for rats and mice are not prohibited under paragraph I if used to kill rats and mice in or under buildings. Mouse and rat traps are prohibited for use on any other animal."

While not the point of Charles posting this and not meaning to detract from it. Does anyone else always find it funny that folks can use a body grip trap on mice and rats, or in other states where bans have happened or been proposed, gophers, moles?

The civilized world who suggests trapping devices are inhumane like in this proposed ban, always wants to be sure that jane and john smith can continue to persecute their own household vermin and pest species, with traps that render the same result or much the same as a body grip. How about glue boards?

The folks making these bans have learned to exempt these types of traps, in Oregon they lost a ban when they added pocket gophers and moles and folks realized they wouldn't be able to use these, while WA passed a ban that included no gopher/mole traps, however folks were still using them.

Guess its okay to use devices you deem awful, if they serve your purpose at your house!

"and an unknown percentage of wildlife control operators (WCOs) would likely no longer remain in business."

With the current economy any business being impacted, the loss of tax revenue as well as the "income" spent in local communities should be used as a point of contention to this bill. WCO's should fight this as an attack on their business and the revenue it generates for the state and local economies. They are blunt and to the point in the above quote about putting people out of business. And that type of talk is not real popular with voting public right now.

While this is also affecting fur trapping I believe WCO's should stay away from that line of defense just for the simple reason that John and Jane Q public are going to be more sympathetic to business that want these tools to end wildlife situations at their home or property than they would be for fur trapping. After all in the bill they already address "body gripping" traps for commensal rodents in home, adding an exemption for WCO's should be job one for those who do this for their livelihood. Combining the two (fur trapping/WCO) creates confusions among those you (as a business) need support from. By all means fight the total bill but hit it from two fronts.

Tying this industry to fur trapping creates this type of issue as DNR or who ever is in charge lumps us all together as "trappers" while exempting body grip traps used by PCO's as they see them as legitimate businesses. Our goal should be to let those "in charge" know we are a legitimate, tax paying business who provide a needed SERVICE to the voting public. Not doing this for fun or extending our season.

Don't take this as an anti-trapping rant as it isn't but we are dealing with public perception here. And the anti's have done a good job over the last few decades of giving trapping a bad name in the eyes of the general public, while WCO work has a much better perception to the public. How many times have we all heard from a customer "I love animals but I CAN'T have them in my house" and they mean it. Many customers would never allow you on site to trap for fur but a little damage to their turf and it's an issue. Make sure they know you need these tools to end wildlife issues in their home or property and then earmark a percentage of your earnings from the use of those traps to fight for trapping rights.

We've had a couple of threads about this recently. One here and one in the Trapper Talk forum.

The good news is that the bill has, pretty much, zero chance of even getting out of committee never mind passing. F&G is firmly against it as are the folks in the senate, along with the vast majority of the house.

Steve Vaillancourt, the sponsor of the bill, is a nutjob who introduces this bill, or others like it, whenever he can. It has never even got out of committee so there's really no reason to stress it.

But, as time goes on he is picking up some more co-sponsors. That is a little troubling considering we are just north of the Mass. border and we all know what happened there.

It's important that we take the preemptive action of introducing our own bill, as trappers and businessmen, to ensure our rights. It's a slow process but there's currently plenty of support for it.

Hey SGS, If you ever get something written up or any ideas for a bill, Please Get in touch with me via pm or give me a call. I would like to be proactive here also. I really think all of New England should be proactive and stick together. It sure looks like our extreme liberalism has been creeping its way north and you know it wont stop. I have spent at least 10 years of legislative sessions at our state house testifying against these extremists and I can tell you they don't stop. If we stop being the voices of reason something will eventually get passed.

It's a constant fight with these people. Every year here we have two state reps that plug in a trapping law somewhere. Last time it was attached to a school safety bill. Hearing rumors that they will bring in an animal advocate this year. Always keep your guard up.

notice USDA was not included as part of the ban.......

What do yo think of this?

http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/94891.html