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.