Threatened lynx are bycatch in Idaho trapping resurgence


Last January, in the snowbound mountains that crease northern Idaho’s Boundary County, an unnamed trapper found what he thought was a live bobcat in his baited wire cage. He shot the creature on sight, hoping for a pelt that would fetch up to $2,000 on the fur market. But when he lifted the carcass from the snow and saw its enormous paws, he realized he’d made a terrible mistake: he’d just shot a threatened Canada lynx.

To his credit, the man reported his error to the state’s Fish and Game Department and eventually paid around $400 in fines and court costs. While the trapper’s restitution didn’t save that particular feline, here’s some solace for lynx-lovers: Conservation groups now plan to sue the state of Idaho for permitting trapping that leads to lynx bycatch.

Conservation groups are suing the state of Idaho to prevent lynx from ending up as bobcat bycatch. Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Incidental capture isn’t an everyday occurrence. Over the last two years, there have been just three such incidents, and in the other two cases the lynx were released unharmed. Still, with habitat fragmentation and climate change threatening the chionophilic cat’s environs, every lost lynx is a blow. “The population in Idaho is down to as few as 100 individuals,” says Ken Cole, National Environmental Policy Act coordinator for the Western Watersheds Project (WWP), one of the groups behind the litigation. “When you’ve got so few animals, each and every one matters.”

In their declaration of intent to sue, WWP and its co-litigants, the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Clearwater, argue that by allowing trapping that harms lynx, even accidentally, the state is in violation of the Endangered Species Act. To avoid liability, Idaho could apply to the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an Incidental Take Permit, which would require the state to develop a conservation plan to reduce mistaken trapping. Such a plan, say environmental groups, should include restrictions on lethal traps, increased monitoring, and a mandate to check traps daily in lynx habitat to prevent the rare cats from languishing for days.

Those rigorous measures are even more important given the resurgence of trapping, an industry that once appeared as dead as the beaver-hat craze. Fifteen years ago, High Country News ran a story that prophesied the demise of commercial and recreational trapping at the hands of animal-rights groups. Today, though, it’s clear that reports of the practice’s death have been greatly exaggerated. Spiking fur demand has pelt prices at a 30-year high, providing $2.7 million in income for Montana’s trappers in 2012 alone. In Idaho, the ranks of registered trappers have doubled. “The market is strong and improving,” Toby Walrath, president of the Montana Trappers Association, told The Missoulian in December. “It’s a good time to be a trapper right now.”

Where’s all that demand coming from? Asia: the world’s most ravenous consumer of exotic animals and their disembodied parts. “When I started in this business the world’s biggest fur fair was in Frankfurt,” the CEO of one fur company told Canada’s National Post. “Now the biggest is in Hong Kong and the biggest after that is Beijing.”

As more trappers take to the woods, incidental kills have climbed. In Idaho, where a certain livestock-predating canine is considered Public Enemy No. 1, the prevalence of wolf traps means even more unintentional captures. According to documents the state released last year in response to Cole’s records request, 15 fishers, 13 mountain lions, a black bear, and what was undoubtedly a very surprised goose were among the 118 non-target animals killed by trappers during the 2011-2012 season.

That sounds like a lot of critters, and bycatch certainly deserves addressing – especially when threatened species, such as the lynx, are among the casualties. Just to keep things in perspective, though: in 2012, Idaho’s motorists ran down over 5,000 animals.

Ben Goldfarb is an editorial intern at High Country News. He tweets @bengoldfarb13.

Robb Cadwell
Robb Cadwell
Apr 11, 2014 06:31 AM
This article is about lynx canadensis right? Because nowhere at all do I see it's common name, Canada lynx.

As with every species when I began reading this article I immediately went to the web page of the IUCN, the international rating agency for all species on the planet. The Canada lynx is a species of "least concern", the very lowest designation. Idaho is on the southern portion of the species range, in Canada and Alaska where they thrive populations are plentiful.
Ben Goldfarb
Ben Goldfarb Subscriber
Apr 11, 2014 09:32 AM
Hi Rodd, thanks for your comment. In fact, the story does refer to the "Canada lynx" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. You're right that the lynx is doing well throughout much of its northern range, but as that Red List page mentions, populations in the Lower 48 have greatly contracted and are listed as threatened. I've never seen one... would be quite a thrill.

Robb Cadwell
Robb Cadwell
Apr 12, 2014 06:34 AM
OMG! Good thing we're not talking bear or it might have bit me.

It's because we have millions of lynx already in the US that I thought it important to make the distinction, (lynx rufus). Also so that readers understand the Canada lynx is doing very well in Canada, where most of it's habitat is, despite what our broken ESA labels it.

Don't get me wrong, your article is amazingly balanced for HCN of late, but I'd add Western Watersheds and the Center for Biologic Diversity seem more anti trapping or more specifically anti trapper than anything else.
Scott Slocum
Scott Slocum
Sep 11, 2014 09:02 PM
The author and commenter here left a number of things out of perspective. I'll try to add a bit.

1) Goldfarb: "Over the last two years, there have been just three such incidents, and in the other two cases the lynx were released unharmed."

* Reports of incidental catch do not equate to real-life totals of incidental catch.

* Reports that animals were released "unharmed" are seldom based on immediate or follow-up veterinary evidence. 1) Wild animals tend to hide their injuries as well as they can, 2) injuries in the wild tend to get worse before they get better (and they don't always get better), 3) trappers want to believe--and they have a vested interest in convincing the public--that animals aren't harmed by their foothold/leghold traps, 4) trappers know that they need to reinforce, outfit with swivels and springs, and secure their foothold/leghold traps against the powerful pull of wild animals to escape; yet they often fail to acknowledge that the animals are likely to injure themselves in the process (in other words, a person closing a trap on his fingers is one thing, but a wild animal pulling with all of its strength to escape a trap is entirely another thing).

2) Goldfarb: "Just to keep things in perspective, though: in 2012, Idaho’s motorists ran down over 5,000 animals."

* Check your own reference, and compare reported incidental catch of Fisher (15 of them in the 2011-2012 trapping season) to reported roadkill (one on 8/21/2013 and none since, as of 9/11/2014)

3) Cadwell: "We have millions of lynx already in the US... (lynx rufus)."

* Playing little word games.

4) Cadwell: "Western Watersheds and the Center for Biological Diversity seem more anti trapping or more specifically anti trapper than anything else."

* The lawsuit is bringing real problems into focus, and calling for solutions to them; not merely expressing what "seems" to the reader to be "more anti-trapping than anything else." What does that mean, anyway? More anti-trapping than what? More anti-trapping than calling for solutions? Obviously not. More anti-trapping than opposed to unnecessary and unwise wildlife-management policy? Not that either. Just another meaningless, but good-sounding, thing to throw out to mold an uninformed, but quick-responding, public opinion.