The trapping compromise reached in 1997 – after two years of haggling between the European Commission and negotiators from the Russian Federation and Canada – was a bitter disappointment to humanitarians. (see Fall 1998 AWI Quarterly) The European Council's acceptance of the deal showed, once again, the smothering impact of the World Trade Organization and "free trade" on environmental and humane regulations.

Whatever their faults, however, the agreements between the European Union and Canada and Russia are binding, bilateral treaties. In contrast, the US-EU "agreement," accepted by the European Council late in 1997, consists of two brief, vaguely worded documents issued by the office of the US Trade Representative. One is called the "Agreed Minute," the other the "Side Letter." The Agreed Minute, after disavowing any intention of limiting state jurisdiction over wildlife, endorses the standards as a "common framework for implementation by its competent authorities [the state game and fish agencies] for humane trapping. " It then promises to encourage and support research" and "encourage competent authorities to monitor and report on progress."

The Side Letter is slightly more specific. It stipulates that use of all jaw-type restraining traps for ermine and muskrats will be ended four years after the entry into force of the bilateral agreements (ermine and other weasels are almost never deliberately trapped for fur; the muskrat market is now virtually dead). The use of "conventional" steel jaw leghold traps will end six years after the agreements are implemented.

In fact, neither the Federal government, nor the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA – the powerfully entrenched Washington lobby whose fur resources committee negotiated the deal with the EU) has any feasible way of forcing individual states to comply with the agreements. The view within the ranks of the state managers – forcibly stated at the recent North American Wildlife Conference – is that state compliance is purely "voluntary." The Europeans may regard their acceptance of two obliquely worded scraps of paper in lieu of a binding agreement as an act of faith; state managers evidently regard it as an act of surrender.

As their long-touted process for achieving " best management practices for trapping furbearers" (BMP) gets underway, the states' intentions remain opaque; BMP trap testing so far has merely repeated tests – carried out intermittently for two decades – that compare victims taken in conventional traps with those trapped with padded traps. Current testing seems almost identical to the "nine-state study"carried out by AFWA's fur resources committee in 1986-7; it involves the same traps, the same species, and many of the same people. The only relatively new design tested is the so called EGG trap, a raccoon trap with holding surfaces shielded by an egg-shaped plastic cover to prevent self-mutilation.

The absurdity of the current research is nowhere more evident than in the case of raccoons. The behavior of raccoons caught in leghold traps has been confirmed by dozens of field studies; the animals chew – and often amputate – their feet. In one New Jersey study, nine of twelve captured raccoons amputated portions of the captured foot; one animal was retained only by a digital flexor. In a trapping test carried out in lllinois, 15 of 39 raccoons taken in small, double-jawed legholds and 10 of 28 in # l 1/2 padded traps had either chewed off portions of the captured foot, suffered compound fractures, or both. Among raccoons trapped by Tuller in New York, 50 % of those taken in # 1 1/2 padded traps and 55% of those taken in # 1 1/2 standard traps, engaged in self mutilation. The nine state study did not distinguish self mutilation; however among raccoons trapped in the Southeast US 40 of 98 taken in standard traps and 25 of 75 taken in padded # 1 1/2 traps had damage scores above 125 on the Olson/ Nettles scale, which implies severe self mutilation, fractures, or both.

The standard contained in the bilateral agreements, and "endorsed" by the US, stipulates that 80 % of trapped animals must not exhibit injuries and behaviors deemed to be " indicators of poor welfare. " These include "self directed biting leading to severe injury (self mutilation), " fracture, amputation and several other injuries often suffered by trapped raccoons.

There is not the slightest possibility that either "conventional" or padded # 1 1/2 steel jaw leghold traps can pass this standard for raccoons. On the other hand, it is well established that baited cage traps are not only fairly benign, but efficient at catching raccoons, very possibly – when escapement through "wring offs" is taken into account – more efficient than are legholds. With the decline of commercial trapping and the increase in pest control, cages have become the most widely used raccoon trap in the US.

Why, if the state authorities intend to conform to the standard, are they testing traps (including "conventional" legholds) that cannot meet it, and ignoring the one trap that most obviously can?

US policy on trapping, first within the ISO trap standards process, then in international negotiations, now in shaping so called "BMPs" has been dominated by a small group of state managers and professional trappers, whose devotion to the steel jaw leghold trap, hiding behind phrases such as "indispensable management tool", is nothing short of fanatical. There is no evidence at all that these dogged, resourceful men have flagged in their determination to retain this, somehow precious, "tool."

There is evidence, however, that ideologues such as those who have defined state and national trapping policy are increasingly out of step not only with a great majority of the general public, but with their professional colleagues. In a paper given at the North American Wildlife Conference, Professor Robert Muth of the University of Massachusetts presented the results of a questionnaire sent to 4000 members of our professional wildlife societies , including the Society of Conservation Biologists and the Wildlife Society. On the question of whether it is "appropriate" to use steel jaw leghold traps, the 3200 respondents split: 43% against, 42% in favor. Among those registering disapproval, 93% listed cruelty as a reason; 88 % listed capture of non-target species.

These results puncture the claim, repeated ad nauseam by defenders of the steel jaw leghold trap that their views are the views of all "trained wildlife professionals." They also reflect a growing unease, even among state managers, with their reactionary leadership, and a recognition galvanized by the results of public referendums in Arizona, Colorado and Massachusetts – that this is damaging the credibility of state agencies with the public.

Eventually, the reformers may prevail. In the meantime the charade continues, senseless repeat testing, ad absurdum, of "conventional" leghold traps at federal government expense; maneuvering and stalling behind a screen of persiflage. The USDA's Division of Wildlife Services provided $350,000 to carry out this season's BMP testing, apparently with no strings attached and no questions asked. It should not commit another dime toward trap testing until it is clear that the research is directed toward genuine reform of trapping and bringing the US into compliance with the commitments the Europeans – however naively – believe we have made.

AWI Quarterly Winter 1998, Vol. 47, No. 1. p. 12