FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Peer-Reviewed Study Critiques Misleading Trapping Standards
Calls for Immediate Reform as More States Push Unethical Trapping Practices
Madison, Wis.— A groundbreaking peer-reviewed study, ‘Best Management Practices for Furbearer Trapping Derived from Poor and Misleading Science’ co-authored by Naomi Louchouarn, Gilbert Proulx, Thomas Serfass, Carter Niemeyer and Adrian Treves, critically evaluates the methodology of a flawed study that U.S. state wildlife agencies heavily rely on to justify trapping.
Through their research, Louchouarn and colleagues expose significant problems in so-called “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) for furbearer trapping in North America. As more state wildlife agencies adopt these misguided BMPs to justify and promote trapping, the implications for public policy, and wildlife and ethical standards are dire.
The Flaws in Trapping BMPs and Their National Implications
Despite a marked decline in public support for trapping and decreasing numbers of trappers, state wildlife agencies across the United States are increasingly relying on BMPs to sanction the use of inhumane traps. These practices are out of step with the values held by the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly favor wildlife conservation and appreciate the intrinsic value of living animals. The BMPs, as developed in White et al. (2021), were intended to meet internationally agreed-upon standards for humane trapping. However, Louchouarn and Treves’ evaluation reveals that these BMPs fail to align with current International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards and are based on incomplete, inadequate, and non-replicable research methods.
Conflict of interest concerns also abound. In stark contrast to White and co-authors’ process, Louchouarn and colleagues’ study was reviewed by five anonymous peers recruited by the journal seeking unaffiliated experts after receiving all co-authors’ full disclosures concerning potential competing interests.
The implications of this flawed research are far-reaching. As more state agencies, such as Vermont Fish & Wildlife, adopt these BMPs instead of addressing public preferences to ban recreational trapping, they perpetuate unethical trapping practices that not only harm wildlife but also mislead the public into believing that these methods are humane. In reality, the White et al. study reveals that the BMPs allow for severe injuries—including amputations and deaths—up to 30% of the time, and are still considered to meet the BMP criteria.
A Call for Transparency and Accountability
“It is crucial, especially in cases where research is used to justify the consumptive, and sometimes controversial, use of wildlife, that journals hold researchers to the highest possible standards of transparency.” said Naomi Louchouarn, co-author of the study and associate researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “That highest possible standard requires transparency in the study methods and every effort throughout the scientific study process to reduce all possible biases, including the potential competing interests of the authors.”
Adrian Treves, co-author and professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison, added, “Our scientific team followed the highest standards of independent review, to model how White et al. and the journal fell below those standards. The public cannot trust science when researchers and data collectors – agency staff and private commercial and recreational trappers – are invested in the industry they study. Even more worrisome are the many authors of White et al.’s employment in agencies that claim to regulate the industry that appears to emerge shining from their study.”
“Science should be held to the highest standards, especially when it forms the basis for public policy,” said Michelle Lute, PhD in wildlife management and executive director of Wildlife for All. “This evaluation of White et al. (2021) shows that the research underpinning trapping BMPs is not only flawed but also deeply misleading. We urge state wildlife agencies and legislators to reconsider their reliance on these standards and to push for more transparent, reproducible, and ethically sound practices.”
The Growing Discrepancy Between Public Values and State Policies
The increasing adoption of BMPs by state agencies comes at a time when public interest in trapping is waning as public opposition increases. The number of active trappers is steadily decreasing, as is the Global? market for animal pelts. Despite this, state agencies continue to promote trapping under the guise of these BMPs, often ignoring the public’s preference for non-lethal and ethical wildlife management.
“Roxy’s Law,” recently enacted in New Mexico, provides a stark contrast to the policies supported by BMPs. This law, inspired by the tragic death of a dog caught in a snare trap, bans the use of traps, snares, and poisons on public lands, except in certain controlled circumstances. It reflects a growing recognition among legislators and the public alike that traps are not only inhumane but also pose an unacceptable risk to both wildlife and domestic animals.
“The American public deserves policies that reflect their values—values that prioritize the well-being of wildlife and respect for life,” said Brenna Galdenzi, President of Protect Our Wildlife. “The current BMPs fail to meet these expectations. It’s time for a thorough review and reform of these practices.”
Wildlife for All, in collaboration with its member organizations, calls on state wildlife agencies and legislators to rethink their reliance on flawed BMPs. It’s time to align state policies with the values of the American public, who increasingly see wildlife as beings with intrinsic value, deserving of better protections and respect.
For more information or to schedule an interview with Naomi Louchouarn and Adrian Treves, please contact info@wildlifeforall.us.
# # #
About Wildlife for All
Wildlife for All is a national organization dedicated to reforming wildlife management to be more democratic, just, compassionate and focused on protecting wild species and ecosystems. Through research, advocacy, and education, we aim to protect wildlife and ensure that policies reflect the values of all Americans.