Wildlife Damage Control Specialists Newsletter

Wildlife Damage Specialist Newsletter A bi-monthly e-zine providing information on the field of wildlife damage management. May/June 1999 Wildlife Damage Control 340 Cooley St. Springfield, MA 01128 Tel/Fax 413-796-9916 info@aallanimalcontrol.com http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.net

FIGHT SPAM: WDC sends this e-zine to those who request it. If you would like to be removed from our list please send an e-mail requesting your removal.

WDC does not sell e-mail lists.

Contents:

Housekeeping Prize: Contest

Company Focus: Breathe Easy Trap

Anti Watch: Animal Rights.net

Continuing Education: Review of "Injuries to coyotes captured in modified foothold traps"

Closing Comments: Last Word

Housekeeping: By now most of you have heard about the dangerous Melissa Virus. Since it is an e-mail borne virus I thought I would talk a little about virus security on the Wildlife Damage Newsletter. First, always make sure that you have virus protection software on your computer. Second, make sure that your virus definition list is up to date. You should be updating your virus definition list at least on a monthly basis. Remember, virus protection is only as good as your last update. Third, I have virus protection software and update regularly. I use Norton Anti-virus. Finally, scan all e-mail attachments before opening them, including WDC Specialist Newsletter. I am confident that if you follow these recommendations you won't be sorry. I hope that all of you agree that I have fixed the pernicious problem of line length. I am now making sure that the text lines are only 65 characters long. As always, let me know if this is in fact working or not by e-mailing me at info@aallanimalcontrol.com Prize Contest:Finally, we had a winner to last issue's contest. His name is Jim Burns. He received the Excellence in Customer Service calendar. Congratulations Jim.

Company Focus: The following press release was not written by me. Rather it was written by a distributor of this trap. We include it here in order to make our readers aware of this new box trap for beaver. People familiar with me know that I abhor the inaccurate and animal rights laden term of Live trap. Professionals need to use professional language and the term live trap is unprofessional because it is inaccurate and vague. The readers should understand that I have no experience with this trap and am not being compensated for spotlighting it in this issue nor have I been promised compensation. If any of you have used the trap, we would love to hear of your experiences with it. "There is a new beaver live trap on the market these days called the Breathe Easy Trap. With its unique flexible top and non-rigid doors, it is fast becoming the beaver and otter live trap of choice for fish & wildlife departments, nuisance wildlife control operators and animal damage control trappers. The most unique feature of the Breathe Easy Trap is that it can be fully submersed under water up to two inches over the top yet still allow the beaver to breathe. This is possible because of the flexible mesh top on the trap and a special platform inside the trap that allows the animal to stand on and push against the top of the trap, allowing it to keep its head above the water line. The Breathe Easy is a box type cage trap measuring 16"X 16" X 48" making it much easier to handle than the Hancock live trap. It can also be used in tight spaces and is ideal in culverts and narrow channels. The collapsible doors on both ends make it perfect for these situations and eliminate the possibility of catching the animal's limbs in the door. Because the trap can be submersed under water, the trap is much less likely to be detected by the animal through scent or sight. The Breathe Easy also allows the animal to be caught while swimming in the water where they feel most protected and least threatened therefore resulting in the beaver or otter to be caught off guard. The trap is not limited to shallow water either. It can be set in deeper water by suspending it in travel ways with the use of wire and poles maintaining the water level over top of the trap. The bottom of the trap is then fenced with sticks etc to prevent the animal from diving to deep and missing the trap, as you would in placing a body-gripping trap. If you want a live trap that greatly increases your options as to type and locations of sets for live trapping beaver and otter, the Breathe Easy Trap could be exactly what your looking for. Use of the trap is not limited to beaver and otter and may be used for racoon , groundhog, bobcat, etc as well as fowl such as ducks, geese and pheasants, etc. humanely. The Breathe Easy Trap sells for $ 295.00 US plus shipping. To purchase the Breathe Easy Trap or obtain more info, contact Ranger Animal Control 414 Mazerolle Settlement Rd. Upper Kingsclear, N.B Canada E3E 1W8 Tel (506) 363-5635 E-mail ranger@brunnet.net

Anti-Watch: Animal Rights.net Given the number of anti's that subscribe to this e-zine, I thought that the following web site would be a good one for them to visit. Normally, I spotlight an animal rights website and point out how the truth has been less then perfectly served. You can visit the site at http://www.animalrights.net/ I am confident that you will find information here extremely damaging to the animal rights ideology/religion. Brian Carnell, the author of the website, should be commended for his great work here.

Continuing Education: Review of "Injuries to coyotes captured in modified foothold traps" Wildlife Society Bulletin 1997 25 (4):858-863 This was a study designed to test the contention of many trappers that modified footholds can reduce paw injuries in coyotes, while still maintaining trap effectiveness. Modified footholds consist of standard steel traps to which the following changes have been made, (authors used #3 coil springs) 1. Installing additional or heavier springs 2. Laminating trap jaws to increase their width 3. Adding a base plate so the chain will set below the point where the jaws meet when the trap fires. Shock absorbers are also added. 4. Use of offset jaws. Coyotes were evaluated after being thawed using whole body necropsy. Conclusion of the authors. The general conclusion was that modified footholds only partially and in a limited scope reduced coyote injuries when compared to standard footholds. They concluded that the injury reduction would never approach the padded jaw foot hold reductions of 48-85%. Stephen's evaluation: I must admit that I was surprised by the findings of this study. I only wish that the study used a larger sampling than 48 coyotes. I did have a few questions that should be kept in mind when reading this report. 1. How many of the injuries occurred during the coyotes fear/flight response upon the trapper's approach? This is one area that needs a great deal of investigation. Many anecdotal reports state that trappers see the coyote sleeping or lying down when they are first spotted. It would appear to me that video cameras should be used to monitor coyotes who get trapped to see when and how the injuries occur. 2. I would have liked to know whether freezing the carcass diminishes evidence of certain types of injuries that would thereby falsify the scores. 3. The study also didn't record the number of non-coyote catches and how their injuries were. Perhaps the Modified traps were more gentle to non-target catches. 4. I have heard some scuttlebut that the modified traps were not modified to their full 5. capacity. In particular, I am told that the trap jaws of the Modified traps were not filed 6. down as they typically would be. The source stated that the State workers didn't want 7. to pay the extra dollar per trap to have the sharp edges filed down. If this rumor is 8. true, then it would essentially nullify the studies findings. It would also show that the 9. traps cause even less damage then the study found as there would be fewer 10. lacerations. 11. Finally, it should be pointed out that the modified traps caught more coyotes than the non-modified traps.

Wildlife Damage Control's Letter concerning Impact of Question 1 to Massachusetts This letter is substantially the same as the one mailed to Mr. Petersen. The Honorable Douglas W. Petersen Co-chair Natural Resources Committee State House Boston, MA 02133 Dear Representative Petersen and fellow Committee Members, 4/22/99 I am a full time Problem Animal Controller licensed in Massachusetts and Connecticut. I have published numerous articles on animal damage control, including two books, The Wildlife Removal Handbook and The Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook. I believe the evidence is very clear that Question 1 has been a very foolish law and has become yet another tax on the citizens of Massachusetts. The committee has already read my extensive and substantive critique of Mr. Petersen's report on the impact of Question 1 so I will not endeavor to repeat those criticisms here. If you don't have a copy of my five page analysis, you can download it from my website. Question 1 needs to be modified as in Gauch's bill (or better yet eliminated as in Hall's bill) for the following reasons: 1. Question 1 is hostile to sound environmental policy. When the law passed, it banned mole traps, yes mole traps. Unfortunately, most people aren't aware of this fact but it is true. Mole traps are the only effective way to control moles. They are not only effective but they are safe and non-polluting. Now that they are banned, homeowners are trying ineffective gas bombs, insect control poisons and other toxicants. It would seem to me that people who are concerned about the environment would want the least toxic method to control a damage problem. Regrettably, the proponents of Question 1 disagree. Given that Question 1 is a tax on farmers, it has put another nail into the coffin of the Baystate's dwindling farming base. It is wrong that people in the Boston concrete jungle can impose a burden on farmers without personally paying for the additional costs. The loss of farms will continue to imperil our environments diversity and beauty. 2. Question 1 is a burden on the poor. Numerous cities and towns now have to pay for the control of beaver damage. Money that could have been used to feed the poor, house the homeless, and improve schools is now being spent to trap nuisance beavers and/or install beaver pipes. Let me be clear here. People who support Question 1 actually want to keep lining the pockets of professional animal damage controllers like myself and others. We will continue to accept this form of corporate welfare but it is immoral given the needs that exist among our fellow humans. Prior to Question 1 many beaver problems were resolved by unpaid sportsmen and women. These people harvested a resource that could be later sold and put dollars back into the State's economy. The beauty of their work (besides the low cost) is that they could utilize the environment's bounty without destroying the underlying ecology. Not even foresters can say that. 3. Question 1 was not an informed referendum. Proponents of Question 1 like to repeat the mantra that the measure was passed by a two to one margin. What they neglect to say is how little the public knew about the laws impact. I cannot recall one caller to my business who knew that mole traps were banned by Question 1. I had one client, after the vote, say " I thought the law only effected people trapping in the woods. " She didn't think it would affect my ability to remove wildlife from her home. Reports from others have reaffirmed my perception. The fact is, animal rights groups misled the public in a variety of ways. First, they didn't inform the public of the laws full impact. They conveniently neglected to tell the public that they were raising their taxes and increasing property damage. Second, they relied on the public's ignorance of the laws as they presently stood before Question 1 was enacted. Third, they didn't warn the public of the dangers this law would pose to their health and safety. The coyote attack on the Cape is just one foreshadowing of the future if this law remains in place. Fourth, they failed to tell the public that this law restricts the ability of professional trappers to resolve animal damage problems in an efficient manner. 4. Question 1 has banned traps that are less injurious then cage traps. One of the dirty little secrets of the animal rights movement is their continued failure to deal with the reality of new trap inventions. Beavers can be captured alive with the use of snares. Chances are you committee members haven't been told this but it is nevertheless the truth. Snares, contrary to popular mythology, are live traps. Snares are used to capture beavers in a number of states. Snares offer a number of advantages. First they are inexpensive. Cost per snare is a couple of dollars. Second, they are versatile. They can be set in the water, under ice, or on the water's edge. Third, they are safe. Stop locks can prevent the capture of deer and the injury to domestic animals. Cage traps, like the Bailey Beaver trap, are actually rather cruel devices when used in the winter time. Bailey traps hold the beaver in water. This is a good thing during the summer for it keeps the beaver cool. But in the winter, beaver actually undergo hypothermia. One biologist who studied beaver with box traps found that beavers caught in Bailey's in the winter time had body temperatures in the high eighties (Fahrenheit) rather than the 98 degrees they were supposed to have. Just another example of how animal rights activists really don't care about animals. Thank you all for your time. If I can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me. Yours in Responsible Animal Damage Control and Management, Stephen Vantassel

LAST WORD A number of changes and updates have been made at Wildlife Damage Control.com. We do hope you will come back for a visit.