When the state attorney general, in 1985, said that the state's ban on hunters' and trappers' use of leghold traps on small animals was  "absolute," "unambiguous," and applied to all "technical modifications," he meant it. Unfortunately, last year, council authorized the use of "enclosed foothold trap," which goes against the 1985 policy as well as the legislative intent of a 1984 law. These are still leghold traps.

To the Editor:

When a parent tells a child, "You can't have that chocolate bar because I don't want you eating candy," but then the child sneakily eats a chocolate bar with peanuts — rationalizing that it's not the same thing as a "chocolate bar" — the child would  probably still get in trouble, right? 

Apparently, the New Jersey Fish and Game Council never learned that lesson. 

When the state attorney general, in 1985, said that the state's ban on hunters' and trappers' use of leghold traps on small animals was  "absolute," "unambiguous," and applied to all "technical modifications," he meant it. Unfortunately, last year, council authorized the use of "enclosed foothold trap," which goes against the 1985 policy as well as the legislative intent of a 1984 law. These are still leghold traps.

Fortunately, the Legislature has the chance to tell the council and the Division of Fish and Wildlife that what they've done is wrong. Senate Concurrent Resolution(SCR)11, sponsored by Ray Lesniak, D-Union; and ACR25, sponsored by Assemblyman Troy Singleton, D-Burlington; would nullify any regulation allowing traps of the steel-jaw leghold type. 

An identical measure passed swiftly in the Assembly during the last session, but stalled in the Senate.

It is now up to Senate President Stephen Sweeney to urge Sen. Bob Smith, the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, to finally post the resolution for a hearing. This will offer the opportunity to, once and for all, ban the use of these cruel and inhumane devices.

Valerie Galzerano

Vineland

original article