Rethinking Trapping “BMPs” in the Modern World

A recent release from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies presents Best Management Practices (BMPs) as the product of decades of science, designed to improve animal welfare, modernize trapping, and reassure the public that this practice is both humane and necessary. It is a polished message, and one that reflects a coordinated effort to defend trapping at a time when more people are beginning to question it.

We want to be clear: increased transparency and education around wildlife management is important, and we commend efforts to make information more accessible. But education alone is not enough when it fails to address the core concern so many people share, the inherent suffering tied to trapping itself.

BMPs are often described as the result of the “largest trap research effort ever conducted,” developed to identify traps that meet acceptable injury thresholds while maintaining efficiency and practicality . They are also explicitly designed to “instill public confidence” in trapping and maintain support for its continued use . That purpose matters. Because when a system is built not only to evaluate a practice but to defend it, the line between science and justification can begin to blur.

At the center of BMPs is a definition of what is considered acceptable. Under these standards, a trapping method can meet criteria even if a significant number of animals experience serious injury. “Moderate” injuries, those deemed acceptable, can include broken bones, severe swelling, and deep tissue damage. Up to 30 percent of animals can suffer severe trauma and still fall within BMP guidelines. This is not a flaw in the system, it is how the system is designed.

And while BMPs emphasize scientific rigor, the reality of how that science is conducted deserves attention. Much of the research relies on trappers themselves to set traps and collect data, with limited independent verification in the field. At the same time, the BMP program is deeply intertwined with agencies and organizations that support trapping as a management tool. These connections do not invalidate the work, but they do raise important questions about independence, objectivity, and how outcomes are interpreted.

More importantly, BMPs often reflect ideal conditions, not the reality of what happens on the ground. Trapping occurs across vast, uncontrolled landscapes, influenced by weather, terrain, and how often traps are checked. BMPs acknowledge that these variables matter, yet their standards are based on controlled testing scenarios that may not reflect real-world outcomes. When conditions change, so do the results.

And sometimes, those results are difficult to ignore.

In a trap-testing log from the BMP program itself, a trapper documented catching sixteen beavers in a body snare. One was eaten by a coyote. Another drowned after becoming entangled. Others suffocated after being caught by the neck. Some were found dead, likely after prolonged distress. This account is not an emotional appeal, it is a record from within the system used to evaluate trapping methods.

It forces a simple, unavoidable question: if this is considered part of “best management,” what does that actually mean?

There are also impacts that BMPs struggle to fully capture. Traps do not distinguish between species, meaning non-target animals, including protected wildlife and pets can and do become victims. Stress, fear, and prolonged suffering are difficult to quantify, yet well documented in scientific literature. Animals may escape with injuries, or be released only to face reduced chances of survival. Even veterinary organizations have acknowledged that the effects of trapping can extend far beyond what is immediately visible.

Finally, there is the question of enforcement. BMPs are not laws, but voluntary recommendations. Even if they were mandatory, enforcing them across remote landscapes would be incredibly difficult. In practice, outcomes depend largely on individual behavior rather than consistent oversight.

The recent release asks the public to trust that trapping has evolved, that it is humane, necessary, and grounded in science. But it stops short of addressing the central concern that continues to grow louder: that trapping, by its very nature, causes suffering that cannot be fully mitigated by guidelines or adjustments.

As awareness grows, so too does the expectation that wildlife management reflect both scientific understanding and public values. Education is a step forward, but it must be paired with honesty. And honesty requires acknowledging that no set of “best practices” can fully resolve the fundamental issues at the heart of trapping.

If the goal of BMPs is truly to reduce suffering, then the conversation must go beyond refining the practice and begin to question whether it still belongs in the modern world at all.

Visit https://wyominguntrapped.org/news/trapping-best-management-practices/ to learn more.