EEC's Wild Fur Regulations andWildlife Damage ImplicationsMahadev G. Bhat and Rick White1The European Economic Community(EEC) may have accomplished withthe stroke of a pen, goals which U.S.animal rights activists have struggled unsuc-cessfully for years to achieve. On Nov. 4, theEEC's chief decision-making body, theEuropean Council of Ministers, adoptedunanimously and with little discussion theWild Fur Regulation (WFR). Beginning Jan. 1,1995, the regulation will ban fur importsoriginating from countries which fail to (1)stop foothold trapping, and (2) adopt interna-tional humane trapping standards. Countrieswhich pledge to adopt humane trappingstandards will be granted a one-year exten-sion to comply with the WFR. Because theEuropean community is an important marketfor American furs, the regulation will affectthe trapping of many American fur-bearingspecies, including racoon, beaver, bobcat,muskrat, coyote, otter, badger, lynx, marten,sable, and ermine.Ironically, the call for international,humane trapping standards did not existuntil now, in part because developing suchstandards requires substantial research. Buteven when humane standards are developed,implementing the European Council'smeasures will be a herculean task for severaltechnical and economic reasons.Banning foothold traps, in particular,will be difficult because of their pervasiveuse. Paul Bishop of the New York Depart-ment of Environmental Conservation saidsuch traps are used on more than 60 percentof all furbearing animals captured in NewYork, the ILS.'s most popular fur-tradecenter. That state agency is part of an interna-tional effort to develop humane standards forlive-capture and instant-kill trapping. How-ever, foothold traps are considered the mosteffective traps to capture species like fox andcoyote, which currently cannot be capturedeffectively by other means.Further, most longtime trappers prima-rily employ foothold trapping, and they mayquit trapping if it is banned. Already, somestates—such as Massachusetts, New Jersey,Rhode Island, and Honda—have bannedsuch trapping and observed such an effect.Those bans resulted in less overall trappingactivity and an increased wildlife populationwhich is becoming a nuisance. However,because of the relatively low average furharvest in these states, the overall impact ofthese foothold trapping bans on fur suppliesis insignificant.On the other hand, failure to implementhumane trapping standards or ban footholdtrapping will have severe direct and indirecteconomic repercussions. Noncompliance withthe WFR will close the European fur marketto U.S. fur and reduce fur prices, which inturn will create economic hardships fortrappers, suppliers, dealers, fur buyers, and alarge number of fur industry employees.Since fur trapping is a seasonal activity,private trappers who depend on its marginalincome will be affected severely.The WFR's indirect and long-termimpacts also could be severe. Federal andstate officials consider fur trapping to be aneffective means of regulating wildlife popula-tions and wildlife damage to agricultural andforest lands. If WFR-regulated fur trapping isunprofitable, trapping activity will decline. Inturn, fur-bearing animal populations willincrease—even in areas where their numbersalready require extreme regulatory manage-ment to avoid overpopulation.Similar effects can be seen in several pastfur market failures whidfallowed sharplyincreased wildlife populations and theirnuisance activities. For example, northerncoyote pelts fetched low market prices aftertheir heavy-coated black fur fell out of style inthe last two decades. As a result of decreasedcoyote trapping, northern U.S. wildlifeagencies have observed an increase in coyotepopulations and associated agriculturalContinued on page 5
