| Home | About Us | Mission | Why Reform | Humane Trapping | Wildlife Rehab | News | Join NUWC |
The Rebranding of Fur Trapping
The killing of "furbearer" or "nuisance" animals does not control the spread of disease, including rabies, as sick animals are not attracted to bait. In fact, it may actually serve to exacerbate the spread of disease because only healthy, potentially immune animals end up being removed from the local population.
Think about that? So are the hunting & trapping "tools" state wildlife agencies claim help them manage our wildlife today actually creating healthy populations, or unhealthy and genetically weaker ones? (while they reap profits and expand opportunity for these paying customers)
Wildlife agency personnel capitalize on an uninformed public and the nuance between fur trapping and “nuisance” control to disguise the gratuitous nature of the violence, while promoting still more consumptive use of wildlife. And, as evidenced by the Liddle v. Clark, et al., litigation, this tactic has also proven successful for opening up public lands, unbeknownst to the public, for private commercial gain.
The twisted linguistics also establish a contrived need for trapping animals and enable state wildlife communication experts to package fur trapping as a necessary evil. By conflating these two activities, trapping proponents disguise recreational/fur trapping – an increasingly unpopular, commercial exploitation of wild animals – as a more acceptable, publicly palatable endeavor.
Read more at www.centerforwildlifeethics.org/the-rebranding-of-fur-trapping
Go back to the National Urban Wildlife Coalition home page.
Think about that? So are the hunting & trapping "tools" state wildlife agencies claim help them manage our wildlife today actually creating healthy populations, or unhealthy and genetically weaker ones? (while they reap profits and expand opportunity for these paying customers)
Wildlife agency personnel capitalize on an uninformed public and the nuance between fur trapping and “nuisance” control to disguise the gratuitous nature of the violence, while promoting still more consumptive use of wildlife. And, as evidenced by the Liddle v. Clark, et al., litigation, this tactic has also proven successful for opening up public lands, unbeknownst to the public, for private commercial gain.
The twisted linguistics also establish a contrived need for trapping animals and enable state wildlife communication experts to package fur trapping as a necessary evil. By conflating these two activities, trapping proponents disguise recreational/fur trapping – an increasingly unpopular, commercial exploitation of wild animals – as a more acceptable, publicly palatable endeavor.
Read more at www.centerforwildlifeethics.org/the-rebranding-of-fur-trapping
Go back to the National Urban Wildlife Coalition home page.