Wcs Tube Trap

[OldTrapCollector 377]

Not doubting you at all Heritage but how could a Duke trap fail to meet the required standard and yet the little Sawyer Vermin Trap, for example, still holds its place on the STAO, that even when new back in the 60's in its own trials failed to kill as expected and yet passed ... ??

 

OTC

[Matt 160]

I think it depends partly on what system of testing was used.

 

From memory, the Duke was going to be the first to go through the new testing protocols, so if it has failed, there is no hope for anything except the Kania and the tube trap.

 

The Duke I handled was very similar to the BMI. I can't see why it would fail.

 

This is all part of the same problem. We need a level playing field for testing, and if they really want to do something to improve the humaneness of spring traps then they need to remove that 'clone' clause from the orders. How anyone could consider some of the crud I've seen to be on a par with the real thing is beyond me.

[J Darcy 5,871]

Theres several makes of bodygrips, why didn't they test a selection of them? I hear Duke do have a bad reputation in the USA in the larger sizes, but we're talking small traps for small mammals, I can't see how they would fail. I've handled Duke's as well as other makes, including Bellisle, and they all seem the same to me in the smaller sizes....can anyone shed some light??

[IanB 0]

Theres stopping junk getting into the market, and wanting a good humane trap...... Then theres preventing near identical traps with equal killing power to already passed trap's from being passed at all...

 

These supposed new approval requirements are getting silly and someone somewhere is pushing them, not for the good of trapping, for the good of themselves..sad state of affairs.

[OldTrapCollector 377]

Does the new DEFRA trap testing protocol match the Canadian one by any chance?

 

OTC

[heritage 202]

From what I've been told the 116 originally failed to meet all the required standards but with a huge amount of effort from robin, Phil & others the trap was eventually passed .The 116 as we now know it is not in its original guise and is tailored specifically for the uk market . I'm sure there will be someone on here who could clarify this ......

 

Several months ago I was informed that two boxes of dukes were submitted for testing, they were submitted by someone who uses this forum with the intention of becoming the sole uk distributor.The traps were tested using the new protocols and failed., there were several points of concern including build quality & spring strength....with a bit of digging this could also be clarified....

[OldTrapCollector 377]

Build quality and consistency I can understand, the Duke is a cheaper trap, but its killing capability should match that of allready passed BG's I would have thought - afterall, they are killing traps that target the brain and spine, rather than heart and lungs, and therefore death is quick

 

Can anyone shed any more light on the testing process?

 

OTC

[heritage 202]

I do have a question.......if a trap can legally be reproduced using the "clone" clause what's stopping the original inventor or manufacturer putting a stop to it, surely they would be a patent which would prevent anyone copying there product......?

[moxy 617]

I am very surprised that the duke failed. I ordered a few from the states and the springs are bloody powerful. More so than the fore mentioned.

[OldTrapCollector 377]

I do have a question.......if a trap can legally be reproduced using the "clone" clause what's stopping the original inventor or manufacturer putting a stop to it, surely they would be a patent which would prevent anyone copying there product......?

 

Patents only last for a finite time, and then, if they are not renewed, then they can be copied freely

 

OTC

[heritage 202]

A lot use dukes ordered directly from the states as they work out much cheaper but my own interpretation of the stao leads me to believe there use would be illegal ...., they may well,look & perform the same but there not a named trap...., I may be proven to be wrong on this one though......

[logun 91]

have the trap got to be a named approved trap heritage,if so would a clone also need to share the same name as the approved one ??? the dukes are fantastic traps ,,some say they ain't as good as the bmi and maybe so,,but in spring strength i would say more power than the bmi....its a clone.. the spring ,frame are a clone ,,only difference is the trip wires dog etc,but under the trap approval bollocks they don't apply... 110 bmi here cost as much as £14.. a 110 duke as little as £3... even when you take the tax added post costs from the us the trap still 50%or less than here... there cries then from some saying the duke ain't approved but i myself think that they way to safeguard they own interests in the sales of bmi traps......; the clone debate we talked about on here many times and there always be retailers of the bmi referring to the approved trap code in they favour ,,but like it or not ,the duke is a clone and a clone at a fraction of the cost of the bmi.

[heritage 202]

I really can't dispute what your saying about the cost issue but as far as I'm aware if it dosen't state duke on the stao then you can't legally use it......

[IanB 0]

The BMI 110 is legal upto rat/stoat/squirrel size

 

The 116 is a modified 110 with a larger spring, I think its off the 160 trap, I might be wrong off the top of my head, I can remember Robin telling me it was needed for approval, for rabbit and mink after testing as the inital 110 failed requirements also for these..

[heritage 202]

A clone couldn't carry the same name as its approved counterpart but from what I can see the stao lists both the trap type & its authorised manufacturer...