Some facts about trapping

by Chance Thedford | December 10, 2020
4 min read
Pet predation is lessened by controlling the numbers of furbearing predators through trapping. Photograph courtesy of the New Mexico Trappers Association

Editor’s Note: This commentary was written in response to a guest column published by the Sun on Dec. 4. Entitled “New Mexico: Land of Entrapment,” the column advocated for the passage of “Roxy’s Law,” which would prohibit trapping on public lands to prevent the ensnarement of non-furbearers and horrifying hikers who stumble across captured pets or dumps of skinned animals.

It seems to be a common but false premise that trapping interferes or conflicts with the tourism industry. This is not a zero-sum game; both can and have existed forever. New Mexico’s public lands are used by everyone, and the New Mexico Trapping Association recognizes that fact. But we do not want to see the loss of trapping, in part because it is a valuable wildlife management tool that, I would argue, benefits tourism. Wildlife observation and hunting is a major reason people visit New Mexico, and modern traps and regulated trapping help to manage all wildlife at sustainable levels.

Trapping does not cause wildlife to become endangered or threatened because the species which trappers are allowed to harvest are plentiful and widespread. In fact, trapping increases biodiversity. The highly regulated harvest of furbearing predators benefits commonly viewed and photographed prey species like mule deer, elk, waterfowl, upland game species and songbirds, as well as rarer species like bighorn sheep. It has aided in the recovery or reintroduction of species that were extinct in the state, most recently including river otter and Mexican grey wolves.

Counterintuitively, the harvest of furbearers benefits the species being harvested by keeping populations within sustainable levels, thereby reducing issues like starvation and disease (rabies, distemper, parvo, tularemia, leptospirosis, pseudorabies, toxoplasmosis, baylisascaris procyonis), which can devastate furbearer populations and even impact humans and pets. In addition to reducing disease threats to human and pet health and safety, trapping can help limit crop, pet or livestock losses and damage to private property.

Modern foothold traps, when set legally, are safe, humane and selective. Poachers, not legal trappers, have been the cause of nearly every single conflict between traps and non-furbearers in recent history in New Mexico. The highly publicized example of this was the dog caught and killed north of Santa Fe a year or two ago. Although portrayed as a “trapper,” the poacher who caused the dog’s death was no more a trapper than the person who kills a deer out of season and cuts the head off is a “hunter.” Poaching is illegal, and poachers are not representative of the vast majority of hunters or trappers. New Mexico’s trappers want all poachers to be caught and prosecuted.

Outlawing or banning trapping will not make them go away, either. There will always be people who violate the game laws. By educating the public and trappers and advocating (believe it or not) for stricter trapping laws, the New Mexico Trappers Association hopes to reduce conflicts without barring an entire group of sportsmen/women from using their public lands because of the illegal actions of a few bad apples.

NMTA pushed for the New Mexico State Game Commission to make trapper education mandatory. Effective last April, every New Mexican purchasing a trapper license is required to take a New Mexico Department of Game and Fish-approved education course prior to setting any trap or snare. Trapping was already the most highly regulated wildlife-related activity in the state, and the Game Commission recently enacted ever stricter trapping laws, which NMTA supported and, in some cases, demanded because we wanted to reduce the chances of conflicts.

The new restrictions included the largest setback law in the U.S. of which I am are aware. It prohibits setting traps within a half-mile of any campground, trailhead, boat launch, rest area, picnic area or occupied dwelling. Trappers are not allowed to set traps on trails or roads—places where most people walk their dogs. (Trapping in town and other off-limits areas has been illegal for decades.) The new laws passed by the Game Commission last year incorporated, wherever possible, best management practices developed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which is comprised of professional wildlife biologists from every state in the Union and the Canadian provinces. AFWA’s extensive studies have, for example, resulted in strict rules designating which traps are allowed and which are prohibited.

Trapping regulations, including bag limits, are scientifically based, written by professional wildlife biologists, who work tirelessly to appropriately manage New Mexico’s wildlife for the benefit of all New Mexicans, and strictly enforced by game wardens trained in catching and prosecuting poachers. NMDGF reviews furbearer regulations every four years to continually develop or update rules, educational programs and capture methods (including consideration of animal welfare). NMDGF’s 2020-2021 furbearer rules and information booklet, which includes a good tutorial about how to release a dog safely from a trap, is available on the department’s website or from any license vendor free of charge.

I hope this information from an actual trapper helps your readers understand trapping a little better and see the difference between sportsmen/women and poachers.


Share this:

Understanding New Mexico's proposed new social studies standards for K-12 students

“The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”
—National Council for the Social Studies 

Reader Michael L. Hayes of Las Cruces commented: What impresses me is that both the proposed standards and some of the criticisms of them are equally grotesque. I make this bold statement on the basis of my experience as a peripatetic high school and college English teacher for 45 years in many states with many students differing in race, religion, gender and socioeconomic background, and as a civic activist (PTA) in public education (My career, however, was as an independent consultant mainly in defense, energy and the environment.)

The proposed social studies standards are conceptually and instructionally flawed. For starters, a “performance standard” is not a standard at all; it is a task. Asking someone to explain something is not unlike asking someone to water the lawn. Nothing measures the performance, but without a measure, there is no standard. The teacher’s subjective judgment will be all that matters, and almost anything will count as satisfying a “performance standard,” even just trying. Students will be left to wonder “what is on the teacher’s mind?” or “have I sucked up enough.”

Four other quick criticisms of the performance standards. One, they are nearly unintelligible because they are written in jargon. PED’s use of jargon in a document intended for the public is worrisome. Bureaucrats often use jargon to confuse or conceal something uninformed, wrong or unworthy. As a result, most parents, some school board members and more than a few teachers do not understand them.

Two, the performance standards are so vague that they fail to define the education which teachers are supposed to teach, students are supposed to learn, and parents are supposed to understand. PED does not define words like “explain” or “describe” so that teachers can apply “standards” consistently and fairly. The standards do not indicate what teachers are supposed to know in order to teach or specify what students are supposed to learn. Supervisors cannot know whether teachers are teaching social studies well or poorly. The standards are so vague that the public, especially parents or guardians, cannot know the content of public education.

Three, many performance standards are simply unrealistic, especially at grade level. Under “Ethnic, Cultural and Identity Performance Standards”; then under “Diversity and Identity”; then under “Kindergarten,” one such standard is: “Identify how their family does things both the same as and different from how other people do things.” Do six-year-olds know how other people do things? Do they know whether these things are relevant to diversity and identity? Or another standard: “Describe their family history, culture, and past to current contributions of people in their main identity groups.” (A proficient writer would have hyphenated the compound adjective to avoid confusing the reader.) Do six-year-olds know so much about these things in relation to their “identity group”? Since teachers obviously do not teach them about these other people and have not taught them about these groups, why are these and similar items in the curriculum; or do teachers assign them to go home and collect this information?

Point four follows from “three”; some information relevant to some performance measures requires a disclosure of personal or family matters. The younger the students, the easier it is for teachers to invade their privacy and not only their privacy, but also the privacy of their parents or guardians, or neighbors, who may never be aware of these disclosures or not become aware of them until afterward. PED has no right to design a curriculum which requires teachers to ask students for information about themselves, parents or guardians, or neighbors, or puts teachers on the spot if the disclosures reveal criminal conduct. (Bill says Jeff’s father plays games in bed with his daughter. Lila says Angelo’s mother gives herself shots in the arm.) Since teacher-student communications have no legal protection to ensure privacy, those disclosures may become public accidentally or deliberately. The effect of these proposal standards is to turn New Mexico schools and teachers into investigative agents of the state and students into little informants or spies.

This PED proposal for social studies standards is a travesty of education despite its appeals to purportedly enlightened principles. It constitutes a clear and present danger to individual liberty and civil liberties. It should be repudiated; its development, investigated; its PED perpetrators, dismissed. No state curriculum should encourage or require the disclosure of private personal information.

I am equally outraged by the comments of some of T or C’s school board members: Christine LaFont and Julianne Stroup, two white Christian women, who belong to one of the larger minorities in America and assume white and Christian privileges. In different terms but for essentially the same reason, both oppose an education which includes lessons about historical events and trends, and social movements and developments, of other minorities. They object to the proposal for the new social studies standards because of its emphasis on individual and group identities not white or Christian. I am not going to reply with specific objections; they are too numerous and too pointed.

Ms. LaFont urges: “It’s better to address what’s similar with all Americans. It’s not good to differentiate.” Ms. Stroup adds: “Our country is not a racist country. We have to teach to respect each other. We have civil rights laws that protect everyone from discrimination. We need to teach civics, love and respect. We need to teach how to be color blind.”

Their desires for unity and homogeneity, and for mutual respect, are a contradiction and an impossibility. Aside from a shared citizenship, which implies acceptance of the Constitution, the rule of law and equality under the law, little else defines Americans. We are additionally defined by our race, religion, national origin, etc. So mutual respect requires individuals to respect others different from themselves. Disrespect desires blacks, Jews or Palestinians to assimilate or to suppress or conceal racial, religious or national origin aspects of their identity. The only people who want erasure of nonwhite, non-Christian, non-American origin aspects of identity are bigots. Ms. LaFont and Ms. Stroud want standards which, by stressing similarities and eliding differences, desire the erasure of such aspects. What they want will result in a social studies curriculum that enables white, Christian, native-born children to grow up to be bigots and all others to be their victims. This would be the academic equivalent of ethnic cleansing.


This postmortem of a case involving a 75-year-old women who went missing from her home in Hillsboro last September sheds light on the bounds of law enforcement’s capacity to respond, especially in large rural jurisdictions such as Sierra County, and underscores the critical role the public, as well as concerned family and friends, can play in assisting a missing person’s search.

Reader Jane Debrott of Hillsboro commented: Thank you for your article on the tragic loss of Betsey. I am a resident of Hillsboro, a friend of Rick and Betsey, and a member of H.E.L.P. The thing that most distresses me now, is the emphasis on Rick’s mis-naming of the color of their car. I fear that this fact will cause Rick to feel that if he had only gotten the facts right, Betsey may have been rescued before it was too late. The incident was a series of unavoidable events, out of everyone’s control, and we will never know what place the correct color of her car may have had in the outcome. It breaks my heart to think that Rick has had one more thing added to his “what ifs” concerning this incident.

Diana Tittle responded: Dear Jane, the Sun undertook this investigation at the request of a Hillsboro resident concerned about the town’s inability to mount a prompt, coordinated response to the disappearance of a neighbor. From the beginning, I shared your concern about how our findings might affect Betsy’s family and friends. After I completed my research and began writing, I weighed each detail I eventually chose to include against my desire to cause no pain and the public’s right to know about the strengths and limitations of law enforcement’s response and the public’s need to know about how to be of meaningful assistance.

There was information I withheld about the state police investigation and the recovery. But I decided to include the issue of the car’s color because the individuals who spotted Betsy’s car emphasized how its color had been key to their identification of it as the vehicle described in Betsy’s Silver Alert. Because the misinformation was corrected within a couple of hours, I also included in this story the following editorial comment meant to put the error in perspective: “The fact that law enforcement throughout the state was on the lookout in the crucial early hours after Betsy’s disappearance for an elderly woman driving a “light blue” instead of a “silver” Accord would, in retrospect, likely not have changed the outcome of the search” [emphasis added].

I would also point to the story’s overarching conclusion about the inadvisability of assigning blame for what happened: “In this case, a perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances, many of them beyond human control, hindered the search that it would fall to Hamilton’s department to lead.”

It is my hope that any pain caused by my reporting will eventually be outweighed by its contribution to a better community understanding of what it will take in the future to mount a successful missing person’s search in rural Sierra County.

9 thoughts on “Some facts about trapping”

  1. The age-old trope that trapping is “a valuable wildlife management tool” is totally meaningless. The type and scope of trapping is never specified nor are the reasons stated for its necessity. There are no “management” plans for any trapped species, no stated goals, and no monitoring whether goals are being met. “Management” is just a euphemism for “killing a bunch of animals means there are fewer animals.”

    Recreational/commercial trapping meets no known definition of the term “management” at all. Moreover, the majority of species trapped in New Mexico are self-regulating—populations are kept balanced by biological carrying capacity, social structures and the establishment and defense of territories.

    I could spend a bit more time poking holes in every single argument here, but then there would be nothing left. And I have better things to do….

  2. Mr. Thedford argues that any legally set trap couldn’t possibly do harm, and any trap that causes harm could only be the fault of a poacher—but this argument simply ignores the ACTUAL evidence and incidents that have taken place on New Mexico public lands. You only need to visit and view the interactive incident map to see plenty of non-target animals caught in leghold traps—including dogs, domestic cats and even a raven—and despite those traps being legally set as determined by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish officers. And New Mexicans are smart enough to realize that if they have a problem with the cruelty inherent in a trap or snare that is just set a little too close to a trail or fails to be marked with an ID, they also have a problem with the cruelty inherent in a trap or snare placed correctly 25 yards off the trail with a name on it. Gratuitous animal suffering is still abhorred by your most fervent red meat-eating American; compassion is still a core value.

    But more than just cruelty—this issue is also a reckoning of how New Mexico wants to manage our publicly “owned” wildlife.

    Specifically, we must ask: Why is trapping held to a significantly lower standard of conservation values and ethics than all other hunting???
    -> How many game species can be harvested in unlimited numbers without any NMDGF-set population estimates? That’s trapping.
    -> How many hunters can get away with accidentally shooting the wrong species, the wrong age, the wrong sex of animal? That’s trapping.
    -> How many hunters can make a living off of hunting game species and selling their meat or other parts in commercial markets, in violation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation? That’s trapping.

    When we see our neighbors, Colorado and Arizona, putting a stop to private/commercial trapping on public lands since the mid 1990s, we know that a state can successfully stop the unnecessary cruelty, carnage and ecological irresponsibility and still maintain healthy levels of both furbearing and other wild species; we know that no problem with disease or overpopulation emerges; we see that their livestock industries continue to thrive; and we know that non-target captures by traps and snares and horror stories told by residents and tourists *all but disappear.* You only need to open your eyes and look around to see that the fear-mongering is baseless, and it’s a denial by a small vocal segment of people who don’t want to admit that trapping is an outlier in how our state (and entire country) wants to manage wildlife and allow safe, responsible, shared use of public lands for as many as possible.

    It’s time to pass Roxy’s Law. The bill has exemptions written into it to allow for important uses of traps and snares by professionals, and humane cage traps by all when needed. But we no longer need to broadly accept the cruelty and the anti-conservation trapping industry as a necessary evil, because we’ve seen there is a better way.

  3. Funny how an opinion piece touting “some facts” is riddled with lies, half-truths and other falsehoods. If you thought you were done dealing with Trumpism, this article is Exhibit A that fake news is here to stay.

    Let’s go through “some facts”:

    “Pet predation is lessened by controlling the numbers of furbearing predators through trapping.” Yes, if you literally trap every coyote in your county, you might reduce the already rare occurrence of pet predation for about three months. Or you could simply keep an eye on your companion animals.

    “Outlawing or banning trapping will not make them go away, either. There will always be people who violate the game laws.” What’s the point in having laws then?

    “…the New Mexico Trappers Association hopes to reduce conflicts without barring an entire group of sportsmen/women from using their public lands….” Their use of OUR public lands precludes others’ safe use. This statement lays bare what the author really thinks: public lands belong to me and my kind. Tourists and other recreationists need not apply.  

    “In fact, trapping increases biodiversity.” Well, this one is just a joke, right? In case you don’t get the joke, the author is clearly joshing us that furbearers (a misnomer itself) aren’t wildlife and don’t contribute to biodiversity. Of course, native species like coyotes, bobcats and gray fox are wildlife that are valuable alive because 1) they have a right to exist, keep their own skin and contribute their important ecological niches, and 2) many more people can enjoy their presence if one trapper doesn’t waste them.

    “Counterintuitively, the harvest of furbearers benefits the species being harvested by keeping populations within sustainable levels….” That’s not counterintuitive, that’s just made up. If those were “some [real] facts,” think of what a hellscape North America must have been when humans weren’t regulating wildlife populations. How on earth did any species survive for millennia without us?

    I could go on and on, pointing out the illogic of this piece but that becomes a tired game. Instead of using “some facts” like a bludgeon, I’ll leave you with a reliable source of information and let you decide for yourself:

  4. Several recent incidents remind us of the hazard posed by steel-jaw traps on New Mexico public lands. Traps are a well-documented threat to people, pets and wildlife. Maimed dogs and piles of skinned corpses are signs that all is not well in the Land of Enchantment.

    The New Mexico Game department supposedly regulates trapping, but facilitates the destruction of wildlife by selling $20 trapping licenses that allow individuals to place as many traps and kill as many animals as they want on public lands. Unlimited, indiscriminate killing is not wildlife “management” in any sane or reasonable sense. It’s no wonder we have a problem.

    The game department claims that trapping is “humane, scientific, and necessary.” There’s nothing humane about limb-crushing steel-jaw traps. The injuries they inflict are extreme and often fatal. Injuries to dogs are often so severe they require limb amputations. And there’s nothing “scientific” about piles of decomposing bodies dumped on public land.

    The game department also claims to support only “fair chase” hunting. But strangling trapped animals hardly qualifies as fair chase. The game department promotes the destruction of our wildlife in direct violation of its own stated ethics. This is the same state agency that did nothing to stop the mass slaughter of coyote killing contests. The state legislature had to step in and end that abuse. The game department exerts far more effort promoting its dishonest narrative than it does in protecting wildlife and the public from a known hazard. That’s inexcusable.

    Spring-loaded steel-jaw traps are inherently indiscriminate. Traps set for coyotes continue to catch, maim and kill endangered Mexican wolves. At least 40 wolves, including pups, have been trapped since their reintroduction, and traps continue to slow the recovery of this keystone species.

    Traps are inherently destructive and have proven to be incompatible with the safe enjoyment of public lands. No one should have to struggle in a panic to free their dog from a steel-jaw trap. No resident or visitor should have to see maimed animals dying in traps or piles of skinned corpses dumped by trappers. People value New Mexico for its beauty, not its ugliness and abuse.

    In the midst of a raging global pandemic, outdoor recreation is one of our only alternatives. We need our public lands now more than ever, and we need them to be free from unnecessary and avoidable hazards. The vast majority of New Mexicans do not trap and derive no benefit from this activity. Traps are a liability to New Mexico and should be removed from our public lands.

  5. Mary Katherine Ray

    When it comes to so-called wildlife management aspect of trapping, I’ve been to state game commission meetings and done the document requests. I can assure readers there are no current population studies for any furbearing species in New Mexico. We have no idea how these animals that are so exploited are doing. Moreover, there is no management plan in place for any of them, no way to measure if the plan objectives are being met, and no plan to make alterations if they are not. But trappers are allowed to kill an unlimited number of all of these species over a 4.5-month season, and no one at all knows how many traps are set each year, nor where. What kind of management is that? No kind at all! The point of commercial and recreational trapping is not wildlife management, but private profit from selling the pelts of the public’s wildlife. Anyone can make a claim about how great trapping is, but it’s just words. Hollow words.

  6. Teresa Mills DuBois

    I have volunteered as a search and rescue dog handler in northern New Mexico for more than 30 years. My dog was caught in a trap and I simply can’t agree that traps are “humane,” as the author states. To hear my dog screaming in pain as we tried to release her, was something I will never forget. There was nothing humane about the sound. Unfortunately the animals caught in these traps don’t have someone on hand to release them in a timely manner and must suffer for hours or days. I will never understand how people in this day in age can, with a clear conscience, say that trapping is a beneficial practice. Please help us ban this archaic operation. And by the way, if you are tired of coyotes eating your cats, then leave your cats inside where they belong. Our song birds will appreciate this very much.

  7. Kathleen McDonald

    As a avid hiker who’s dealt with pets wailing in pain after stepping into leg traps on public lands, I must say to Mr. Thedford’s argument that legally set traps do no harm is simply wrong. Leg traps are extremely difficult to open without sustaining injury. It’s bogus to expect an innocent hiker to know how to open one, or to have reviewed an online tutorial or educational booklet. Why should a recreationalist on public lands be expected to know such things? Pfft. It’s infuriating. The trapping on public lands is cruel, indiscriminate, barbaric, unnecessary. Forget the “few bad apples” argument indicating bad experiences are rare because most trappers do so legally. All traps are booby-traps, whether tagged or not. All should be banned on public lands.

    In my many years of hiking these forests I’ve dealt with the site of a dead owl in a snare, as well as a dead and desiccated bobcat in a trap. The mental images are haunting. I’ve dealt with the trapping of pet dogs on trails three times in the Lincoln National Forest in just the last five years, twice with tagged, “legal” traps. Each time my pet was injured and traumatized, and so was I. Last December was the worst. My gentle dog wailed in pain as I struggled to release him from the “humane,” quick-release trap. I struggled in freezing temperatures. My dog writhed in pain each time I touched the trap, eventually biting my right hand to the bone as I tried to release his squished paw. Dark was falling upon us, my cellphone signal in the forest canyon was weak. I yelled for help to no avail and was forced to leave my pet until gaining enough signal to call the sheriff’s department for help. (Game and Fish employees were unavailable.) A deputy hiked in and found us by flashlight. My gloved hand was frozen in blood, my dog in shock. Not even this safety professional knew how to handle the “quick release.” Finally we did succeed, but not without a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. The entire trapping and release episode took three hours.

    Sorry Mr. Thedford but your argument suggesting trapping is a “wildlife management tool” on public lands is bogus. There is no monitoring. Trapping might serve good purpose on private land and ranches but not New Mexico public lands. There are too many horror stories to validate this deeply disturbing “sport.” The time to pass the bill known as Roxy’s Law is NOW. It’s overdue. Let New Mexico be true to its “Land of Enchantment” motto. Thank you.

  8. I am not convinced by Chance Thedford’s Dec. 10 guest column in the Sierra County Sun that trapping benefits all New Mexicans. I can say for certain that trapping has not benefited two of my dogs. My two dogs were no different than many visitors’ dogs are to New Mexico. They travel with their humans most times we go on a trip or go for a hike on the Gila National Forest public land. And that can be to a trailhead on the Continental Divide Trail (CDT), where I have had two dogs trapped just feet from the national trail within a seven-year period.

    Because traps are indiscriminate, endangered and non-target species are trapped and killed. I don’t believe the trappers that set out their steel-jaw traps next to the CDT in Pinos Altos, New Mexico, were looking to trap my hiking companions, but they did and it ruined my day and injured my dogs. One dog died a long, lingering death from being trapped and spending a cold night alone, suffering in pain and dehydrated. Not once but twice over the years we have had to endure the cruel cold, steel of a trapper’s trap. Cruel and indiscriminate.

    Thedford writes that banning trapping won’t stop poachers. Outlawing murder does not stop all murderers. Still it seems like a good idea to keep barbaric practices illegal. Because of my direct experience with trapping, I now believe trapping should be banned on all public lands in New Mexico. I will push to outlaw trapping on public lands not just for my dogs’ safety, but for tourists’ dogs and for our wildlife, from endangered to plentiful.

    Killing predators does not help ecosystems and serves no wildlife management goals. It may even cause overpopulation of prey species. This is what peer-reviewed scientific studies show.

    Glenn Griffin is a Grant County community activist.

  9. Actually, “pet predation” is best “controlled” (if not completely eliminated) by responsible pet guardians. (“Pets,”
    especially domestic felines are unrepentant predators of birds—predation best controlled, again, by responsible guardians.)

    Politicization has become part of the (dysfunctional) “new normal.” The politics of trapping definitely adds to the continuing rural/urban divide. Margins and percentages of support for issues (and candidates) have been important determining factors. Logic may not always follow; cognitive dissonance abounds.

    99.9% of New Mexicans are NOT engaged in trapping. Public support for banning trapping is overwhelming. If New Mexico had the benefit of a citizens’ initiative, trapping would be another dark vestige of our “civilization” and our selfish exploitation of environment. “Humanity” may be a pejorative—we have not always conducted ourselves in ways that add value. Traps hurt. There is virtually no difference between a coyote and a domestic dog in terms of response to the terror and pain of a steel-jaw trap. Self-amputation and capture myopathy are very real and common.

    The financial profitability of trapping for all but a few “practitioners” is minimal—if any. Making this fringe activity a cruel historical reenactment hobby with ever-diminishing markets and increasing boycotts. Given the labor-intensive brutality of the actual work, complex logistics, capital investment and infrastructure, similar dedication to virtually any other activity would be exponentially more financially profitable. So, perhaps there is a more complex underlying motivation to this activity? Perhaps it’s time to hear from mental health, veterinary, religious leaders and rehab professionals, in addition to the overwhelming support for banning trapping by highly qualified and educated environmental and wildlife professionals. Banning trapping will save wildlife (and ourselves).

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top