Refuge from Cruel Trapping Act

The Refuge from Cruel Trapping Act would amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the possession or use of body-gripping traps within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Body-gripping traps include snare, Conibear, and steel-jaw leghold traps.

The use of cruel body-gripping traps on National Wildlife Refuge System lands is a threat to the safety of wildlife, humans, and pets. The purpose of these protected lands is clear: to be a refuge where native wildlife can thrive, and all Americans can enjoy our great outdoors. Brutal, indiscriminate traps set by private trappers endanger not only wild animals but also the pets of millions of visitors who spend time in the nation’s hundreds of refuges each year. The NWRS cannot fulfill its goal of being a refuge for animals and people alike until use of these traps is restricted.

The National Wildlife Refuge System: Origins and Mission

President Theodore Roosevelt established the first national wildlife refuge on Pelican Island, Florida, in 1903 to protect imperiled bird species from the commercial feather trade. Within the NWRS today there are 571 refuges, 38 wetland management districts, and 5 marine national monuments encompassing more than 95 million land acres and 755 million submerged acres across 50 states and 5 US territories.¹

The stated mission of the NWRS is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”² By law, the Department of the Interior is charged with ensuring the “biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health” of the NWRS, in addition to providing for the conservation of fish and wildlife.³

The NWRS contains one of the most diverse collections of fish and wildlife habitats in the world and provides a home for more than 380 endangered species. Overall, the NWRS harbors species of more than 700 birds, 220 mammals, 250 reptiles and amphibians, and 1,000 fish.⁴

The NWRS is managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and attracts more than 61 million annual visits.⁵ According to the USFWS, most wildlife refuges are close to (or even in) urban areas, with a national wildlife refuge within an hour’s drive of most major metropolitan areas.⁶ Nonconsumptive activities such as hiking and nature photography account for about 86% of total recreation-related expenditures on refuges. Fishing accounts for 10% and hunting 4% of refuge expenditures, while trapping generates such an insignificant amount of refuge revenue that it did not warrant quantifying in the most recent NWRS economic report.⁷ 

Current Status of Trapping in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Data collected by the USFWS revealed that 43% of all refuges allow trapping of wildlife.⁸ Trapping is allowed in 46 states and some US territories.⁹ Trapping in the NWRS is allowed for predator control, facilities management, population management, recreation, commerce, and subsistence.¹⁰ Most of the trapping conducted by private citizens on refuges occurs for commercial and recreational purposes, according to the USFWS. From 2021 to 2023, the national refuge land area on which trapping is allowed increased by 20% in the contiguous 48 states.¹¹ 

The vast majority of trappers use steel-jaw leghold traps (which are banned in over 100 countries), snares, and Conibear traps. The primary animals targeted by trappers on refuges include beavers, skunks, raccoons, muskrats, red foxes, river otters, and bobcats. 

Trapping is not considered a priority public use of the NWRS.¹² The USFWS does not publish regular or up-to-date information concerning trapping within the NWRS, such as which species are commonly targeted, or the number of animals trapped (intentionally or unintentionally) each year. Unlike with hunting and fishing, the USFWS is not required to publish trapping regulations in the Federal Register.

Indiscriminate and inhumane nature of body-gripping traps

Body-gripping traps—such as steel-jaw leghold traps, snares, and Conibear traps—are inhumane and inherently nonselective, meaning they indiscriminately injure and kill nontarget animals, including endangered and threatened species and even pets. Setting these traps on refuges puts wildlife and millions of visitors’ dogs at risk of severe injury from stepping into a trap.

Some neck snares are designed to kill a captured animal by tightening continuously as the animal struggles until strangulation occurs. However, this can take hours, if not days, causing extreme and prolonged agony for the captured animal, including from grotesque swelling of the neck, head, and eyes, referred to by trappers as “jellyhead.”¹³ In his book Intolerable Cruelty, Dr. Gilbert Proulx reported a coyote caught in a killing neck snare taking more than 14 hours to die, and a wolf caught in a killing neck snare taking more than 3 hours to die.¹⁴ Both animals struggled intensely and chewed on the cable, cutting their tongues and gums. “Simply put,” wrote Proulx, “these 2 animals had been tortured.”¹⁵ Other neck snares are designed to restrain. They hold captured animals by the neck until the trapper arrives to kill them if they have not already died. 

Steel-jaw leghold traps are equally inhumane and indiscriminate. The trap jaws slam with bone-crushing force on the limb. According to an extensive review of the injury rates associated with multiple trap types, including padded, off-set, enclosed, and unpadded steel-jaw leghold traps, leghold traps frequently caused major injuries to animals such as river otters (56% of the time when various sizes and models of leghold traps were used), raccoons (74% of the time when unpadded leghold traps were used), and gray foxes (61% of the time when unpadded leghold traps were used).¹⁶ These injuries include severe damage to the captured limb in the form of lacerations, strained and torn tendons and ligaments, extreme swelling, broken bones, and even self-amputation.

In addition, any trapped animals will violently fight to free themselves of the trap and of the excruciating pain that is caused, resulting in broken teeth and gum damage from biting at the trap.¹⁷ In the summer heat, many animals cannot survive for long without water. In harsh winter conditions, animals can freeze to death after being caught. Constriction of a limb in a trap cuts off or severely restricts blood supply to the affected appendage, potentially causing the appendage to be lost due to gangrene or loss of blood flow even if the animal escapes or is freed. For these reasons, steel-jaw leghold traps have been condemned as inhumane by both the National Animal Care and Control Association¹⁸ and the American Animal Hospital Association.¹⁹

Conibear kill-type traps are similarly cruel. These traps consist of two hinged rectangular metal frames and a trigger that, when activated, causes the metal bars to slam shut on the body. In theory, they are designed to kill mammals instantly by crushing their necks or torsos. However, multiple studies have documented the failure of these traps to instantly kill, instead leaving animals conscious in the jaws while suffering from agonizing injuries.^{20, 21, 22, 23, 24} The physiology of some animals, such as mink, makes it impossible for the Conibear trap to accurately strike and crush their vital regions, guaranteeing that these animals will experience prolonged suffering.²⁵ As with legholds and snares, Conibears are nonselective, and many species are unintentionally caught.

According to the USFWS, the primary nontarget species trapped on refuges include river otters, rabbits, domestic dogs and cats, and birds. With all body-gripping traps, animals left languishing may succumb to injuries caused by the trap, exposure to the elements, stress, or predation. Each refuge that allows trapping defers to state trapping laws, and many states allow multiple days to pass between trap or snare inspections; some states have no general trap or snare check requirements at all.²⁶ In such states, animals may suffer for days in traps before dying or being killed.

Public opposition to trapping in the National Wildlife Refuge System

Not surprisingly, public opinion surveys reveal that an overwhelming percentage of Americans believe trapping and the use of body-gripping traps in particular should be prohibited on all refuges.

A national Decision Research public opinion poll showed that 79% of Americans believe trapping on national wildlife refuges should be prohibited, while 88% believe wildlife and habitat preservation should be the highest priority of the refuge system.²⁷

Undercover videos of trapped animals released in 2022 showcased the cruelty of these practices and led to additional demands for trapping to be banned.²⁸

Trappers constitute less than 0.1 percent of the population,²⁹ and already have access to millions of acres of public and private lands outside of the refuge system to engage in trapping. As lands specifically intended to be safe havens for wildlife, national refuges should not permit the use of cruel body-gripping traps by private citizens.

1. fws.gov/refuges/about/public-lands-waters/
2. 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)(2)
3. Id.  § 668dd(a)(4)(B)
4. fws.gov/refuges/features/Refuge-Animals-From-A-to-Z.html
5. doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-announces-largest-expansion-fishing-and-hunting-us-fish-and
6. Ibid.
7. fws.gov/economics/divisionpublications/bankingOnNature/BoN2017/Banking-on-Nature-2017v4.pdf
8. fws.gov/refuges/wildlife-conservation/trapping.html
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. bornfreeusa.org/2023/08/15/born-free-usa-applauds-introduction-of-the-refuge-from-cruel-trapping-act-urges-swift-congressional-action/
12. congress.gov/105/plaws/publ57/PLAW-105publ57.pdf
13. GILBERT PROULX, INTOLERABLE CRUELTY: THE TRUTH BEHIND KILLING NECK SNARES AND STRYCHNINE 28 (Alpha Wildlife Productions 2017).
14. Id. at 7-17.
15. Id. at 16.
16. G. Iossa et al., Mammal Trapping: A Review of Animal Welfare Standards of Killing and Restraining Traps, 16 ANIMAL WELFARE 335, Table 2 (2007).
17. See. e.g., G. Iossa et al., Mammal Trapping: A Review of Animal Welfare Standards of Killing and Restraining Traps, 16 ANIMAL WELFARE 335, Table 2 (2007).  
18. nacanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NACA_Guidelines.pdf
19. aaha.org/about-aaha/aaha-position-statements/leghold-traps/
20. Proulx, G., and Barrett, M.W. 1988. On the development and implications of the Conibear 120 Magnum trap to harvest martin and mink. Northeast Fur Resources Technical Committee.
21. Linscombe, G. 1976. An evaluation of the No. 2 Victor and 220 Conibear traps in coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission.
22. Linscombe, G. 1976. An evaluation of the No. 2 Victor and 220 Conibear traps in coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission.
23. Proulx, G., and Barrett, M.W. 1993. Evaluation of mechanically improved Conibear 220™ traps to quickly kill fisher (Martes pennanti) in simulated natural environments. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 29(2), 1993, pp. 317-323.
24. Proulx, G., Kolenosky, A.J., Cole, P.J., and Drescher, R.K. 1995. A humane killing trap for lynx (Felis lynx): the Conibear 330™ with clamping bars. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 31(1), 1995, pp. 57-61.
25. Proulx, G., and Rodtka, D. 2019. Killing traps and snares in North America: the need for stricter checking time periods. Animals, 9, 570; doi:10.3390/ani9080570.
26. Gilbert Proulx & Dwight Rodtka, Killing Traps and Snares in North America: The Need for Stricter Checking Time Periods, ANIMALS, Aug. 2018, at 9-13. The states with no general trap check laws are Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota.  
27. bornfreeusa.org/1999/07/18/poll_americans_strongly_oppose_trapping/
28. bornfreeusa.org/2022/03/22/new-undercover-investigation-reveals-the-shocking-brutality-of-trapping-animals-for-fur-and-recreation-in-the-united-states/
29. fishwildlife.org/application/files/4915/2942/8278/Characteristics-of-Trappers-06-18-18_reduced.pdf

More Federal Legislation