Trapping setbacks removed from some Ravalli County roads

by Michael Howell

A last-minute amendment to wolf trapping regulations recently approved by the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission has removed set-back limits for setting traps on up to 16 seasonally closed roads in Ravalli County. The amendment was sponsored by Ravalli County Commissioner Jeff Burrows who sits on the commission.

The “No Set-Backs Required for Furbearers and Wolves” rule applies to:

• All of Ravalli County roads closed to motor vehicle and OHV use during the designated trapping season. Roads seasonally closed to motor vehicles and OHV’s, but lawfully open for over-snow vehicles are included.

• Exceptions – Maintain current setbacks of 50 feet for furbearers and 150 feet for wolves at:

– Forest Service Road #429 (Lost Horse Creek)

– Forest Service Road #468 (Nez Perce Pass Road)

– State Highway #38 (Skalkaho Pass)

– Forest Service Road #75 (Skalkaho/Rye).

Public land trap setbacks to avoid user conflicts and incidental captures of non-target species including domestic dogs have a long history in Montana. Trap setbacks along public routes, by one definition or another, have been part of Montana’s trapping regulations since 1998. The trapping season was reduced in Regions 1-5, which includes Ravalli County, to run from January 1 through February 15 in response to a federal court order issued in November 2023 to minimize the threat to grizzly bears, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act, from being incidentally caught in traps for wolves or coyotes.

Burrows told his fellow FWP Commissioners that since “judicial action” had shortened the trapping season, he worked with the Bitterroot National Forest and trapping groups to figure out which roads would be ideal to expand trapping opportunities while trying to limit the chances of other recreationists, like snowshoers or cross-country skiers, or their pets, getting caught in traps or disturbing trap lines. He consulted primarily with Foundation for Wildlife Management and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife in formulating his amendment.

The current trap setback regulations were the result of an extensive public process but several comments in opposition to Burrows’ amendment note that this doesn’t seem to be the case with his amendment.

Asked why he didn’t talk to more organizations that had something at stake in terms of recreational interests, he said, “The FWP process moves pretty quickly. But I did send it to the Forest Service for review to see if they saw anything glaring that may cause a problem that I didn’t exempt out. The anti-trapping community was just straight up opposed to it.”

“I think there was probably some misunderstanding of the amendment as well,” he said, “because I saw some comments that I was opening up trails and that all set-backs were off. I talked to a couple of people that were somewhat misinformed about the amendment and thinking it was just a straight free-for-all in Ravalli County which isn’t true. It’s only on closed roads during the trapping season.”

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks opposed the amendment.  “The department believes trap setbacks reduce both incidental capture of non-target species and social conflicts with recreational non-trapping recreational users of public lands… The amendment reduces the number of routes with setbacks and has real potential to increase non-target captures of domestic dogs and reduce support for recreational trapping. While it is not clear how the amendment will exactly impact trapping efforts, trap captures of target species, conflicts and incidental captures of non-target species, or non-trapping recreational use of public routes, all these metrics stand to be influenced to one degree or another, from one route to another,” it states in their official comment.

Burrows said, “Lake Como already has an area that prohibits trapping so I left that alone. And I didn’t change any of the current prohibitions in areas with heavy recreational use and just looked at roads that I worked with the FS and the trapping groups to close along Lost Horse Creek, Nez Perce Pass Road, Skalkaho Pass and Skalkaho/Rye roads.”

Some roads in high use areas were not exempted, however, such as the closed roads above Bass Creek and Larry Creek. Burrows told the FWP Commission before they adopted the regulations, “In my amendment I tried to capture all the high use areas, but there are some that weren’t captured so the responsibility will be on the trappers to put those traps in good spots.”

Asked if the removal of a 50-foot set-back would make a big difference to the trappers, Burrows said, “Yes, that’s what I’ve been told. I’m not a trapper, but like any hunter knows, the animals use the road just like people. The animals are going to take the path of least resistance. So, the animals are actually walking on the closed roads. That’s where they are at. Now the traps may be placed right on the roads on the seasonally closed roads.”

“Don’t other people use them to hike and ski and walk their dogs,” he was asked.

“Well they do,” said Burrows, “but I think the likelihood of there being conflict is going to be relatively low because what the trappers are targeting is those back-country roads, like way up at the back end of the West Fork behind those gated roads where the wolves are travelling. There may be some novice trappers that don’t know any better, but experienced trappers don’t want conflict either. I can’t see a trapper setting traps right where he sees human tracks or dog tracks where somebody’s using a road and setting a trap in the middle of it. They are not going to do that. At least I hope not and that’s what I’ve been told.”

“Some areas are closed to motorized vehicles but are open to over-snow vehicles. That’s where they will be trapping, way back up where you’ve got to take a snowmobile to get there,” he said.

When asked about signage to warn people that there might be traps in the road, Burrows said, “I discussed that and what was said was that there would be conflict where somebody is taking down signs and somebody reported it and said they signed it but it got torn down. Or on the other hand, if somebody knows there are traps up a road, they might go up and set them off. I wasn’t completely opposed to them but in discussions those were some of the potential issues with it.

“With ungulates and big game, season settings are every two years, but with wolves, they are on the commissioners’ agenda every year for regulations and season settings,” said Burrows. “So it can be re-looked at if there are conflicts. There is no question that the potential for conflict increases when you can put traps on the road. I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s going to be a big conflict. I think trappers are going to act appropriately and I don’t think they want any conflict as well. I think if they see signs of recreational use they are not going to set traps there. Even now with the 50 foot set-back that’s not very far for a dog to wander off a trail or a road.

“I know it’s been a little bit controversial. I think there’s a lot of people who it doesn’t matter much to. I think there are a lot of people, a lot of sportsmen who don’t care that much. I don’t think there’s a lot of people recreating in the areas that they are looking at on these roads. I think a lot of the concerns were among people who thought it meant that it was wide open and that there would be no set-backs anywhere even on the trails. Once I eliminated that concern that took care of the bulk of people because that isn’t even on the table. Now, people know that if you are at a trailhead or on the trails the set-backs still apply, but if you are on a closed road there is potential that there may be a trap on the roadway.” 

Burrows told the FWP Commission, “There were some accusations that it was benefiting the trappers. I’ll have to agree with that. This amendment is beneficial for trappers. I think it’s going to increase the efficiencies of trapping and the trap checks.” He said there was some precedent in Sanders County in Region 1 with rules for removing set-backs but exempting high recreational use areas.

At the meeting, Justin Webb from the Foundation for Wildlife Management said, “We thoroughly appreciate Commissioner Burrows’ research and effort to maximize trapper opportunity while continuing the effort to minimize land user conflicts by excluding the roadways being utilized by other land users during this time frame. All too often trappers are unjustly viewed as the cause of all land users conflicts any time that they arise, and we hope that it’s noted that trappers have no interest in land user conflicts. That’s the last thing that a trapper wants while trapping on the landscape and trappers have just as much right as any other user group. Our hope is that other user groups will be willing to make concessions to avoid conflicts just as much as trappers do.”

Representatives from the Montana Trappers Association, Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Montana Fur Harvesters and Outdoor Heritage also endorsed the amendment.

Several organizations and individuals commented in opposition to the amendment.

In response to remarks that incidental captures of grizzlies in a trap are unusual, Chris Servheen, a former grizzly biologist representing the Montana Wildlife Federation, told the commission that FWP has records of at least 17 grizzly bears incidentally caught in wolf or coyote traps.

“These records are only a portion of the total number of such grizzly captures and such traps and snares because the majority of these bears probably leave with these snares on their neck,” said Servheen. “They chew the snare and leave, or they leave with the trap and there’s nothing to report.” He recommended wolf trappers not be allowed to set traps where grizzlies have been seen or documented.

Servheen also said over a five-year period FWP has records of 306 nontarget captures of animals in foothold traps, snares and Conibear body traps for smaller animals. Adding, more than 120 of the nontarget animals were dogs.

Dr. Linda Kauffman, longtime veterinarian at Burnt Fork Veterinary Clinic in Stevensville, commented, “As a practicing veterinarian in Ravalli County for more than 30 years, I have seen my share of traumatic injuries to dogs and other domestic animals from traps and poisonings intended for predators and fur-bearing game.

“Until now I have remained silent, but this decision prompts me to speak out. There is a growing number of outdoor enthusiasts who enjoy hiking, skiing and snowshoeing with their animal companions in every corner of State and Federal land in Ravalli County. This change threatens their safety, just so trappers won’t have to walk to their traps a slightly longer distance from the popular public trails and areas.”

A recent poll by Lake Research Partners for Footloose Montana found that 52% of Montanans oppose trapping, 89% want trap warning signs, 84% want snare warning signs, and 85% support reducing trapping quotas for declining species.