Commercial fur trappers in Colorado may use nonlethal devices to capture animals, despite a voter-approved constitutional amendment restricting trapping, a Denver district judge has ruled.
The 1996 amendment outlawed the use of deadly traps, but it did not ban capturing animals alive, Judge Larry Naves decided in a case that was argued in September.
“The plain language of Amendment 14 prohibits certain specified ‘methods’ of taking wildlife in Colorado which were considered to be inhumane or indiscriminate,” Naves wrote.
Among those devices are leg-hold traps, instant-kill body-gripping design traps, poisons and snares, the judge said.
“The plain language does not express any prohibition on the use of any other methods of taking wildlife, including live traps,” Naves concluded.
Sinapu, a nonprofit wildlife-conservation group, sued the Colorado Wildlife Commission for approving regulations in 2006 that allow live trapping, despite the so-called trapping-ban ballot measure that passed with 52 percent of the vote.
Sinapu has since been incorporated into WildEarth Guardians.
“I really think this undercuts the citizens’ intent,” said Wendy Keefover-Ring, carnivore-protection director for WildEarth Guardians.
“This flies in the face of the majority opinion of people, who just don’t like trapping,” she said.
The measure, however, specifically addressed only “methods of taking wildlife,” not the overall practice of trapping, Naves said.
“Had it been the intent to prohibit all recreational or commercial trapping, Amendment 14 could have easily been drafted to affect that result,” Naves wrote, agreeing with the arguments of Assistant Attorney General Timothy Monahan, assistant attorney general.
Fur trappers were pleased with the ruling, which reinstates the trapping of marten and mink in season and keeps in place provisions that allow trapping for nuisance animals such as skunks, raccoons and squirrels.
“It was only addressing the tools,” said Marv Miller, vice president of the Colorado Trappers Association. “We all understood it that way.
Sinapu attorney Susan Morath Horner argued that language in the amendment specified that live traps could be used only for scientific research, relocation, medical treatment or falconry and not for purposes such as protecting public health or private property.
Naves, however, called it “an overly technical and complex argument” that “likely does not reflect how voters would have read or understood the provision.”
A Division of Wildlife survey before the election showed that 61 percent of residents supported a full ban on trapping and more than half objected to trapping for recreation or money, Keefover-Ring said.
WildEarth Guardians is considering its next move, she said, including a legal appeal, political pressure on the state legislaturefor a new law restricting trapping and a new ballot measure.
“The bottom line,” Keefover-Ring said, “is they’ll be able to trap for pelts, for recreation, and the people don’t want that.”
Steve Lipsher: 970-513-9495
