Figure 1 - uploaded by Gilbert Proulx
Content may be subject to copyright.
The ability of the C120 Magnum rotating-jaw trap to render American martens irreversibly unconscious in ≤3 min in compounds [34] and on traplines [36] was tested with a four-prong trigger and a specific cubby box (a) [60]. The trigger has two short centre prongs to properly position the animals in the traps and ensure a strike in vital regions [60]. When the original trigger was replaced with a four-long-prong trigger (b), the trap did not properly strike animals in the head [34] and was not as capture-efficient [98].

The ability of the C120 Magnum rotating-jaw trap to render American martens irreversibly unconscious in ≤3 min in compounds [34] and on traplines [36] was tested with a four-prong trigger and a specific cubby box (a) [60]. The trigger has two short centre prongs to properly position the animals in the traps and ensure a strike in vital regions [60]. When the original trigger was replaced with a four-long-prong trigger (b), the trap did not properly strike animals in the head [34] and was not as capture-efficient [98].

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
In 1999, after pressure from the European Union, an Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) that would result in the banning of the steel-jawed leghold traps in the European Community, Canada, and Russia was signed. The United States implemented these standards through an Agreed Minute with the European Community. Over the last...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... assessment must also include trap components and sets, as well as handling methods [10,97]. For example, when assessing the ability of the C120 Magnum rotating-jaw trap to render American martens irreversibly unconscious in ≤3 min, in enclosures and on traplines, researchers used a specific four-prong trigger and a cubby box set [34,36] (Figure 1). However, when equipping this trap with a different four-prong trigger, the trap did not properly strike animals in the head [34] and was not as capture-efficient [98]. ...
Context 2
... assessment must also include trap components and sets, as well as handling methods [10,97]. For example, when assessing the ability of the C120 Magnum rotating-jaw trap to render American martens irreversibly unconscious in ≤3 min, in enclosures and on traplines, researchers used a specific four-prong trigger and a cubby box set [34,36] (Figure 1). However, when equipping this trap with a different four-prong trigger, the trap did not properly strike animals in the head [34] and was not as capture-efficient [98]. ...

Similar publications

Article
Full-text available
The 3Rs, Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, is a framework to ensure the ethical and justified use of animals in research. The implementation of refinements is required to alleviate and minimise the pain and suffering of animals in research. Public acceptability of animal use in research is contingent on satisfying ethical and legal obligations...

Citations

... In Canada, in the last decade, wildlife professionals have denounced the implementation of unethical research and management programs (Brook et al. 2015), and the use of capture and control methods that cause extreme pain and suffering, and impact on biodiversity conservation (Proulx et al. 2015;Parr and Barron 2021). For example, mammal trapping standards that are currently implemented in Canada are technologically inadequate (Proulx et al. 2020), and trappers still use steel leghold traps and killing neck snares that are known to cause pain and suffering and to be unselective (Feldstein and Proulx 2022). Also, Health Canada continues to ignore pain and suffering caused by poisons used to kill bears (Ursus spp.), wolves (Canis lupus), and coyotes (Cans latrans) (CTV News 2021). ...
... However, mammal trapping is a source of concern for the public and wildlife professionals. While current standards such as those of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 1999a,b) and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS; ECGCGRF 1997) do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology and poorly address animal welfare issues (Proulx et al. 2020), the public continues to wonder about mammal trapping, wildlife conservation, and the treatment of animals (Bekoff 2002;McLaren et al. 2007). ...
... The philosophy of compassionate conservationists should not be confounded with the views of wildlife professionals who have expressed their concerns about undue pain and suffering in mammal trapping. For example, wildlife professionals have expressed their concerns about animal welfare regarding improper trapping regulations (Proulx and Rodtka 2019), unacceptable trapping devices , Virgós et al 2016, and poor standards (Iossa et al. 2007;Powell and Proulx 2003;Proulx et al. 2020). (2017) provide guidelines for the proper use of animals in research institutions. ...
... (2017) provide guidelines for the proper use of animals in research institutions. At the international level, trade standards such as ISO (1999a,b) and AIHTS (ECGCGRF 1997) have been established to address animal welfare in trapping, but they have been highly criticized because they are fur trade-oriented standards, which are not representative of stateof-the-art trapping technology, and fail to properly address the welfare of captured animals (Iossa et al 2007;Powell and Proulx 2003;Proulx et al. 2020). When everything is considered, professional and ethical mammal trapping has resulted from the commitment of a core group of scientists who have been personally and professionally concerned with the welfare of animals, and trap research and development ̶ see references to researchers who have been involved in the development of trapping devices in Proulx (1999b), Schemnitz (2005), and Proulx et al. ( , 2020 ̶ and concerned citizens who applied pressure on governments to ban unacceptable traps and find alternatives (Stevens and Proulx 2022). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
In this paper, I review questions about the 5 Ws ̶ Who, What, When, Where, and Why ̶ of mammal trapping that I judge significant to better understand the pros and cons of mammal trapping: who traps mammals and who objects to such activities; who is responsible for professional and ethical mammal trapping; what is mammal trapping, the performance thresholds of standards, capture efficiency, and selectivity; what alternatives can be used to mammal trapping; why mammal trapping is necessary; why mammal trapping is controversial; when mammal trapping should be allowed; when concerns about mammal trapping will stop; where trapping should occur; and where we should focus our attention in mammal trapping. This review points out that there is recurrent questioning about the necessity of mammal trapping and the welfare of trapped animals. On the basis of this review, I recommend the use of a decision process to justify mammal trapping in 5 categories: sustenance, research, human-wildlife conflict, fur trapping, and wildlife management. I suggest that the common denominator for all these mammal trapping categories is the necessity to use state-of-the-art trapping technology and species-selective trapping systems.
... The continued use of trapping devices that cause pain and suffering has led to polarizing debates among trappers, the public, and animal welfare organizations (Proulx 2022). Furthermore, mammal trapping standards are not representative of state-of-the-art trapping technology and do not properly address the welfare of trapped animals (Proulx et al. 2020). Concerns about inhumane mammal trapping have led many people to adopt anti-trapping attitudes, and request changes in wildlife management programs and the control of wild animals (Nichol 2011;Anonymous 2018;Proulx 2022). ...
... Also, there is always room for improvement. In scientific assessments, the humaneness of killing traps is assessed according to the time period to irreversible loss of consciousness in struck animals (Proulx et al. 2020). Previous scientific assessments considered that traps used for the capture of raccoons should render animals irreversibly unconscious within 180 s (Proulx et al. 2012). ...
... Previous scientific assessments considered that traps used for the capture of raccoons should render animals irreversibly unconscious within 180 s (Proulx et al. 2012). Other less stringent standards, such as those of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS), extended the period to irreversible loss of consciousness to 300 s (see review by Proulx et al. 2020). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
In this paper, we: 1) review the case of a northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) that suffered for approximately 4 h in a Conibear 220 killing trap set in a suburban area; 2) show how the citizens involved took action to learn about mammal trapping methods, critically evaluate opposing arguments provided, and ultimately bring about change at the municipal level; and 3) propose recommendations for members of the public concerned about animal trapping in their municipalities, means to educate the public about animal welfare and mammal trapping, and ways to avoid the recurrence of events reported in this paper. Our paper stresses the importance of making decisions based on critical evidence and scientific findings; and it warns people against false claims that can be made by pest control companies and state furbearer biologists. As a result of proactive and persistent communication of scientific evidence to decision makers after this incident, the City Council issued a new ordinance specifying the Conibear 220 may be used to capture raccoons only as a last resort and with a special permit. This paper highlights the need to educate the public and elected officials on the basics of trapping nuisance animals in residential areas. We propose a series of actions citizens may take if they encounter an animal suffering and an infographic to educate citizens on mammal trapping in urban and suburban areas.
... Structural changes to restraining trap systems were judged significant if they reduced serious injuries or distress that impact on the release and survival of captured animals. In all cases, trap modifications were found valuable when they allowed traps to meet state-of-the-art trapping standards (e.g., Proulx et al. 2020Proulx et al. , 2022. The efficacy of the identified changes must have been demonstrated in sound assessments based on scientific datasets collected with wild animals in real trapping situations, and published in peer-reviewed journals or reports. ...
... Traps are defined by their mechanical properties, namely their momentum (striking force) and clamping force (Proulx et al. 2020). The momentum is the product of the velocity of a striking bar and its equivalent mass. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The assessment of trapping systems according to stringent mammal trapping standards usually requires design improvements. Modifications that have been found effective in improving killing and restraining trapping systems should be used by progressive trap manufacturers and inventors. The objectives of this chapter were to identify changes to trapping systems that resulted in: 1) a quicker loss of consciousness in animals captured in killing traps; and 2) a reduction of injuries and distress in animals captured in restraining traps. On the basis of a review of scientific literature, I identify suitable modifications for killing trap systems that relate to striking jaws, springs, triggers, and trap sets. I also identify successful modifications for restraining traps, namely for jaws, springs, chains, cable lengths, swivels, and components of cage/box traps. Finally, I review the importance of using innovative approaches such as tranquiliser-trap devices (TTDs) and lethal-trap devices (LTDs). Innovation is required for further developing commonly used killing and restraining trap systems, and this will certainly be hastened if stringent trapping standards are implemented.
... The following protocols are largely based on the Canadian research and development program criteria that are more stringent than the ISO and AIHTS standards (Proulx et al. 2020) and produced state-of-the-art trapping devices from 1985 to 1993. The protocols of the program were used to some extent though not entirely for the development of ISO and AIHTS standards (Proulx et al. 2020) and have been partially or fully replicated by research teams such as Warburton and Moffat (2007) and Morris and Warburton (2014) when implementing NAWAC's (2019) research guidelines. ...
... The following protocols are largely based on the Canadian research and development program criteria that are more stringent than the ISO and AIHTS standards (Proulx et al. 2020) and produced state-of-the-art trapping devices from 1985 to 1993. The protocols of the program were used to some extent though not entirely for the development of ISO and AIHTS standards (Proulx et al. 2020) and have been partially or fully replicated by research teams such as Warburton and Moffat (2007) and Morris and Warburton (2014) when implementing NAWAC's (2019) research guidelines. The testing of killing trap systems consists of 4 steps ( Figure 1). ...
... Step 1 ̶ Mechanical Evaluation Trap clamping force and impact momentum (striking force) are widely accepted proxies of trap welfare performance among traps with springs (Proulx et al. 2020). The evaluation of these forces is highly recommended to assess the potential of traps to meet specific threshold of acceptance and reduce the number of animals used in trap assessment. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
In this paper, we propose standards for killing trap systems based on Proulx et al.'s (2022) prerequisites, which provide context and explanations for our approach. Our aim is to identify assessment protocols that are based on the scientific method, and that include evaluation parameters and threshold levels of acceptation, and laboratory and field procedures, to recognize mammal trapping systems that are acceptable from an animal welfare, and capture efficiency and selectivity, point of view. The testing of killing trap systems consists of 4 steps: 1) Mechanical evaluation; 2) Approach tests in semi-natural environments; 3) Kill tests in semi-natural environments; and 4) Kill tests on traplines. Based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, acceptable killing trap systems are expected, at a 95% confidence level, to render ≥85% of the animals irreversibly unconscious in ≤ 90 sec for most mammal species, and ≤30 sec for small mammals (mouse, vole, etc.). We recommend that standards be continuously updated based on the development of new designs and technology.
... On the basis of Proulx et al.'s (2020) review, it is clear that mammal trapping standards need to be revisited to implement state-of-the-art trapping technology and improve capture efficiency and species selectivity. In the case of restraining traps, there is a need to expand the assessment of restraining traps and take into account physical, behavioural, and physiological changes caused by traps. ...
... The following protocols are largely based on the Canadian research and development program criteria, which were more stringent than the ISO and AIHTS standards (Proulx et al. 2020), and produced state-ofthe-art trapping devices from 1985 to 1993. The protocols of that program were also used to some extent though not entirely for the development of ISO and AIHTS standards (Proulx et al. 2020). ...
... The following protocols are largely based on the Canadian research and development program criteria, which were more stringent than the ISO and AIHTS standards (Proulx et al. 2020), and produced state-ofthe-art trapping devices from 1985 to 1993. The protocols of that program were also used to some extent though not entirely for the development of ISO and AIHTS standards (Proulx et al. 2020). All research procedures involved in the testing of restraining trap systems must be approved by an institutional Animal Care & Use Committee with members possessing appropriate expertise in the wildlife husbandry, health care, and research relevant to trapping and handling. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
In this paper, we propose standards for restraining trap systems based on Proulx et al.'s (2022a) prerequisites, which provide context and explanations for our approach. Our aim is to identify assessment protocols that are based on the scientific method, and that include evaluation parameters and threshold levels of acceptation, and laboratory and field procedures, to recognize mammal trapping systems that are acceptable from an animal welfare, and capture efficiency and selectivity, point of view. The testing of restraining trap systems consists of 3 steps: 1) Mechanical evaluation for leghold trapping devices; 2) Restraining tests in semi-natural environments; and 3) Restraining tests on traplines. On the basis of the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, a restraining trap system is acceptable if, at a 95% confidence level, it holds ≥85% of the animals without serious injuries (<50 points), signs of distress or exertion during ≥50% of captivity time, and without significant elevated stress, exertion or dehydration for the duration of the captivity period. We recommend that these standards be implemented and continuously updated as new designs and technology is developed.
... Attempts to design improved snares have not addressed the fundamental concerns about snaring. 16. While both fox and rabbit snares are described as restraining traps, a significant proportion of snare users set their snares with the intention of killing captured foxes and rabbits. ...
... In fact some of the worst welfare is associated with animals that escape from a restraining trap and then take several days or weeks to die [10] . So the probability of animals escaping from snares needs to be assessed as part of any approval process [16] . ...
... So the ISO trap selectivity standard is misleading, and legal approval may be inadvertently granted for a trap that is in effect non-selective. This occurred in Spain when the use of traditional snares for foxes accounted for the largest proportion of recorded mortality in the endangered Iberian lynx [16] . ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
A review of the use of snares in the UK
... Robust scientific assessment of the impacts of trapping on mammal welfare is necessary for various reasons. Such information is needed to inform cost-benefit analyses of using traps in wildlife management, as well as to improve trap performance and trapping processes, and develop international trap standards [6,7]. Any welfare impacts must be considered alongside the effectiveness, cost, ease of use, human safety, non-target animal impacts and social acceptability of the trapping method [8]. ...
... Ultimately, the findings of welfare assessments should be used to inform and justify decisions about if, when and how to implement trapping activities for 'ethical' wildlife management [8,38]. In addition, the information gleaned from such assessments should be applied to develop international standards for trap approval [7]. Here, we have emphasized key considerations for optimal use of the Sharp and Saunders model for assessing the welfare impacts of mammal trapping; these considerations will apply equally to applications of the model more broadly in the fields of wildlife management and research. ...
Article
Scientific assessment of the impacts of trapping on mammal welfare is necessary to inform cost-benefit analyses of using traps in wildlife management, improve trap performance and trapping processes and develop international trap standards. The Sharp and Saunders humaneness assessment model was developed specifically for assessing welfare impacts in vertebrate wildlife management and has been used to assess the impacts of trapping various mammals. It is a specific version of the more general Five Domains model for welfare assessment which is based on the understanding that welfare state reflects the sum of the animal's mental experiences. Our experience of applying the Sharp and Saunders model allows us to make key recommendations for those wishing to use it. First, the exact parameters of the trapping scenario to be assessed must be decided. Second, assessments should be based on published data, as well as integrating both scientific and practitioner expertise to provide rigorous and relevant outcomes. Third, conclusions about welfare impacts should be based on the appropriate indicators. As far as is possible, mental experiences should be inferred using animal-based indicators, and some representation should be provided of the scorers' confidence in the data on which assessment is based. Careful consideration of these points will help optimize the value of information produced using the model for wildlife management decision-making.
... Many of these details were missing from de Araujo et al. Powell & Proulx, 2003;Proulx, 1999;Proulx et al., 2020). Further, without internal or external comparators, it is impossible to compare the performance of the proposed method relative to other variants. ...
Article
Full-text available
1. De Araujo et al. (Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13516) described the development and application of a wire foot snare trap for the capture of jaguars Panthera onca and cougars Puma concolor. Snares are a commonly used and effective means of studying large carnivores. However, the article presented insufficient information to replicate the work and inadequate consideration and description of animal welfare considerations, thereby risking the perpetuation of poor standards of reporting. 2. Appropriate animal welfare assessments are essential in studies that collect data from animals, especially those that use invasive techniques, and are key in assisting researchers to choose the most appropriate capture method. It is critical that authors detail all possible associated harms and benefits to support thorough review, including equipment composition, intervention processes, general body assessments, injuries (i.e. cause, type, severity) and post-release behaviour. We offer a detailed discussion of these shortcomings. 3. We also discuss broader but highly relevant issues, including the capture of non-target animals and the omission of key methodological details. The level of detail provided by authors should allow the method to be properly assessed and replicated, including those that improve trap selectivity and minimize or eliminate the capture of non-target animals. 4. Finally, we discuss the central role that journals must play in ensuring that published research conforms to ethical, animal welfare and reporting standards. Scientific studies are subject to ever-increasing scrutiny by peers and the public, making it more important than ever that standards are upheld and reviewed. 5. We conclude that the proposal of a new or refined method must be supported by substantial contextual discussion, a robust rationale and analyses and comprehensive documentation.
... Standardised animal welfare testing approaches that have refined other physical killing and capture methods, notably trapping (Proulx et al. 2020), have rarely been applied to ballistic methods. Adoption of a standardised testing approach would likely improve the animal welfare outcomes and transparency of shooting and darting and would assist research ethics and use committees in determining which techniques and equipment to allow or oppose. ...
Article
Full-text available
Several important techniques for managing wildlife rely on ballistics (the behaviour of projectiles), including killing techniques (shooting) as well as capture and marking methods (darting). Because all ballistic techniques have the capacity to harm animals, animal welfare is an important consideration. Standardised testing approaches that have allowed refinement for other physical killing and capture methods (e.g. traps for mammals) have not been applied broadly to ballistic methods. At the same time, new technology is becoming available for shooting (e.g. subsonic and lead-free ammunition) and darting (e.g. dye-marker darts). We present several case studies demonstrating (a) how basic ballistic testing can be performed for novel firearms and/or projectiles, (b) the benefits of identifying methods producing undesirable results before operational use, and (c) the welfare risks associated with bypassing testing of a technique before broad-scale application. Following the approach that has been used internationally to test kill-traps, we suggest the following four-step testing process: (1) range and field testing to confirm accuracy and precision, the delivery of appropriate kinetic energy levels and projectile behaviour, (2) post-mortem assessment of ballistic injury in cadavers, (3) small-scale live animal pilot studies with predetermined threshold pass/fail levels, and (4) broad-scale use with reporting of the frequency of adverse animal welfare outcomes. We present this as a practical approach for maintaining and improving animal welfare standards when considering the use of ballistic technology for wildlife management.