Matt
-
Content Count
3,357 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Matt
-
Donks Forget floors, ramps and other useless stuff, follow the advice given and keep it simple; two sides and a top (or even two sides as suggested by snareman) will be easier to make and will give better results.
-
The STAO has been clear on this since the trap was first approved in 1995. The trap must be set with an artificial tunnel to reduce the risk of non-target captures and guide the target onto the kill zone. I happen to know that NE are actively seeking a prosecution on this very subject. The box at the rear of the trap is to contain bait, not restrict access. Hence the condition. Maybe Chalkwarren could comment as he did the original field trials. I have one here, very similar to the set up that Rolfe has shown, but with a tunnel on it. I'll get some pics and post when I can.
-
Donks, forget all that pelleted bait, put a bit of peanut butter on the 'ceiling' of the tunnel right above the trap - it works a treat. I too favour the simple three sided tunnels, and I don't bother with any sort of hole. Just use some sticks, or even high tensile fencing wire as a restrictor for the entrance. A well placed tunnel will catch with no bait at all, and the simplest designs of tunnels are undoubtedly the best. I'll see if I can dig out some pics. Personally, with a farm situation, I would prefer AF boxes with break backs inside. Its a quick and simple way of catch
-
Too much? Are you going to eat it? .410 will do the job nicely. Treat any cubs you catch in the same way as you would adults, and however silly you feel, put some safety glasses on because there is a danger of ricochet from the trap, and no fox is worth an eye.
-
How where you planning on dispatching any adults you caught?
-
You are under the wrong impression. The dog must be 'in the act' of worrying, and the law clearly states 'as a last resort'. Totally wrong. They are NOT entitled to shoot a dog if they 'think' it 'may' worry livestock. The law is clear: The dog has to be actually in the act of worrying. It must be as a last resort (i.e. the farmer must try and stop it by other means first) They have to inform the police of their actions within 48 hours. The other area of contention is about highways. The law states that it is an offence to discharge a firearm (that includes airguns) wi
-
just spoke to me old man there has to be proven damage to livestock Dogs may only be shot as a last resort, and they have to be in the act of worrying livestock. The farmer then has 48 hours to inform the police of his or her actions. I know of a case where a farmer caught two dogs, tied them to a fence and then shot them. He was prosecuted as by catching them and tying them to a fence, they could not have been in the act of worrying livestock. As someone has already suggested, it was probobly warning shots (which is a very quick way of loosing a shotgun certificate) - but trespa
-
For the record, I have made no allegations, I've just asked some questions because I couldn't understand what had happened. If you've come up with a good idea, and sold it, then good luck to you. I just find it strange that you come on here on a Wednesday asking people to join for £55, by Sunday, its dropped to £10, and less than an hour after posting how good it all is, you've sold!! The FSB must be bloody good to arrange your sale that quickly. All credit to them. As I say, if you've made a quid or two from a good idea, well done. Monies are going to be refunded, so no-on
-
I'm even more confused now. I have some questions, which you may or may not choose to answer: Did you sell a database of molecatchers? Is it the domain name you have sold? Why would a national pest control company want it? If negotiations only started today (sunday), have you taken any advice about the legalities of selling contact information obtained from members? If negotiations started prior to today, why were you actively seeking more members? What was your aim when you started this 'service'? Did you always intend selling out, given your comments about not needing any mor
-
This sounds more dodgy by the minute. Tyke you have had more last posts than an army bugle. So lets get this right, you launch this site one day, and between 1841 and 1929 on a sunday, you sell the site! Tell me, who do you draw up contracts, and go through the due diligence process in less than one hour on a sunday? Or has this just been some sort of wind up? Is it just me?
-
Throwing traps away after 20 catches
Matt replied to Matt's topic in Snaring, Trapping & Pest Control
The powers that be are looking to make this law, 20 uses max, a lot going on in the background regarding mole trapping. I have been told from a very reliable source involved in this that the research could take 3 years. A lot of us think laws will be kicking in a lot sooner, hopefully the one that ststes traps not to be sold to the general public. The latter can only be good for the professional. Right time to get some contracts written, work to do. Sorry, but this is incorrect information. The government are looking at an approval system for all traps, which will enable them to com -
What, like the Talpex? Sorry, but I'm yet to be convinced.
-
Call me a cynic, but I just don't see the point in this. What are you offering that the other 'traditional' molecatching club isn't? Another thing is this: Thats going to limit things somewhat, given there are no 'approved' traps in the UK. Mole traps are exempt from the Spring Trap Approval Orders, so this is just silly.
-
The best bait to use is the one the pro chooses for the particular job. Erradirat? Forget it. Pick up the phone and call in a pro. You wont find many using that stuff.
-
Throwing traps away after 20 catches
Matt replied to Matt's topic in Snaring, Trapping & Pest Control
Phew! I'm glad its not just me...... This is the site I was talking about. I've seen it on a few now, and my instant reaction was "what a load of crap". I'm happy to be proved wrong though.............. -
Hi Guys I was reading the website of a traditional mole catcher the other day, and he claims that he discards his traps after twenty captures, because he claims the traps are then worn out! I would be interested in your opinions of this practice. Personally, I dont see the point; I would have thought that it is more important to consider the amount of time that a trap remains set (when the springs are under tension) than the amount of times it has caught. A trap could be set for a year without catching a thing, and its springs would be more worn than one which has been out and cau
-
Ahh, thats more like it..........
-
Badgers are 'low slung' - if you can find any hair around the holes, roll it between your thumb and forefinger; if its soft, its not badger, if it doesn't roll smoothly (badger hair is triangular in section), it definately is a badger.
-
PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE ON A BONUS SCHEME! I think I already pay you too much to come out and enjoy yourself trapping Kestrel. Spend that bonus wisely................
-
I think that the original advice for Larsen traps said that if the birds wouldn't go in, you should raise the traps. I would suggest a different maggie.
-
I was just about to recommend a soon to be published book......... The Legg multi catch is a well proven, and often loved design. A PC friend was asking me recently if anyone still made them; he's been using his for 35 years and wants a couple more.
-
Or fence wires where they are coming through onto the neighbouring fields. BUT you MUST have the permission of the landowner FIRST, and trespass on the railways is a criminal offence (unlike normal trespass).
-
They are less likely to issue a section 5 if you have no firearm certificate history. It may be better to get 6 months with a rimfire rifle under your belt first, then re-apply for a slaughter instrument, ir if the hunt already have a gun, you could go for a 'joint' certificate, and let them continue to store the gun and ammo when not in use. I wouldn't go in 'all guns blazing' (sorry for the pun) straight off; you'd be better off negotiating with them at this stage, than possibly loosing an apeal, and alienating your FEO.
-
Years ago (pre Dunblane) I applied for a .22 pistol specifically for foxes. I was refused because the home office guidance (at the time) stated that only those in hunt service, or who where employed as gamekeepers could have one. As a full time pest controller, I was not allowed . I got around it by applying for a .22 'slaughtering instrument', which I still have today, along with a .32, and a .38. The .22 is the tool to have; its safer, and there is a legal precident set for it. When I worked for MAFF, it was the tool of choice, and had parlimentry approval for the dispatch of foxes
-
If you read my original reply, you will see that I have recommended a cage trap!