Debate Over Proposed Trapping Ban Divides Colorado

One side portrays a coyote struggling desperately to free itself from the steel jaws of a leg-hold trap. The other shows a sheep being viciously ravaged by a coyote. The two images frame a rancorous debate in Colorado over a ban on trapping.

The ban, to be voted on Nov. 5, symbolizes the widening gap between Old West politics and New West demographics, a complex clash between urban and rural values. It puts the decision on how predatory wildlife should be managed into voters’ hands.

If approved, the constitutional amendment would outlaw steel-jaw and restraining traps, snares and poisons for recreation, commerce or wildlife management.

Under Colorado law, species classified as big game or fur-bearers may be trapped, snared, or poisoned if suspected of causing damage to livestock or crops. Fur-bearers, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, muskrats and raccoons, may also be trapped for commercial profit or recreation by licensed trappers. There are about 1,000 licensed trappers in the state, whom livestock owners often hire to reduce predation.

The ban mirrors one passed by Arizona voters in 1994. An anti-trapping initiative is also on the November ballot in Massachusetts.

Nationwide, there are proposals to restrict hunting of bears, wolves, cougar or lynx on the ballots in Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho and Michigan.

For trapping opponents, the chief objection is the prolonged suffering an animal endures if the traps are not checked often.

“It’s an issue of cruelty. We have a responsibility to these wildlife animals under our protection,” said Bob Angell, founder of Colorado People Allied With Wildlife, a group that gathered 100,000 signatures to put the anti-trapping referendum on the ballot.

Moreover, pets and nontarget animals may find their way into traps. “Studies show that accidental victims outnumber targeted ones 2 to 1. This is indiscriminate killing,” Angell said.

But opponents of the ban, notably ranchers and farmers, say that predators are the indiscriminate killers and they need traps to minimize their losses.

“I don’t feel it’s any more inhumane for me to kill a coyote than for him to rip open one of my lambs,” said David Yardley, an Erie, Colo., sheep farmer. In the last two months, he has lost three lambs to coyotes. “That’s way too many,” he said. “Killing coyotes is the last thing I’d like to do. But if coyotes never ate a lamb, it would not be an issue.”

Predators cause more than $3 million in damage to livestock each year, according to the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Sheep and lambs are the hardest hit animals, with losses of 26,000 head in 1995.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife estimates the state’s 200,000 coyotes are the chief livestock predator. Mountain lions and bears also claim a small percentage of sheep and cattle.

Historically, the state has reimbursed ranchers for losses due to mountain lions and bears; no compensation is provided for losses from other predators.

Anti-trapping advocates want livestock owners to use alternatives such as fences, guard dogs, bright lights and noisemaking devices. Shooting predators, they say, is an acceptable option of last resort.

But opponents insist that many ranchers already use these methods. “What they’re proposing is not adequate for people to protect their livestock,” said Sandy Snider of the Colorado Wool Growers Assn., which represents 1,200 sheep farmers.

The initiative offers a limited exception for landowners to trap for 30 consecutive days a year--if they prove alternative methods have failed. Livestock owners say 30 days will not get them through calving and lambing season and question what it will take to qualify for the exception.