Fur trapping is an extremely polarizing topic. For many people, it’s all black or all white. This post is an effort find a gray area — to develop a more nuanced view of trapping, people who trap, and people who oppose trapping. It’s in that gray zone where we can have meaningful discussion on the impact of trapping on animal suffering and on wildlife populations. So, rather than promote one extreme or the other, I invite you to explore the issues yourself, and decide what you think is the truth about trapping.
A bobcat with her kitten in summer. Bobcat trapping season in my state of MA is Nov. 1 – 30. My camera trapping work suggests that mothers stay with young throughout winter. Trapping mom could mean death to her offspring.
The Truth About Trapping
In addition to researching the topic, I interviewed 2 people who trap and 1 person who opposes trapping. I tried to present the topic in a way that fairly considers a variety of views, challenging or supporting them with actual studies, where available.
The interviewees:
Scott M. Terry, homesteader at North Country Farmer began trapping at age 11 when he was charged with the task of ridding the family farm of raccoons who were killing the laying hens. He has trapped ever since. Beaver, fox, mink and muskrat have been among his target species. While living in Alaska, “marten were the bread and butter of our line”. The fur market and the abundance of species on his farm, he says, determine his targets. He currently traps mostly raccoons and coyotes, because they are common on his property. He believes that trapping helps reduce starvation and the incidence of contagious diseases like mange, by reducing the population of the trapped species. He uses foot hold and body gripping traps. He currently resides in New York, where he completed the state’s mandatory trapper education course and exam. Scott loves the outdoors and wildlife, and “trapping brings those two things together”. He loves learning the about “wildlife habits and customs”. Killing individual animals does not upset him. Rather, he thinks on a species level, and believes “managed fur bearers are healthier than un-managed populations”. He explains that he wants them to do well so that he can harvest fur for many years to come.
Krystyna Thomas of Spring Mountain Living in Michigan, began trapping recently, as a way to deal with wildlife depredation on her livestock. Skunks and weasels, in particular, have taken some of her chickens and eggs. She attended a trapping seminar to get the free trap given at the end of the class, but during the course developed a true interest in trapping. She explains, “We are running and farm and my choices are to either trap the animal stealing the food we raise, or let him have it.” She is still learning to process the pelts to use for warm winter clothing or home decor, but hopes to eventually sell some to fur traders. To her, trapping is a way to minimize loss, to generate income, to obtain fur for warm clothing and decorative items, and to revive a dying tradition.
Jennifer Lovett is a writer and illustrator with a masters degree in conservation biology. She keeps horses on her property in Vermont. She believes it is unethical for humans to use animals for food, clothing, and medical research, though she says that hunting and trapping “might be valid” for indigenous populations which do not have access to synthetic fabrics and a wide variety of vegetable foods. She equates trapping with “torture” and points out that Fish and Wildlife Departments rely on the honor system, because they cannot realistically monitor trappers. Animals might be left to die slow, painful deaths over a period of days. On a species level, Jennifer is concerned about non-target capture. In Vermont in 2013-2014, she explains, at least 22 American martens, an endangered species in the state, were trapped. At least 24 domestic dogs, several cats, owls, ravens, and a turtle were also trapped by devices meant for other species. She says that animal populations are naturally balanced by their food supply and natural fluctuations in predator/prey cycles. Finally, she believes that processing pelts involves more caustic chemicals and is more environmentally damaging than the manufacturing of synthetic fabrics.
Types of traps
To understand trapping, you must know something about the types of traps and how they work. There are 2 basic categories: those which kill and those which restrain. Note that not all traps mentioned are legal in all countries and in all states within the US. Inclusion of a wide variety of traps is meant to provide information about what has been, and what still is, in use in some places around the world. Consult the trapping regulations of your own region to find out what is legal.
Killing traps include the following. When/if these traps kill instantly, they are most humane because the animal suffers for a very brief period, or not at all, prior to death. One problem with kill traps is that they can kill or seriously injure any animal that wanders into it, not just the trapper’s target animal. That includes domestic animals, endangered animals, and other non-target animals. Here are the types of killing traps:
- Deadfall traps – use gravity to kill an animal by crushing its skull, back, or vital organs.
- Spring traps – use spring power to crush the neck or a torsion spring rotates 2 metal frames in a scissor like action.
- Snares – kill by asphyxiation.
- Drowning traps – hold semi-aquatic mammals under water until lack of oxygen induces death.
- Pitfall traps – pits with water at the bottom to drown animals which fall into them, usually small rodents.
Restraining traps do not kill the animal. Some cause injury, but minimally injured or uninjured non-traget animals can be released. Types of restraining traps include:
- Stopped neck snares – a noose prevented from closing beyond a certain point, so that the animal is not asphyxiated.
- Leghold snares – a noose catches the animal by the leg and restrains it.
- Leghold traps – may be padded or unpadded, and has 2 jaws that clamp together on the animal’s leg to restrain it. Modern padded traps are much less painful than old fashioned steel jaw traps.
- Box or cage traps – A door closes and contains the animal after it enters the cage in pursuit of bait.
- Pitfall traps – Bait attracts small mammals into a smooth sided container from which the animal cannot escape.
How much suffering do they cause?
Jennifer says traps are indiscriminate and cause great suffering. Scott says “a properly sized and placed trap does not cause very much pain”. Krystyna says “trapping can be cruel when it’s not done properly”. She admits that initially, trapping upset her a bit, but “in time, I got used to it”.
Now let’s see what some studies show.
A skunk caught by Krystyna’s family at Spring Mountain Living.
Humaneness of trapping animals: an inconvenient truth
A quick search will show you that plenty of pro-trapping sites insist that trapping is humane, and many anti-trapping sites state with equal passion that it is cruel. Often such claims, whether pro or con, are not referenced at all, or poorly referenced with outdated sources. Some say that this or that veterinarian or wildlife biologist or organization proclaims trapping either humane or cruel, but that doesn’t mean much. It’s easy to find qualified individuals and organizations on one side or the other.
I did find a very detailed and relatively recent review of trapping methods within the US and Europe, in which the authors evaluate how well trapping methods meet the standards set by the International Organization for Standardization. The conclusion? “Many of the practices commonly used to trap mammals cannot be considered humane. Current legislation fails to ensure an acceptable level of welfare for a large number of captured animals.” See Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. It’s a strong statement, but it is based on careful review of a large number of studies. A few take home points from the article:
- Some traps appear to do little damage, but survival of released non-target animals is still reduced. Damage due to neck snares is often not evident to the trapper. It can take days to appear, and can lead to tissue necrosis and death. Survival is reduced even for animals released from padded foothold traps. Perhaps even subtle limping compromises the animal’s ability to hunt effectively and to avoid predators.
- Death by drowning is touted as the humane way to trap aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals, because their natural instinct is to dive down into the water when frightened. However, death by drowning is a slow process. For example, the beaver can hold its breath under water for 15 minutes. After that, a trapped beaver begins to struggle and it takes another 9 minutes for it to die of hypoxia. Who, in good conscience, can call that humane?
- 28 of 38 studies on leghold traps show that they fail to meet accepted animal welfare standards. They are banned within the European Union and 80 countries around the world, but continue to be used in many states within the US.
- Box and cage traps are among the most humane types of trap, because non-target captures are uninjured and can be released. (But are they humane if the trapper neglects to check traps daily, leaving captures to suffer from exposure, thirst, and hunger?) These traps are large and difficult to transport, and often impractical for remote areas.
Impact on wildlife populations
Statements abound in pro-trapping literature that trappers are performing a useful service because they reduce wildlife populations. That’s a good thing, they say, because there is less competition for food and less spread of disease. Scott targets mostly raccoons and coyotes, and says if you don’t keep them “thinned down to a manageable level they end up with mange and rabies and that’s a terrible way to go.” Krystyna echoes Scott’s sentiment that trapping helps keep wildlife populations “under control”. Jennifer, on the other hand, says “ecosystems will be better balanced by the available food sources and by natural fluctuation of the predator/prey cycle…”
Who is right?
It depends. One thing it depends on is whether trapping really can reduce a population.
Populations of abundant habitat generalists, such as coyotes, and rapidly reproducing species, such as rabbits, are usually able to increase their reproductive rates enough to compensate even for heavy hunting and trapping pressure (6). This is why many years of coyote bounties resulting in hundreds of thousands of coyote killings, were ineffective. (11). However, trapping can temporarily reduce the local coyote population, and for this reason, some farmers find it helpful.
Populations of sparsely distributed, slowly reproducing species, such as martens and fishers, are extremely vulnerable to trapping. They can be, and have been, trapped to extirpation (7). But those less abundant species don’t usually cause problems for people, and when they do, the problem can be easily resolved with nonlethal measures to keep livestock and pets safe from predators. Trappers want these animals for their luxurious pelts. Killing them is not a service for wildlife conservation nor for the public good. On the contrary, wildlife managers are charged with the task of maintaining populations of these species so that trappers can sustainably harvest them.
Finally, the desirability of reducing a given species’s population is in the eye of the beholder. If you enjoy tracking, seeing or photographing it, or if you do not interact with it at all, you might welcome it in abundance. If it eats your crops, livestock, or pets, you might want its population reduced. If you want to increase the population of the wild plants or animals which prevail on its menu, you might want its population reduced.
An adult male fisher (aka “fisher cat”). The species is quite vulnerable to trapping. It can, and has been, trapped to extirpation.
Impact of trapping on spread of diseases
The National Trappers Association website states that trapping “will significantly decrease the severity and duration of outbreaks” of diseases such as “rabies, giardiasis, distemper, tularemia, and mange. Unfortunately, no references are provided. Trapping doesn’t select for sick individuals, so the only way it could reduce disease spread is through population reduction. But in the section above, we learned that trapping is not an effective method of reducing the populations abundant generalists, very species most prone to contagious diseases.
For rabies, in particular, scientists seem to agree that vaccination, not population reduction, is an effective method of controlling the spread of rabies (1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15)
Even when a population can be reduced, it’s not clear that disease spread will halt. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources says that mange, for example, cannot be controlled by population reduction if the disease is already widespread. If a disease is impacting only a small, isolated population, it would be theoretically possible to reduce spread by culling sick individuals, but traps do not select for them. They just as well capture healthy animals. The bottom line is that I’m not convinced that trapping is a useful tool for management of wildlife diseases.
Livestock protection
While trapping does not generally reduce populations of problem animals, it can relieve the farmer of specific nuisance individuals. But reliance on lethal measures to control livestock predators (or garden predators, in the case of deer, ground hogs, and rabbits), is a poor strategy. The reason is that when an individual is killed, it creates a vacancy for another of the same species. The newcomer will eventually make a similar attempt on your livestock, and on and on the problem repeats. Disruption of social order of predator populations, immigration of other members of the species, and the unintentional killing of animals not responsible for livestock depredation mean the lethal control is often ineffective and wasteful (4).
Initial investment in a carefully planned, predator resistant set-up, on the other hand, can very effectively prevent livestock depredation with fencing, livestock guardian dogs, etc. See my article on Predator Proofing Your Chicken Coop and Run, for example.
That said, I don’t entirely oppose Krystyna’s and Scott’s trapping of predators because they make use of the animals they trap. It’s not my practice, and I don’t like it as a general strategy. Why? Because a set-up vulnerable to coyotes and raccoons is also vulnerable to rare predators and to domestic dogs, and killing or maiming them is undesirable in almost everyone’s view.
Trapping non-target animals
As mentioned above, traps are not 100% selective, and sometimes “non-target” animals are captured. These include domestic animals and protected wild species. It also includes any animal for which the trap is improperly designed or sized, because such an animal is more likely to suffer unintended injury. If captured by a live trap and uninjured, non-target animals can be released. But it’s important to know how likely a trap is to capture non-target animals, because some do suffer injury, and they can also suffer from exposure, dehydration, or predation while in the trap.
Over the years, trap designs have improved, and many are now more humane and more specific. But how specific are they? The National Trappers Association website states that foothold traps have a non-target capture rate of only 3%. However, no reference is provided, and I was unable to find a study to support that statement.
I did find a study comparing the Soft Catch foothold trap to a Taos Lightening Spring trap. 27 of the 59 captured animals were non-target (8). That’s almost a 50% non-target capture rate, quite a bit higher than 3% touted by the National Trappers Association.
Further, a report of trapping records and surveys of trappers in Idaho reveals disturbing information about non-target captures. For details, read Widespread Capture and Mortality of Non-Target Animals Related to Idaho Wolf Trapping 2011/2012 Briefly, two surveys were sent to trappers involved in wolf trapping using leghold traps and snares. They were asked to report non-target animals captured as a result of all their trapping activities, not just their wolf trapping activities. Summing the results of both surveys, we learn that the 439 survey respondents captured a total of 22 fishers, an imperiled species in Idaho. Fifteen of them died. And that is more than likely an underestimate, for not all Idaho trappers were surveyed, and not all of those surveyed submitted a response. Indeed, the Idaho Fish and Game Department states that “incidental trapping of fishers” may be an important cause of mortality for their endangered population.
Lastly, field biologists lament the fact that too many of their radio- or GPS- collared subjects are trapped (or hunted), making it difficult for them to gather sufficient data on the species (6, 13). From the trapper’s or hunter’s perspective, these are not “non-target” captures, but their deaths are certainly not in the interest of species conservation. How can we appropriately regulate hunting and trapping if scientists cannot get the data needed to understand the species?
Trapper Education
Some states require a basic hunter education course, some require nothing other than purchase of license, and others require a trapper education course, such as the Kansas Furharvesters Education Class. This can be taken online, or as a one day class. Some states do not require the purchase of a trapping license for those hunting or trapping on their own land.
A 1-day class or no training at all might suffice when you are trapping for damage control on your own property. But trapping in the wilderness is very different. As a wildlife tracker and camera trapper, I am skeptical of claims that animals can be trapped with great specificity “if it’s done right”. I can tell you that it takes years of experience to become proficient at finding favored trails, hunting haunts, and hide outs of many of the fur bearers. And even then, it is often the case that other species use the same spots with frequency, increasing the chance of non-target capture. It’s ludicrous to think that a 1-day course can make someone a competent trapper who can keep the non-target capture rate close to 3%.
Difficulty monitoring trappers
Trapping laws are difficult if not impossible to enforce. Even if a trapper is using and locating his traps legally, there’s no way of knowing how often he checks them. Some trapping literature assures us that no one would leave his traps unchecked for more than a day, because economic reality forces him to capture as many animals as possible. To do so, he needs to re-set traps daily.
But not all trappers do it for profit. Some trap just for sport. And regardless of a trapper’s mission, not all states require that traps be checked daily, a surprising fact, if daily checking is so crucial for economic success. The Wyoming trapping laws, for example, require that leghold traps and other live traps be checked only every 72 hours. Snares and quick kill body gripping traps need only be checked weekly. So, humane organizations may well have a point that some animals are left for days to suffer from exposure, thirst, hunger, or predation.
Environmental impact of natural vs. synthetic
In 2009, the Humane Society produced a report on the environmental hazards of fur production, to counter the Fur Council of Canada’s 2007 ad campaign that “Fur is Green”. The HSUS report covers, among other things, the toxic and caustic chemicals of pelt processing, and the environmental cost of inadvertently killing rare species when trapping wildlife. See: Toxic Fur: The Impacts of Fur Production on the Environment and the Risks to Human Health.
What the HSUS report did not mention, however, is the fact that trapping, like hunting, requires the existence of wildlife habitat. When people use wildlife habitat directly, they are more likely to recognize its importance and protect it. Not to mention the fact that trapping and hunting licenses help pay for habitat conservation.
In contrast, the infrastructure needed to manufacture fabrics and clothing occupies space which could otherwise be wildlife habitat. So I think it’s hard to say which is environmentally superior, on balance, fur trapping or clothing manufacture.
Tradition
Fur trapping is part of our heritage, and continuation of the tradition is an oft stated reason for trapping. It appears on many trapping websites, and both Krystyna and Scott mentioned it. There is something to be said for that. However, there are a great many traditions in human history which were eventually discarded for the better, once we understood the pain or suffering involved in the practice.
Of course trapping was once necessary for survival, and one could argue that it would be wise to keep this skill in our repertoire, should civilization crumble and trapping animals to make warm coats once again become a necessity. Well, okay, but because of the pain and suffering and potentially dangerous impact on threatened populations, perhaps trapping merits support only with stiffer regulations, some method of monitoring, and stronger trapper education to minimize suffering and impact.
Finally, it’s important to note that while the tradition of fur trapping has been fading, the basic skill of wildlife tracking has made a remarkable comeback in recent decades. The plethora of tracking books and workshops all over the country bear testimony to that. So does the CyberTracker Program, through which indigenous African hunters are employed as wildlife trackers assisting conservation efforts. Moreover, camera trapping, which requires excellent tracking skills and knowledge of the habits and habitats of wild animals, is also becoming quite popular. These endeavors breathe life into the otherwise declining tradition of fur trapping, in ways that can contribute to conservation and do not cause animals to suffer or die.
Conclusion: the truth about trapping wildlife
Pulling together all of the above, my own conclusion is that the only compelling reason to allow wildlife trapping is that some people want to do it. The reasons usually given by trappers don’t, in my opinion, hold much water.
- Wildlife agencies manage “fur bearers” to benefit trappers, while trapping is of questionable benefit to most, if not all, trapped species.
- Those who trap for profit are more likely driven by consumer demand for furs, not by research proven needs to control a population.
- Those who trap for sport are likely to choose target species that interest them, not necessarily abundant species or diseased populations.
- Individual animals most certainly suffer, and the amount of suffering depends partly on the activity of the trapper.
- Required trapper education is minimal.
- Trappers cannot be meaningfully monitored.
- Non-target capture is a serious concern. We will never know how often it happens, for we depend on voluntary report, and reporting is not in the interest of the trapper. Therefore, we cannot fully appreciate the degree to which trapping contributes to the decline of species, or to the failure of rare species to rebound. Nor will we never know how many non-target animals needlessly suffer or die.
All of that said, is the desire of some people to trap reason enough for its continuation? Maybe. It’s not possible to live without bringing death and suffering to animals. Even a vegan lifestyle requires food and resources which, when produced, destroy wildlife and their habitat. Animals most certainly suffer and die, even though we don’t observe it directly. Further, many homesteaders who kill animals for food and clothing live frugally and do not indulge in resource intensive luxuries. Therefore, a vegan lifestyle isn’t necessarily lower impact than a homesteader/trapper lifestyle. So I can’t entirely condemn trapping as Krystyna and Scott do it. However, I strongly support measures to improve trapper education, monitor trappers, and improve specificity and humaneness of traps.
All 3 interviewees have important views. I love Jennifer’s commitment to reducing animal suffering. I appreciate Krystyna’s need to convert livestock loss into financial gain. I identify with Scott’s love of nature and passion for learning about the habits of wild animals and would probably enjoy spending time with him in the backwoods tracking wildlife. However, if we were in any of my favorite haunts, I’d keep the hot spots a secret. I don’t want those animals killed and reduced to a commodity. To me they are individuals, living beings who experience joy and suffering, and who want to go about their daily business of finding food and mates, and raising young. I’m not convinced that killing them would benefit anything or anyone other than the trapper.
Where to you stand? What’s “the truth about trapping” in your view? Feel free to share your opinions…but please be respectful to others and their views.
Additional Sources:
- Anderson RM. Vaccination of wildlife reservoirs. Nature. 1986;322:304–305.
- Anderson RM, Jackson HC, May RM, Smith AM. Population dynamics of fox rabies in Europe. Nature. 1981;289:765–771.
- Beran GW, Frith M. Domestic animal rabies control: an overview. Reviews of Infectious Diseases. 1988;10:S672–S677.
- Bergstrom, B.J et al. 2013. License to kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function. Conservation Letters. 7(2): 131-142.
- Cleaveland S, Kaare M, Knobel D, Laurenson MK. Canine vaccination – providing broder benefits for disease control. Veterinary Microbiology. 2006;117:43–50.
- Hansen, K. 2007. Bobcat: Master of Survival. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
- Harrison, D. J. et a., editors. 2004. Martens and Fishers (Martes) in Human-Altered Environments. Springer Science+Business, Inc.
- Kamler, J.F. et al. Comparison of standard and modified soft catch traps for capturing coyotes, bobcats, and raccoons. The Ninth Wildlife Damage Management Conference Proceedings. Oct. 5-8, 2000. State College, PA USA.
- Kaplan MM, Goor Y, Tierkel ES. A field demonstration of rabies control using chicken-embryo vaccine in dogs. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 1954;10:743–752.
- Macdonald DW, Voigt DR. The biological basis of rabies models. In: Bacon PJ, editor. Population Dynamics of Rabies in Wildlife. London: Academic Press; 1985. pp. 71–108.
- Parker, G. 1995. Eastern Coyote: The Story of its Success. Nimbus Publishing, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
- Powell, R. A. 1993. The Fisher: Life History, Ecology, and Behavior. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
- Way, J. G. 2007. Suburban Howls: Tracking the Eastern Coyote in Urban Massachusetts. Dog Ear Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.
- WHO. World Health Organization Expert Consultation on Rabies First Report. Geneva: WHO; 2004.
- Windiyaningsih C, Wilde H, Meslin F-X, Suroso T, Widarso HS. The rabies epidemic on Flores Island, Indonesia (1998–2003) Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. 2004;87:1389–1393.
Please pin THIS image. Thanks!
Thanks for the informative article. It has confirmed my decision from years ago. I don’t see the reason in killing. And to name something “humane killing” is just an oxymoron.
Hi Elaine, the only thing I would say to that is that animals die without anyone watching, all the time, as a result of human induced habitat loss. It’s easy to criticize trapping because the killing is direct. Killing for the fashion fur industry is a frivolous reason to cause suffering and death, but on the other hand people are going to buy clothing and luxury items even if no animals are trapped, and the infrastructure needed to produce these things, gobbles up wildlife habitat. I’m not so sure that a self sufficient, frugal living trapper/homesteader causes more wildlife suffering than an average American family in a nice suburban home with all the trimmings and trappings. I hate the fact that animals suffer in these traps, the nontarget catches, etc., but I think it’s important to realize that so many other human activities cause similar tragedy that we just do not directly observe.
Of course we are causing animals to suffer and many die out of our sight. But we as a society are changing and just because animals are already dying it doesn’t mean that we should justify our deliberate killing of more animals. Many people are also trying to limit their impact on the environment. Can we completely eliminate it? Of course, no! But we should at least minimize it as much as we can. Conscious killing of animals should no longer be part of our ‘traditiona living’
My point was that prohibiting direct killing would not necessarily reduce animal death or suffering. People need and want to use the earth’s resources. If they don’t get the warm clothing, fashion items, or home decor that they need or want from animals, they will get it in some other form – probably synthetic materials. Those synthetic materials ultimately come from the earth, and require habitat destroying infrastructure to create and/or process. Habitat destruction causes animals to suffer and die, and species to decline. You don’t see the animal death and suffering that come as a result of textile factories, but it happens. And it continues to happen on an ongoing basis as a result of the pollution spewed from the factories. Therefore, reducing direct killing and suffering might simply increase indirect killing and suffering. Hard to say which is better, on balance.
Very helpful article. Now I have a very good idea about trapping. This will help me controlling unwanted wild animals from the farm. Thank you!
I found your blog through your post about creating a more “natural” chicken habitat – very useful and interesting article btw! Before reading this post on trapping, I confess that I had never given it much thought one way or the other. I would like to commend you for presenting both sides of the issue with such diplomacy! Thank you for providing such a useful amount of clear, unbiased information.
Thanks for the compliment! I worked REALLY hard on this post, trying to be fair, so it’s nice to know it is appreciated.
My question to the practice of trapping, other then protection of livestock, would be: what would truly motivate a human being to pursue such activity? I’m sure equal energy put towards finding income in most any other practice would reap greater rewards. So what is it in us that lusts, to gain, at the expense of another living creature? Is it maybe the pursuit of power over another living being? Is it maybe an expression of the pain we feel within? As with my own expression of hurting other people had been,until healing within. The absence of compassion is just the bi-product of something deeper.
I think there’s a deeper level of cultural activity underlying the trapper’s vocation or avocation. I don’t think the driving force behind trapping is vindictive pleasure or a sense of dominion over the less powerful. In attempting to trap the target species, there’s a collection of knowledge about – and even respect for – the natural world. I believe
hunters, trappers and homesteaders have a rare authority and reverence for nature that could be harnessed by conservation advocates. The real enemy are the majorly of us who live in a completely abstract relationship with nature. If we were forced to think about the actual materials we use to dress ourselves and keep warm, we’d be forced to think holistically about the ravages of global environmental exploitation, and we might be able to unify trappers and animal activists in broader, more deeply and widely focused pro-environment coalitions!
Great points from both of you. I’ll throw in my $.02, for whatever it’s worth. I think hunters and trappers are a varied group (regardless of whether they are also homesteaders). Some love and respect nature, and understand that whatever resources we draw from for food and clothing, ultimately impact wildlife, sometimes in painful ways, and they go to great lengths to minimize their impact. Others are complete asses who do indeed derive pleasure from a sense of dominion over other species, and who are indifferent, or even enjoy the suffering of other beings. We need the animal rights constituency to call attention to that, and to push for better regulations and education for hunters and trappers, and in some cases for banning certain practices. Like hunters and trappers, animal rights activists are a diverse group. Many have a sophisticated understanding of how humans are interconnected with other species, but others live in Lala Land, believing if they eat only plants, nothing will suffer as a result of their own existence. The latter group is not THE problem, they are one of many problems. Yes, it would be nice to unify trappers and animal rights activists on a broader environmental agenda, but for that to happen, each will need to respect the other as a varied group, and stop caricaturing and blaming them.
I disagree to some on what was said. I am a trapper myself and in my state PA, and I know in other states to, leg hold traps CAN NOT harm the animal. I have been trapping for years and a leg hold trap has never harmed a furbearer, and the whole thing about them having a reduced risk of surviving after released is a LIE. I have caught fox and coyotes that have distinct colors or features, released them and years later caught them again. If anything it educates them , because they are smarter towards humans, and harder to catch. The simple fact is, they aren’t big enough to harm them, in my state a outside to outside jaw spread can only be 6 and a half inches jaw to jaw. Unless it is not target it just can’t harm them(saying it is the largest), but again if one is wise when setting, one can avoid catching not target and domestic animals. I read a comment above about “What is the point of trapping?” well, multiple reasons. For example, a beaver dammed up the creek and down the road, and water is overflowing the banks and washing the road out, there’s only one way to solve it. Or farmers, I know a guy up the road who started out with 30 chickens, guess what, now all the money he spent raising them is gone because he is down to 0 because of a bobcat. Do not say furs are worth money, because they’re not. Some people pay unbelieveable amounts of money for practically worthless furs, because their tanned and they don’t know any better. A coon is worth about a dollar, after it is caught, skinned ,fleshed, boarded, and dried. A lot of the reason I trap is because I enjoy it and helping people out, and it makes me sick when people who know nothing about trapping judge it, going by what social media says. Also, the animal doesn’t suffer, most of the time the animal is sleeping, weather if it’s in a cable restraint or leg hold, when I approach it. Most of us trappers check in the mornings anyways, and 99 times out of 100 the animal is caught at night or before dark anyways, so it’s not even there for more than a few hours. I know that laws and people vary from place to place. Laws mostly, because of populations. For example the southern states have a lot of beaver problems, so they are less strict on laws, because trappers need to catch more to keep the population in check so, people don’t get hurt. Also, how often do you see a anti-trapping post making the trappers look bad on social media? When you do it is often a recycled photo or event, because it doesn’t happen that often. I have seen it happen before, it is sometimes years before a photo or other posts resurface, but they very often do. This just shows you how little the laws are actually broken or something inhumane actually happens. A lot of this info has truth to it, but in my opinion a ton of it is more geared towards how trapping is inhumane, it fails to mention how little trappers don’t follow the law, and the laws were designed to make anti-trappers and trappers happy. Sorry, but I can’t stand it when people make assumptions based studies, I know that sounds stupid, but here me out. The only people creating the studies are anti-trappers who always looking for ways to make us look bad, when the truth of the matter is, it’s not cruel.
Thanks for your comments. I’ll try to address them one by one:
Leg hold traps most certainly can harm animals, which is why they are illegal in some countries. You cannot prove they don’t reduce risk of survival after release because you have no information on individuals released and never seen again. Just because some animals are recaptured later doesn’t prove others don’t suffer or die. By the way, I spoke with a former trapper who says that after decades of trapping, he finally gave it up, because he could no longer deny the suffering he was causing. He described returning to traps, only to find nothing but a foot, and recapturing muskrats missing one or two feet from past trap experiences. He also gave a lot more detail on various trap types, such as body grippers that capture animals too low, leading to a slow painful death, because most trappers don’t replace the springs often enough. I did not include this man’s comments in the article because he didn’t want his real name on the internet.
Why trap? Yes, I agree there are times when trapping may be necessary, but protecting a flock of chickens from a bobcat isn’t one of them. It is so easy to protect poultry from a predator as large as a bobcat without killing the animal, which is why I gave the link to my article on predator proofing chicken coops and runs. Failure to protect chickens with nonlethal deterrence measures is laziness and/or ignorance. I agree with you that trapping beavers is sometimes necessary…but only after nonlethal measures (like Beaver Deceivers) have proved ineffective.
You contradict yourself when you say furs are worthless on the one hand, but on the other hand people will pay unbelievable amounts of money fur worthless furs. Further, you use as an example the raccoon, whose fur is worth less than that of most other furbrearers. Bobcat pelts, for example, are worth much more. But regardless, the point is that people trapping to sell pelts do not choose target species based on conservation needs, they base it on market value of the pelt.
You really don’t know if “most of us trappers check in the morning”, nor how often other people check their traps. As in every other life endeavor, people vary in how conscientious they are. You may be admirably responsible in your work, but not everyone is, and there is no way of monitoring how often trappers check their traps.
Reuse of the same photos for anti-trapping literature is perfectly legitimate and does not necessarily mean that something inhumane rarely happens. It just means that trappers don’t take and share photos of it when it does happen. And why would they? It is not in their interest to do so.
Finally, your comment that “the only people creating the studies are anti-trappers” is ridiculous. Look at my list of sources. Most of them aren’t even trapping studies – they are studies of wildlife populations or diseases that directly refute what trappers, without providing any sources, claim as truth. Or, they include comments from biologists who say that they can’t even complete their wildlife studies because their collared subjects keep getting killed by trappers. You may be right, though, that many studies directly assessing the humaneness of trapping are done by people who oppose trapping. But people who are pro trapping are just as free to do studies themselves, so I have to wonder at the lack of studies suggesting that trapping is humane. Perhaps that is because you can’t draw that conclusion after taking an honest look at it.
This is quite possibly the most balanced presentation of the issue that I’ve seen in a long time. I think that trapping is an important skill to know if one lives in a rural area, but this supports what I’ve believed for a long time – that trapping is really only effective or useful in a few select situations.
To clarify, I don’t make the majority of my income off of furs. I believe in using as much of a given animal as possible, if I’m going to kill it anyway; if I don’t know how to eat it, I’m not going to trap it for its fur alone. I’m not trying to get rid of a specific nuisance. And I’m not in a pure survival situation where trapping may be one of my only sources of food and clothing.
So I don’t currently fit into those select situations at all. But I realize now that these situations exist and what might drive specific people to act as they do, and this kind of understanding is important for cooperation and wildlife conservation.
Also, thanks for the information on traps. It helps to know how humane each style is, and how often they should actually be checked. (I wonder, how many first-time self-taught trappers in Wyoming looked at the bylaws and thought that if the law said 72 hours, it must be reasonable?) There are a lot of articles online that give a lot of opinions, but no actual actionable information which is, in many ways, more important.
Actually, there’s a skunk that frequents my place that I REALLY need to get rid of… Some nuisances are better off replaced. Have any articles on wildlife relocation?
Your article is extremely biased, whether you realize it or not. Trapping requires an intimate knowledge of the animal’s environment and nature. There is NO ONE that cares about the animal more than a trapper. And to say that trapping is inhumane is laughable at best, 99% of today’s trappers use box traps which cannot harm an animal. The rest, myself included, use foothold traps which simply restrain the animal and rarely break the skin. Because the limb is held in two places the animal still receives blood flow, thus doing NO damage to the limb other than the rare bruise. I myself care about wildlife so much I now only use padded foothold traps, which cost twice the amount of the regular. I trap for many reasons, the first and foremost being to protect my poultry. You say you can prevent predation without trapping? Ha! How many birds have you lost? Dozens I bet. Or perhaps you live in a city without REAL predators. Raccoons, foxes, opossums, skucks, and coyotes can and WILL destroy a flock and hundreds of dollars of work in less than an hour, regardless of what expensive and pretty fences you have around them. To be honest, I think you have fallen for this PETA animal rights propaganda head over fist, and you have forgotten that we, HUMANS are the dominate species and that wildlife management programs, (Trapping, Hunting, Fishing, ect) are ESSIENTIAL in both rural and urban area’s. Humans have trapped,hunted, and fished since the beginning of time and a couple biased studies won’t stop me from continuing the proud traditions of western culture. I urge you to try it!
Thank you for visiting my blog. What an emotional, fact free, accusatory tirade. I’ll cut to the chase and say that I think my post made you feel guilty for trapping, because deep down you know that trapping causes animal suffering, and you do care about animals. But on the other hand you are frustrated because you have been unable to keep your poultry safe without trapping. If that is the case, I invite you to peruse my posts on keeping chickens safe without killing predators. Try these:
https://ouroneacrefarm.com/predator-proofing-your-chicken-coop-and-run/
https://ouroneacrefarm.com/limited-free-range-chickens-12-tips-to-balance-freedom-safety/
As a matter of fact, I lost only 3 birds to predators in 11 years of raising chickens. Deterrence measures I discuss in the above posts are extremely effective, and require less time and effort in the long run. They may be cheaper, too, if you factor in all your time spent on dealing with traps. The fencing and other construction details are not necessarily “pretty”, but they are functional. I do not live in the city. I live in a semi-rural area with plenty of coyotes, foxes, bobcats, fishers, weasels, raccoons, opossums, and dogs roaming the landscape.
I agree that many trappers know a lot about wildlife, but in my opinion you have to understand wildlife in even greater depth to deter them without killing them. You may come to appreciate that if you choose to research ways to make your own poultry set-up more predator resistant.
While your comment was full of passion, accusation, and derision, I didn’t notice many facts, and no reference to studies. I gather you did not actually read any of the 15 sources I carefully referenced at the end of the post, nor have you presented any facts backed up by science.
I was curious about your claim that 99% of trappers use box traps, so I did a quick search. I couldn’t find any nationwide study right of the bat, but I did notice one for the state of Wisconsin. 2,431 Wisconsin trappers responded to a survey, which revealed that the use of trap type was the following: 32.7% foot hold traps without teeth, 32.5% body grip, 8.4% enclosed trigger, 8.2% cable restraints, 7.8% cage trap, 7.4% colony trap, 1.9% snares, 1.2 % foot hold traps with teeth. Since both cage and colony traps are box type traps, that puts box type trap usage at 15.2%. That is a far cry from your claim of 99%. (Source: Fur Trapper Survey 2016-2017, by Jes Rees Lohr, Brian Dhuey, and Shawn Rossler)
I disagree that hunting, trapping, and fishing by humans is “essential”. Life would go on without humans, just as it did before Homo sapiens evolved. However, I have nothing at all against hunting and fishing for food. In fact, from an animal welfare stand point, I think hunting and fishing are superior to farming. Trapping, on the other hand, is a totally different issue, for all of the reasons carefully detailed in my post. If you could calm down and actually read the post, you might eventually understand that.
If you comment again, please do so with respect and with facts. Any further emotional rants will be deleted. Best wishes.
Thanks for all the research you put into this study. It is a breath of fresh air!
I am 27 years old, and was born and raised in Alaska. Trapping is a huge part of my life. I do disagree with a few of your points, though.
First, I believe the definition of “Humane” to be rather arbitrary. Nature its self is hardly “Humane”. Every animal I trap is either a predator, prey, or both. Predators are not concerned with a quick clean kill. Their prey is consumed alive, or disabled, and dragged away to a cache to be buried and eaten later. I have personally witnessed a pack of wolves kill/injure a small herd of caribou and only eat one, while leaving the rest of the meat to spoil, and the injured to die a slow painful death. Even “Super Predators” such as wolves, eventually are cannibalized by the younger pack members.
Trapping also does cause pain. It hurts. I have been caught in my own traps more times than I can count. After a few minutes, the sharp pain of the jaws slamming shut becomes a dull ache. The majority of the animals I find alive in my traps are asleep when I find them. This sounds a lot more “Humane” that being torn apart alive, or dying of starvation, doesn’t it?
Second, Trapping absolutely does provide a substantial income for many people. Here’s an example: I work seasonally. I bring in about 30k a year. The main “cash crop” when it comes to trapping is marten. Marten are currently averaging around $160 a piece. (price varies from year to year) The last 3 trapping seasons I caught between 110 and 140 marten a year. Do the math. I can bring in 2/3 of my regular income just from trapping! This is a huge benefit. I obviously can’t pocket the entire amount, there are numerous expenses associated with trapping, the biggest being fuel and maintenance. I probably spend around $2,000 annually on trapping related expenses.
There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people across Alaska and northern Canada who derive significant income from trapping.
Third. Trapping is not easy. Joe Blow cannot put a trap out in the woods and expect to catch anything. This tends to weed out the lazy and irresponsible trappers. Trapping takes time, and a whole lot of patience. You need to know your target animal on a deeper level than most people ever will. it takes tremendous skill to get a wolf roaming through thousands of acres of wilderness to place his foot in a 6″-8″ jaw spread. Same goes for other target species.
Trappers are logical. They need to be. They don’t want to catch non target species, because that ties up traps that could be producing valuable fur. The by-catch can never be completely eliminated, but trappers who are out to make money know how to minimize it.
One more point, that is probably only relevant to people living in the far north: Real fur is far warmer than any synthetic insulation. My beaver fur lined mittens have kept my hands warm at temps as low as -70 F. Whereas I have also worn military surplus mittens with synthetic insulation at warmer temps and been miserably cold. Same goes for hats. My wolverine hat is far warmer, and more durable than my synthetic hat. Wolverine fur also has the benefit of being naturally frost resistant, which I have never seen in synthetic fur.
I understand that trapping is not for everyone. your article does a good job at laying out both sides of the issue. Thank you for the time and effort you put in to it!
Hello Daniel, your civil and well articulated comment is a breath of fresh air, as well, but I do want to respond.
You are correct that the definition of humane is arbitrary. As are the definitions of moral, ethical, etc. But that doesn’t make them unimportant or invalid. As a civilized society, we develop standards for treatment of people, animals, and the environment, because we think it’s a good thing to minimize unnecessary suffering, degradation, etc. The fact that other animals do not share these standards is irrelevant. They are, in all likelihood, incapable of discussing and developing them. But does that mean we shouldn’t? If wolves leave a herd of caribou to die a slow painful death, does that mean we should, if it is in our interest? Of course not. A virus can wipe out huge groups of humans by causing a disease that slowly kills after much pain and suffering. Does that mean we should do the same to other species? I don’t think so. Our large brains give us the capacities for complex communication, empathy, and future planning, and most people think it’s a good idea to exercise them. You are right that such a view is arbitrary, but most people in our modern, civil society agree with it.
I’m glad you acknowledge that trapping causes pain, but comparing it to being torn apart alive or dying of starvation is also irrelevant. By your logic, one could say that rape is okay because it causes less suffering than being torn apart alive or dying of starvation. But does that really justify rape?
I am aware that trapping can be profitable. Drug trafficking and child porn can also be profitable. I am not putting trapping on par with those iniquities, but I am pointing out that profitability should not factor in to how we judge humaneness. It is irrelevant. But of course personal interest can factor in to one’s decision. If my life depended on trapping a wolverine, I would do it, but in general, we humans as a group have found more humane ways to survive, even when some of us were convinced there was no other way. Many people in the US believed that ending slavery would mean economic collapse, but lo and behold, we are surviving without it.
Trapping is not easy – As a camera trapper, I agree with you there. But so what? Does the amount of skill needed to accomplish something determine whether it’s humane? Once again – irrelevant.
You say trappers are logical. Probably many are, but as in any field, there is very likely a range of abilities, behaviors, and standards. Some trappers are likely better than others at minimizing non target captures. But the fact is that non target captures remain a serious concern, and it is extremely difficult to monitor it.
Your final point about the warmth of real fur is a good one, though. If it is necessary for your life, I have no qualms about that, which is why I don’t entirely condemn trapping, and instead support improving trapper education (which, at the moment, is abysmal), and finding ways to monitor trappers and improve specificity and humaneness of traps. But many people who buy real fur don’t do it out of necessity.
Just came across this article the other day. First off I wanted to say that this was one of the most balanced articles about trapping I have ever read. However, I did want to mention something in regards to your statement about foothold traps harming a trapped animal. Back in the 90’s, river otters were reintroduced into western North Carolina. To obtain the otters for reintroduction, the foothold trap was used. The traps were checked once every 24 hours. However, no otters died as a result of injuries, although it appears some died of stress while being transported. Once the otters were successfully reintroduced, the majority did very well. From what I could find, the otters that died were shown to have died of causes unrelated to trapping. Several pdfs easily found online back this up.
If I’m not mistaken, foothold traps were also used to reintroduce wolves as well.
Thanks for your message, Jackson. I was not able to find anything specifically on the causes of death of the trapped and released otters. Can you share the links?
One caution about interpreting cause of death in an animal released from a foothold trap. It’s likely that many animals injured from a foothold trap do not die directly from the injury, but the injury could increase the risk of the animal dying from other causes. For example, an animal with a painful foot or leg might have greater difficulty obtaining food or fleeing from predators. An otter released from a foothold trap might die of starvation or predation because its sore foot hampered hunting or fleeing. But the cause of death would still be starvation or predation. It would be a mistake to say this is “unrelated to trapping”.
Since the idea of foothold traps harming animals seems to be a point of contention for some readers, I am sharing this study, which showed a very high rate of minor injury from both padded foothold and modified padded foothold traps (and much lower rates of more serious injuries): https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a7ac/9ba0583a969fb35c831d6b2a63f5a5107edf.pdf
Note that the rate of swelling or hemorrhage was about 95% for both trap types. Swelling and hemorrhage (bruising, basically) are usually not severe injuries, but don’t you think an animal’s ability to flee or hunt effectively would be reduced with a painful foot? It’s not a big deal for humans who can go home to pamper a sore foot while eating from a well stocked fridge. But most wild animals live on the edge of starvation, and a slight disadvantage could cost the animal its life.
Now, this is not to say that I’d condemn foothold traps when used in reintroduction efforts. In such a case, relatively few individuals suffer, while the species as a whole stands to benefit immensely.
I appreciate that you tried to be objective, but I could tell within two seconds of viewing this article that you are biased. I know because before I took part in trapping, I was biased too. It is impossible to truly understand something without actually being close enough to it to be objective. In that respect, you’re doing a disservice to those who end up on your site from a Google search and then formulate a “fact based” viewpoint that is based on a very cursory review of third party information. Not to be off topic, but this is a problem throughout all of our society where people harden their viewpoints based on issues without having real experience on either side. This is why people forget that those on the other side of the fight are actually good people with good intentions, just like themselves. Anyways, back to trapping. I’ll skip the bias on the logistics of trapping because I can’t adequately explain to you online what Zach expressed above, that the European Union article you quoted is false. Not just a little bit false, but more like propaganda false. If you’d rather that people buy their clothes from third world countries that abuse human labor, expend tremendous amounts of energy, derive their fibers from petroleum, or monocropped farms that used to provide wildlife habitat, then so be it. At least the trapper carries the true weight of what it means to live and take life rather than being a cog in the industrial wheel that takes many, many, lives. I guess that lives unseen just don’t matter as much to the ones we see out our window. As a homesteader, I know that you understand the purpose of being close to your own survival, so I’ll leave it off here.
I appreciate your comment but I could tell within 2 seconds of viewing it that you are biased. I know because I have done a careful study of the available research and interviewed trappers, while you have merely presented your personal opinion. Further, you perpetuate a problem within our society of hardening your view based on nothing but your own opinion, no attempt to acknowledge your bias, a complete dismissal of everything I presented, failure to acknowledge my conclusion of beefing up trapper education, monitoring, and trap specificity, and an assumption that I cannot see that there are good people with good intentions who disagree with me.
You see, I can play that game too. But I’d like to get past that and address some issues about trapping, instead. I wish you could be specific about what you thought was “false” in the EU article, but in the absence of particulars, I will take the leap and assume you mean that their conclusion that “many of the practices commonly used to trap mammals cannot be considered humane”.
Well. You may or may not know this, but not all trappers agree with you. I have a friend who had trapped for decades but gave it up when, he says, he finally came face to face with the fact (his view) that trapping does indeed cause extreme suffering. He did not want to be identified by name, so I did not include his words in my article. It might interest you to know that he thinks much of what trappers say to make it sound more benign, is propaganda. He says all trappers know this, but they don’t want people to know the truth because they’re afraid trapping will be made illegal.
Second. I recall at least one wildlife biologist, offhand, who regrets having been a trapper, but he was not able to appreciate the degree to which trapped animals suffer (his opinion) until after he began working with wildlife in another capacity (learning about their biology, tracking, gps collaring, etc.). I cannot recall his name, but he was one of the scientists in the book “The Wolverine Way” by Doug Chadwick.
Third. There is this admission by a trapper: “We trappers do cause pain and suffering to animals and apologize to no one. We are predators, period.” from Missoulian (dot) com/news/opinion/editorial/before-denouncing-trapping-think-of-what-right-might-be-next/article_14d096fc-01ad-5a37-b69e-23cc04ddcec3.html. This trapper seems to believe that because humans are predators, it’s okay to cause suffering. Period. No discussion as to how much suffering, no attempt to weigh the pros and cons. No comment on striving to minimize suffering. Just a belief that it’s okay to do this simply because we are capable of doing it. At least he admits that trapping causes pain and suffering.
So my question to you is, if we are to base a judgement about the humaneness of trapping on opinion alone, whose opinions matter? Only yours? Should the opinions of other trappers matter, and what if they disagree with you? How about people who study animal biology and behavior? Are their opinions irrelevant because they’ve never subjected animals to commonly used trapping methods?
I disagree roundly with your view that a person must have first hand experience trapping to develop an informed opinion about whether it is humane. I wonder if you think the same about various forms of torture, like waterboarding, solitary confinement, or forced sleep deprivation. Do you need to inflict it on others to know they cause extreme suffering?
Your final point about the costs of making clothes from synthetics is excellent, and I agree with it. I believe I said as much in my article. That is a very important point, but not the only point. What I was trying to do was to decide for myself (and I encouraged the reader to do the same, rather than to just accept my conclusions) if trapping is a good thing on balance. In my opinion, it is not enough to say anything that protects wildlife habitat is automatically good. We could raise money for conservation with prostitution or drug trafficking. Would that be good? I don’t think so. The reason is that those things involve other evils, just as trapping does…in my opinion.
Still, I don’t support the complete banning of trapping. What you and some of the other angry commenters failed to notice was that my actual conclusion was that “I strongly support measures to improve trapper education, monitor trappers, and improve specificity and humaneness of traps.” That’s in the second to last paragraph of my article, in case you missed it. And I think you did.
You may also want to peruse this study documenting injury from both padded and modified padded foothold traps. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a7ac/9ba0583a969fb35c831d6b2a63f5a5107edf.pdf
Pingback: The Truth About Trapping: An Honest Look at a Controversial Topic – Homesteadrr
Fantastic blog post! I admire your tenacity in responding to commenters who jump to conclusions without bothering to actually fully read your stance and conclusions (e.g. increased trapper education, trap improvement, need for society to assess possibly greater harmful impact of synthetic manufacturing, etc.). It is so tiring to have to repeat yourself so much simply because others don’t bother to read (knowing they may still not appreciate truth over their opinions). But, that is the way it is when building awareness. You clearly have a passion for education in this area and I am grateful for folks like you who have that patience. I am the same way when it comes to other things (e.g. sustainability and helping people follow their dreams). Thank you for the extreme amount of work and attention that went into producing this post. Keep up the great work!
Regarding the subject of trapping, I have a B.S. in Marine Biology and M.Sc. in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences and have worked for the TPWD, administering the cowbird trapping program. And I studied marine mammal incidental bycatch for my master’s work. I also served as the environmental lead for the LEED chapter in my city (among several other similar activities), so I have a bit of understanding of this and related topics and environmental issues such as green building and LEED and ecological systems (e.g. bycatch, ethical hunting, keystone predators, disease effects, wildlife management, etc.). I fully agree with your conclusions.
On a side note, if you have not read Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things by German chemist Michael Braungart and U.S. architect William McDonough, I highly recommend it! I loved that book! You seem like the kind of person that would appreciate it as well. Thanks again for your efforts!
Thank you, Holly, for your comment. I really appreciate the fact that you took the time to read through the entire post as well as the comments. You are right that a ton of time and effort went into creating this post. Responding to critics who clearly hadn’t read it through was becoming so tiresome that I was about to close comments. Now I’m glad I didn’t because I got to see a comment from someone who actually did read it! I will check out that book you suggest. Thanks!