DOCSLIB.ORG

Progress Report on “Humane Trapping Standards” Negotiated Procedure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Progress Report on “Humane Trapping Standards” Negotiated Procedure Humane Trapping Standards – description of the state of the art of research, science and application of humane trapping standards referred to in the „Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards‟ (AIHTS) and described in Commission proposal COM (2004) 532 final, in view of identifying the trapping standards which reduce unnecessary pain, distress and suffering of trapped animals as much as technically possible1 1 Citation to use for this document: Talling J.C. & Inglis I.R. (2009) Improvements to trapping standards.DG ENV, websiteaddress. S1 Authors of the report and project co-ordinators: Dr. Janet C. Talling (Food and Environment Research Agency) Dr. Ian R. Inglis (Food and Environment Research Agency) Principal workers: Cy Griffin (Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU) Dr. Yves Lecocq (Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU) Dr Hans-Joachim Pelz (Julius Kühn-Institut) Irit Mechler-Taabouz (Julius Kühn-Institut) Pia Janderwerth (Julius Kühn-Institut) Angela Leukers (Julius Kühn-Institut) Tommy Svensson (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) Roy McArthur (Food and Environment Research Agency) Katja van Driel (Food and Environment Research Agency) This program of work involved collaboration between staff of the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) based in the United Kingdom, the Julius Kühn- Institut of the Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants (JKI) based in Germany, the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE), based in Belgium, and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. All members of the consortium were involved in all the work undertaken, but staff of the various institutions were primarily responsible for conducting different aspects of the project. The literature searches, statistical development, internet survey of public attitudes to trapping, and the Technical Workshop were primarily the responsibility of staff at Fera. The survey of trapping practice within the EU, Canada, Russia and the USA was the responsibility of staff at FACE. The experimental studies were the responsibility of staff at JKI with inputs from staff at Fera. We are very grateful for the constructive help and advice given us by the many people whose names are listed in the Acknowledgements. S2 Institutions: Food and Environment Research Agency (formerly the Central Science Laboratory), Sand Hutton, York YO62 5JF UK Contact: Dr Janet Talling, [email protected] Tel: 0044 (0) 1904 462208. Julius Kühn-Institut, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Toppheideweg 8848161 Muenster, Germany, Tel: +49 251 87106 40 Fax: +49 251 87106 33 Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU Rue F. Pelletier 82, B - 1030 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32.2.732.69.00 Fax: +32.2.732.70.72 [email protected] http://www.face.eu Swedish Environmental Protection Agency SE-106 48 Stockholm. Sweden Tel: +46 8 698 10 00. Fax: +46 8 20 29 25 S3 Executive Summary The remit of this work is “to identify the best possible standards for killing and restraining trapping methods both from an animal welfare and efficiency angle… The identified trapping standards should reduce pain, distress and suffering of trapped animals as much as technically feasible. However the standards must be economically realistic and technically achievable.” In addition, the final report should “thoroughly and objectively address the described issues and present sound conclusions incorporating operational recommendations with regard to the humane trapping standards referred to in the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS)2 and contained in the Commission proposal.” A detailed questionnaire primarily designed to gather information on trapping methods and the certification of traps for the trapping of species listed in the AIHTS was distributed to persons with trapping expertise in all 27 EU Member States, Canada, the Russian Federation and the USA. Within the EU the level to which trapping of mammals is practiced and the methods used varies widely between Member States; but trapping is generally subject to specific legal provisions and rules that cover the types of trap, the conditions under which these may be used, the methods required to avoid capture of non-target species, and the regular inspection of traps. Of restraining traps box/cage traps are used almost exclusively, whilst spring traps are the most commonly employed killing traps; although dead-fall traps are used for pine marten and drowning traps for muskrat. An internet survey of the public attitude to trapping within the EU was carried out and 9,571 completed questionnaires were received from residents of the Member States. Whilst the public accept that human and/or environmental needs can justify the killing of animals, they also believe that the welfare of animals caught in traps is important. As a result they want trapping within the EU to be regulated by legislation that covers all the species that can legally be 2 http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/downloadFile.do?fullText=yes&treatyTransId=1428 S4 trapped, and the traps used to be tested and approved by an independent institute using clearly defined animal welfare guidelines. However, 71% of the respondents who currently use traps stated they were not prepared to pay more for a trap that had been tested and approved. The current state of science with respect to killing traps is reviewed and new Improved Standards, more strict than the AIHTS, are proposed to improve the welfare of trapped animals. These Improved Standards specify three Welfare Categories (i.e. A, B and C) of trap that differ in the times to irreversible unconsciousness (TIU) of animals caught in the trap. Welfare Category A requires that at least 80% of trapped animals have a TIU not exceeding 30 seconds, and that at least 90% have a TIU not exceeding 180 seconds (both at 90% confidence). Welfare Category B requires that at least 80% of trapped animals have a TIU not exceeding 180 seconds, and that at least 90% have a TIU not exceeding 300 seconds (both at 90% confidence). Traps in Welfare Category C must meet the current AIHTS standard for most species, i.e. produce a TIU in the trapped animal not exceeding 300 seconds for at least 80% of a minimum of 12 animals tested. It is argued that drowning traps should be treated no differently than other forms of killing trap and should be subject to the same TIU limits. In order to encourage the development of better traps it is proposed that where killing traps of different Welfare Categories are available to control the same species only those traps of the highest welfare category will be used. Experimental studies were carried out to determine the onset and length of distress in muskrats caught in cage-type drowning traps. The initial study, looking at the behaviour and physiology of captured muskrats, found little evidence of distress prior to unconsciousness apart from the onset of a behaviour that involved biting the mesh of the underwater cage of the drowning trap. A second study found that being held in the underwater cage for 120 seconds after the onset of this biting behaviour did not result in subsequent avoidance of the drowning trap; indicating that this experience was not sufficiently stressful to result in aversion learning. If the TIU for muskrats killed in underwater drowning traps is conservatively measured from the point of the onset of biting behaviour plus 120 seconds, then it is less than the 300 seconds limit of both the S5 AIHTS and Welfare Category C of the Improved Standards. However, there is still a need to develop alternative multi-capture muskrat traps that can meet the requirements of the higher Welfare Categories of the Improved Standards. The current state of science with respect to restraining traps is reviewed and new Improved Standards, more strict than the AIHTS, are proposed to improve the welfare of trapped animals. These standards specify three Welfare Categories (i.e. A, B and C) of trap that differ in the degree and types of injury shown by animals caught in the trap. Welfare Category A requires that at least 80% of trapped animals suffer an injury class no greater than „mild‟, and that at least 90% suffer an injury class no greater than „moderate‟ (both at 90% confidence). Welfare Category B requires that at least 80% of trapped animals suffer an injury class no greater than „moderate‟, and that at least 90% suffer an injury class no greater than „moderately severe‟ (both at 90% confidence). Welfare Category C is identical to the current AIHTS, which requires that no more than four animals out of a minimum sample size of 20 have „unacceptable‟ injuries. It is concluded that insufficient information currently exists on the normal variation within wild populations of putative behavioural and physiological indices of welfare to be able to interpret any changes found in them during trap testing in terms of the welfare of the animal. In order to encourage the development of better traps, it is proposed that where restraining traps of different Welfare Categories are available to control the same species only those traps of the highest welfare category will be used. Four approaches to reduce the level of animal suffering involved in trap testing are considered. These are a) measuring the mechanical forces exerted by a trap, b) using anaesthetised animals that do not recover consciousness, c) developing computer models that predict from the mechanical features of a trap whether it will meet specified welfare standards, and d) improved experimental designs incorporating „stopping rules‟ that enable the testing to be halted as soon as the results gathered thus far provide strong evidence (i.e. p<0.05) that the trap will not meet the required trap standards. The importance of „best practice‟ information, not only on the welfare of the trapped animal but also on trap efficiency and selectivity is considered.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cull of the Wild a Contemporary Analysis of Wildlife Trapping in the United States
    Cull of the Wild A Contemporary Analysis of Wildlife Trapping in the United States Animal Protection Institute Sacramento, California Edited by Camilla H. Fox and Christopher M. Papouchis, MS With special thanks for their contributions to Barbara Lawrie, Dena Jones, MS, Karen Hirsch, Gil Lamont, Nicole Paquette, Esq., Jim Bringle, Monica Engebretson, Debbie Giles, Jean C. Hofve, DVM, Elizabeth Colleran, DVM, and Martin Ring. Funded in part by Edith J. Goode Residuary Trust The William H. & Mattie Wattis Harris Foundation The Norcross Wildlife Foundation Founded in 1968, the Animal Protection Institute is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for the protection of animals from cruelty and exploitation. Copyright © 2004 Animal Protection Institute Cover and interior design © TLC Graphics, www.TLCGraphics.com Indexing Services: Carolyn Acheson Cover photo: © Jeremy Woodhouse/Photodisc Green All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. For further information about the Animal Protection Institute and its programs, contact: Animal Protection Institute P.O. Box 22505 Sacramento, CA 95822 Phone: (916) 447-3085 Fax: (916) 447-3070 Email: [email protected] Web: www.api4animals.org Printed by Bang Publishing, Brainerd, Minnesota, USA ISBN 0-9709322-0-0 Library of Congress ©2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . v Preface . vii Introduction . ix CHAPTERS 1. Trapping in North America: A Historical Overview . 1 2. Refuting the Myths . 23 3. Trapping Devices, Methods, and Research . 31 Primary Types of Traps Used by Fur Trappers in the United States .
    [Show full text]
  • Capturing and Handling Wild Animals
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service 2009 Capturing and Handling Wild Animals Sanford D. Schemnitz Johns Hopkins University, [email protected] Gordon R. Batcheller Johns Hopkins University Matthew J. Lovallo Johns Hopkins University H. Bryant White Johns Hopkins University Michael W. Fall Johns Hopkins University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Schemnitz, Sanford D.; Batcheller, Gordon R.; Lovallo, Matthew J.; White, H. Bryant; and Fall, Michael W., "Capturing and Handling Wild Animals" (2009). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 1191. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/1191 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in: N.J. Silvy (Ed.), The wildlife techniques manual. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD: 232-269. 3 Capturing and Handling Wild Animals SAN FORD D. SCH EM N ITZ, GORDON R. BATCHELLER, MATTH EW J. LOVALLO, H. BRYANT WHITE, AND MICHAEL W. FALL INTRODUCTION HE ART OF CAPTURING wild animals for food and clothing is as old as human existence on earth. However, in toclay's world, reasons for catch ~ T ing wild species are more diverse. Millions of wild animals are captured each year as part of damage and disease control programs, population regulation activities, wildlife management efforts, and research studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Senegalese Grasshopper
    DY NAMAC COrF ORATION Final Technical Report Results of the Mali Pesticide Testing Trials Against the Senegalese Grasshopper USAID Contract No. AFR-0517-C-O-7035-00 July 1988 Prepared by: Dynarnac Corporaiion The Dynamac Building 11140 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20352 Inassociation with: Consortium for Intematicnal Crop Protection 4321 Hartwi-k Road, Suite 404 College Paik, MD 20740 Prepared for: U.S. Agency ior International Duv:lopment African Gra-,'hopper/Locust Psi cide Testing Project I 'II I - 3 . July 1988 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT RESULTS OF THE MALI PESTICIDE TESTING TRIALS AGAINST THE SENEGALESE GRASSHOPPER USAID Contract No. AFR-0517-C-O0-7035-00 Prepared by: Dynamac Corporation The Dynamac Building 11140 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 In association with: Consortium for International Crop Protection 4321 Hartwick Road, Suite 404 College Park, MD 20740 Prepared for: U.S. Agency for International Development %frican Grasshopper/Locust Pesticide Testing Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the months of August and September 1987, Dynamac Corporation, un contract to USAID, conducted field trials to test for the efficacy environmental impacts of eight pesticides used to control the Senegal grasshopper, Oedaleus senegalensis: bendicicarb, carbaryl, chlorpyrif diazinon, fenitrothion, lambda-cyhalothrin, malathion, and tralomethrin. study site consisted of 60 km2 of typical Sahelian grassland near Nara northwestern Mali. Early successional grasses, ranging from 20 to 70 cm height, and scattered combretaceous shrubs characterized the landscape. T populations consisting of 63 to 95% adult Oedaleus senegalensis were trea at a mean density of 0.5 grasshoppers/m 2 . All materials were applied ultra-low-volume (ULV) rates using TurboThrush S2RTs equipped with Micron, AUSO00 units.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Two Common Flight Interception Traps to Survey Tropical Arthropods Greg Lamarre, Quentin Molto, Paul V
    A comparison of two common flight interception traps to survey tropical arthropods Greg Lamarre, Quentin Molto, Paul V. A. Fine, Christopher Baraloto To cite this version: Greg Lamarre, Quentin Molto, Paul V. A. Fine, Christopher Baraloto. A comparison of two com- mon flight interception traps to survey tropical arthropods. Zookeys, Pensoft, 2012, pp.43-55. 10.3897/zookeys.216.3332. hal-01032428 HAL Id: hal-01032428 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01032428 Submitted on 29 May 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 216: 43–55 (2012) Insect sampling in tropical forests 43 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.216.3332 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research A comparison of two common flight interception traps to survey tropical arthropods Greg P.A. Lamarre1,3, Quentin Molto1,2, Paul V.A. Fine4, Christopher Baraloto3,5 1 Université Antilles-Guyane, UMR Ecologie des Forêts de Guyane, Campus agronomique de Kourou. Avenue de France. 97310, Kourou, French Guiana 2 CIRAD, UMR Ecologie des Forêts de Guyane.
    [Show full text]
  • INVENTORYING and MONITORING PROTOCOLS of VERTEBRATES in NATIONAL PARK AREAS of the EASTERN UNITED STATES: the BIBLIOGRAPHIC REPORT Richard H
    INVENTORYING AND MONITORING PROTOCOLS OF VERTEBRATES IN NATIONAL PARK AREAS OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES: THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC REPORT Richard H. Yahner,' Gerald L. Storm,' Gregory S. Keller,' and Ronald W. Rohrbaugh, Jr.' Technical Report NPS/MAR/NRTR - 94/057 'School of Forest Resources Ferguson Building The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 'National Biological Survey Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit The Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Agreement 4000-9-8004 Supplemental Agreement 21 March 1994 National Park Service Mid-Atlantic Regional Office Division of Resource Management and Visitor Protection 143 South Third Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-2878 Executive Summary We conducted an extensive search of the scientific literature for journal articles, books, technical reports, and theses regarding inventorying and monitoring protocols for terrestrial vertebrate species (excluding white-tailed deer [Odocoileus virginianus] and black bear [Ursus americanus]). This search was part of a long-term project (1992-1996) in four national park areas in the eastern United States: Gettysburg National Military Park, Eisenhower National Historic Site, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, and Valley Forge National Historical Park. We located 908 bibliographic citations and entered these into the computer bibliographic database called Pro-Cite. Citations in Pro-Cite may be searched by author, article title, journal title, and year. The citation bibliography also may be searched by key terms that index each citation in five categories: 1) taxon, 2) season, 3) habitat, 4) level of information, and 5) protocol. Of the 908 citations, 503 (55%) were studies on birds. Studies of passerines, upland groundbirds, and raptors were cited the most, with 100, 86, and 82 citations, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Sampling Terrestrial Arthropod Biodiversity: a Case Study in Arkansas Michael Joseph Skvarla University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2015 Sampling Terrestrial Arthropod Biodiversity: A Case Study in Arkansas Michael Joseph Skvarla University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Entomology Commons, and the Systems Biology Commons Recommended Citation Skvarla, Michael Joseph, "Sampling Terrestrial Arthropod Biodiversity: A Case Study in Arkansas" (2015). Theses and Dissertations. 1408. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1408 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sampling Terrestrial Arthropod Biodiversity: A Case Study in Arkansas A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology By Michael Joseph Skvarla Purdue University Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, 2008 University of Arkansas Master of Science in Entomology, 2011 December 2015 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council ___________________________________ Dr. Ashley Dowling Dissertation Director ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Dr. Tim Kring Dr. Alan Szalanski Committee Member Committee Member ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Dr. Don Steinkraus Dr. Jeff Silberman Committee Member Committee Member Abstract The Interior Highlands is a biodiversity hotspot, with at least 200 known endemic species, but is understudied compared to hotspots, such as the Southern Appalachians. In order to begin to rectify this issue, a nine month study was conducted from mid-March through early December at a 4 ha site at Steel Creek, Buffalo National River, in Newton County, Arkansas.
    [Show full text]