CLICK PATCH TO JOIN  FTA

***********************

WHAT'S NEW?

*Circle of Friends

*Trapper's Data Base

 *2008 Membership Contest

HOME

ALERTS

CHAPTERS/AFFILIATES

COLLEGE

CONVENTION

FUR TAKER MAGAZINE

GOVERNINGBOARD

LINKS

MAKE A DONATION

MERCHANDISE

MOTHER NATURE BROCHURE

STATES

CONTACT US

TO: FTA Officers and Governing Board

FROM: Dave Hastings, as a BMP Committee member

RE: Summary of proceedings at AFWA FRTWG BMP Meeting

 Savannah, GA, January 31, 2008

     First, we missed Gary Jepson who was unable to attend this year. We expect that he’ll be back in action for future meetings! Rick Benson did attend for the FTA in Gary’s spot. The AFWA pays for one attendee, and we cover the expenses for the other. However, in addition to my travel expenses, this year they paid for the double room (or saw to it anyway) and since Rick lives in GA, the costs to FTA were pretty small. Rick did a nice job and contributed to the process. Rick mentioned that he had learned a great deal about BMPs and about how this sort of process works.          I will follow this initial note with a more detailed “play by play” of proceedings, but first I thought I would give you the brief summary.

     The AFWA “white paper” on snares and snaring was the most difficult issue of the meeting. AFWA hopes to publish, this year, a document that will standardize definitions, lock styles and types, cable styles and types, breakaway devices, (BADs) etc. The AFWA is correct in the position that many, many states have DNRs that know little about snaring and the result is lots and lots of regulations that don’t always make sense, and are not helpful to wildlife management.

      A second issue on the table is that AFWA wants to prepare a “white paper” that addresses the use of body gripping traps on dry land. We all know that this has become a hot issue and API, HSUS, etc. will be milking it soon, as well as very angry discussions in states that range from modifications as to when and where they can be used to outright banning their use. John Olsen is chair of this committee, and last year, after Gary and I talked, we decided that the FTA needed representation on it too, so I volunteered. (This committee has done little this year—John Olsen’s wife passed away, and he has been understandably distracted.)

      We discussed recently completed BMPs and those underway, which I will outline later. I would say that John Erb, the biologist from MN DNR who attended our “Manufacturer’s meeting” in Barnum last year did bring concerns of our trapper/ manufacturer group to the AFWA working group. He expressed them well and I am encouraged at how he made a very ethical effort to see to it that our issues got a fair hearing. (With the exception of the concern that the BAD testing needs to be done with a dynamic test that includes variables similar to live snare captures. More on this below.)

DETAILS

       The following is my running notes on what occurred, of course blended with my view of what that means! This document is intended as a way to help the FTA leaders understand what I think transpired, and should not be reproduced, or taken as “gospel.”

         The first item on the agenda was a draft of a document that will probably be called “Modern Snares for Capturing Mammals: Definitions, Mechanical Attributes, and Use Considerations.” This document is being drafted primarily by John Erb, of the MN DNR. This document was initiated in Sault Ste. Marie last September with input form Krause, Rally Hess, Dick Sinrud, some others, and me. Then a draft was produced, and input on it was first received from John Olsen of the WI DNR and Tom Krause of the NTA. About a week before the meeting, a draft was sent to all who would be in attendance, and invited to study for observations in Savannah. Several of the issues were discussed, but we were also invited to forward our concerns to John by e-mail, which I will do.

        The FTA is fully aware that the animal damage control industry has deep concerns about how state agencies regulate tools. For example, states that do not allow snares for furbearer harvest often also do not allow tools such as the “Collarum” because they fit the definition of a snare. If the purpose of this white paper is to establish definite definitions of what a snare is and is not, then the ADC industry needs to be involved to ward off problems that may be avoided. It was my understanding that once those in attendance had sent feedback, then the next step was to broaden the drafting revisers group. I insisted that the private ADC industry be included, and have since sent Tim Julien’s address to John Erb. Dr. Michael Fall encouraged the group to also include Department of AG ADC people as well.           The document is 17 pages, and we did a little “paragraph by paragraph” at first, but soon started bouncing from one issue to another. Some of those key ideas would be:  Is it good to define snares as a type of trap? According to Batcheller, the anti contingent in the Northeast insists on calling snares a type of trap, and he expressed that this may carry some kind of negative power. 

       The document has an excellent discussion of the types of cable, the construction and makeup, and has a great explanation of 1x19 vs. 7x7, single strand vs. multi strand, etc. (Some of this is courtesy of the efforts of Dick Sinrud, who fought to correct some of the agency errors in definition.)

        The definitions and categories are a tough row to hoe. This draft tries to identify three main categories: 1) Relaxing locks. 2) Mechanical locks. And 3) Power assisted locks. I objected to the “relaxing lock” because it is contradictory. A lock locks. If it relaxes, it is not a lock. It is like “jumbo shrimp.” Can’t be both. Tom K. felt that the term has been around for over 40 years, and was good enough. My concern is that some state agencies get the wrong impression by the word “relaxing.” The Reichart, for example, if properly used, is not humane because it relaxes, but because it puts a large flat surface against the animal. If states mandate “relaxing,” and define that as a device that backs off when the animal is not pulling, many humane locks will be denied.

        There is also concern over inclusion of the Belisle foot snare, the ram snare, and the Collarum. Each seems significantly different from a suspended coyote snare, but how exactly to separate these out will be a challenge. A couple of the agency fellows argued that the foot snare and the Collarum, once fired, were essentially identical to any other snare, and therefore should be included in this white paper.

       The document follows these distinctions with a discussion of the other things that will have a bearing on performance, such as the need to understand how cable size differences will change lock performance; how the same lock, put on the cable in a different way, will achieve different results; any alteration of the device will dramatically change its performance…the document lists five major influences, and several minor, all of which can affect snare performance. For once, the state agencies may have to try to understand that which they are writing regulations for.

        Breakaway devices, and all the complications that come with them, were on the table and I can finally say that they are beginning to understand the complications about how variable this can all be. Also a topic of discussion was the process of a standard test to use as repeatable test numbers. Lots of discussion followed. The group intends to submit the problem to an independent industry design firm to see what they can devise.

         Interior and exterior loop stops were discussed. Other concerns included “Power assist “ snares (stinger, Amberg, and other spring devices), and power-activated snares (Collarum, etc.), and a distinction between a power activated snare and a power assisted lock.

     There are several paragraphs discussing the use of snares as a restraint and as a humane killing device. A clear, final definition process is just one complicated bugger.

      Some of the traditionally held beliefs, such as the idea that 1x19 is for killing and 7x7 is for humane restraint were discussed, and regardless of what people believe, there is no current data to support this, so it will not be included, unless it is done so with a clear statement that is not a fact, but a common belief. 

       The document lists 12 variables that may affect live vs. kill in snares, including loop stops, anchor method, lock types, etc. There is a passage on snare selectivity, which identifies loop size, loop height, guide sticks, baits, break-aways… 

      As for break-aways, the document stresses the need for agencies to seriously consider the method used to determine the numbers assigned. It lists the three features that the AFWA group would like to be important in developing a standard protocol for BADs. 1.) apparatus is inexpensive and simple. 2) protocol must supply all data, such as loop size used, length of snare measured, etc. and 3) the testing should not have major inconsistencies and variations in results.

       There was an earlier comment from Tom K that perhaps swivels have no place in the document, but the group consensus was that they were important, and should be included. There is a section on snare efficiency, with lots of particulars, such as 1/8” cable and avoidance, etc.

       The document is still being created, but it is my feeling that this is a needed thing to do, as many states have snare regulations, which are illogical, and maybe an increased understanding of the process might help.

        There are several new BMP documents ready to be released (Marten, weasel, mink, etc.) in 2008. Some difficult ones were discussed, such as a foot trap for fisher. Those are so wild in a trap that dislocations and bone damage were not uncommon, and all common traps failed. They intend to test the 1-1/4 soft catch, 4-coil. I suggested that they also consider the 1.5 duke coil that Duane Fronek modified for the gray fox work.   There are several more species being tested in 09. (Wolf is one)

        Don McLaughlin and Buddy Baker are working hard to get all the preparations done so that the CITES requirement for bobcat might be lifted at the next international CITES conference. Don thinks it can happen, and he is working very hard on it. Perhaps river otter also. (I think 2010 is the next chance.)

         Tom Krause argued several times about his concerns of the BMP recommending “unsafe traps” such as the Beslile and Savageau body grippers. The group felt that they would proceed with the inclusions, and be sure to include safety advisory information.

   Batcheller reported new regulations in NY state prohibiting 160 and 220-body grip on dry land, with some exceptions.

     The inclusion of brand names into the BMP was again discussed. I was a little confused at the final consensus, but I think the thrust will be to list the trap tested, and then list the mechanical attributes of traps that appear to be similar. This will be for foot traps only, for now. They were concerned about actually taking a public position that the other traps actually are similar, because they don’t have clamping force data, etc. It seems to me to be a compromise, but I do feel that if untested brands at least get a mention, then this is progress.

       European Trap Testing. Russia has still not ratified the treaty signed with Canada and the EU. It is expected to sometime in 2008. The EU has gone from 10 to 27 countries, and has been in some chaos because of that growth. It was felt that they would eventually come back to the issue of steel traps. The EU has agreed to fund some of its own trap research (www.defra.gov.uk)

            The issue of trapping on national lands was discussed, and some concerns were expressed, including the fact that area on-site managers

<to the top>

HOME