Counterfeit Fenn Vs A Real Fenn - Action Video

[J Darcy 5,871]

 

 

 

I have a couple of MkIV traps with "Keepa" stamped on them...

 

 

 

All counterfeits are illegal to use under the Pests Act 1954. They have not been approved under Spring Traps Approval Order (2012) and anyone using a non-approved trap can be prosecuted.

 

Unless they are classed as clones.......then they are perfectly legal...

 

Here is the link to the "Approved List", and if they are not on that list, then they are illegal....

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/13/pdfs/uksi_20120013_en.pdf

 

Wrong..........a trap can be a clone and perfectly legal.

[ratbuster 807]

I have a " Springer " Mk6 trap which I bought in the UK from a good gunshop. I checked the trap this afternoon, but no patent-number on the brass dog. So would this be a fake one?

[Tiercel 6,986]

I have a " Springer " Mk6 trap which I bought in the UK from a good gunshop. I checked the trap this afternoon, but no patent-number on the brass dog. So would this be a fake one?

They are not "fake" or "counterfeit." They are generic, they do not claim to be anything other than what they are.

 

TC

[walshie 2,804]

The squirrel escaping in the vid could have been because the tunnel is a bit tall letting it jump out of the way of the trap rather than because of the trap.

[Tomdhu 42]

 

 

 

 

I have a couple of MkIV traps with "Keepa" stamped on them...

 

 

 

All counterfeits are illegal to use under the Pests Act 1954. They have not been approved under Spring Traps Approval Order (2012) and anyone using a non-approved trap can be prosecuted.

 

Unless they are classed as clones.......then they are perfectly legal...

 

Here is the link to the "Approved List", and if they are not on that list, then they are illegal....

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/13/pdfs/uksi_20120013_en.pdf

 

 

 

This is where the problem is.

If you read the bottom of the pdf

(Article 2 specifies approved traps, namely those listed in Column 1 of the Schedule and others which are equivalent in all relevant respects to those so listed.)

Or http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/13/article/2/made

you will find similar wording (any spring trap which is equivalent in all relevant respects to a spring trap of a type and make specified in any entry in Column 1 of the Schedule)

 

Clone traps are supposed to be of equal power, dimensions and quality, but we all know they are normally cheap chink shite.

 

You are right; they are not equivalent. They are not made under licence and hence do not have to conform to the patented Fenn design.

 

I tested a clone ( copy/counterfeit whatever you want to call it) and it was NOT equal in power or quality. It was only dimensionably similar but its springs had much less tension that the genuine Fenn. Also the clone didn't have the " brass on brass" in the trigger mechanism- hence less sensitive and slower. Its performance was substandard - so much so that several targett species ( squirrels) got out of the trap.

[Torquemada 288]

I bought the ones I have from that supplier that used to be based in Liverpool about 5 years ago, they are closed now but I can't remember what they were called.

[Tiercel 6,986]

 

 

 

 

 

I have a couple of MkIV traps with "Keepa" stamped on them...

 

 

 

All counterfeits are illegal to use under the Pests Act 1954. They have not been approved under Spring Traps Approval Order (2012) and anyone using a non-approved trap can be prosecuted.

 

Unless they are classed as clones.......then they are perfectly legal...

 

Here is the link to the "Approved List", and if they are not on that list, then they are illegal....

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/13/pdfs/uksi_20120013_en.pdf

 

 

 

This is where the problem is.

If you read the bottom of the pdf

(Article 2 specifies approved traps, namely those listed in Column 1 of the Schedule and others which are equivalent in all relevant respects to those so listed.)

Or http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/13/article/2/made

you will find similar wording (any spring trap which is equivalent in all relevant respects to a spring trap of a type and make specified in any entry in Column 1 of the Schedule)

 

Clone traps are supposed to be of equal power, dimensions and quality, but we all know they are normally cheap chink shite.

 

You are right; they are not equivalent. They are not made under licence and hence do not have to conform to the patented Fenn design.

 

I tested a clone ( copy/counterfeit whatever you want to call it) and it was NOT equal in power or quality. It was only dimensionably similar but its springs had much less tension that the genuine Fenn. Also the clone didn't have the " brass on brass" in the trigger mechanism- hence less sensitive and slower. Its performance was substandard - so much so that several targett species ( squirrels) got out of the trap.

 

Lets cut to the chase, what is your point? Everyone one knows that the imported clones are inferior to genuine Fens. You tell us it is against the law to use them, yet previous to that you put up a video openly using one? In your last statement you yet again admit to what you perceived as an illegal act.

 

What is the point, what are your trying to prove?

 

TC

[J Darcy 5,871]

 

 

 

 

 

I have a couple of MkIV traps with "Keepa" stamped on them...

 

 

 

All counterfeits are illegal to use under the Pests Act 1954. They have not been approved under Spring Traps Approval Order (2012) and anyone using a non-approved trap can be prosecuted.

 

Unless they are classed as clones.......then they are perfectly legal...

 

Here is the link to the "Approved List", and if they are not on that list, then they are illegal....

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/13/pdfs/uksi_20120013_en.pdf

 

 

 

This is where the problem is.

If you read the bottom of the pdf

(Article 2 specifies approved traps, namely those listed in Column 1 of the Schedule and others which are equivalent in all relevant respects to those so listed.)

Or http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/13/article/2/made

you will find similar wording (any spring trap which is equivalent in all relevant respects to a spring trap of a type and make specified in any entry in Column 1 of the Schedule)

 

Clone traps are supposed to be of equal power, dimensions and quality, but we all know they are normally cheap chink shite.

 

You are right; they are not equivalent. They are not made under licence and hence do not have to conform to the patented Fenn design.

 

I tested a clone ( copy/counterfeit whatever you want to call it) and it was NOT equal in power or quality. It was only dimensionably similar but its springs had much less tension that the genuine Fenn. Also the clone didn't have the " brass on brass" in the trigger mechanism- hence less sensitive and slower. Its performance was substandard - so much so that several targett species ( squirrels) got out of the trap.

 

So what you tested was not a clone....it was an underpowered illegal trap. A clone is near identical in killing power as well as other criteria....IMO.

[Tiercel 6,986]

If the guy Gal dont know difference between a great tit and a blue tit then he has no place using traps haha never mind giving advice on em haha

Fixed that for you.

 

TC

[Tiercel 6,986]

Is it a woman? That explains it haha

Not 100% sure, but I would be willing to bet it is.

 

TC

[OldTrapCollector 377]

I was asked to offer my opinion on this matter, but decided to watch from the sidelines for a while ... but ... it seems it has run far enough now with some odd interpretations being expressed

 

On the Approval Order are several similar design traps based on the original Fenn Mk 4 Vermin Trap. This was patented, yes, but this has long since expired. Also approved are the Solway and Springer traps, both almost identical and both named on the plate with the company name, as is the Fenn, neither of which were patented either, so therefore are really only copies of the original trap, but have been specifically approved by DEFRA.

 

Also on some of the recent approval orders is the 'clone' - since no-one has pushed through a case to suggest otherwise, this is open to interpretation. Some might say that a trap which 'looks' the same is a clone, others might suggest that it must 'perform' the same, but no-one really knows for sure, and the authorities like Natural England will not answer the question. The so-called Chinese imports offered by a whole host of suppliers, usually cheaply, are almost, but not quite, identical in looks. Who could possibly say whether they 'perform' the same? Nowhere is it listed that they must be of the same, quote ...' equal power, dimensions and quality' ... (at least anywhere I have read). Therefore are they clones, or copies, or fakes, or ... ??? Until someone is prosecuted for setting these traps then no-one can say. Selling them and buying them is perfectly within the law.

 

As for the statute, as I said in the first paragraph, only the Fenn, Solway and Springer are specifically named as being approved traps. Patents dont come into it at all.

 

Who will be the one to test the 'clone' theory in a court of law?? Good luck with that ...

[Mr Wasp 187]

Bad wording on my part.

I should have said something along the lines of: definition of clone means identical to its ancestor.

Clone is a bad term to use anyway.

[OldTrapCollector 377]

Despite all of the above the original Fenn patent, and the trap that was originally approved, was made entirely from wire, and no brass tongue, till or otherwise. It was never updated or re-patented. The current Fenn trap bears hardly any resemblance to the original patent drawings or the original traps that were approved. More food for thought ...

[Tomdhu 42]

I was asked to offer my opinion on this matter, but decided to watch from the sidelines for a while ... but ... it seems it has run far enough now with some odd interpretations being expressed

 

On the Approval Order are several similar design traps based on the original Fenn Mk 4 Vermin Trap. This was patented, yes, but this has long since expired. Also approved are the Solway and Springer traps, both almost identical and both named on the plate with the company name, as is the Fenn, neither of which were patented either, so therefore are really only copies of the original trap, but have been specifically approved by DEFRA.

 

Also on some of the recent approval orders is the 'clone' - since no-one has pushed through a case to suggest otherwise, this is open to interpretation. Some might say that a trap which 'looks' the same is a clone, others might suggest that it must 'perform' the same, but no-one really knows for sure, and the authorities like Natural England will not answer the question. The so-called Chinese imports offered by a whole host of suppliers, usually cheaply, are almost, but not quite, identical in looks. Who could possibly say whether they 'perform' the same? Nowhere is it listed that they must be of the same, quote ...' equal power, dimensions and quality' ... (at least anywhere I have read). Therefore are they clones, or copies, or fakes, or ... ??? Until someone is prosecuted for setting these traps then no-one can say. Selling them and buying them is perfectly within the law.

 

As for the statute, as I said in the first paragraph, only the Fenn, Solway and Springer are specifically named as being approved traps. Patents dont come into it at all.

 

Who will be the one to test the 'clone' theory in a court of law?? Good luck with that ...

Paragraph 3 of the Spring Traps Approval Order (England) 2012 states ......

 

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1) a spring trap is equivalent in all relevant respects to a

spring trap of a type and make specified in the Schedule if it corresponds to the spring trap so

specified in construction, in materials, in impact force or momentum, and in all other respects

which are relevant to its effect or manner of operation as a trap.

 

In my view the key words here are "impact force" as it is in this area that the so-called clones are deficient as they have weaker springs -certainly the one I tried had.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Tomdhu

[walshie 2,804]

 

I was asked to offer my opinion on this matter, but decided to watch from the sidelines for a while ... but ... it seems it has run far enough now with some odd interpretations being expressed

 

On the Approval Order are several similar design traps based on the original Fenn Mk 4 Vermin Trap. This was patented, yes, but this has long since expired. Also approved are the Solway and Springer traps, both almost identical and both named on the plate with the company name, as is the Fenn, neither of which were patented either, so therefore are really only copies of the original trap, but have been specifically approved by DEFRA.

 

Also on some of the recent approval orders is the 'clone' - since no-one has pushed through a case to suggest otherwise, this is open to interpretation. Some might say that a trap which 'looks' the same is a clone, others might suggest that it must 'perform' the same, but no-one really knows for sure, and the authorities like Natural England will not answer the question. The so-called Chinese imports offered by a whole host of suppliers, usually cheaply, are almost, but not quite, identical in looks. Who could possibly say whether they 'perform' the same? Nowhere is it listed that they must be of the same, quote ...' equal power, dimensions and quality' ... (at least anywhere I have read). Therefore are they clones, or copies, or fakes, or ... ??? Until someone is prosecuted for setting these traps then no-one can say. Selling them and buying them is perfectly within the law.

 

As for the statute, as I said in the first paragraph, only the Fenn, Solway and Springer are specifically named as being approved traps. Patents dont come into it at all.

 

Who will be the one to test the 'clone' theory in a court of law?? Good luck with that ...

Paragraph 3 of the Spring Traps Approval Order (England) 2012 states ......

 

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1) a spring trap is equivalent in all relevant respects to a

spring trap of a type and make specified in the Schedule if it corresponds to the spring trap so

specified in construction, in materials, in impact force or momentum, and in all other respects

which are relevant to its effect or manner of operation as a trap.

 

In my view the key words here are "impact force" as it is in this area that the so-called clones are deficient as they have weaker springs -certainly the one I tried had.

 

 

I might argue with a lot of folk about a lot of subjects, but OTC and traps is not one of them.