Lav report ii (sep 2013) iahts (ec usa) evidences of violations

International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards EC-USA Evidences of violations Report II (Sep. 2013)

Edited by: Dr.Simone Pavesi LAV Fur-Free Campaigner

2 INDEX



Ch.1 – TRAPPERS ASSOCIATIONS IN THE U.S. AND MANAGEMENT OF CATCHES

pag. 3



Ch. 2 – CAPTURE DEVICES

pag . 6



Ch. 3 – FUR TRADE

pag.10



Ch. 4 – TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT BY THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF HEALTH

pag.12



Conclusions

Annex I - ALABAMA TRAPPERS FUR CATCH REPORT (ALABAMA)

Annex II - FUR DEALER LICENSE (ALABAMA)

Annex III – TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT BY THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF HEALTH – National Reference Centre for the Forensic Veterinary Medicine

References

pag.13

pag.15

pag.16

pag.20

pag.33

3

Ch. 1 TRAPPERS ASSOCIATIONS IN THE U.S. AND MANAGEMENT OF CATCHES Much of the information given in this report are taken from the pages of the American website T&PC Trapper&Predator Caller1, which constitute a further proof of how wild animals are captured in the United States through ‘leghold traps’ and how the skins of these animals are then marketed through International Auctions and then purchased by European buyers. Evidently, the skins thus obtained and placed on the European market, are not in conformity with ECC Regulation 1991/3254 and the provisions of the Agreed Minutes 2 on Humane Trapping Standards with the U.S..

Founded in 1975, T&PC is the leading source of practical, comprehensive information for North American fur harvesters.

T&PC provides the most thorough wild fur market report in North America and informs readers about vital industry trends.

T&PC provides current, practical information for fur trappers, animal-control workers and predator callers.

Each issue also contains up-to-date reports from state trapping association partners across the country.

T&PC is also a magazine published 10 times each year.

Below is the list of state trappers associations available on T&PC:

State trappers Associations Alabama Trappers & Predator Control Association Arizona Trappers Association Arkansas Trappers Association Arkansas Fur Trappers Association California Trappers Association Colorado Trappers Association Connecticut Trappers Association Cortland County Trappers of New York Georgia Trappers Association Idaho Trappers Association Upper Snake River Trappers of Idaho Illinois Trappers Association Independent Fur Harvesters of Central New York United Trappers of Kentucky, Inc. Louisiana Trappers & Alligator Hunters Association Maine Trappers Association Maryland Fur Trappers, Inc. Michigan Trappers & Predator Callers Association Michigan Upper Peninsula Trappers Association Mid-Michigan Independent Trappers Minnesota Trappers Association Montana Trappers Association Montana Fur Harvesters Nebraska Fur Harvesters

Nevada Trappers Association New Hampshire Trappers Association New Jersey Fur Harvesters New Jersey Trappers Association New Mexico Trappers Association North Carolina Trappers Association North Dakota Fur Hunters & Trappers Association Northern Great Lakes Fur Harvesters, Inc. Northwestern Ohio Fur Traders, Inc. Oklahoma Fur Bearer Alliance Pennsylvania Trappers Association, Inc. St. Lawrence County Trappers Association South Carolina Trappers Association South Dakota Trappers Association Western South Dakota Fur Harvesters Tennessee Free Trappers Association Tennessee Fur Harvester Association Texas Trappers and Fur Hunters Association, Inc. Utah Trappers Association Virginia Trappers Association Washington Trappers Association West Virginia Trappers Association Wisconsin Trappers Association Wyoming Trappers Association

All these associations provide information and support to its members to promote the catch of animals and in particular to facilitate the sale of furs thus obtained.

For example, from the website of the Alabama Trappers&Predator Control Association3 is available the form provided by the Department for the Preservation of Natural Resources and that every trapper has to fill in the T&PC - Trapper & Predator Caller: http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com OJ L219/26 of 7 August 1998 3 http://www.atpca.org [Accessed 10 May 2013] 1 2

4 end of the trapping season. In this form it is clearly stated that in addition to the species and number of animals caught, trappers must declare the number of furs that were sold (See Annex 1 - Alabama Fur Trappers Catch Report4).

In this form is written: “You are required by law to file with the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division Office in Montgomery a report listing the number and type of animals during the preceding season and to whom those furs were sold”.

Trappers must also declare the buyer whom purchased the skins: “[..] Name and address of buyer(s) to whom you sold fur to [..]”

Always the Alabama Trappers&Predator Control Association makes available the form for the license of capture.

The Fur Dealer License form5 (see Annex N.2), under the law of the State of Alabama (Reg. 220-2-.30 Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources), show the list of fur-bearing animals in Alabama: Beaver, Bobcat, Civet Cat, Fox, Mink, Muskrat, Nutria, Opossum, Otter, Raccoon, Skunk and Coyote and it is also clearly specify what types of traps are authorized for the capture of these animals.

At point (1) of the chapter “Fur-bearing animals designated”, reads: (1) Fur Catchers – no land set leg-hold trap having a jaw width exceeding 6 inches, leg hold trap having teeth or serrated edges along the inside of one or both jaws, conibear trap or killer type trap with jaw width exceeding 5 inches or snares (except powered foot snare with a maximum loop of 5 ½ inches) can be used to trap fur-bearing animals on land. [..]

It is therefore clear that under the laws of the State of Alabama, and in reference to what is advertised by Alabama Trappers&Predator Control Association, in Alabama the capture of animals by ‘leghold traps’ is authorized and it is equally possible to sell the fur of these animals.

Similarly, the other trappers associations provide explanations to its members on how to practice the catch of animals in accordance with current regulations and then, as already reported in the previous LAV report ("IAHTS: EC-USA Evidences of violations", 2012)6, allowing the use of ‘leghold traps’.

The use of leghold traps (or devices pursuant to art.1 EEC Reg.1991/3254) for the capture of fur-bearing animals and then for the placing in the European market of the skins so caught up, is also confirmed by commercial reports between the NTA National Trappers Association and affiliated companies listed on the website of the NTA, such as:  

NAFA – North American Fur Auctions F&T Fur Harvesters Trading Post

The National Trappers Association7 is “The Nation's Largest Trapping Organization” according with what they write in their own website. Fifty-one state trapping affiliates make up the core of the national organization representing thousands of fur harvesters from every portion of the country.

The NAFA - North American Fur Auctions8 is the principal business in the sale of raw fur pelts. The pelts are received on consignment from producers of ranched-raised furs and harvesters of wild furs.

The fur pelts are sold to fur garment manufacturers and fur pelt dealers worldwide.

The Company is the largest fur auction house in North America, and the third largest fur auction in the world.

Attendance at auctions is international, with representation from the world’s major fur markets, which includes China and Korea in the Far East; Russia and Eastern Europe; the Western European centres of Greece, Italy, Germany and the UK; and the North American markets of New York, Montreal and http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/trapping/Fur_Catch_Report_Form_rev_9-07.pdf http://www.outdooralabama.com/licenses/WFFLicenseApps/ResLic/Fur%20Dealer%20(Res%20or%20Non-Res).pdf 6 http://issuu.com/lavonlus6/docs/iahts_-__ec-usa__evidences_of_viola 7 http://www.nationaltrappers.com 8 http://www.nafa.ca/ 4 5

5 Toronto.

The company currently handles approximately 3.2 million North American Ranch Mink; and close to 4 million European Ranch Mink; North American Ranch Fox and all varieties of Canadian and American Wild Fur including Beaver, Raccoon, Sable, Muskrat, Wild Mink, Lynx, Lynx Cat Otter, Red Fox, and Coyote.

The F&T - Fur Harvesters Trading Post9 offers a complete line of supplies for trappers, houndsmen and predator callers.

On their online catalog are available numerous types of ‘leghold traps’, or other devices referred to art. 1 EEC Reg.1991/3254 (see chapter 2).

In addition to the F&T, on the website of the National Trappers Association are advertised other companies for the supply of ‘leghold traps’, such as the Minnesota Trapline Products Inc.10

9

http://www.fntpost.com http://www.minntrapprod.com/

10

6

Ch. 2 CAPTURE DEVICES In the United States it is very easy to buy capture devices which, for the design and mode of work, falls within the definition in Article 1 ECC Regulation 1991/3254.

In particular, you can buy different types of traps directly via the website of T&PC where, in the section of the online shop11, devices like these are available:

The T&PC also provides a list of suppliers 12 including the "F&T Fur Harvesters Trading Post"; from the F&T’s online catalog13, for the capture of fur-bearing animals, you can buy these devices:

http://www.shopdeerhunting.com/category/trapping/?r=TPCtopnav&lid=TPCtopnav Supply Dealers and Trapping-Related Businesses http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/linksbyregion [accessed May 2013] 13 http://www.fntpost.com/Categories/Trapping/ [accessed May 2013] 11 12

7 Detail of some traps sold by F&T: #5 Sleepy Creek Double Long Spring Trap (Offset Jaws w/Teeth) The #5 Sleepy Creek Double Long Spring Trap is a heavy duty trap with a 9" jaw spread designed for wolf and mountain lion.

Sterling MJ-800 Coil Spring Trap The Sterling MJ-800 Coil Spring Trap features cast jaws with 3/8� offset, positive locking hooked ends, heavy duty 1/4" D-Ring and heavy duty swivel. The single rod lever holds both jaws down utilizing a unique jaw rod system originated on the Sterling MJ-600 that eliminates a fold over dog which allows for a superior catch rate and eliminates problems associated with a dog. The MJ-800 is a top quality wolf and mountain lion trap.

#110 Super X Belisle Single Spring Body Grip Trap The #110 Super X Belisle Single Spring Body Grip Trap has a 4 1/2" jaw spread.

8 Some of hundreds of types of traps available in the F&T’s catalog:

9

The same kind of traps are available from other providers advertised on the website of T&PC Trapper&Predator Caller:       

Minnesota Trapline Products www.minntrapprod.com Northern Sport Co. www.northerntrapping.com Murray’s lures and trapping supplies www.murrayslures.com Cumberland’s Northwest Trappers Supply Inc. www.nwtrappers.com Kaatz bros lures www.kaatzbros.com Blue ridge outdoor supplies www.blueridgeoutdoorsupplies.com Papio-Creek www.papio-creek-trapping-supply.goodsie.com

10

Ch. 3 – FUR TRADE All trappers associations regularly publish reports of their sales of skins at auctions and also discussions about the trend of the sales. Just go to the website of any trapper association (see references) to find these information.

Just a few examples: 

In the Arizona Trappers Association April-May 2013 Report published on T&PC14 is possible find the “Fur Auction Manager’s Report”: FUR MANAGER’S REPORT “Trappers, Prices for bobcats were good this year. We had 870 bobcats that sold in the auction, the high was $1300 with an average of $420, 713 grey foxes sold and the high was $37 with an average of $30, 413 coyotes sold and $45 was the high with an average of $23.

Thank you sellers coming to the auction. Thanks for everybody calling in your fur numbers and bring your furs in early. This auction was one of our biggest in years and calling in with fur counts and bring your fur early helped a great deal!

Everybody that helped set up and run the auction, Thank You! — Mike Huffer”



14 15

Below are the sales achieved by the Maine Trappers Association15 and published on their website:

http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/article-index/arizona-trappers-association-april-may-2013-report http://www.mainetrappers.com/Auctions.html

11 

This is the Spring Fur Auction Results Report 16 published on the website of the Vermont Trapper’s Association:

As already mentioned in the first LAV report “Evidences of violations” (2012, ch.5), according to Eurostat in the 2008-2011 period the U.S. has exported to Europe furskins (raw, tanned or dressed) for a total value of €133,713,939. Most of the skins placed on the Community market were imported from Italy (€ 9,062,862), specifically Italy imported 69.4% of the skins of wild felines (CN8 43018050 and 43021970), 44.2 % of skins of wild animals (CN8 43023095), and 28.7% fox pelts (farmed or caught, CN8 43016000, 43021930 and 43023045).

Italy turns out to be the world's biggest processor of the skins of wild animals imported from the USA in the European Union, and evidences of this trade are into the Auctions Results Report of both trappers associations and fur auctions.

16

http://www.vermonttrappers.com/VTA_2013_Spring_Fur_Auction.pdf

12

Ch. 4 - TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT BY THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF HEALTH At the Ministry of Health have established several National Reference Centers with specific specializations in the field of animal health, animal welfare, food safety and hygiene of farms.

The National Reference Centers are real points of excellence for the entire national system and for the international organizations with which they are in relation to: implement, through various forms of collaboration, cooperation programs to foster the development of advanced scientific expertise in countries that wish to collaborate for an effective scientific and technical growth; they are a reference point for international organizations such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture.

These centers implement research projects funded by the Ministry of Health, governmental agencies and private companies. There are numerous agreements signed both nationally and internationally to promote the exchange of knowledge and researchers.

The National Reference Centre for Forensic Veterinary Medicine has published, in August 2013, a technical-scientific assessment (see Annex 3) concerning the compliance of capture devices used in the U.S. for the capture of wild animals, in relation to the standards of the Agreed Minutes between the EU and the USA known as International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards.

After a careful analysis of the available scientific literature, from the parameters ISO standards to the standards of the International Agreements, the conclusions are unequivocal: [..]

It is clear that in this scenario, both leghold traps and snares rank among the types of traps that least respect animal welfare before death and, when they are designed to directly kill the animal, they often cause prolonged pain and distress before death.

Hence, based on the consulted scientific literature, it is deemed that all devices designed to restrain or capture an animal (by means of jaws which close tightly upon one or more of the animal's limbs, thereby preventing withdrawal of the limb or limbs from the trap), cannot be classified as “humane� capture or killing devices.

Hence, it is deemed that said devices are currently not suitable to ensure the threshold standards defined in sections 2 and 3 of the Agreed Minute reached between the United States and the European Union (O.J.E.C. L219/26 of 7 August 1998).

13

CONCLUSIONS 

In the first LAV report "Evidences of violation" (2012) has been shown which are the real conditions of capture of wild animals in the U.S., with the video "Victims of Vanity" made by Born Free USA and Respect for Animals. Has been reported a list of the numerous episodes of incidental catch of non-target animals. Has been shown that the use of leghold traps to catch wild animals is regulated and licensed practice in 42 federated states of the USA, while in others it is still possible to use ‘leghold traps’ in derogation from the general prohibitions in force.

As further evidence of the use of leghold traps in the U.S., it has been shown that Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has developed a project for the identification of the best practices of capture, called Best Management Practices (BMP), in which the capture devices described and proposed are merely variants of ‘leghold traps’; in the 19 sheets drawn up for as many animal species, the word ‘leghold’ never appears, but it is clear that the various types of traps proposed (padded jaw traps, coil-spring trap, double jaw traps, etc.) are nothing more than ‘leghold traps’, as for the design and methods of use are fully covered by the definition given into Article 1 EEC Regulation 1991/3254.

Finally, it was reported the entire database of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies that collects data annually on fur harvest through State Wildlife Agencies (over 4 millions animals of 26 different species were caught during the 2010-11 season).



With this second report, LAV has shown that wild animals in the U.S. are routinely captured by trappers related to many associations, and that these associations manage the sale at international auctions of skins derived therefrom.



LAV also showed that wild animals are captured through the use of capture and killing devices that, for method of operation and design, fall within the definition in Article 1 of EEC Regulation 1991/3254.



The Ministry of Health, National Reference Center for Forensic Veterinary Medicine, as the highest institution responsible for animal welfare, has drawn up a technical-scientific assessment in which the conclusions are unequivocal: “[..] all devices designed to restrain or capture an animal (by means of jaws which close tightly upon one or more of the animal's limbs, thereby preventing withdrawal of the limb or limbs from the trap), cannot be classified as “humane” capture or killing devices.

Hence, it is deemed that said devices are currently not suitable to ensure the threshold standards defined in sections 2 and 3 of the Agreed Minute reached between the United States and the European Union (O.J.E.C. L219/26 of 7 August 1998)”.



In view of these evidences, LAV requests to the competent authorities the immediate ban on imports in the domestic and community market of all the skins and fur products derived from animals not specially bred and therefore of species that are different from mink, fox, raccoon dog, chinchillas and coming from countries where is allowed the sale of any capture devices associated to the definition of ‘leghold trap’ under Article 1 EEC Regulation 1991/3254.

14 ď ż

For the import of skins and fur products derived from mink, fox, raccoon dog, chinchillas (and every other species for which is demonstrably the supply chain from farming) must be explicitly stated in the labeling of every single article (and of each batch of skins), that furs are made from animals specially bred and the country of rearing.

15

ANNEX 1 - ALABAMA TRAPPERS FUR CATCH REPORT (ALABAMA)17 STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES DIVISION Alabama Trappers Fur Catch Report Season: __________________________ You are required by law to file with the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division Office in Montgomery a report listing the number and type of animals during the preceding season and to whom those furs were sold.

Completion and return of this form within 45 days after the end of the trapping season will fulfill your legal obligation to report your catch as required by Act. No. 801 of the Regular session, 1977, of the Alabama Legislature.

Number Sold

County Name and Number of Animals per County

Animal from Road Kill

Beaver Otter Muskrat Nutria Mink Raccoon (trapped) Raccoon (hunted) Red Fox Gray Fox Coyote Bobcat Civet Cat Skunk Opossum Other (specify) Name and address of buyer(s) to whom you sold fur to: (use back of form if more space is needed) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Name: __________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ Phone: __________________________________________ License No.:______________________________________

17

Return the COMPLETED form to: DCNR - Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries Division Attn: Wildlife Section PO Box 305, Northport, AL 35476

http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/trapping/Fur_Catch_Report_Form_rev_9-07.pdf

16

ANNEX 2 - FUR DEALER LICENSE (ALABAMA)18

18

http://www.outdooralabama.com/licenses/WFFLicenseApps/ResLic/Fur%20Dealer%20(Res%20or%20Non-Res).pdf

17

18

19

20

Annex 3 – TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT BY THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF HEALTH19 - National Reference Centre for the Forensic Veterinary Medicine

Technical and scientific opinion about the compliance of trapping devices used in the USA to capture wild animals with standards set out in the Agreed Minute known as International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards between the EU and the USA. Millions of animals are captured every year with various types of traps for the fur trade, to control the fauna and damage to cattle or agriculture, or for scientific research purposes.

Whatever the purpose of the capture, the principle that animals must be captured causing them the least possible pain and distress is now globally accepted. Moreover, if the purpose of trapping is to kill the animal, considering the injuring action of the trap, the captured subject must lose consciousness very rapidly, and death must follow as quickly as possible.

The need to share these principles required the scientific community to establish parameters to define a trapping method as "humane" (we prefer the term “compassionate” or “cruelty-free”). The common meaning of the term humane, which is interpreted in this document as ‘compassionate,' designates the action that, despite being violent or invasive, and concerning an animal, causes him the least possible distress or pain; for example, the expression “humane killing” (compassionate killing) means that the animal experiences satisfactory welfare just before being killed by man, and that the killing procedure itself guarantees that the animal does not experience

pain

or

stress

before

death,

except

for

a

few

seconds.

(Broom,

1999)

Humane methods are established to allow trapping activities to continue with acceptable respect for animals, taking into account the economic interests associated with the use of traps.

The first document defining international standards according to which traps intended for capturing and killing animals can be considered as humane was drawn up by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 1999 (ISO 10990-4 1999). The scope of this document was to establish the tests to which killing traps must be submitted in order to define the parameters to be adopted to evaluate their performance in terms of safety and efficiency of the capture, and their effectiveness in rapidly killing the animal without inflicting pointless pain and distress.

A second document (ISO 10990-5 1999) was drawn up to establish the parameters for classifying traps designed to only immobilise the animal, based on their likelihood to inflict undesirable injuries, which can be classified as mild, moderate or severe, considering both the action of the trap itself and the attempts of the animal to free itself (self-mutilation).

19

http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pagineAree_205_listaFile_itemName_1_file.pdf

21 However, these two documents did not meet with the expected consensus. The critical points contained therein were underscored by Harris et al. (2005) and are summarised below: -

the classification parameters for the trap are established based on laboratory tests that do not reflect the diversified situation in the field: this can mean that a type of trap that passes tests in controlled conditions might fail on the field and cause excessive pain and distress to captured animals and, hence, be inadequate;

-

ISO standards acknowledge drowning traps as humane, while some authors consider these traps absolutely cruel;

-

although the use of species-specific traps is recommended, the documents do not provide any guidelines to avoid capturing non-target species;

-

even though today ISO standards are the best classification tools for traps in terms of animal welfare, such classification does not include the long term impact of wounds, pain and psychological distress inflicted on captured animals when the purpose of the capture is not to kill the animal.

Finally, there is some disagreement over the parameters established by ISO standards to define the absence of distress in the animal after the capture such as, for instance, the time to loss of consciousness.

As already mentioned, many of the methods applied in a laboratory setting to ensure the animal's rapid death with the least amount of pain and distress (stunning, dislocation of cervical vertebrae, carbon dioxide asphyxiation) cannot be used in the field and, therefore, compared to experimental conditions, animals captured in nature will experience a longer time to loss of consciousness than estimated, and a painful anguishing death.

(Iossa et al., 2007) Despite these limits, the two ISO documents are the first step towards improving trapping techniques to guarantee the least degree of pain and distress to captured animals. (Iossa et al, 2007) International agreements reached with Canada and the Russian Federation regarding cruelty-free standards of capture (IAHTS – International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards, O.J.E.C. L42/43 of 14 February 1998), and the Agreed Minute (O.J.E.C. L219/26 of 7 August 1998) reached with the United States of America, with the same content, also defined the parameters according to which the capture and killing of animals can be considered acceptable in terms of animal welfare. However, even these agreements are not considered satisfactory. In fact, they contain some critical points that were already underscored in ISO documents: 1.

The traps used to kill animals are considered acceptable in terms of animal welfare if at least 80% of the captured animals loses consciousness and becomes insensitive to pain (a condition identified by the loss of corneal and eyelid reflex) within the time limit estimated for each species (see Table 1).

The main criticism to this definition is that it deems as “acceptable” the fact that at least 20% of animals might “normally” suffer pain and prolonged agony. In practice this unpleasant possibility should be occasional and unpredictable and, therefore, be quantified in very low percentages (e.g. less than 1 %, personal comment).

22 2.

The estimated time to loss of consciousness in the captured animal is 5 minutes for most target species. This time interval is objectively very long, and the fact that a high level of pain and distress in animals for such a long time is considered acceptable is difficult to support from an ethical standpoint.

In this regard, it must be said that the IAHTS indicates a definitely longer time interval (TIU, Time to Irreversible Unconsciousness), compared to the other two existing standards for killing traps, which are also based on the TIU (the ISO/TC191 Commission's standard of 1993 and the NAWAC - New Zealand National Animal Welfare Committee standard).

3.

The restraining traps used are considered acceptable in terms of animal welfare if at least 80% of the captured animals do not present self-mutilation injuries or injuries caused by the trap itself. The fact that 20% of animals might suffer even serious injuries, such as fractures, damage to internal organs (see Table 2) is considered acceptable is open to criticism once again. Moreover, the standard only evaluates the seriousness of physical injuries inflicted but not the degree of associated pain.

With the report “Improvements to trapping standards” (Talling and Inglis, 2009) published in 2011, the European Commission concluded that much stricter standards are required for animal welfare than those established by the IAHTS. Evaluation of the effect of trapping on animal welfare Failing data produced by organisations or entities that capture or kill furbearing animals by trapping, data available in scientific literature and published on the topic are reported below.

A document published in 2008 by the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) groups the greatest animal welfare concerns associated with traps into three points: immediate injuries inflicted by the trap, restraint-related stress and capture of non-target species.

1. Immediate injuries: although the use of the most modern traps has reduced the incidence of fractures and amputations, injuries such as swelling, bleeding and lacerations are, anyhow, frequent (AVMA, 2008).

Furthermore, even when an animal is released from a restraining trap that has only caused injuries that are classified as ‘mild’, its survival can, however, be compromised by several events, such as: effortrelated myopathy, higher likelihood to become an easy prey due to limping, reduced capability to find food due to damaged claws or teeth, onset of necrosis in tissues crushed by the trap with the subsequent development of secondary infections or infestations from fly larvae with a possible fatal outcome. (Iossa et al., 2007; Rochlitz et al., 2010) 2. Restraint-related stress: the very fact of being physically restrained is considered highly stressful for wild animals, and the restriction of a limb causes more stress than mere confinement in a cage (this has been proven for species such as the fox and the ferret) (AVMA, 2008). Moreover, trapped animals can die due to aggression by other animals, bad weather or the effort exerted in the attempt to free themselves. It is also important to consider the case in which the same animal is repeatedly captured and released from a trap, an event that may cause more severe injuries than a single capture. (AVMA, 2008) 3. Capture of a non-target species: an intrinsic problem in all trapping systems, regardless of their purpose, is the capture of non-target species (especially protected animals and or pets) who suffer the

23 same consequences as the animals for which the trap was originally intended. In said event, since the trap was not designed for that species, pain, distress and death occur with modes and duration that are unforeseen and unpredictable, namely the trap is inadequate compared to the "cruelty-free capture" standards estimated for the target-species. Furthermore, even if animals captured by mistake are released, their survival in nature can be impaired by the suffered injuries. A non-target species might not survive in restraining and killing traps, in case of accidental capture. In this regard it must be observed that, in Europe, many species classified as locally or globally threatened by the IUCN (e.g. the European polecat Mustela putorius or the Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus), are captured, wounded and even killed in traps designed for other species; likewise, the traps can also capture and kill birds, including birds of prey (Harris et al, 2005). The selective features of traps are generally scarce (over 90% of accidental captures of non-target species might occur), and the inflicted injuries might be very serious, with high mortality rates (Iossa et al, 2007; Figure 1). Finally, if restraining traps capture and wound a non-target species, there are no guidelines on the medical assistance to be provided, or on how to perform euthanasia in case of the most severe injuries. (Harris et al, 2005) Besides the above-described factors, the type of killing of the animal must also be considered. That is, when a trap is designed for contextual killing of a captured animal, even when the trap itself is effective in guaranteeing short term stressful restraint, the killing can, however, occur in a non-humane manner. For example, in small animals, the trauma produced by the trap to cause instant death should be intense and concentrated in the occipital region, but this might be impossible to achieve due to the varying size of the captured animals, the way and speed with which they approach the trap, and the mechanical function of the trap itself (sensitivity of the spring mechanism, movements of the trapped animal that move the jaws of the trap) (Proulx and Barrett, 1993).

Moreover, as already mentioned, if the traps are tested in experimental conditions on sedated animals, death can set in faster because the animal is motionless and lacks muscle tone, while in field conditions the same traps kill the animal in a non-humane way since the subjects are not anaesthetised and, therefore, can even alter the traps functioning (Proulx and Drescher, 1994), either reducing or cancelling its effectiveness, by fighting the traps very action.

Then, a special case concerns drowning traps that envisage death by drowning of the captured animal. These traps are used to kill semiaquatic species, such as muskrats, beavers and otters. These species are physiologically adapted to aquatic life and can, therefore, remain underwater for long periods (e.g. 15 minutes for the North American beaver). Hence, the trap must restrain the animal underwater for a longer time than its capacity to hold its breath. Death by drowning is basically caused by the onset of tissue hypoxia (lack of oxygen in blood and tissues), which is a very slow process in these species, even if the animal were to fight to free itself, thus increasing its oxygen consumption. Since death induced by hypoxia is not free of pain and distress, such traps cannot be considered “humane.� (Harris et al, 2005) The most complete evaluation of the impact of traps on animal welfare was conducted in Australia in the framework of the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (Sharp and Saunders, 2008). The aim of the study was to develop a system to evaluate the relative humaneness of the various capture and killing techniques, even by means of their direct comparison. The evaluation includes two parts, part A on the impact of animal welfare before killing, and part B on the intensity and duration of pain and distress during the killing.

24 Regarding part A, the overall impact of the capture system on animal welfare is evaluated considering five effect categories: 1) deprivation of water and food, 2) environmental stress (especially exposure to very high or very low temperatures), 3) consequent injuries and diseases, 4) restrictions to the normal behaviour of the animal, 5) anxiety, fear, pain and distress.

Results are expressed in a matrix (humaneness matrix), namely a graph in which the y-axis represents part A, hence the welfare of the living animal, and the x-axis represents part B, the killing method. High values on the matrix correspond to higher degrees of pain and distress. The position of a certain capture or killing method in the matrix allows to compare the various methods at a glance and to classify them as more or less respectful of animal welfare. The colour of the matrix further facilitates this distinction, because green areas indicate the most humane methods (less cruel) and red areas those that cause most pain and distress. Figure 2 reports an example of matrix functioning.

The following Figures 3, 4 and 5 refer to the evaluation of capture and killing systems used for the wildcat, the fox and stray dogs, respectively. It can be observed that all traps, whatever the type, always inflict a high degree of pain and distress in the living animal. They appear in the red zone, near the high values on the x-axis (killing method).

CONCLUSIONS Scientific evidence proves that we are still far from having perfected traps that can comply with the standards (not free of intrinsic criticisms) established by ISO documents and by international agreements on the subject.

It is clear that in this scenario, both leghold traps and snares rank among the types of traps that least respect animal welfare before death and, when they are designed to directly kill the animal, they often cause prolonged pain and distress before death.

Hence, based on the consulted scientific literature, it is deemed that all devices designed to restrain or capture an animal (by means of jaws which close tightly upon one or more of the animal's limbs, thereby preventing withdrawal of the limb or limbs from the trap), cannot be classified as “humane� capture or killing devices.

Hence, it is deemed that said devices are currently not suitable to ensure the threshold standards defined in sections 2 and 3 of the Agreed Minute reached between the United States and the European Union (O.J.E.C. L219/26 of 7 August 1998).

Dr. Rosario Fico National Reference Center for the Forensic Veterinary Medicine

25

Table 1 - Time to loss of consciousness in animals captured in killing traps. (Iossa et al., 2007)

26

Table 2 - Gravity and type of injuries inflicted on animals by the use of traps. (Iossa et al., 2007)

27

Figure 1 – Species-specificity of traps (expressed as percentage of non-target animals captured vs. total captures), injuries and death caused to non-target species in various types of traps. (Iossa et al., 2007).

28

Figure 2 – Example of matrix to evaluate and compare the various capturing and killing methods in terms of respect for animal welfare. The y-axis reports the welfare of the live animal, and x-axis the killing method. High values on the matrix correspond to higher degrees of pain and distress. Green areas indicate the most humane methods and red areas those that cause most pain and distress. (Sharp and Saunders, 2008)

29

Figure 3 – Evaluation and comparison matrix of the various capturing and killing methods adopted for the wild cat. (Sharp and Saunders, 2008)

30

Figure 4 – Evaluation and comparison matrix of the various capturing and killing methods adopted for the fox. (Sharp and Saunders, 2008)

31

Figure 5 – Evaluation and comparison matrix of the various capturing and killing methods adopted for stray dogs. (Sharp and Saunders, 2008)

32 Bibliography AVMA - American Veterinary Medical Association, 2008. Welfare Implications of Leghold Trap Use in Conservation and Research. https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Documents/leghold_traps_bgnd.pdf Broom D.M., 1999. The welfare of vertebrate pests in relation to their management. In: Cowan P.D. and C.J. Feare (eds). Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management. Filander Verlag, Furth, pp. 309-329.

Harris S., Soulsbury C. and Iossa G., 2005. A scientific review on proposed humane trapping standards in Europe. International Fund for Animal Welfare. www.ifaw.org Iossa G., Soulsbury C. D. and Harris S., 2007. Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. Animal Welfare, 16: 335-352.

Proulx G. and Barrett M. W., 1993. Evaluation of mechanically improved Conibear 220โ ข traps to quickly kill fisher (Martes pennanti) in simulated natural environments. J Wildl Diseases 29(2): 317-323.

Proulx G. and Drescher R., 1994. Assessment of rotating-jaw traps to humanely kill raccoons (Procyon lotor).

J Wildl Diseases 30: 335-339.

Rochlitz I., Pearce G. P. and Broom D. M., 2010. The Impact of Snares on Animal Welfare. Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoรถlogy, University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge, pp 34.

Sharp T. and Saunders G., 2008. A model for assessing the relative humaneness of pest animal control methods.

Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, ACT. Talling J. C. and Inglis I. R., 2009. Improvements to trapping standards. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/animal_welfare/hts/pdf/final_report.pdf

33

REFERENCES Ch. 1 - TRAPPERS ASSOCIATIONS IN THE U.S. AND MANAGEMENT OF CATCHES State Trappers Associations     

     

        

Alabama http://www.atpca.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/alabama-trappers-predator-control-association Alaska http://www.alaskatrappers.org/ Alberta http://www.albertatrappers.com/ Arizona http://www.angelfire.com/az2/ATA http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/arizona-trappers-association Arkansas http://www.arkansastrappers.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/arkansas-trappers-association http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/arkansas-fur-trappers-association California http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/california-trappers-association Colorado http://www.coloradotrapper.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/colorado-trappers-association Connecticut http://cttrappers.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/connecticut-trappers-association County of NY http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/cortland-county-trappers-of-new-york Georgia http://gatrappersassoc.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/georgia-trappers-association Idaho http://www.idahotrappers.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/idaho-trappers-association http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/upper-snake-river-trappers-of-idaho Illinois http://www.ilta.we.bs/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/illinois-trappers-association Indiana http://www.indianatrappers.org/ Iowa http://www.iowatrappers.com/ Central NY http://www.nystrappers.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/independent-fur-harvesters-of-central-ny Kansas http://www.kstrappers.topcities.com/ Kentucky http://www.kentuckytrappers.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/united-trappers-of-kentucky-inc Lousiana http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/louisiana-trappers-alligator-hunters-association Maine http://www.mainetrappers.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/maine-trappers-association-inc Maryland http://www.marylandtrappers.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/maryland-fur-trappers-inc

34  

  

         

    



Massachusetts http://www.masstrappers.org/ Michigan http://www.michigantrappers.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/michigan-trappers-predator-callers-association http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/michigan-upper-peninsula-trappers-association http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/mid-michigan-independent-trappers-2 Minnesota http://www.mntrappers.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/minnesota-trappers-association Missouri http://www.missourioutback.com/mta/index.html Montana http://www.montanatrappers.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/montana-trappers-association http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/montana-fur-harvesters Nebraska http://www.nebraskafurharvesters.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/nebraska-fur-harvesters Nevada http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/nevada-trappers-association New Hampshire http://www.nhtassoc.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/new-hampshire-trappers-association New Jersey http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/new-jersey-fur-harvesters http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/new-jersey-trappers-association New Mexico http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/new-mexico-trappers-association North Carolina http://www.nctrappers.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/north-carolina-trappers-association North Dakota http://ndfhta.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/north-dakota-fur-hunters-trappers-association Northern Great Lakes http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/northern-great-lakes-fur-harvesters-inc Ohio http://www.ohiostatetrapper.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/northwestern-ohio-fur-traders-inc Oklahoma http://www.oktrapper.com/ http://ftoa.mysite.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/oklahoma-fur-bearer-alliance Oregon http://www.oregonta.org/ Pennsylvania http://www.patrappers.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/pennsylvania-trappers-association-inc St. Lawrence County http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/st-lawrence-county-trappers-association South Carolina http://www.sctrappers.tripod.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/south-carolina-trappers-association South Dakota http://www.sdtrappers.topcities.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/south-dakota-trappers-association http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/western-south-dakota-fur-harvesters Tennessee http://www.tennesseefreetrappers.com/

35

       

http://www.tfha.net/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/tennessee-free-trappers-association http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/tennessee-fur-harvester-association Texas http://www.txtrappers.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/texas-trappers-and-fur-hunters-association-inc Utah http://www.utahtrappers.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/utah-trappers-association Vermont http://www.vermonttrappers.com/ Virginia http://www.virginiatrappers.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/virginia-trappers-association Washington http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/washington-trappers-association West Virginia http://www.wvtrappers.com/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/west-virginia-trappers-association Wisconsin http://www.wistrap.org/ http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/wisconsin-trappers-association Wyoming http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/wyoming-trappers-association

Ch. 2 – CAPTURE DEVICES 

Trapper & Predator Caller website http://www.shopdeerhunting.com/category/trapping/?r=TPCtopnav&lid=TPCtopnav

Ch. 3 – FUR TRADE  

T&PC - Trapper & Predator Caller website: http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com LAV report “Evidences of violations” (2012) http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

Ch. 4 - TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT BY THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF HEALTH 

Italian Ministry of Health website (animal welfare section): http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pagineAree_205_listaFile_itemName_1_file.pdf