randombadger

Cheers Arry, Just in case anyone is skeptical here's a link to recent research show that 25ppm is just about as effective as 50ppm Efficacy of rodenticide baits with decreased concentrations of brodifacoum: Validation of the impact of the new EU anticoagulant regulation | Scientific Reports (nature.com) As for 'professional grade' 25ppm brodifacoum baits a few examples would be: Rascal 25 Brodif and Talon M. Speaking to an industry guy at the Pestex I questioned why so many companies still sell it at 50ppm and why some even sell both. He said that when your competitors are sel

Sort of: You need to provide evidence that you have passed a CRRU approved training course (or are a farmer member of a farm assurance scheme that audits rodenticide use). However there is scientific test work that shows that when used properly a 25ppm brodifacoum bait can achieve the same level of control as the higher ppm 'professional' products. In fact some professional brodifacoum products ARE 25ppm or thereabouts. This is because brodifacoum is far more potent than some of the other commonly used rodenticides so doesn't actually need to be at the normal 50ppm 'full strength'. It's f

Totally different to the Koro, and the main point is that it is one of the few traps that is approved for stoats. Its advantage over the DOC is that there are no additional approval conditions other than using it in an appropriate tunnel (to minimise non-target risk), as people will be aware, the DOC has very specific set of instructions regarding internal baffle positioning that MUST be followed in order to comply with the approval. It's other main competitor is the Tully, which is much longer and probably significantly heavier. The Perdix should be a much easier straight replacement in tunne

Never come across this before, which river with no fish has had otters released in it?

I doubt it, BMI Magnum 116 I would think

Why not try the BMI magnum 55 instead if the 110 is too big for what you want? It's easier to handle and you're only after rats

I have always assumed that the formulation for the non-toxic vs the toxic version of a bait is identical except for the addition of the active ingredient in the latter. So that in effect unless there is something about the difenacoum/bromadialone or whatever active is present that makes the bait more attractive (seems unlikely) then the toxic version shouldn't be more palatable. Of course that is an assumption based on what would seem sensible but it is possible that the two versions do differ more significantly, for example are there still additives such as bitrex in the non-toxics? Possibly

The consultation document did mention it, see table 1 part 3: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-management/implementing-aihts-humane-trapping/supporting_documents/AIHTS consultation document FINAL.pdf I guess if nobody read it and/or didn't bother to respond then it's not surprising that they have been removed. Doubt many people will be concerned that they can't use a Lloyd or a Fenn MKi anymore !!

Brilliant trap, and you are right, it has potential for development. But I think the reason it ended manufacture was it was too well made and too complex compared to many other traps, especially the Fenns, making it expensive. The closest current production trap in terms of concept is the Kania, and it isn't cheap either and has that annoying handle sticking out the side of it. The Fuller was a superb design IMO, perhaps in this new trapping climate there may be a place for a newly manufactured Fuller.

You may be right about the centre baffle and grey squirrel, although perhaps that could be modified. If the aim of the baffle is just to slow down a fast moving stoat so that the strike bar hits it then slowing a grey squirrely down to a complete halt might be fine as its head will be right in the strike zone. And it probably doesn't matter if the trap is used in a single entrance box instead of a run-through tunnel. I'd agree that the Fenns are more versatile and reasonably priced, however it is also often less efficient at ensuring a quick clean kill, particularly when used sloppily by

The biggest difference is that as demonstrated in the video this trap can be set easily while held in your hand, a Doc 150 needs to be screwed down to something solid in order to set it effectively. This trap is also designed to share key dimensions with the Fenn trap (same width and height as he says in the vid), That means it should fit into many existing tunnels as most should be longer than this trap anyway. Thus this trap can in theory be used in many of the same situations where people have their Fenns right now as a 'drop in' replacement. The DOC currently has to be used in a box that m

One would like to presume the snares are set legally at all times, not just when photographed for a discussion board.

The rounded Fenn trap would be the 'Fenn Rabbit trap Mk1'. pretty much the same design as the mkiv and mkvi but with the cross bar forming a semicircle rather than a straight bar. I think they stopped making them because the Mkvi did the same job. Not sure what the benefit of the curved bar was thought to be for rabbits. Maybe so it didn't catch on the tunnel sides so bad, but it think it was slightly taller so that wouldn't add up.

That seems a bit contradictory, maybe we should just clarify the exact position: Here's a direct quote from section 1(3) of the badgers Act 1992: "A person is guilty of an offence if, except as permitted by or under this Act, he has in his possession or under his control any dead badger or any part of, or anything derived from, a dead badger." The caveat is the next section 1(4): "A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above if he shows that— . (a) the badger had not been killed, or had been killed otherwise than in contravention of the provisions of this A

Thanks, I suppose I should add that to my query: does anyone know where comparative pictures of the Mk2 and different types of Mk3 can be found? Ta