Recently the story of Kathleen Turley (formerly Adair) of Juneau who mercifully released an eagle from two steel traps and then subsequently sprung other traps in the area for safety reasons is back in the news. The story is back in the news for one reason: The trapper who set the traps, John Forrest, is suing Ms. Turley for "damages" in excess of $5,000. He is being represented in such a frivolous suit by a high-powered attorney and fellow trapper, Zane Wilson. Further, since two men seem to not be enough to take on the apparently worthy adversary of Ms. Turley, the Alaska Trappers Association is fully and publicly providing support. Ms. Turley must be a very formidable foe indeed. This whole situation reminds me of a bunch of bullies in a schoolyard – bullies who are picking on a woman who could be their own daughter! Shame on them! What a fine example and representation of the "ethics" of trappers. So let's examine those ethics, shall we?
The specifics of the Alaska Trapping Regulations are published in a small booklet, the greatest portion of which identifies the regions of the state and the various trapping seasons for animals within those regions. The very small remainder of the booklet summarizes the actual "meat" of the trapping regulations, and nowhere in that dialogue will you find requirements for trap ID's, mandatory education or mandatory trap-check intervals – requirements that seem both reasonable and sensible given the lethal nature of this activity. One notable exception is Southeast Alaska, which does require trap identification. It is for this reason that Alaska receives an "F" grade on the state trapping report card prepared by Born Free USA.
An important topic that is particularly pertinent to the Turley case is discussed on page 14 of the trapping regulations booklet, and that is "incidental catch." It is quite apparent that the ONLY incidental catch that the state of Alaska cares about is moose, caribou or deer. (Never mind eagles, other wild birds, domestic pets.) The five-sentence paragraph addressing incidental catch states that if a trapper "incidentally" traps one of those listed animals, it must be reported and the traps must be moved a whole 300 feet from the original placement site. WOW! I guess moose et al. don't travel 300 feet in any direction from the path of a trapline. However, let me illustrate this incidental catch situation in real vivid imagery: KSRM 920 AM reported on Sept. 3 of this year an incident where a hunter stumbled upon two 330 Conibear traps set near Mile 23 of the Seward Highway near Trail River Campground. The traps were either left out or never picked up when the season ended; a cow moose was trapped in one, her calf in another. One can only imagine the suffering. All that was left were leg bones in the traps. The Wildlife Troopers are trying to find the trapper – good luck on that one since there is no trap ID required. Think about it folks … this is essentially giving trappers carte blanche to catch non-target animals with near impunity, including your pets.
Finally, I want to talk about Mr. Forrest, specifically, and trappers, generally. I realize there are many trappers who try to adhere to ethical guidelines about trap placement, etc., but mere guidelines do not serve as a deterrent to those who want to trap lazy. In fact, anyone can become a trapper with a mere $5 and $10 bill. Further, if you are under 16 and over 60, you don't even need those two bills. Thus, it all comes down to you and who you are as a person. When you come forward to sue somebody over what you claim is a substantial loss, you have now invited scrutiny. Mr. Forrest has public information out there for everyone to see. I noted that Mr. Forrest has received one trapping violation to which he plead "no contest," and he has another Fish and Game violation. That is incredible to me given the minimal regulations and what I can only assume is difficulty of enforcement. Secondly, if you are going to claim that you have a loss which seems excessive in relation to the act that was committed, your tax returns should be fair game and subject to subpoena. All income is reportable, including "hobby" income if that is what you want to call it.
In conclusion, this state needs to take seriously the ever-increasing conflicts that are occurring between those who remain virtually unregulated and those who want to recreate in peace without becoming embroiled in moral decisions of conscience, such as Ms. Turley. The punctuation point in this discussion should come from our other family members that are losing their limbs and lives to traps – our pets – because the next victim may be you or yours.
Lynn Mitchell is president of Alaska Safe Trails, Inc., and a certified public accountant.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com