Julia DiSieno

March 17, 2013 6:35 AM

A bill banning commercial trapping of bobcats has been introduced in the California Legislature in an effort to halt a dramatic increase over the past year in the number of cat pelts sold to China, Russia, Greece, and Italy for hefty pr ices.

The Bobcat Protection Act of 2013 would prohibit the trapping of bobcats in California and the sale and export of their skins. It is a response to a 51 percent increase over the past year in the number of bobcats killed in the state, mostly to satisfy the demand for exotic animal pelts in China, where wholesalers are willing to pay $700 or more for a single skin, according to the bill’s author, Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica.

The bill, AB1213, would not ban recreational hunting or efforts to control problem bobcats, which sometimes kill chickens and other small farm animals.

Body-gripping traps are already illegal in California, so the bill would ban the use of wire mesh cages that trappers generally bait with cat food or carrion to lure the cats inside, causing the door to close.

The problem is that there is very little regulation of bobcat trapping in California, and nobody really knows how many bobcats there are. The state’s estimate of 70,000 bobcats is three decades old, according to Brendan Cummings, senior counsel and wildlands program director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Commercial trappers can now go virtually anywhere they want in the state — in some cases, onto private property. Under California’s antiquated trapping laws, it’s perfectly legal for trappers to line the boundary of a national park with traps, kill the park’s wildlife, and ship the animals’ pelts to Europe and China.

An estimated 1,499 bobcats were trapped in California during the 2011-12 season, which generally begins in the fall and extends through winter, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sport hunters killed 255 and government trappers took 59. The total take increased 51 percent compared with the 2010-11 season, said the department’s bobcat ha rvest assessment.

Modoc, where 134 bobcats were trapped, and Siskiyou, where 173 were taken, had the highest toll in Northern California

As some may know, Modoc recently held a recent an open coyote slaughter. The winner with the largest kill was to receive a sterling silver belt buckle. Some 90 hunters signed up, and more than 40 coyotes were shot and dumped.

Bobcat fur coats have been a hot item among the fashion conscious in Russia, China, Italy and Greece, leading to a big jump in prices and exports for the soft, spotted pelts. The fur’s booming popularity has us wildlife rehabbers and advocates worried about the possible over trapping of the cats, which are so reclusive that most states do not know just how many do exist. Bobcat pelts now draw some of the highest prices among trapped furs, recently commanding as much as $700 for a single hide. As the price has gone up, the number of bobca t skins exported by the U.S. has nearly tripled in the last seven to eight years — 50,000 in the year 2006. Because most state wildlife officials do not know the actual size of their bobcat populations, there is no way to determine if they are being over-trapped, according to wildlife advocates. Federal officials say they are not concerned about the population of bobcats, which are twice the size of a domestic house cat and prowl in every state but Alaska, Delaware, and Hawaii. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates there are at least 1.4 million to 2.6 million bobcats nationwide.

Why would the U.S. government try to weaken international protection for bobcats? These animals native to the U.S., Canada and Mexico already face death at the hands of hunters who sell their beautiful spotted pelts. Too many Americans are unaware that bobcats are perhaps the world’s most highly traded species. One estimate indicates that commercial hunters every year sell more than 54,000 skins on the international market. That is a five-fold increase since the mid-1990s.

The U.S. is the biggest exporter of bobcat pelts. Many pelts end up in Italy, Greece and China, where companies turn the spotted furs into coats and other garments. Making the situation even more distressing is that these bobcats die an inhumane death. Hunters often use leg-hold traps to capture and then kill the animals. Bobcats, like all such apex predators, are a vital part of the web of life. They help balance the ecosystem by controlling populations of rodents and other small prey.

The bobcat is protected under the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, known as CITES.

We use the word “protected” loosely because loopholes, exemptions and lax enforcement have allowed a large market for the international trading of bobcats.

The Humane Society of the United States notes that the bobcat is listed on CITES Appendix II, mean ing that their pelts “can be exported only if the exporting country makes a scientifically based finding that the export will not cause a detriment to the survival of the species.”

The most recent population estimate for the U.S. is more than 28 years old and there are no population estimates for California. The wild bobcat population is considered to be decreasing.

The Department of the Interior wants to eliminate international protections so the federal government does not have to require the scientific findings. Bobcats are already on the decline facing sport hunting, urban sprawl, disease, and poisoning. This move would mean more would die.

These shy and elusive animals need our protection immediately.

The author is executive directo r and founder of Animal Rescue, Inc.

By Julia J. Di Sieno

On Sunday night our rescue hotline received another call for help. A jogger found this female bobcat shaking under an oak tree in Santa Ynez. While on scene our team witnessed many squirrel bait traps littered on nearly each land parcel. Despite our heroic efforts, treating our suffering bobcat she died early this morning.

This is our third bobcat, as well as many hawks that died from the same general area in Santa Ynez. Our findings have been reported to proper authorities.

PLEASE educate your neighbors and friends!

JUST BECAUSE WE DON’T WITNESS IT… DOESN’T MEAN IT ISN’T HAPPENING BRODIFACOUM

Trade Names: Ialon, Havoc, D-Con mice and rat traps Mechanism of Action: second-generation anticoagulant. Absorbed through the gut and inhibits the vitamin K-dependent steps in the synthesis of multiple clotting factors. Death usually occurs through gastric hemorrhage. Metabolism: brodifacoum is retained in the tissues at high rates, sometimes remaining in organ systems during the entire lifetime of an exposed animal. In a study that measured the retention of radioactive brodifacoum in the livers of single-dosed rats, 34% of the single dose is found in the liver after 13 weeks, and 11% of the dose remained in the liver for 104 weeks, approaching the normal lifespan of a rat (U.S. EPA MRID 42007502). Very highly toxic to mammals and birds.

Brodifacoum is extremely dangerous to birds through secondary exposure, especially raptors feeding on poisoned rats and mice. Hundreds of avian and other wildlife mortalities have been reported across North America.

Brodifacoum is absorbed through the gut and works by preventing the normal clotting of blood, leading to fatal hemorrhage. It is highly effective at small doses – usually a rodent ingests a fatal dose after a single feeding and will die within 4-5 days. The greatest risk to wildlife from brodifacoum is secondary poisoning. Rodents continue to eat poisoned bait so at the time of death the amount of brodifacoum present in their bodies is many times the amount required to kill them. Non-target wildlife such as predators and scavengers may then consume rodents that have ingested large doses of brodifacoum. It can take as little as one poisoned rodent, or a predator may accumulate enough brodifacoum after consuming several poisoned prey items, to induce life-threatening or fatal effects. A single dose of brodifacoum can depress blood clotting for months in some animals, including birds. Stress or slight wounds incurred in the fi eld, such as small scratches that normally occur when a raptorial bird captures its prey, are often suffi cient to cause a fatal hemorrhage. Raptor species maintain hunting territories that may include areas near agricultural or other industrial and urban buildings where rodent control is ongoing. Local avian predators may consume rodents living in and around these structures. However, the death of such a predator will most likely occur some distance away from treated sites, making it diffi cult to observe patterns of mortality attributable to any one cause. Furthermore, birds that have been exposed to lethal levels of brodifacoum may be more likely to die from other causes such as accidents or predation. Most mortality undoubtedly goes undiscovered. For these reasons, the true impact on birds of many pesticies, including brodifacoum is obscured.

More on Pesticides:

1) Widely used pesticides are not particularly specific for the “target” organism. Such pesticides can cause unintended and unwanted effects to “non-target” resources. Species can be exposed to pesticides by many routes, with the simplest form being direct contact or ingestion.

2) Animals can ingest pesticides indirectly through contaminated foods such as leafy material, seeds, and prey (including insects and other animals), or by water contamination through precipitation and irrigation (puddles, drinking water, bathing water or breeding).

3) Aquatic organisms can be exposed to pesticides entering water bodies through runoff and groundwater infi ltration. Measurable amounts of pesticides have been detected in rainwater.

4) Indirect effects of pesticides can also have signifi cant implications to animal species. For example, herbicide drift can harm plants and consequently damage the habitat upon which an animal species depends. A given pesticide can be relatively non-toxic to an animal species, but may be lethal to its prey or food plants. Similarly, an insecticide can indirectly harm an endangered plant that may depend upon a specifi c insect pollinator.

5) Wildlife, for example, are more susceptible to pesticide effects during nesting, nursing of young or during times of low food availability.

6) Primary exposure includes eating, drinking, preening of feathers, skin contact or breathing of vapors.

7) Secondary exposure occurs from scavenging on contaminated food, such as exposed carcasses, or feeding upon insects. If pesticide levels are high enough, wildlife often die suddenly.

8) Not as readily observed in wildlife are the sublethal, or non-fatal, consequences of ingesting pesticides. Behavior changes, weight loss, impaired or unsuccessful reproduction, high offspring mortality or deformed embryos are results of sublethal exposure to pesticides. Affected wildlife become easy prey for predators, while many lose their ability to adapt to environmental changes.

9) Pesticides can reduce insects that may be important food sources for young birds and fi sh, and habitat is similarly reduced when vegetation is destroyed — a critical factor for small wildlife populations already stressed by insufficient habitat.

A mountain lion roaming a Santa Barbara neighborhood has put residents and an elementary school on alert while wildlife experts prepare to tranquilize the animal.

http://www.mountainlion.org/newsstory.asp?news_id=1401