In supporting better regulation of trapping we are in good company. A 1978 national survey conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Yale University showed that 78% of respondents opposed the use of steel-jawed leghold traps. A 1996 poll by the Animal Welfare Institute had similar results, with 74% of Americans opposed to leghold traps. The American Veterinarian Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association, and the National Animal Control Association all agree that leghold traps are inhumane. Nevada has the 3rd longest visitation period in the nation, at 96 hours, and 50% of Nevada trappers admit to not visiting their traps this often. That makes the paid and suffering by leg hold traps far worse than it needs to be.
Trapping apologists will often try to suggest that fears expressed about the cruelty of trapping are exaggerated and unfounded, and generally expressed only by a fringe group of fanatical animal-rights extremists. It can be important to counter that argument by citing diverse critics of such traps – including many hunters and other traditional outdoor enthusiasts as well as professional wildlife managers. In seeking better regulation of trapping, for example, being able to demonstrate a wide range of opinion from various sources in overall general agreement that these traps are inhumane can be helpful as a tactic in rebutting the contention that only a few extremists are concerned about the traps being cruel.