The Law on bodygrip placement

[moley 115]

after setting a trap, you should ask yourself these questions. Is it hidden, is it the best place to catch the target, can it be touched by dogs etc, is it secure, can it be seen after being triggered, how would a passer by that noticed it think, could a child get at it.

is it deep enuff?

[comanche 3,045]

after setting a trap, you should ask yourself these questions. Is it hidden, is it the best place to catch the target, can it be touched by dogs etc, is it secure, can it be seen after being triggered, how would a passer by that noticed it think, could a child get at it.

is it deep enuff?

 

The law specifies a "tunnel" ,something that any reasonable person will recognize as having a far more substantial overhang than some of the pathetic little "archways " that some folk claim satisfies the criteria.

 

As Matt the Rat ,Rolfe and others have mentioned the tunnels aid the proper functioning of the traps as well as acting as an attractant for target species by their very design . Part of trapping is about setting traps in a way that non-target catches are minimalized as far as possible. The Law does recognise this need and any trapper who does'nt take reasonable precautions might well be prosecuted if he injures a non-target species by not limiting access or bad trap siting . I believe that people who've injured otters in mink traps have fallen foul of the law .

The wording that rabbit traps only have to be under the overhang of the mouth of the burrow to comply throws a bit of a spanner in my line of thought but i bet a court would find the setter of such a device negligent if a child , dog or other livestock were to be injured especially if they had legal access to the land.

Edited January 2, 2009 by comanche

[moley 115]

after setting a trap, you should ask yourself these questions. Is it hidden, is it the best place to catch the target, can it be touched by dogs etc, is it secure, can it be seen after being triggered, how would a passer by that noticed it think, could a child get at it.

is it deep enuff?

 

The law specifies a "tunnel" ,something that any reasonable person will recognize as having a far more substantial overhang than some of the pathetic little "archways " that some folk claim satisfies the criteria.

 

As Matt the Rat ,Rolfe and others have mentioned the tunnels aid the proper functioning of the traps as well as acting as an attractant for target species by their very design . Part of trapping is about setting traps in a way that non-target catches are minimalized as far as possible. The Law does recognise this need and any trapper who does'nt take reasonable precautions might well be prosecuted if he injures a non-target species by not limiting access or bad trap siting . I believe that people who've injured otters in mink traps have fallen foul of the law .

 

i don,t think the law does actually specify what a tunnel is, or consists of ,it says "fit for the purpose" fit for the purpose of what ?, trap size? trap placement ? attractant to pests ? strong enuff so it doesn,t collapse ? these laws should be more specific

[comanche 3,045]

after setting a trap, you should ask yourself these questions. Is it hidden, is it the best place to catch the target, can it be touched by dogs etc, is it secure, can it be seen after being triggered, how would a passer by that noticed it think, could a child get at it.

is it deep enuff?

 

The law specifies a "tunnel" ,something that any reasonable person will recognize as having a far more substantial overhang than some of the pathetic little "archways " that some folk claim satisfies the criteria.

 

As Matt the Rat ,Rolfe and others have mentioned the tunnels aid the proper functioning of the traps as well as acting as an attractant for target species by their very design . Part of trapping is about setting traps in a way that non-target catches are minimalized as far as possible. The Law does recognise this need and any trapper who does'nt take reasonable precautions might well be prosecuted if he injures a non-target species by not limiting access or bad trap siting . I believe that people who've injured otters in mink traps have fallen foul of the law .

 

i don,t think the law does actually specify what a tunnel is, or consists of ,it says "fit for the purpose" fit for the purpose of what ?, trap size? trap placement ? attractant to pests ? strong enuff so it doesn,t collapse ? these laws should be more specific

 

You might be right about it not being specified but I'm sure that I've read something along the lines of of " in such a way as to limit access to non target etc etc". Course this might be in one of the trapping guides rather than a law and now dammit I'll have to try and find the relevent bit just to satisfy meself.

 

In some ways I wonder if too much should be set in stone .Surely trap techniques needs to be flexible . I like to think that where there might be a problem I do tend to err on the side of safety even if it might mean a slightly slower catch rate. On the other hand some of my Magnum tunnels for use in lofts are quite short to allow me to either work them into corners or build up tunnels of insulation or boxes around them. I think basicly if you walk away from a trap and think ",Ooh I hope nothing comes along that should'nt",the set- up is wrong and even if you are not breaking any(non-existant) law regarding tunnel size you risk charges of reckless behaviour,endangerment and I guess a proffessional risks Health and Safety issues etc. Certainly if anyone could prove negligence a Civil claim could result .

It seems like it is one of those situatons in which theLaw still allows for and presumes the use of common-sense (I know, presumes ?,common sense? ,dodgy presumption) but I suppose that if people insist on testing the Law by insisting on using minimal archways instead of something a bit more safe and sensible the right to design our own tunnels to fit the situation might be lost.

[RatSnatcher 0]

I agree, and if we don't use proper tunnels / cubbies the use of these type of traps will be under scrutiny the same as snaring seems to be under the scope.........

 

 

where's JBS gone did I miss something

[RatSnatcher 0]

Well they are talking about ammending and making clearer what stipulates a tunnel fit for the purpose, read the bottom paragraph, although this is a welsh document and was put together in feb 2008 and may of been ammended.....

 

http://wales.gov.uk/publications/accessinf...lorder/?lang=en

[ianrob 2]

Well Lads there's certainly plenty of food for thought there. I for one am clearer as to what's what, and though I won't use BG's in a fenceline, I'll certainly get one or two for tunnels as I feel they might have applications where they'll be better than Fenns.

[moley 115]

You might be right about it not being specified but I'm sure that I've read something along the lines of of " in such a way as to limit access to non target etc etc". Course this might be in one of the trapping guides rather than a law and now dammit I'll have to try and find the relevent bit just to satisfy meself.

 

if you find that bit can you let me know as i like to keep up with the laws ,

 

there are some on here that seem to think that even when they cannot quote the correct laws that they are too high and mighty to admit they are wrong or appologise for trying to make others look foolish thru thier own ignorance, i have always bin a believer of admitting to wrong quotes or getting at someone for wrong reasons and have appologised accordingly , but i,m not a "celebrity "

[ianrob 2]

You might be right about it not being specified but I'm sure that I've read something along the lines of of " in such a way as to limit access to non target etc etc". Course this might be in one of the trapping guides rather than a law and now dammit I'll have to try and find the relevent bit just to satisfy meself.

 

if you find that bit can you let me know as i like to keep up with the laws ,

 

there are some on here that seem to think that even when they cannot quote the correct laws that they are too high and mighty to admit they are wrong or appologise for trying to make others look foolish thru thier own ignorance, i have always bin a believer of admitting to wrong quotes or getting at someone for wrong reasons and have appologised accordingly , but i,m not a "celebrity "

 

Whilst as a humble amateur albeit with a keen interest in doing as near a pro job as I can on any silly little jobs I do. "I'm doing no-one out of work, up here it's me or rentokill", I still like to act within the law, and also within what I feel are my own ethical guidlines. One badly snared rabbit or foul caught animal bothers me for a long time. I feel we owe it to the animals we trap to do it in the most humane and failsafe ways we can. Personally I like to keep snares and traps out of public areas and check them in the grey dark of the morning, though I appreciate this would not be possible for pro's. I like the look of the body grips but wouldn't dare set them in fencelines even if the fence constitutes a tunnel in the law. For one they'd be stolen, but also I'd never sleep for worrying in case a kid or a dog got nabbed. In lofts or gardens with the owners knowledge then that might be different. I'm going to try them though, or at least one or two, "I'm unlikely to be gifted 200" and I'll see how I get on. I've enjoyed the debate, though I couldn't contribute to it myself, and it seems, unless I am mistaken, that moley has still to be proved wrong. ian

[Holdaway 2]

.

[RatSnatcher 0]

I suspect Bats, but if the survey is done properly then there shouldn't be a problem

[ianrob 2]

One thing I am still unclear on, when trapping squirrels or rats in an attic, why is it necessary to house them in tunnels. I am NOT saying you shouldn't I am asking why.

 

What non target species are we considering in an attic?

 

Just a question, hopefully someone knows the answer.

 

H

 

Possibly owls, though it'd be like a wildlife park in the loft, with rats' bats, squirrels, and owls.

[moley 115]

You might be right about it not being specified but I'm sure that I've read something along the lines of of " in such a way as to limit access to non target etc etc". Course this might be in one of the trapping guides rather than a law and now dammit I'll have to try and find the relevent bit just to satisfy meself.

 

if you find that bit can you let me know as i like to keep up with the laws ,

 

there are some on here that seem to think that even when they cannot quote the correct laws that they are too high and mighty to admit they are wrong or appologise for trying to make others look foolish thru thier own ignorance, i have always bin a believer of admitting to wrong quotes or getting at someone for wrong reasons and have appologised accordingly , but i,m not a "celebrity "

 

I dont think "but im sure i read something along the lines of..." would stand up in court. Trapping guidelines are not LAW. and considering the spring trap approval order which IS LAW was ammended in 2007 i would look again at anything you "maybe have read somewhere". i am also a great believer is apologising when im wrong....but im not in this case.

 

Ed

 

take a look at the pest act 1954 section 9 , law , not guide lines ,end of

[Rolfe 2]

The amendment in October 2007 was only to include some recently approved traps to the list.

These were: Doc 150,200,250 Kania 2500, Nooski, Solway spring trap Mk 4 & 6.

[moley 115]

The amendment in October 2007 was only to include some recently approved traps to the list.

These were: Doc 150,200,250 Kania 2500, Nooski, Solway spring trap Mk 4 & 6.

 

i thought that these doc traps would have bin available by now , anyone got thier mitts on one yet ? i was wanting a couple to try