When I was president of NWCOA, I was concerned that the proposed D.C. wildlife control law would be introduced in the states should it be passed as written. I did some work on trying to change the proposed law before stepping down, but unfortunately the law was passed with very little changes.

For those unaware of the law, it makes using anything besides a cage trap illegal (except for homeowners and mice/rat control), requires unrealistic licensing procedures and fees, requires the operator to give written reports to the client with possible solutions where capture is the last option, requires that family groups of problem wildlife be kept together, along with several other items such as trap covers, relocation mandates, etc.

Now, a law based on the DC law is being introduced into NY. I highly urge everyone to review the proposed law and then join or at least get with the NYSWMA to see how they can help. Should this bill pass in NY as written, it will launch a nationwide campaign to rewrite and create legislation for our industry.

Here is the proposed bill (modified to make for easer reading on this forum):

Section 1. Subdivision 5 of section 11-0524 of the environmental conservation law, as added by chapter 265 of the laws of 2002, is amended and four new subdivisions 6, 7, 8, and 9 are added to read as follows:

5. Any person licensed pursuant to this section shall submit annually a report to the department which specifies each client's name and address, the date work was performed, the species controlled, the abatement method used, the disposition of the animal, A COPY OF THE CLIENT'S WRITTEN CONSENT TO THE CONTROL METHOD, and any other information as required by the department. IF AN ANIMAL IS EUTHANIZED, THE REASONS FOR EUTHANIZING THE ANIMAL AND THE METHOD USED TO EUTHANIZE THE ANIMAL SHALL BE INDICATED ON THE REPORT. IF THE ANIMAL IS TAKEN WITH A METHOD THAT INJURES OR KILLS THE ANIMAL, THE REASONS FOR USING SUCH METHOD SHALL BE INDICATED. The department shall annually update a list of nuisance wildlife control operators and make it available to the public in both printed and electronic formats.

6. UNLESS PROHIBITED BY LAW OR NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT, NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL OPERATORS SHALL USE NON-LETHAL METHODS AND METHODS NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE AN ANIMAL TO BE INJURED TO RESOLVE NUISANCE WILDLIFE PROBLEMS. UNLESS PROHIBITED BY LAW OR NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT, ANIMALS CAUGHT IN BOX TRAPS OR OTHERWISE CAPTURED ALIVE SHALL BE RELEASED ALIVE IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS, UNLESS THE ANIMAL IS DISTRESSED, DISEASED, OR INJURED, IN WHICH CASE THE NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL OPERATOR SHALL TRANSPORT THE ANIMAL TO A VETERINARIAN OR LICENSED WILDLIFE REHABILITATOR APPROVED TO ACCEPT THE CAPTURED SPECIES. CAPTURED WILDLIFE SHALL BE TRANSPORTED IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO MINIMIZE STRESS TO THE ANIMAL, EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS, AND POTENTIAL HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC. REASONABLE EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE TO PRESERVE FAMILY UNITS. DEPENDENT YOUNG WILDLIFE SHALL NOT BE ABANDONED IN A STRUCTURE OR LEFT WITHOUT PROVISION FOR CARE DURING OR AFTER THE REMOVAL OF WILDLIFE. IF AN ANIMAL IS EUTHANIZED, IT SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER THAT IS THE LEAST STRESSFUL, QUICKEST AND MOST PAINLESS TO THE ANIMAL WHILE PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY.

7. A. BEFORE A NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL OPERATOR UNDERTAKES ANY CONTROL MEASURES, A NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL OPERATOR SHALL PROVIDE, TO THE CLIENT, IN WRITING, THE FOLLOWING: (1) AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PROBLEM, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM; (2) THE METHODS AND PRACTICES THAT MAY BE USED TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM, CLEARLY SPECIFYING POSSIBLE LETHAL AND NONLETHAL MEANS AND ANIMAL DISPOSITION OPTIONS; AND (3) AN ESTIMATE OF THE FEE TO BE CHARGED.

B. LETHAL METHODS AND METHODS LIKELY TO CAUSE AN ANIMAL TO BE INJURED MAY NOT BE USED IF SUCH USE WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION SIX OF THIS SECTION OR ANY OTHER LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION AND WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CLIENT.

8. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST A NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL OPERATOR AND SHALL DOCUMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT.

9. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROMULGATE RULES NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.

S 2. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law. Effective immediately, the addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized to be made and completed on or before such effective date.

One of the possibly missed parts of this by many would be the public information aspect of this and that it states that the clients information must be shared in a public report. The freedom of information act and private property owners has been a lawsuit that I know of well as my old agency had a lawsuit over this.

While most of what is written in this deal are things folks would fight, don't miss bringing up the idea that a private property owner will have their info on what services they used and signed off on published for the world to see. I would expect that this might help to make some legal rumbling over the issue as a whole.

Hope that makes sense, does in my head anyway.

The gist of this bill is to not only make a client sign saying they want the animal killed (the hope by hsus is that they will not do so if faced with signing a death sentence), that they can control the methods of removal or management used by pressuring non lethal only (a long held and pushed agenda by hsus) and ultimately to have a public record which you can bet they will use to pressure the govt. to further alter regulations after a year has passed with the law in place.

Would change the face of everything in this industry...

The D.C. Wildlife protection act and it spreading to other areas has been an issue I have personally addressed here on Trapperman and other sites. Unfortunately it has fallen on deaf ears for the most part.

NWCOA being proactive and establishing training and minimum operating standards for those in our industry is in part a direct result of the HSUS threat. It is much easier for HSUS to come into an area with no real training requirements or minimum standards and push their methods of wildlife control and with their budget it becomes an uphill battle. I feel it is much better to be proactive and present realistic and operator friendly methods of control, standards and training based on fact and proposed by those in the industry rather than HSUS or state regulators who for the most part do not understand what it is we do.

There have been some untrue statements posted about NWCOA training. Let me be blunt, minimum training and standards are just that a MINIMUM. They create a basic level of competency for those who perform wildlife control. NWCOA is telling no operator this is the way it MUST be done (unlike HSUS)but rather providing a measurable level of competency for those who perform commercial wildlife control for state regulators so they are able to inform HSUS and others that they have programs in place and a measurable level of competency among their licensed operators.

The BOTC is a common sense based training program reviewed and worked on by many operators. It's not a slam dunk to pass but it is also not some major hurdle to overcome. When done in person (compared to online version)it also has the side benefit of presenters and attendees going off text and sharing money making/saving ideas, control methods and much more. But again it does allow regulators in your area to have programs in place and HSUS would have less success in proposing unrealistic regulations when basic core principles are already in place.

NWCOA has had success defeating other attempts to implement feel good regulations most notably in California. DC was and is an uphill battle. It is a mess but NWCOA has and will continue to oppose and look for avenues of support to apply sound standards/methods and defeat HSUS control methods. Believe me ladies and gentlemen HSUS wants to fundamentally end wildlife control for many operators. Their method of control provided BY THEM can work in the red due to their funding. An operator can adapt to their current methods and be profitable but many will find it unworkable and will leave the industry which allows HSUS to install even more feel good/restrictive methods with less outcry. I believe their end goal is to end wildlife control unless it is performed by them or those they approve of/sanction. And I am still unsure of the possible ramifications (if any) of the judges ruling that fur trapping is not a commercial venture but rather a hobby pursuit. But what I am sure of, is if there is a way that the ruling could hurt operators HSUS will pursue it.

So for those who ask what NWCOA does for them this is an example of just what is done on a volunteer basis. We could use help. There are a number of committees within NWCOA such as the Government Affairs Committee, Scientific Advisory Committee, Training Standards & Certification Committee where members can direct the direction of NWCOA in addressing issues that face our industry.

This is the ultimate example why it is so important to join trade associations and BE A PART OF the group that is truly fighting FOR the survival of the industry, instead of being willfully ignorant about the direction HSUS and other anti groups are heading with this.

I would like to pose a question, although I guess that there might be different opinions as to the answer. Would legislation like this be detrimental or beneficial to Wildlife Services?

P.S. I'm really glad you guys have specifically mentioned the Humane Society of the United States. I find these people by far the most despised. PETA is a "walk in the park" compared to HSUS. Ask your local humane society about HSUS. They truly suck!

Well said Charles and Ron!

Paul with Wildlife Services and the pressure applied by HSUS (and other anti groups) against WS methods of control/tools used and other issues... I feel that in this case the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. And while I have issues with government competing with private operators I can not in good conscious align myself with any anti group to reach any goal. I also feel that HSUS attacking WS can be seen as a prelude of what they will use against this industry.

Are their issues between operators and WS? Sure. But I believe common ground would be easier to find, even with a government agency, compared to a group that believes that "rat families should be reunited" or that excluding wildlife from a structure is less stressful than lethal control. Myself and Vikki had a heated discussion with an HSUS operator and most of his "facts" were based on the feel good approach or somehow giving wildlife the ability to "feel" in a humanistic way.

A real simple way to think of this is how many of you would like the "crazy cat person" to have any say in your methods or choice of tools to perform any job?

Good answer Charles! This is what I had hoped I would hear. I'm sure there are many like me that have not or at least are not aware of any jobs taken away by WS that we would really want. I think that especially in this instance, having any small part of the government on our side may be a blessing.

As far as HSUS, I'm sure that they've made many studies that showed that the "crazy cat person" is the one most likely to make large contributions to their cause. ( Which is making money and has nothing to do with helping wildlife ) My greatest hope is that the people in WS have friends in the IRS who will thoroughly investigate and send all the officers of HSUS to do hard time in a prison full of poachers.

I vote Ron on the board!

So here it is folks... Please join our ranks in the membership.

I may be the odd man out here, but as a licensed wildlife control operator working in NY, I agree with most all of this legislation. The only point of contention I have is with submitting written consent on every job. We have so many companies in this area that do not follow even the most basic of protocols; mostly in my mind, because there isn't any. Maybe having a few hoops to jump through will weed out some of the companies that give the rest of us a bad name/image.



5. Any person licensed pursuant to this section shall submit annually a report to the department which specifies each client's name and address, the date work was performed, the species controlled, the abatement method used, the disposition of the animal,

(We already have to do this in NY, just don't have to provide written consent.)

6. UNLESS PROHIBITED BY LAW OR NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT, NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL OPERATORS SHALL USE NON-LETHAL METHODS AND METHODS NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE AN ANIMAL TO BE INJURED TO RESOLVE NUISANCE WILDLIFE PROBLEMS.

Great! Why so many companies in our area use lethal only, (because its easier) and then wonder why our squirrel/raccoon/bat populations have dropped of so bad that three companies went out of business this season is beyond me.

CAPTURED WILDLIFE SHALL BE TRANSPORTED IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO MINIMIZE STRESS TO THE ANIMAL, EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS, AND POTENTIAL HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC.

Seeing guys with raccoons in traps tied to the top of their ladder racks doing 80 down the highway is an all to often occurrence in my area. I welcome seeing trap covers being used.

DEPENDENT YOUNG WILDLIFE SHALL NOT BE ABANDONED IN A STRUCTURE OR LEFT WITHOUT PROVISION FOR CARE DURING OR AFTER THE REMOVAL OF WILDLIFE. IF AN ANIMAL IS EUTHANIZED, IT SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER THAT IS THE LEAST STRESSFUL, QUICKEST AND MOST PAINLESS TO THE ANIMAL WHILE PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY.

Again, Why would you want to leave babies behind to die in an attic? Yet it's done everyday by unskilled techs. We do to many dead animal's in attic removals that could have easily been avoided. And if you have to euthanize, I'm ok with doing it in most painless way possible.

8. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST A NUISANCE WILDLIFE CONTROL OPERATOR AND SHALL DOCUMENT ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT.

Again, Fantastic. I see it day in and day out. Companies not following protocol and getting away with it for years and years. Maybe if they kept track of every time someone called in and complained about operators doing something wrong/illegal they may be forced to also start taking action against them.

Tri-State, it is really hard for me to wrap my brain around your problem. Wisconsin is probably one of the least regulated states when it comes to ADC work. And yet we probably have less problems with professionalism than most states as well.

Blaming lethal methods for your drop in animal population is just wrong. Illinois has to euthanize and we don't. What's the difference in our animal populations? None!

We relocate just about every healthy animal that we catch. Why? Because relocation is a lot easier, not killing.

You do realize, of course, that the only reason for these rules is to drive every ADC company out of business, including you.
A couple of trumped up charges and you are out of business too.

As I started this post I'll put my .0007 cents in (Paul, that's 3.5% interest on .02).

The only individuals who will follow laws are the ones currently following them. Making additional laws or further restricting existing ones will never result in problems being solved as those following them are not causing problems in the first place.

I'm surprised with what is currently accepted and "on the books" for NY operators. Specific to reporting requirements, there is no scientific value to having a customer's name and address so why is it needed? If location is needed, then GPS coordinates could be provided instead. I'm not sure what, if anything, on the reports is considered public information, what the goals of DEC are with this information and thus what needs reported.

NYSWMA is holding their seminar April 4 & 5 and that will be a great time for this to be discussed with the NYSWMA membership and those in attendance with interests in NY.

Tristate, I can relate to your frustration, but instead of making laws and regulations why not consider doing a BMP instead? That can address issues that you are referring to and be incorporated into the training program. What will get change to happen is not laws, but training and peer pressure from others in the industry.

I completely agree with eric that there is no reason to have to provide homeowners names and phone numbers. But this is something we already have to do.

And to your point Paul, I realize lethal trapping is not solely responsible for drops in population, but I also know killing off healthy animals doesn't help either.

I also feel like a few guidelines in our industry/area would be helpful in combating some of the incompetence/carelessness I see on a daily basis.

For example, two years ago a company in our area killed thousands of bats that were living in an old stone mansion by simply foaming them into the walls and not putting up any eviction devices.

Complaints were made, and no action was ever taken against the company in question. Two years later they are still in business and still up to the same tactics.

On one hand; its personally good for me, because we routinely get paid to clean up their mess. But on the other hand, not only are they doing something illegal, but hurting our industry at the same time.

How many more bat proofing projects would we have done that year if thousands of bats had been evicted properly and had no choice but to filter through the neighborhood?

Good discussion points Eric and Tri-State. There are obviously many things folks can agree on in a professional light, everyone has concerns about who does the regulating and who is driving the bus so to speak more than anything I think.

We all know there are many who want no regulation, no training, no professional criteria.

No matter where folks fall, I would hope we all agree if our industry can put forward the formats, rules and guidelines or bmp's that we should be operating by it would be better than a group with a clear agenda that doesn't fit the bulk of what is going on in the real world.

One other aspect related to the legalities that is often overlooked is that though a law or series of laws may be put in place, legislation generally does not equal enforcement.

With wildlife laws this couldn't be more true, depending on the judge and the area of the violation, most folks will leave with less of a fine (if any) than they were paid just for a percentage of the job they sold or did that was afoul of regulations.

Take poaching for example, during college in NY I did two ride alongs with game wardens and heard story after story about the cases that were thrown out or dropped because simply the judge didn't care.

***

I know in my area I could report folks running afoul of game and fish policies and that as long as they aren't poaching most of them aren't going to even get a phone call or visit, simply the issue/staff time and so forth aren't there, let alone when it gets in front of a judge.

Though I'd like the guys who foam in thousands of bats to get dragged into court and hammered, I'm a realist based on life experience with wildlife managers and professionals in at least 5 U.S. states since starting my career, let alone growing up in farm country along lake ontario where more deer were dead before opening light on opening day than anyone would ever know about....

We need more movement from inside our industry to bring the professionalism we want in and separate the folks who truly aren't in the industry but try to pretend they are by calling themselves wildlife control operators.

If that sounds elitist it isn't, I don't care if you work 15 hours a week at being a wildlife control operator or 100, if you are doing the best you can within the states regulations and by the need of your clients and being professional thats all I care about.

Best,

Justin

Tri-state, I know what you're talking about. When we started this business 26 years ago, the largest company in our area did all the things that you talk about and we did the cleaning up and got rave reviews from the customers. It only took a few years of companies like ours to drive the largest and worst company in southeast Wisconsin, right out of business. And yes, this was a good thing for everyone.

Our state association would love to have ADC licenses so that not everyone with a trapper's license can legally do our work with no training. However, we do not want to alienate the Wisconsin Trapper's Association. Our board came up with what I think is an excellent solution. If you're trapping to help a neighbor or for hunting or trapping rights, no license necessary. But if you're getting any sort of monetary reward, a license is mandatory. We even have a test all ready to go if we ever get state approval.

I think everyone in this business has something they would like to see happen but each state is different and I firmly believe that a blanket law for all of us is not the answer.

I have no problem with regs if they are put forth by operators.

The danger lies is if AR groups such as HSUS influence regulators and become the "source" for those regulators. You don't want your regulators to go to groups such as HSUS when writing laws or regulations deciding how you operate and what tools you can use. HSUS and other groups are following Cass Sunstein's "nudge" principles. Sure they will go gonads to the wall on some knee jerk issues but with a nudge here and a nudge there they are able to influence issues without the uproar and once they get so far it is to late to stop the damage done.

Ct. has many of the regulations as well. But we fought hard a few years ago to beat back the anti's on using conibears. It still a tool we use when we have to. We wouldn't want our customers addresses given away. Who's to say they couldn't be harassed. Our regs haven't stopped the guys that just do what they want, and even when the public complains they are given a $50 fine. Why? because wildlife laws are at the bottom of the pond. Just watch what you wish for, because it's just the first step to put you out of business. I'll be very interested in your thoughts at the seminar.

(Regarding the question if this will help or hurt wildlife services)

Here in NV it is wildlife services that is regularly breaking the law and acting so far below industry standards that they bring negative attention to anything involving a trap or snare. Frustration from other agencies, because of ws, has also added to the negative outlook towards anything regarding wildlife control. WS has lost many supporters because they hide behind, and abuse, the "we don't have to" exemptions (I.e. Federal airborn hunting act, nv trap check laws, FOIA, due process, MBTA, ), and then they take no accountability for there own actions. In other states this may not be the case, but the licensed NV WCOs are by far more professional and ethical than ws. I believe this is the reason folks like HSUS and Predator Defense are targeting ws and not me directly. However, because perceptively we are in the same industry, we will suffer legislatively from the bad actions of others. In short it is because of the bad ethics as demonstrated by ws that regulations like this are pursued.

I will not partner with ws or any other WCO that does unethical/illegal work, and I will definitely not when that is my competition!

I would like to partner with those who do even better work than myself, and I am always trying to improve.

Theres not a lot of difference in this , that we are not used to in Massachusetts...gotta love this state