Click here to sign up for our free newsletter!


You can help out now with a secure online donation.

Wildlife Orphanage, Inc., is proud to announce its new, expanded wildlife service!



  • Discuss wildlife problem/intrusion in detail
  • Thoroughly inspect area to locate, assess, and identify damage or potential for future problems
  • Identify all wild animal areas of entry
  • Provide a detailed description of the repair work/services required to resolve wildlife conflict permanently
  • Provide a written estimate detailing services
  • Explain warranty policy


  • Species’ specific techniques employed for removing wild animals
  • Infant animals hand removed from structure and reunited with adult female
  • Deodorize area to minimize attraction
  • Animal proofing of all entry holes and potential problem areas—including chimneys, exhaust vents, roof vents, plumbing vents and mats
  • Wildlife proofing of sheds, decks, porches and other structures
  • Restoration


  • Roof vents are often constructed of light weight materials easily manipulated by wild animals
  • Uncapped chimneys, similar to a hollow tree in the eyes of an opportunistic wild animal, provide a perfect environment for which to raise young
  • Plumbing vent mats may be easily ripped open by persistent wild animals
  • Bathroom and stove exhaust vents serve as ideal nesting areas for birds and/or other small mammals
  • The wooden edge of the fascia and roof area can be gnawed upon, thus creating an entry way for opportunistic wildlife searching for suitable den sites
  • Sheds, porches, decks and other outdoor structures may serve as nesting areas for wild animals
  • Soffit/roof intersections are often times easily manipulated by animals providing easy access to attic spaces
  • Opportunistic wild animals may cause roof damage, water damage, destroy duct work, stain ceilings, create a fire hazard by gnawing on electrical wires, damage attic insulation, trigger an allergic reaction, and/or disturb the family while sleeping


  • Licensed Indiana Wild Animal Control Operators for over six (6) years
  • Professionally trained
  • Written guarantees
  • Humane and permanent solutions to wildlife conflict situations
  • Fully insured
  • Dependable
  • Committed to customer satisfaction & wildlife welfare
  • Strict health and safety standards
  • Full service
  • 10% Senior discount
  • Licensed Indiana Wildlife Educators and Rehabilitators for over eight (8) years

Wildlife Orphanage, Inc. values its reputation as an ethical organization that provides non-lethal solutions to wildlife intrusions of residential, commercial, and industrial properties in the following Indiana counties:

  • La Porte
  • St. Joseph
  • Elkhart
  • Lake
  • Porter

The strategies employed by our professional technicians provide minimal distress to wild animals and property owners alike.

In keeping with our mission to provide community support and education on methods for resolving wildlife conflicts permanently and humanely, lethal control is never utilized or recommended. Accordingly, wild animals are not relocated due to the high mortality rate for translocated mammals and their offspring.

Purdue University - Fur Trapping 101???
Photo Credit: Wildlife Orphanage, Inc.

For over 20 years, Purdue University has supported the trapping of wild animals through its participation in the Furbearer Management Course offered annually in Northeastern Indiana. Their endorsement of this course can only be interpreted as explicit approval of fur trapping, thereby diminishing Purdue's stature and reputation within the world of academia.

In 2002, Purdue University refused to end this inappropriate relationship with the fur trapping industry after an appeal was made by Wildlife Orphanage, Inc. This University failed to provide supporting documentation rationalizing its participation and has been unwilling to respond to any of the serious ethical issues below:


This course traps and kills animals outside the state sanctioned trapping season

The Furbearer Management Course, as advertised in the 2001-2002 Indiana Hunting & Trapping Guide, claims to teach "trappers wise use and respect for wildlife resources." However, according to the dates on the course application form, animals killed during this course are taken outside the state sanctioned trapping season and the class therefore requires an "educational" special use permit. It appears ethically questionable that the very same class that teaches "wise use and respect for wildlife resources" requires the taking of animals outside of the normal trapping season.

This course requires membership in Fur Takers of America
Photo Credit: Humane Society of the U.S.

According to Brian Mac Gowan, Extension Wildlife Specialist, all students enrolling in this course MUST become a member of the Fur Takers of America (FTA). Mandatory membership in an organization as a condition of taking a continuing education course is unusual and offensive, especially given that FTA's purpose, in part is to "promote interest in…the trapping of fur bearing animals." Although the legality of this issue is still in question, Purdue's role in increasing the membership of an organization whose mission is to trap, injure and kill animals is entirely inappropriate.

Leg hold traps, used in this course, are deemed inhumane by the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Animal Hospital Association, World Veterinary Association, and the National Animal Damage Control Association.


Recreational trapping has been deemed inappropriate by a vast majority of the population in this country and steel leg-hold traps have been banned or severely restricted by more than 80 countries and eight states in the US. There are no traps deemed more indiscriminate than the snare trap, yet this trap is currently condoned and advocated by Purdue University through its association with the Furbearer Management Course.

Conibear traps are also being advocated during this course, and according to M. Novak, "Traps and Trap Research," Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America, North Bay: Ontario Trappers Association, 1987, these so-called kill traps "kill less than 15% of the trapped animals quickly, and more than 40% die slow, painful deaths as their abdomens, heads of other body parts are crushed." The article also stated that Conibear traps are also "notoriously indiscriminate and have been shown to capture 2 non-target animals per target animal."


Appropriate instruction has been, and could be again, provided to course participants without killing of animals

According to a source at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), in previous years, this course was conducted without the unnecessary killing of wildlife. Supposedly, round plastic hoops were utilized to represent trap sets. If an animal print was in the center the following morning, a successful "take" was scored. Considering the claims made surrounding the purpose of this course - teaching of "wise use and respect for wildlife"- this would seem the only appropriate method of training available.

The 2001 Furbearer Management Course resulted in the deaths of 30% of the animals trapped and one of the animals killed was an otter, a protected species.

Trapping is not an effective tool for controlling wildlife over-population
Photo Credit: Fur-Bearer Defenders

Predator species aren't able to significantly over-populate since their birthing and survival rates are predetermined by the availability of prey species. There are no current scientific studies that support the notion predators truly "over-populate" as predator species and their prey are naturally self-regulating.

Wild Furbearer Conservation and Management in North America (Novak et al, 1987) provides data which shows that when raccoons exhibit low reproductive rates, you can trap out as much as 49% of the population and they will rebound back to their former level by the next breeding season. When raccoons exhibit high reproductive rates (typical after a trapping program has been implemented), you can trap out as much as 59% of the population and the population will replace itself by the next birthing season. These figures clearly illustrate why trapping does not control wildlife populations.



Trapping is not an effective tool for controlling wild animal diseases

The Center for Disease Control does not recommend the arbitrary killing of raccoons as a strategy to avert the rabies threat. As summarized by Dr. John Debbie, New York Health Department, "Trapping to control rabies is considered to be an exercise in futility in the face of a rabies outbreak, because the disease itself will limit the population, and clinically rabid animals are rarely caught in traps (Rabies Control in Wildlife, 1983)."

Trappers boast on controlling other diseases as well yet there is no scientific literature available to support these claims. As a matter of fact, this practice most likely increases the presence of disease as trapping removes individual animals, typically healthy specimens, while the remaining animals have augmented litter sizes. Consequently, these young animals, lacking a natural immunity, increase the susceptibility of the existing population to further disease outbreaks.


This course is not being taught for the purpose of educating "nuisance" wild animal control operators
Photo Credit: Humane Society of the U.S.

According to the course agenda, only 90 minutes of course instruction was allocated to "nuisance wild animal" - that being moles - and according to Mr. Brian MacGowan's e-mail of July 13, 2001, "The course is not geared towards that group [nuisance wild animal control operators].... Essentially, it comes down to this, if you are wanting more information about how to trap furbearers using foot hold traps, body grip traps and snares, then this course will definitely be helpful to you. If you are looking for how to get a raccoon out of an attic, etc., then it probably won't meet your needs." Mr. MacGowan also stated when asked what percentage of this course is allocated to "nuisance" animal removal: "Not much."

It is equally important to note that according to the 2001 & 2002 Furbearer Management Course annual reports, there was NOT ONE fox or coyote captured even though these species are primarily blamed for livestock predation.


This trapping course is not effective in managing protected and/or endangered wildlife

The recognition given to trapping for the comeback of endangered or threatened wildlife needs to be put in proper perspective, especially as it pertains to bobcat. Trapping is not responsible for the bobcat's return to Indiana and the reason IDNR is trapping and monitoring these magnificent creatures to-date, is to determine when populations are healthy enough to support a state sanctioned trapping season. It is also important to note that the cruel trapping devices used in teaching the furbearer management course cannot be legally used on threatened or endangered wildlife.

This statement is further evidenced by Purdue's own involvement in the much heralded Indiana river otter reintroduction program wherein scores of wild otter captured in Louisiana using leg-hold traps were shipped to Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine for treatment of serious injuries to the feet and teeth – treatment (incidentally) that was quite extensive contrary to news reports and press releases. In truth, the majority of otter reintroduced to Indiana suffered significant injuries as a result of the trapping and transport project. According to records obtained from Purdue's School of Veterinary Medicine, most – if not all – of the animals sustained injuries such as lacerations requiring surgical closure and amputation of one or more toes, broken teeth requiring root canals, endodontic procedures or multiple extractions, and some of these endangered animals died during their veterinary evaluations and treatments.


This course, currently offered through the Center for Lifelong Learning (CLL), conflicts with the CLL mission statement

The Vision and Mission Statement for the CLL at Purdue University states that the CLL "contributes significantly to the University's learning mission to attain and preserve excellence in learning through programs of superior quality and value in every academic discipline." This Mission Statement also states that the goal of the CLL is to "meet the learning needs of an educated citizenry."

Can one honestly believe that this Furbearer Management Course is conducive to this expressed purpose? This course cannot be considered either "superior quality" or "academic discipline" due to subject matter and lack of faculty involvement. Addressing the learning needs of an "educated citizenry" with a course the majority of the populace would not advocate, does not show respect or an interest in those needs. Additionally, this course fails to address the issue of "strengthening Indiana's economy" as evidenced by a letter dated 2/28/97 from Terry M. Mansfield, Chief, Wildlife Management Division of the California Department of Fish and Game wherein he stated, "The average income per successful trapper in 1995-96 was $240.00." Finally, the CLL implies that it is progressive and with the times, yet its support of this antiquated practice clearly shows otherwise.


Purdue University offers two units of continuing education credit upon completion of this course

Purdue University provides additional support to the trapping of wildlife by awarding students two units of continuing education credit upon completion of this course. According to Lucia Anderson, Public Records Officer and Director, Business Managers, the only funds received by Purdue for the administration of this course come directly from Fur Takers of America in the amount of $40 per participating student. Given the average number of students enrolled annually, Purdue encourages and participates in these objectionable practices for roughly $1,700 a year. Are there not better ways in which to raise this rather insignificant amount of money?

This course is offered solely for the purpose of teaching "RECREATIONAL" fur trapping
Photo Credit: Marshall County Shelter

If this course was truly being provided for population control, "nuisance" wild animal control, wild animal disease control, or for the protection of endangered and/or protected wildlife, the following areas of study listed on the course agenda would be unnecessary: Public perceptions of trapping and dealing with the media; Trapping as a small business: Record keeping and tax preparation; Skinning equipment and care.

A course genuinely focusing on wildlife management would have no need for time allocated to grading pelts and marketing fur. Additionally, no furs taken during this course may be sold or kept by any of the participants. This is a waste of the same natural resources supposedly coveted by conservation groups and does not coincide with the mission of conservation.

Purdue's support of this course acts as tacit approval of fur trapping and diminishes it's credibility as an institution of higher learning

Trapping, a cruel and ineffective form of "wildlife management," is perpetuated by an antiquated funding system and insidious relationships developed between state wildlife agencies and universities dependent upon financial assistance for the promotion of wildlife "use." The sole reason trapping continues today is because it is conveniently conducted outside the view of the general public, thus escaping public scrutiny. The rationalization behind the "need" for trapping is based upon a plethora of misleading arguments which need to be challenged by both faculty members and Purdue University as a whole.

Photo Credit: Tribe of Heart

Purdue should end this inappropriate relationship with the fur trapping industry

Photo Credit: Humane Society of the U.S.

The majority of Purdue's constituents do NOT support or condone the promotion of trapping animals as an activity worthy of university sanction and their reaction to learning about this issue is overwhelmingly negative. Purdue University, a university funded in part by tax payer dollars, should withdraw all levels of participation in this course and help guide this state to a new, kinder, more humane ethic.

Purdue's approval of the actions promoted by this course challenges its stellar reputation and diminishes its academic credibility. If you agree that Purdue's involvement in this course should end, please express your disapproval by contacting University officials listed below.

Phone calls or concise letters respectfully requesting Purdue to reconsider its controversial involvement with the Furbearer Management Course carry more impact than faxes or emailed messages. However, any form of feedback from constituents and the public sector to University officials pertaining to this issue will be instrumental in initiating changes.

Martin C. Jischke, President
Purdue University
1031 Hovde Hall, Room #200
West Lafayette, IN 47907

Victor Lechtenberg, Dean of Agriculture
1140 Agriculture Administration Building – Room 114
West Lafayette, IN 47907

*Purdue Alumni should contact:

Dr. Lawrence Preo, Director, Purdue Alumni Association
101 North Grant Street – PMU 160
West Lafayette, IN 47906-3574

Back To Top


Wildlife Orphanage, Inc.
Dedicated to the Welfare of Native Wildlife
Post Office Box 0945
Chesterton, IN 46304
(219) 362-6999