randombadger
-
Content Count
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Posts posted by randombadger
-
-
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 fair to say that people shouldn't be 'gifting' you products that you are not permitted to use . If you look at the label on the product it should say that it is for use by professional users with demonstrated competence (trained professional), so be careful, simply by using it there's a possibility that you could be committing an offence under biocides regulations because you are ignoring that part of the label instructions.
The short answer is that 25ppm should be fine.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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 The Perdix should be a much easier straight replacement in tunnels that were originally made for Fenns and height and width wise it's compatible. The Tully also is height and width compatible with Fenn tunnels but might not be suitable for all of them due to its length as it might end up too close to the entrance. I've used a Tully and it was effective, haven't used the Perdix but may get one to try soon.
-
1
-
-
On 30/07/2019 at 14:50, Greyman said:
I have seen otters released in rivers with no fish and polecats are popping up all over the place which I assume is another of your re wilded animals,
Never come across this before, which river with no fish has had otters released in it?
-
Quote
Great idea, is that the conibear 110? Thi King of getting a few for the coming season.
I doubt it, BMI Magnum 116 I would think
-
1
-
-
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 not, and that might alter their palatability (although arguably with bitrex maybe in favour of the non-toxic, but then I've heard of a few animals actually seeming to like the bitter taste!) Nevertheless perhaps there is some other additive or lack of such which causes the animals to either stay away from the non-toxic bait you are using either via neophobic response or a more general repellent effect (the former being more likely)
Two suggestions:
contact the manufacturer and find out exactly what the ingredient difference is.
And/or try a different bait with an alternative non-toxic indicator.
-
19 hours ago, EDDIE B said:
Just realised a lot of the old vermin/rabbit traps aint on that list. Does that mean they sneakily just removed them?
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 !!
-
On 08/12/2017 at 19:41, Phil Lloyd said:QuoteQuote
Back in the day,...I owned a trap that I've always thought could have been modified, improved upon and would be, in my opinion,..just the job for Stoats
This was the Fuller Squirrel Trap...
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.
-
2
-
-
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 inexperienced or disinterested. That isn't to say it can't get a clean kill but I think the point of this trap is to try and ensure that every kill is clean and quick (or as close to that as the legislation is about to demand) and to make it fool proof rather than to rely on the supposed skill (or lack of) that the trapper possesses.
The Tully appears to have passed those tests, it seems unlikely to allow more animals to be caught, just to do so more 'humanely', but until people start using them in the field who really knows if it will do the business
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, EDDIE B said:
A trap with a built in cubby, makes it bulky and unsuitable for certain situations. You mIght as well just use the Doc 150, as this Tully Trap. Their design actually looks pretty similar to the Doc IMO.
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 matches the DOC specifications and has to be attached to it, so it is a much less practical option on both of those scores.
Soon enough the Fenns won't be legal for stoats so replacements will be needed, we should be grateful this guy has gone to the effort to at least try and develop an alternative option, even if it might be imperfect it does seem to offer something different to the DOCs.
Only stoat is covered in these new trap changes coming so there's not much reason for it not to be available for rats, weasels and Squirrels and maybe other things.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, foxdropper said:
Make sure any pics are legal mate ,deer stops and free running .
One would like to presume the snares are set legally at all times, not just when photographed for a discussion board.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
Its true the onus is on you to prove it wasn't killed unlawfully but there is no law saying you can't have badger parts in your possession .
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 Act or of the M1Badgers Act 1973; or
.
(
the badger or other thing in his possession or control had been sold (whether to him or any other person) and, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser had had no reason to believe that the badger had been killed in contravention of any of those provisions.
The Question by the OP is about ensuring he can show he is complying with 1(4)a so he doesn't get prosecuted by some overzealous person under the very real (i.e. it exists) section 1(3)!"
Seems clear, but vague at the same time. i.e. clear that you can possess if you can show that you came about it lawfully, but vague as to how exactly you do that.
-
1
-
-
Sorry I can't really help you with comparisons to the MKII, but to make things more complicated, there's two versions of the MKIII. Off the top of my head, I know they have a different chain and the pan is different too..
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
-
I've scoured the internet but can't find any decent images of a Fenn Mk2, I'm interested in how it's different to the MK3. I know it's a bit lighter but not sure if there are any minor differences in shape. Does anyone know where some comparative photos can be found?
-
"Depends what time in the morning it's tapping the window...anytime before 7:30 is a good reason"
Based on what?
There isn't a general licence that covers that particular problem, Some people might like to make out it's a 'health' issue, but good luck with that should some busybody report you to an unsympathetic PC.....
If the OP want's to make sure he isn't inadvertently breaking any law he should apply to Natural England for a licence, if his action is justified under the general licence they will of course tell him to carry on.
Encouraging people to do things that may be questionable or inhabit legal grey areas (no matter how minor) is ultimately not going to do anyone who shoots any favours. Do it right and do it legal.
-
1
-
-
Would one of these be the sort of thing you are looking for?:
http://www.packagingandfastening.com/eclipser-2000-clip-tools.php
or
-
Not sure why you would need a faceshield unless you're throwing the stuff around
. Protective gloves are the most important requirement with regards to safety from the rodenticide (and from diseases that the wee blighters might leave on things) . Some form of coverall and wellies are perhaps desirable and good practice but not strictly necessary, and a facemask (like one of those 'paper' filter ones) might be good practice if using a loose bait with powder on it in some limited circumstance but for most situations just not necessary. As far as I know gloves are the only PPE that is stipulated on the label of the rodenticides I've seen.When I did an equivalent course I'm fairly sure we didn't need to use any equipment that we brought with us as we didn't do any live baiting. If you have wellies, coveralls, rubber gloves and a face mask I'd reckon you'll be ready for anything.
-
1
-
-
<I>As you will be checking the trap daily just clean it daily,or is it the mindset now that spending brass on useless technology is the sign of modern keepers and their training,buy what i cannot fathom.</I>
It's not useless at all, as he said the current open pots get very messy and he's looking for a solution. I find that the birds tend to frequently wash their food in the water, and depending on what they are fed with the water can get very mucky very quickly, especially unpleasant in warmer weather. Each individual bird varies but some are worse for doing it than others. Whether it bothers the birds or not is questionable and if you are able to check a trap twice or more a day it may be irrelevant as it will have the water frequently changed. Given that the birds can turn clean water to lumpy soup within an hour of being cleaned and fed the biggest potential problem this causes is for trappers who can't avoid having members of the public encounter their traps, filthy water looks bad and might result in a complaint or accusation, using rabbit water bottles seems perfectly sensible both for bird welfare and for public relations. The water bottles should last for years, doesn't seem like much of an expense to ensure a good clean water supply to the bird. Filthy traps with dirty water just perpetuate the accusations of anti-trappers, you could try being a bit more positive towards someone who is considering trying to avoid that rather than grumbling about penny pinching and 'modern keepers'.
-
2
-
-
"WCS will not ship these to the UK. It must be something to do with the deal with Magnum trap co. To order these for the Uk then they must be bought from other stores instead"
Both the WCS Tube trap and the WCS collarum UK models are slightly different than those available in the US and Canada?
Only the UK models are approved for use here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/13/pdfs/uksi_20120013_en.pdf
"WCS Collarum Stainless UK Fox Model
manufactured by or under the authority of
Wildlife Control Supplies"and:
"WCS Tube Trap International manufactured
by or under the authority of Wildlife Control
Supplies..../....The trap must be set within the artificial tunnel
provided by the manufacturer for use in the
UK"Magnum traps offer an explanation:
http://www.magnumtrap.com/wcs-collarum.php
"The English approved version features a Relaxalock cable and adjustable stop to ensure a 'friendly' capture and comply with UK legislation. The WCS Collarum has been added to the list of approved spring traps for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"
http://www.magnumtrap.com/tube-trap.php
"The English approved version has a considerably more powerful spring than it's American counterpart and is additionally fitted with two 'killing bars' inside the tube.The target is therefore struck against these bars instead of being simply crushed against the side of the tunnel. It also has a safety catch.
The standard USA version of this trap is not approved for use in the UK. It is illegal to use it here. Please only use approved traps. Do not accept illegal, often underpowered, copies or versions."Importing US/Canadian would seem somewhat pointless unless someone intends to break the law by using them.
-
Cheers, found it....
http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/uk146000.pdf
Variation of the Spring Traps Approval (England) Order 2012
2. The Schedule to the Spring Traps Approval (England) Order 2012(c) is varied as follows—
(a) in the entry for the BMI Magnum 55, in Column 2 (conditions), after “killing” insert
“grey squirrels,”;
must have missed that when I was reading the bit about the Goodnature being approved.
-
Out of interest, where on the Spring Traps Approval order is the approval for their use on squirrels?
As far as I can see (STAO 2012) it's approved for use against Rats, Mice and 'other small ground vermin', the latter group does not include grey squirrel, hence why other traps specifically mention grey squirrel specifically e.g. the BMI 110 which can be used for "grey squirrels, stoats, weasels, rats, mice and other small ground vermin".
Has there been a modification to the STAO to permit the 55's use on grey squirrel?
-
Lindsay Waddell has written about this in his column in last week's Shooting Times. He explains that the Fenn is unlikely to pass the AHITS requirements. The idea of some kind of conspiracy is amusing, but the history of this is available to anyone who can be bothered to use Google, and it's surprising that more people haven't seen this coming.
The EU wanted to ensure that those countries that did lots of fur trapping (and then sold the furs into the EU) did so 'humanely' and therefore they persuaded the big fur trapping countries (Canada, Russia and USA) to sign up to an agreement. Not surprisingly those countries expected the EU to implement the standards too so the EU required its member states to incorporate the agreement into their legislation. This was over a decade ago and the countries had plenty of time to put the required testing and approvals in place and to remove traps that don't meet the requirements
Canada has gone a long way down this road, but in Europe it seems to have been forgotten about, then suddenly they find themselves just a year away from the final deadline and are rushing about trying to sort it.
The agreement covers furbearing species whether they are trapped for fur or not and the upshot seems to be that if a trap can't meet the maximum kill time for one of the listed species then it can't be used on that species. Because of the background of the agreement, only species commonly trapped for fur are covered by the agreement, and of those the only one that is commonly and widely trapped in the UK is the stoat, hence this is why it's only stoat that is an issue.
This is the agreement: http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/downloadFile.do?fullText=yes&treatyTransId=1428
Here is the Fur Institute of Canada's explanation: http://www.fur.ca/files/info_sheets/Info%20Sheet%20-%20About%20AIHTS.pdf
Here is a link to New Zealand research on Fenn Traps http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ufaw/aw/2008/00000017/00000002/art00002 (Notice that the summary says: <I>"Changes to New Zealand animal welfare legislation in 1999 focused attention on whether this trap killed quickly and consistently and, therefore, pen tests were carried out to assess their killing performance. A guideline for testing traps was developed for the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and to meet the guidelines kill traps must render all ten test animals irreversibly unconscious within three minutes. Testing is stopped as soon as three animals fail the criterion. New Mk IV and MkVI and used MkVI Fenn traps were tested. With the exception of one stoat captured in a new MkVI trap, all stoats remained conscious until euthanased at 5 minutes</I>
If you read Lindsay Waddell's article in Shooting Times he says the AHITS criteria is the stoat must be dead in 45 seconds (as opposed to the >5 mins above), and sure enough if you can be bothered to look at the agreement (link above) it is. The NZ testing that found 5+ minutes is way short of that.
In Lindsay Waddell's article he makes out that the New Zealand DOC trap is the likely replacement, and as he points out, it may be a good trap but it's big, bulky and expensive.
However there are a wad of traps which have passed in Canada for Stoats (they call them weasels but it's the same species, they call weasels something else..) and some of them are fairly standard bodygrip types which would be relatively inexpensive. Given that they have passed the criteria for stoat it should be relatively simple for them to be added to a UK STAO (in as much as these things are ever 'simple'). list of traps the Canadians have passed is here: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/pdf/Certified%20Traps%20Jan%2021,%202013%20E.pdf
Isn't Google great?
-
3
-
-
It appears that defra doesn't have any choice about these changes for stoat. Due the requirements of the AIHTS that the EU signed many years ago only traps that have passed the required effectiveness/humaneness criteria for the species listed on AIHTS will be permitted after the middle of next year.
I guess any trap manufacturer (or anyone else) could have their traps tested to see if they meet the new standards, lord knows how much that would cost. However in the case of the Fenn, it is not the most efficient kill trap available by a long way and I suspect the assumption is that it may not pass for stoat (the New Zealanders tested it a few years ago and it apparently fell quite short of the new standards), hence perhaps nobody is prepared to pay to test it. I guess that the facsimile traps might be in the same boat.... You can bet that all of the no longer manufactured traps will lose their approval for stoat because there will be nobody to pay for the testing ( e.g fenns MK 1,2 & 3), maybe folks can have a whip round....if you think they'll pass....
Only certain species appear on the AIHTS list because it was originally there to improve fur-trapping standards. There are other UK species on the list but none that are regularly trapped legally without a specific licence, stoat is the only one.
One interesting thing is that traps that have passed AIHTS standards anywhere in the world should be able to be approved in the UK without further testing so we should see some new traps appearing.
Sapphire Rat Paste
in Snaring, Trapping & Pest Control
Posted
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 selling the same stuff at twice the strength then there is a tendency for some users to gravitate to that so you have to do the same or risk losing sales. But whether it's necessary or not..... well that's another matter!