Should Wildlife Trapping Have a Place in a Christian
Environmental Ethic?
Stephen Vantassel
Stephen Vantassel is visiting lecturer in Theology at the Midlands Bible College
and Adjunct Professor of Theology, Trinity Theological Seminary (Indiana), USA,
where he is currently completing his Ph.D. dissertation. He is also Project
Coordinator of the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management
(http://icwdm.org), an initiative of four U.S. universities, including the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln, where Stephen is based.
For more information, comments, or questions visit his website at http://www.stephenvantassel.com or he can be contacted by E-Mail.
Key words: Animal rights, animal protection, environmental ethics, trapping,
wildlife management
Abstract: Animal protectionist groups lobby for the banning of wildlife trapping
because of its perceived cruelty and harm to the environment. This paper
evaluates those claims and suggests that Christians carefully consider all the data
before adopting an anti-trapping stance.
position in the world.1 The world was, either by design or by happenstance, for
humans to use for their own needs and interests. However, during the 1960’s,
concern over the degradation of the environment raised questions about the
truthfulness behind the traditional view. Rachel Carson’s landmark book, Silent
Spring, said that our environmental predicament flowed from our (foolhardy)
desire to control nature. In her assessment, “The “control of nature” is a phrase
conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy,
when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience of man.”2 Lynn
White Jr. laid the majority of the blame for our damaged environment3 on the
shoulders of Western Christianity’s doctrine of human dominion.4 Armed with
this ammunition, “Deep Ecologists”5, argued that the solution to our environmental
problems6 begins by reorienting humanity’s relationship with the
environment, i.e. humans must jettison their anthropocentric stance toward nature
and acknowledge that their interests are no more important or valuable than those
of non-human creation. Humans, therefore, ought to reject their desire for control
over any part of the natural world.7
Christians have not been immune to these ideological currents. Despite the
lack of attention given to environmental issues among Evangelical theologians,8
interest is growing.9 One group of animal protectionists,10 known as Christian
Animal Rights activists (CAR), assert that Scripture and science require us to
protect animals from harm stemming from human behavior.11 They contend that
God’s original creation was characterized by non-violent harmony between
humans and animals. God never wanted humans to eat animal flesh or kill
animals through hunting or trapping. Humanity’s carnivorous behavior only
began as a result of the Fall. Furthermore, since Christ reconciled “all things”
(Col 1:18f), which would presumably include non-human creation, Christians
must work for a peaceable kingdom that extends Christ’s compassion to all of
Creation. Therefore, Christians must stop killing and eating animals,12 and work
for the adoption of rights for animals.13 In addition, these Christians suggest that
an animal protectionist stance is more environmentally sound. It is alleged that if
humans would stop killing animals the earth would become a better place to live.
The CAR activists’ rejection of the Church’s traditional understanding of
human dominion14 has far reaching implications. Is it morally and
environmentally wrong for Christians to trap wildlife? Trapping differs from
hunting in that a device allows the trapper to take an animal without having to be
present.15 The subject of trapping may appear to be far removed from the
important issues confronting Christian environmental theory. However, this
writer believes that as abortion is a bell-weather issue regarding one’s views on
the sanctity of life, so trapping helps us refine our positions regarding
environmental ethics and policy. Trapping, particularly since the development of
the foothold trap,16 has been the subject of intense controversy.17 Trapping places
questions of the extent of human dominion in stark relief. It is arguably the most
difficult of all the consumptive wildlife activities (such as hunting and fishing) to
defend due to the perception that trapping is cruel.18 Finally, trapping has been
the subject of political activism19 by animal protectionist groups seeking to
restrict and/or ban trapping altogether.20 Thus, by discussing trapping, we avoid
creating a straw-man of the CAR position, while dealing with a concrete ethical
issue of contemporary significance facing Christians interested in environmental
ethics.21
Before reviewing the evidence, we must distinguish different types of
trapping. Trapping is not a monolithic activity as trapping occurs for different
reasons. “Consumptive trapping” involves the capturing of animals deemed
desirable for their fur, meat, or products. This type of trapping normally results in
the death of the animal, but live-captures for zoos or pet markets do occur. Fur trapping
is a specific kind of consumptive trapping in that the primary goal is to
capture animals considered valuable for their pelt rather than for their meat or to
resolve a predation issue.22 “Control trapping” designates the capture and
removal of animals considered dangerous or causing disturbance to human or
other interests, such as troublesome house mice (Mus musculus) or invasive
species. As with consumptive trapping, control trapping frequently results in the
death of the offending animal.23 “Research trapping” refers to the capture of
animals for study or population surveys. Since CAR activists focus their
opposition on consumptive trapping and on control trapping, this paper will do
likewise.
Trapping is a complex issue covering a variety of tools, techniques, and
species. The sheer breadth of data can overwhelm the non-professional. So to
help make the subject manageable, the debate over consumptive trapping will be
discussed in more general terms. However, since control trapping is decidedly
more concrete and specific, the author has chosen to evaluate CAR’s opposition
to coyote (Canis latrans) trapping for simplicity.24
As noted above, CAR activists believe that trapping or any killing of
animals, except to save human life, is immoral. They ground this belief in their
reading of Scripture and their understanding of the environmental evidence. This
author believes that the CAR activists are mistaken on both counts. Since a
critique of their Biblical argument has already been written, it will be only
summarized here.25
First, the CAR position mischaracterizes Scripture’s description of
humanity’s role in creation. CAR activists love to talk about how humans must
tend and keep the garden but downplay our right and need to partake of the
garden. In other words, God permits people to enjoy the fruits of their labor. CAR
activists correctly state that humanity’s dominion should be characterized by
stewardship. But they forget that responsible stewardship may involve culling and
forceful imposition as denoted by words "rule" radah 26 and "subdue" kabosh.27
even kill the Serpent even more egregious.28 Furthermore, even conceding the
view that pre-fallen humans were exclusively vegetarian, the question regarding
their need to protect the garden from animals seeking to partake of the garden’s
produce remains.29 Even if the Fall never occurred, competition between human
and animal interests would have had to take place eventually given the finitude of
the earth’s available resources.30 Second, the CAR view improperly diminishes
the differences between humans and other sentient creatures. It is true that
humans have many similarities with animals, such as being souls (nephesh) and
having bodies. However, Genesis 1-2 clearly shows that humanity stands at the
apex of creation. Humanity alone is "in the image of God,31 (see also Gen 9:6; 1
Cor 11:7; Jms 3:9); a phrase that emphasizes the importance of humans.32
Humanity’s significance is underscored by God’s having an interactive and
communicative relationship with individual humanity; a reality that does not exist
with animals. In light of humanity’s privileged position, it is perfectly legitimate
to understand that humans have authority over creation and animals. Third, CAR
undercuts the doctrine of the atonement by denying that God commanded animal
sacrifices or that Christ was the lamb of God that would take away the sin of the
world (John 1:29).33 Finally, if killing or harming animals is wrong or not God’s
perfect will, then Christ’s perfection is in doubt (Heb 9:14) as he was directly and
indirectly involved in the infliction of death and suffering upon animals.34
Unfortunately, proving that CAR activists are mistaken on their
understanding of human-animal relations does not necessarily translate into
support for trapping. CAR activists assert that trapping must be condemned by
Christians because of its cruelty and threat to ecosystems.35 In other words, CAR
activists believe that Christians should refrain from trapping or severely limit
their trapping activities on the basis that trapping violates God’s requirement that
humans protect His creation. Humans, even as subordinate lords over creation,
cannot use their position and power as unrestricted license (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23).
Since CAR activists employ scientific arguments to support their view that
trapping constitutes a violation of our requirement to “care for creation”, the
remainder of this paper will evaluate the validity of these arguments.
CAR activists36 assert that trapping constitutes an unacceptable level of pain and
suffering37 that when coupled with other negative aspects of trapping becomes an
unacceptable form of wildlife management. In other words, the cruelty alleged to
be inflicted by trapping, particularly the steel-trap, is so gratuitous that any of its
environmental benefits are outweighed by its deficits.
The evidence for this argument38 can be found in Cull of the Wild: A
Contemporary Analysis of Wildlife Trapping in the United States39 (hereafter
COTW) and Facts about Furs40 (hereafter, FAF). These texts employed several
categories to express the comprehensive nature of the suffering inflicted by
trapping. First, they condemn the trappers’ equipment as barbaric and excessively
cruel. Foothold traps41 are especially hated because animals caught in these traps
suffer shoulder dislocations, cuts, bruises, swelling, broken bones,42 tooth
damage, and “wring off” (also known as a “chew out”) in their struggle to free
themselves before the trapper’s return.43 ‘Wring offs’ occur when the animal’s
leg breaks at the joint. As the animal struggles and/or gnaws at the broken limb,
ligaments are twisted till they sever, allowing the animal to escape. The resultant
wound puts the animal at risk for infection and possible death. While the amount
of pain involved and the number of animals affected is disputed,44 these events
have occurred and to some extent still occur, but hard data is lacking.45
The second part of the argument from cruelty asserts that traps are not
selective, thereby injuring/killing many non-target animals.46 Just as human rights
advocates would be outraged by police rounding up people without any real
evidence of guilt, so the animal protectionists argue that traps injure many
animals that trappers did not seek. Without verifiable data, the COTW estimated
that 5 million non-target animals may be captured in the U.S. each year.47 The
FAF cited an Australian study that found that 95% of all the trapped animals were
non-target and also a U.S. survey that revealed 67% of captures were non-target.48
Trapping, therefore, is the moral equivalent of using a 1000 pound bomb to kill a
fly. It just doesn’t meet the proportionality standard in that too many “innocent”
animals become injured in the trappers’ quest of their quarry.
support trapping with devices that inflict so much pain on target and non-target
animals alike. Trapping so described appears to be the height of environmental
mismanagement and abuse of our stewardship role. Although these books make
many true statements,49 they fail to provide the full context for those facts.
In regards to the first part of the argument from suffering, it should be said
that trappers do not wish for “wring outs”, as they represent a lost capture.
Furthermore, while not denying that traps can cause pain and injury,50 trappers
are not sadists. The question, however, is how much pain may Christians morally
inflict in the process of capturing free-range animals? It is critical to be careful
here as your answer will impact on your moral evaluation of Christ’s miracle of
the fishes (see Lk 5). Furthermore, should we consider the pain of the individual
animal caught in the trap in isolation or in light of the benefits achieved through
compensatory culling?51 To assert that a particular capture method is unduly
painful, one must have another option against which to compare it.52 This author
would caution readers to diligently inquire about the standard employed by
animal protectionists. Many of them consider all injuries sustained during an
animal’s capture, no matter how slight, as providing sufficient grounds to
designate the method as cruel. For example, most animal protectionists will argue
that the mere death of the animal (unless to end suffering not induced by humans)
is by definition cruel, as the animal will have lost its expectation of life. Yet, loss
of life is not what is generally understand as constituting cruelty in regards to
animals.53 This radical understanding of suffering caused one fur-trapper to
remark that animal protectionists would not be happy even if we trapped and
killed the animals with “sweet dreams and tender kisses.” The animal
protectionist argument only has force if it is wrong to trap an animal at all.54
If humans can morally trap and kill animals as long as it is performed
properly, then what standard should be used to define what is “proper”?
Reynolds55 explains that the present standard, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal
(HPA) axis (which is a blood test of hormones believed to signify stress levels)
has limitations.56 If we rely on physical injury tests, as is done with Best
Management Practices, 57 how much value should we place on the significance of
animal’s foot swelling, when the animal will be killed upon the trapper’s arrival
anyway? Nor would using cage traps necessarily solve the problem as the FAF
considers them humane only if the trap is checked twice daily; a requirement that
would dramatically reduces trapping cost-efficiency.58
Consider other forms of capturing animals. How does one compare the
suffering caused by trapping to the suffering inflicted by toxicants that cause
death through internal injury and is thereby more difficult to quantify?59 In the
United States, Wildlife Services personnel may use M-44s to control coyotes.
When a coyote bites and pulls on the M-44, sodium cyanide is injected into its
mouth. Death often follows within 30 seconds to 5 minutes.60 Is this device more
or less humane than a foothold from the coyote’s perspective? Should we factor
in the potential risk to the person setting the device?61 The point being made is
not to denigrate humane concerns. It is just to explain that the standard one
employs in large measure predetermines the conclusion.
Turning to part 2 of the argument, readers should be reminded that trappers
have a financial interest in capturing the right animal. Here, again the problem of
definition comes into play. If a trap is set for a coyote, but catches a red fox, it
could be legitimately said that the capture is a non-target. Yet non-target does not
necessarily mean unwanted. It may not have been the exact species desired, but
that does not necessarily mean that trapper cannot use the species. It is critical
that Christians press animal protectionists for greater clarity in their use of terms.
Pets are by far the most emotionally charged non-target animal. Animal
protectionists gain a great deal of political capital when pets become trapped, due
to the intense media coverage responding to the shock of a pet idolizing public.62
One survey found that individuals were motivated to work for trap bans because
of a pet that was injured or killed in a trap.63 Yet in all the outrage and finger
pointing that occurs when pets are trapped, two questions are rarely asked. “Was
the trap legally set?” and “Was the pet on a leash?”64 These two questions are
not asked because owners see their pets as extensions of the family with
essentially equal rights and privileges. Owners bristle against any restrictions on
their pet’s rights and freedoms. Like naïve and doting parents, pet owners rarely
even consider the possibility that their pet may have done something wrong.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year, more than 4.7 million
people sustain dog bites, with 800,000 seeking medical attention. Almost half of
those seeking medical attention require treatment in an emergency department
and about a dozen die.65 We have not even mentioned how free-roaming dogs
can attack livestock. House cats pose disease risks to humans and are a significant
threat to the environment, a fact frequently overlooked.66 Granted pet owner
misbehavior does not make trapping right, but the point being made here is that
free-roaming pets also negatively impact the environment. The public policy
question becomes, “If trappers bear responsibility for catching free-roaming pets
(all of which aren’t even injured), what responsibility do owners have for the
negative effects of their pets’ actions?” It is essentially an issue of distributive
justice rather than relying on the tyranny of the polls. This writer would suggest
that the reason legislators ban traps stems from their awareness that trappers
comprise such a small minority that such action will carry no negative political
consequences.67
More to the point, a critical failure of the entire argument from cruelty lay
with its excessive preoccupation with the trap.68 Animal protectionists talk about
the foothold as if it only had only one design.69 Their use of the term “foothold”
is comparable to one saying that all vehicles pose the same risks of injury to their
occupants as all the others. However, just as there are different kinds of cars, with
differing safety standards, so there are different kinds of footholds with different
injury rates. Footholds not only have different jaw spreads, and spring tension,
they also have different versions such as off-set, double jaw, toothed-jaw,
laminated, padded, and more. All footholds are not the same nor do they injure
animals in equal measure.70
The second problem with the argument against traps is the unstated
assumption that technology improvement or an equipment ban holds the answer.
In this regard, the animal protectionist perspective echoes that of the anti-gun
lobby which directs its anger at an inanimate object rather than the morally
responsible operator. Certainly in political terms, it is easier to regulate devices
than behavior, so this may be part of the animal activist strategy. Yet, their
rhetoric repeatedly ignores that trapping involves the trapper-trap connection.
Traps do not set themselves.71 The trapper’s skill in placement, choice,
modification, and set construction (i.e. baiting) plays an important role in
reducing injuries and non-target captures. For example, coyote trappers can
reduce the risk of capturing free-roaming house cats, by simply increasing the
tension need to spring the trap.72 Trapping injuries can be addressed by reducing
trap check times73 or using different traps noted below. While one suspects that
animal protectionist standards are so high as to present insurmountable
difficulties for a humane fur-trade (on their definition), it is worth noting that
progress has been made.74 It is regrettable that every state does not require trapper
education, given that many trappers still learn by “trial and error.”75 However,
COTW painted too bleak a picture. Thankfully, a great deal of trapper education
opportunities are available to those willing to seek it out, including, field training,
periodicals, books, and online bulletin boards.76 While this author strongly
recommends trapper education, the fact is there are limits to what can be taught in
a classroom setting. Trapping is like legal work, it takes practice. Even
experienced trappers regularly admit that the animals teach them new things all
the time.
Animal activists also fail to remind the public that the problems of
pain/suffering and injuries to non-targets are not exclusively the domain of
footholds. Box and cage traps77 (mistakenly called live-traps)78 are cited as
causing trapped animals to suffer through physical injury.79 Additionally,
beavers captured in the Bailey Live Trap® during the winter can suffer
hypothermia because the trap keeps them in the cold water a fact not mentioned
in the COTW.80 One study on river otters concluded that padded-jaw foothold
traps were preferable to the Hancock cage trap because foothold trapped otters
were less likely to break their teeth.81 Readers may be surprised to learn that the
much maligned foothold has actually been involved in a wildly successful river
otter reintroduction program to much of their native range in the United States.82
In regards to coyotes, cage traps are not effective.83 To deny trappers access to
traps other than cage or box traps is to essentially deny their ability to trap
coyotes.
A more realistic view of trapping is to recognize the trap and the trapper
work in combination. To put it numerically, we could describe the relationship as
an equation, trap choice minus trapper skill=suffering (8-4=4). Improved trap
design would mean that the suffering associated with the trap would be lower to
begin with. Couple the trap with an improved skill of the trapper and the suffering
number can be low indeed (7-5=2). Just as automobiles have become safer, the
fact remains that driver behavior remains the number one cause of accidents and
injuries. Fortunately, advances in trap design have been made. Research
performed by Shivak, DeLiberto and others demonstrated that newer devices,
may reduce injury.84 The Belisle® Footsnare85 has achieved the humane
requirements of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards
(AIHTS) for lynx, coyote and bobcat. Another cable restraint trap, called The
Collarum,® captures coyotes by throwing a self-loosening cable around the
coyote’s neck and boasts a 100% target capture rate. In other words, during field
studies, the trap never caught anything but a coyote. In further testimony of the
trap’s humaneness, animal control officers are using it to capture stray dogs.86
While advances in technology that reduce human error are certainly welcome, the
fact is there are limits to where technology will take us.87 Trapping wildlife is not
a “one-size fits all.”88
Animal protectionists are correct in noting that many trappers are reluctant
to adopt less injurious technology.89 What animal protectionists neglect to say is
that trapper resistance stems from three different areas. The first is economic.
Traps constitute a major investment, especially in light of lower fur prices in part
due to animal protectionist’s efforts to change the social acceptance of wearing
fur.90 In this regard, trappers are no different than people who avoid replacing
their gas guzzling cars with more efficient hybrids. Trappers also tend to be
culturally conservative. Like farmers, trappers are reluctant to try new things
because what they have works. Finally, a more intractable problem stems from
trapper suspicion that the animal protectionists will never be satisfied with
anything less than a total trap ban. Outsiders may dismiss such fears as
groundless fear mongering. However, the legal actions taken by animal
protectionist groups suggest the trappers’ concerns are not without warrant.91
Trapping’s alleged deleterious effect on the environment constitutes the second
line of argument employed by animal protectionists. Recall that animal
protectionists by-in-large adopt a minimalist view of human intervention into the
affairs of wildlife. While they recognize that humanity has a role to play in
relation to animals, the guiding principle appears to be Albert Schweitzer’s
“Reverence for Life Ethic.”92 They argue that humans should only kill wildlife
with serious justification.93 For many, serious justification would include
protection of human life and species preservation as in overpopulation or
threatened extinction.94 They also encourage the employment of habitat
restriction and modification as a means of wildlife damage control, as could be
done through fencing or other forms of habitat modification.95
Animal protectionists assert that the trapping industry and wildlife damage
control programs (such as the USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services agency and
private wildlife control companies) constitute the worst expression of
environmental stewardship.96 Here they strike at the strongest historic claims of
the consumptive wildlife proponents, namely that trapping helps: 1. to keep
nature in balance by removing surplus animals, 2. to resolve wildlife damage
issues, such as livestock predation, and 3. to reduce the spread of zoonotic
diseases.97
Animal protectionists assert that nature is completely self-regulating.98 When
animal populations lack balance, nature automatically makes the necessary
adjustments. Humans must learn to not interfere because they usually caused the
imbalance in the first place. For example, animal protectionists argue that coyote
trapping induces coyotes to disperse over greater distances (causing problems
elsewhere). Furthermore, trapping increases coyote recruitment rates as the
remaining adults can better feed their young.99 Second, trapping fails to provide
important environmental benefits because it has contributed to the extinction
and/or threatened extinction of many species, such as the sea mink (extinct) and
wolf (threatened).100
As usual, animal protectionists raise some important issues, but issues
separated from context and clear definitions only result in muddled thinking.
First, when the wildlife managers speak of surplus animals they mean those
animals that will die whether or not they are trapped. It is axiomatic that a habitat
will only allow animals to survive that it can feed and house. The issue is whether
trapping is additive to animal mortality, in which case reducing trapping pressure
will result in higher animal numbers, or whether trapping is compensatory to
animal mortality in which case reducing trapping pressure will have no effect on
animal numbers. Different species have different mortality and fecundity rates
and therefore respond to trapping pressure differently. This is why wildlife
managers have different rules regarding season length and take limits. At issue is
whether or not wildlife is considered a resource available for utilization. Since
animal protectionists are disinclined to accept human utilization of wildlife, they
would answer that wildlife is not a resource. Therefore, it should not surprise us
that, in their view, trapping does not constitute a viable wildlife management
practice. However, from a resource perspective, the post-trapping rebound in
coyote populations is not a negative event but actually a positive one for it insures
coyote survival and opportunity for a good harvest the following season.
Second, animal protectionists know full well that in the modern United
States, Canada, and Western Europe, regulated trapping is not a factor in wildlife
extinction. In fact, the reverse is true. Sportsmen’s fees have funded
reintroduction programs of extirpated species. Agencies have used fur-trappers to
remove predators threatening endangered species. The sportsmen’s record has not
always been perfect, but they have had a positive impact on preserving species.101
Animal protectionists cast a great deal of ire on the wildlife damage control
programs, especially the work performed by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services
(hereafter WS) which has historically administered predator control programs in
the U.S. For example, activists reject the idea that coyote control programs are
needed to protect flocks from costly predation. Aside from the political issue of
whether or not taxpayer funds should be spent on behalf of private businesses,
animal activist criticism of WS has garnered support from advocacy groups
strictly on environmental grounds. William Stolzberg,102 in a recent article on
WS’ coyote control program, says that the agency simply kills too many nontargets.
The idea being if the problem is coyotes, WS should avoid killing so
many other animals. The problem is exacerbated by recent findings which have
shown that not all coyotes kill sheep. Therefore, any control program that traps
coyotes just for being coyotes rather than targeting problem coyotes seems to run
counter to the arguments used to justify the program in the first place. No wonder
that Stolzberg says that little has changed since the landmark Leopold Report of
1964 condemning the WS predator management practices. Stolzberg notes that
this blanket war against coyotes has resulted in an explosion of ground predators,
such as raccoons and skunks, which are responsible for attacking the nests of
migratory birds.103 So the argument is, if we are to protect the integrity of the
environment we have to work towards protecting all species within the habitat.
Finally, Stolzenburg rejects the idea that coyote predation has forced shepherds
out of business.104 In place of WS, animal protectionists hold up their work with
sheep producers of Marin County, California as a better coyote management
model.105 They claim that their use of various non-lethal control measures
(although lethal control by property owners was not banned), such as prohibition
of feeding coyotes, changes in husbandry practices, hazing of coyotes, guard
animals, and fencing, resulted in a reduction in sheep losses.
At first glance, the claim that coyote trapping does not diminish livestock
predation appears significant. Christian ethics would not support a policy that
simply does not achieve the desired results. However, after a closer look at the
data a different picture emerges. First, the trouble with averages is that not all
ranchers suffer predation equally.106 Nevertheless assuming that all U.S. ranchers
suffered only 0.15% losses to predation, why would this small amount require the
conclusion that predator trapping is unnecessary?
Second, what about the problem of self-interest? It is easy for unaffected
parties to diminish the significance of another’s loss. What if we turned the
question around and asked how one would react to a shoplifter who stole over the
course of a year 0.15% of your assets? Should you give the shoplifter a pass
simply because it is such a small amount? It is true that weather killed more cattle
than coyotes. However, ranchers cannot control weather. So should they not work
to diminish the losses that are within their control? What if we broaden the
question to cover damage other than simply livestock predation? Conover107 says
that in a survey of 2 million agricultural producers, 24% said they had suffered
damage from coyotes in the prior year 25% suffered raccoon damage, 9%
suffered skunk damage. One can see that non-target captures are not always a true
loss when considering that a landowner can suffer damage from multiple species.
Also, the Marin County experiment was not the glowing success the animal
protectionists would like us to believe. Larson, in a review on the topic, provides
several reasons why the data should be held in suspicion.108 She explains that the
county program instituted a compensation program to encourage ranchers to
adopt the new (less-lethal) practices. Ranchers would receive $500 for each of the
four suggested practices adopted up to a total of $2000 annually. Those who
adopted at least 2 of the recommended practices would be compensated for any
sheep losses. In her review of the reporting data, Larson observed that around the
program’s third year, the county had to limit the compensation provided to no
more than 5% of the total flock. Such a limitation suggested to her that the
program was not limiting the number of sheep losses. Second, Larson suspected
that sheep losses were under-reported because only ranchers enrolled in the
county program would be motivated to report. She noted that one herder (not
involved in the program) claimed to have lost 150 lambs annually in fiscal years
2003/04 and 2004/05, which was more than all the reported losses in the county
program. Third, Larson said it was very likely that during the program’s lifespan,
ranchers may have been killing more coyotes on their own than were taken when
WS field agents operated. Finally, she cautioned that any comparisons regarding
control effectiveness between the programs is partly hindered by differences in
data collection and the fact that WS at its height was responsible for controlling
predation on 73,000 acres of land, which dwarfs the County program which never
exceeded 10,275 acres in the past 5 years. In light of Larson’s findings, it would
seem clear that animal protectionists have not proven that trapping is an
unnecessary component for effective predator management.
What about animal protectionist assertion that trapping is not necessary to
mitigate wildlife disease epidemics, such as rabies?109 If by rabies control,
animal protectionists mean eliminate or drastically reduce the incidence of rabies
in wildlife populations, then they are correct. Trapping, by itself, will not achieve
that level of disease management. Ironically, to achieve that reduction in disease
levels, trapping would have to reduce an animal population to threatened or
endangered status. That would be similar to killing 5 of the 6 billion earth’s
human population to control the spread of the flu. This is why the CDC does not
recommend wholesale, nationwide trapping to control rabies; it is not costeffective.
But as before, animal protectionists do not provide the entire picture.
While broad scale trapping is not recommended for disease control, writers of the
Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control recommended for use in
targeted locations as explained in the following quote:
However, limited control in high-contact areas (e.g., picnic grounds,
camps, or suburban areas) may be indicated for the removal of selected
high-risk species of wildlife.(9) The state wildlife agency and state health
department should be consulted for coordination of any proposed
vaccination or population-reduction programs. 110
The effectiveness of high intensity trapping in designated areas is also
supported by others.111 Rabies, being population density dependent, is vulnerable
to population declines. The reason for this is due to the virus’ terminal nature. In
order for the virus to continue living, it must find another host before it kills its
present one. The longer it takes to find another host, the less likely it will find a
new one before it kills its present one. In light of this reality, it is indeed strange
to claim that trapping actually spreads the disease. Here again, the animal
protectionists play with the meanings of words. In blaming the sportsmen for
transporting infected raccoons and causing the Mid-Atlantic rabies epidemic, the
COTW insinuated that hunting and trapping caused the epidemic. The fact is, the
hunters’ desire to increase game numbers motivated them to relocate raccoons.
But to suggest that hunting and trapping caused the epidemic carelessly confuses
the motivation for an action with the action itself. The other claim, that trapping
removes immune adult animals causing a reproductive spike of weaker and less
immune animals,112 also flies in the face of their complaint that trapping is
indiscriminate. Either trapping is discriminate or indiscriminate. It takes a special
and rare situation for a trapper to be able to set a trap that will only capture
animals of a certain age. Finally, it should be noted that trapping by private
individuals costs states nothing. In fact, trapping is a revenue generator as
trappers pay the state for the privilege to trap animals. Therefore, the actions of
private trappers can be reasonably claimed to reduce the incidence of rabies
because trapping can reduce the overall population of a species in a given locale.
Furthermore, these trappers do their work in a cost-effective manner.113
As noted above, how one understands humanity’s relationship to the planet will
in large degree determine one’s decision and evaluation of the evidence and goals
regarding environmental policy. Few topics bring this fact into sharper review
than the issue of wildlife management of which trapping plays a controversial
part. But trapping cannot be ignored. Humans and animals compete over natural
resources.114 The fact is, humans must kill to live, be it directly on one’s own or
through the use of surrogates. Becoming a vegan or vegetarian does not isolate
one morally because clearing land and protecting crops causes harm to animals.
The thrust of this paper has been to help Christians recognize that the claims
of animal protectionist groups, Christian or otherwise, need to be carefully
evaluated. Whether or not readers find these explanations about the value of
trapping convincing, the author hopes that it encourages environmentally
cognizant Christians to think carefully about the complexities involved in wildlife
management before backing any particular plan of action. The author suspects
that most Christians, while not explicitly adopting animal protectionist ideology,
have failed to properly consider the implications of adopting the hands-off view
of creation espoused by animal protectionists. Perhaps, in their desire to correct
past failings, these Christians do not realize that they risk jettisoning not only an
important Christian doctrine, namely, that God made the earth for humanity, not
vice-versa,115 but also unduly restricting humanity’s ability to extract renewable
resources that wildlife provide. For example, one major Evangelical
environmental group says that humans should avoid acting violently with the
non-human creation.116 Regrettably, since they do not define what is meant by
violence, uneducated Christians may think that trapping of animals under
ecologically sustainable conditions is included.
While Scripture does not offer apodictic guidance on the use of wildlife, it
does provide some helpful principles to consider when evaluating wildlife
management policy. This writer believes Christians should accept our "dominion
responsibilities."117 Animals, as all creation, belong ultimately to God. Haas says
it well when he speaks of an order and purpose inherent in creation.118 Scripture
and reason agree that there is something different about humans and animals that
exceeds just higher intellectual ability. Whether the ontological claim is true or
false, humans have authority over the animal kingdom. Privilege brings
responsibility. In short, humanity is to treat God's property as God's property.
This means that God's property is to be treated the way God wants it treated. To
treat something above or below its station would be to make it an idol119 on the
one hand, and worthless on the other. Scripture does appear to distinguish
between domesticated animals (those directly under human control) and wildlife,
while suggesting that human obligations are higher for domesticated animals.120
Nevertheless, in spite of their higher status, domesticated animals may still be
eaten.121