Eighty Per Cent Within Three Hundred Seconds: The Trapping Standard That Does Not Cover Us

1. Introduction: a standard with numbers in it

This journal has spent several articles complaining that structural pest control lacks numeric standards. Here is one, in full detail, with a sample size and a stopwatch attached. It does not apply to us.

1.1 What this article argues

That the standard is real, specific and enforceable; that the animals this trade kills sit outside it; that the device which would fail it most clearly is one the trade still uses; and that the evidence base recommending against that device also endorses what competent practice already does. Sections 17 to 23 make the last point.

2. What the agreement is

The instrument, its parties and its timeline.

It was negotiated between the EU, Canada and the Russian Federation (with a similar agreement with the USA) and concluded successfully in 1998, and entered into force 22 July 2008. Under the implementation schedule, parties had until 2013 (5 years after entry into force) to test and certify trapping methods, and until 2016 to prohibit the use of traps not certified in accordance with standards of the Agreement.⁴

2.1 It is binding

A review describes it as a binding agreement that has a direct impact on fur trading between the signatory parties, and notes by contrast that although it adapted some testing procedures from an international standards body, the ISO standards have no legal values or enforcement capabilities and their use is voluntary.¹

2.2 What it achieved

The same review records that the agreement would result in the banning of the steel-jawed leghold traps in the European Community, Canada, and Russia.¹

2.3 And what it requires of governments

That parties must ensure appropriate processes are in place for permitting the use of traps, as well as enforcing and regulating trapping laws and trap use within their jurisdiction.¹³

3. The negotiation over seconds

How the number was arrived at, which tells you what kind of number it is.

A review of the process records that within the working group, European experts stated that the animal should be rendered unconscious within 30 seconds after triggering a killing trap, and that this contrasted with the Canadian, Russian and U.S. experts, who stated that, depending on the category to which the species is assigned, the animal should be unconscious within 60, 180 or 300 seconds after triggering a killing device.²

3.1 A factor of ten between the proposals

Thirty seconds against three hundred.² The agreed figure is the highest number anybody put forward.

3.2 The stated principle

The working group's framing was that the method of killing must onset rapid unconsciousness and insensibility and that poor welfare must be minimised during the period between the start of the killing action and the state of unconsciousness and insensibility.²

3.3 And the ideal, as described elsewhere

One assessment cites the agreement as describing the ideal kill trap as one that kills without the captured animal experiencing any pain or suffering, with that including the animal experiencing irreversible unconsciousness within 60 seconds.⁷

So the document contains both an aspiration at sixty seconds and a certification threshold at three hundred, which is a familiar gap between what a standard says it wants and what it enforces.

4. The test that was agreed

The certification criterion in full.

The requirements are that the number of specimens of the same target species from which the data are derived is at least 12, that at least 80% of these animals are unconscious and insensible within the time limit, and remain in this state until death, and that the time limit for an animal to become unconscious is 300 seconds.³

4.1 Eighty per cent of twelve

Which permits two animals in twelve to fall outside the criterion and still certifies the trap.³

We note without comment that a sample of twelve is small by the standards of any efficacy literature this journal has examined, and that our detection probability article is about what a small sample can and cannot establish.

4.2 The remain-in-this-state clause

Unconsciousness must persist until death rather than merely occur.³ That is a meaningful addition and it rules out a device that stuns without killing.

5. Restraining traps are rated differently

The other half of the scheme.

Generally, the welfare of animals captured in killing devices of any type is based on time-to-death, while the welfare of animals captured in live-restraining devices is evaluated based on injury scores. The thresholds are, for restraining traps, the level of indicators beyond which the welfare of trapped animals is considered poor, and for killing traps, the time to unconsciousness and insensibility and the maintenance of this state until death of the animal.³

5.1 Why injury scoring is the harder measurement

A time to unconsciousness can be observed. An injury score requires a scale, an examiner and a threshold, and the agreement specifies the level of indicators beyond which welfare is considered poor rather than a single number.³

This journal's article on detection accuracy in canine work found the same difficulty: a criterion requiring judgement is harder to audit than one requiring a stopwatch. That comparison is ours.

5.2 A coherent division

A device meant to kill is judged on how fast. A device meant to hold is judged on what it does to the animal it holds. Section 13 is about a device that is classified as the second and used as the first.

6. The two categories

The taxonomy as the welfare literature sets it out.

Restraining traps, which are designed to hold but not kill the animal, include cage or box traps, snares, net traps, glue boards, leg-hold or foot-hold traps. Killing traps include body-grip traps, snap (or break-back) traps and electrocution traps.¹¹

6.1 The devices this trade uses appear in both lists

Snap traps and electrocution traps in the killing category, cage traps and glue boards in the restraining category.¹¹

6.2 The assessment framework

One model assigns the intensity of suffering, integrating all unpleasant experiences occurring on a scale from No impact, Mild, Moderate, Severe and Extreme suffering, with the duration of any such suffering estimated from when the method begins to have an impact.¹¹

Intensity multiplied by duration, which is the same structure as any dose assessment and makes a long mild harm comparable to a short severe one.

7. Which animals it covers

The scope, which is the point of this article.

The agreement provides that restraining and killing traps used for the capture of members of certain mammalian species, traded among the parties for their fur, should be certified in accordance with a set of standards contained in it.¹

7.1 The rating scheme

The agreement establishes standardized criteria for rating traps based on species and by method of use, with lethal traps rated on time to loss of consciousness and restraining traps on potential for infliction of injury, and these ratings form only part of the overall trap approval process. Where there are no traps currently certified for a particular species, the agreement mandates that research continues.¹³

7.2 Traded among the parties for their fur

That clause is the whole scope. The agreement is a trade instrument with a welfare standard inside it, which is why it binds on fur trading and why it reaches the species it does.¹

8. And which it does not

The consequence for this trade.

Rats and mice are not traded for their fur. Neither are squirrels in most contexts, nor the animals a structural operator most commonly kills. The certified trap regime, the twelve-animal test and the three hundred second limit do not reach them.¹³

8.1 Stating the asymmetry plainly

A trap used on a marten must be certified against a published criterion. A trap used on a rat in a restaurant need not be, and no equivalent criterion exists.

That is our characterisation and we think it is the most useful sentence in this article.

8.2 The number of animals involved

We have no figures for how many commensal rodents are killed annually in this country, and we could not find any. The comparison with regulated furbearer trapping is therefore one we can state as a structural point and not quantify.

9. The transparency problem

An objection raised from inside the field, about the regime that does exist.

A review states that as far as we know, no peer-reviewed or technical reports were made available to the scientific community and the public on >190 traps certified by the Fur Institute of Canada using the AIHTS, and argues that trap assessment and development needs to be transparent, and no certified trap should be released without the publication of the findings.¹

9.1 Which this journal has met before

Our articles on remote rodent monitoring and on third-party food safety auditing both found certification schemes whose underlying data is not published, and reached the same conclusion: a certificate that cannot be checked is a claim rather than a verification.

10. The trap is not the unit

The most transferable finding in this literature.

The same review describes testing of a rotating-jaw trap's ability to render American martens irreversibly unconscious in ≤3 min in enclosures and on traplines, using a four-prong trigger and a specific cubby box, where the trigger has two short centre prongs to properly position the animals in the traps and ensure a strike in vital regions.¹

10.1 And what happened when a component changed

When the original trigger was replaced with a four-long-prong trigger, the trap did not properly strike animals in the head and was not as capture-efficient.¹

10.2 One component, both outcomes

Changing the trigger degraded the welfare performance and the capture rate together. The trap was the same trap.¹

The review draws the conclusion directly: it is not sufficient to identify restraining traps that can hold animals with little injury or killing traps that can render animals unconscious quickly. Trap assessment must also include trap components and sets, as well as handling methods.¹

10.3 Which is a statement about technique

A certified trap set wrongly is not a certified outcome. This journal's articles on applicator training and on rodent exclusion materials both turn on the same point: the specification of a product does not survive careless installation.

11. The simulation question

How the testing is now done, and an objection to it.

An advocacy source records that species-specific computer simulation models have eliminated the need for live animal testing for the certification of manufactured traps, aligning with the wildlife guidelines of the national animal care council, and raises two objections: that the computer simulation models assume that conditions in the lab replicate the conditions found in the natural environment, and that it also assumes that trappers set traps correctly, which takes many years of practice and expertise.³

11.1 The tension

Replacing live animal tests with simulation is an ethical improvement in the testing and a weakening of the evidence, at the same time. We do not think that tension is resolvable.

The second objection is §10 restated: the model assumes correct setting, and §10.1 shows what happens when one component of a set changes.¹

12. Dependent young

A gap in the regime with a direct structural analogue.

A review notes that with the exception of Finland, females of pest species with dependent offspring are not protected, with the consequence that young are exposed to slow death from starvation and malnutrition.²

12.1 This journal has an article about exactly that problem

Our article on bat exclusion timing established that excluding adults during the maternity season traps flightless young inside a structure, and that the timing rule exists for that reason.

The same welfare logic applies to any lethal or exclusionary control during a breeding season, and the trapping standards are reported to address it in one country only.²

13. Glue boards in the taxonomy

The device this article has been heading toward.

Glue boards are classified with cage traps, snares, nets and foothold traps as restraining traps, which are designed to hold but not kill the animal.¹¹

13.1 And they are used to kill

A welfare review notes that in some countries such as the USA, it is not uncommon to use such traps to kill, simply by leaving animals trapped until they die, presumably of starvation or dehydration, and raising obvious welfare issues.⁶

13.2 The category error

A device rated in the welfare framework on injury indicators, deployed as a killing device, where the killing criterion is a time limit of three hundred seconds.³¹¹

It is not that glue boards fail the killing trap standard. It is that they are not in the category the standard would judge them by, and §14 is what the times actually are.

14. The death times

The measurements.

A welfare review reports that when animals are left to die on glue boards, one study showed that the shortest recorded death time was 3 h, but some animals were still alive 24 h after being trapped.⁶

The same review notes that animals will die more slowly from dehydration, starvation or exhaustion, and that exhausted animals can also fall face down into the glue and suffocate.⁶

14.1 Three hours against three hundred seconds

The best recorded outcome is thirty-six times the certification limit for a killing trap. The worst recorded is beyond twenty-four hours.⁶³

14.2 The comparison the welfare framework would make

Intensity of suffering multiplied by duration.¹¹ A device with a minimum duration measured in hours scores badly on the second factor whatever its score on the first.

14.3 The injuries

A welfare organisation describes that an animal's feet are generally stuck first but as escape attempts are made, other parts of the body also become stuck which may result in bone fractures, skin tears, bruising.⁹

15. The professional positions

Where the veterinary and certification bodies stand, as reported.

An assessment prepared for a humane trapping association states that glue traps are inhumane, as trapped rodents experience a high degree of fear and physical injury and, when released, cannot resume normal behaviour, and that this is in agreement with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association's pest control position statement that describes the use of sticky boards (glue traps) to capture rodents as an inhumane method.⁷

15.1 A certification standard that prohibits them

A Canadian humane wildlife control certification standard states that glue traps used to capture rodents or other small animals are prohibited because glue traps merely capture but do not kill animals, that captured animals often suffer physical injury from struggling against the restraint of the glue, and may be alive 24 hours after capture before eventually dying from dehydration or exhaustion, and records that their use for rodent pest control is not condoned by the national veterinary association, with the American body stating that they are not considered an acceptable means of control.⁸

15.2 These are advocacy and professional sources

The trapping association, the welfare organisation and the certification body all campaign on this question and we flag them accordingly. The veterinary association positions they report are professional body statements rather than campaign material.

16. The codes of practice

What the industry side proposes where the devices remain legal.

A veterinary association position describes an industry voluntary code recommending that glue traps are inspected at appropriate intervals to minimise the amount of time animals spend in the trap, that this should be within 12 hours of placing, or at least as soon as is reasonably practicable, and that they should be revisited at a minimum of every 12 hours.¹⁰

16.1 Twelve hours

Which is the code's own target, and it is forty-three thousand two hundred seconds.

16.2 The instruction gap

The same position notes that instructions for glue traps frequently fail to explain the need to kill the trapped rodent or examples of how to do this humanely, that a blow to the head is often recommended to result in instant death, however it is questionable whether members of the public would be willing or able to do this effectively.¹⁰

A welfare organisation adds that it is unclear how pest control operators kill trapped animals.⁹

16.3 That last sentence is aimed at us

And it is a fair question. A contractor placing a device that captures without killing has taken on the obligation to kill what it captures, competently, and nothing in the product tells them how.

17. The efficacy argument nobody makes

The finding that changes this from an ethics discussion into an operational one.

The same assessment that concludes glue traps are inhumane also states that they may not be the most effective method of control (due to susceptibility to dust, humidity, temperature).⁷

17.1 Dust, humidity and temperature

An adhesive surface in a commercial kitchen, a dusty void or a cold loading dock is an adhesive surface that is losing its adhesion. Our article on substrate effects and residual efficacy describes the same class of problem for liquid formulations.

17.2 Which means the argument is not welfare against results

A welfare organisation makes the related point that where trapping is not combined with proofing, it is unlikely that sufficient rodents will be killed using traps to counter population growth.⁹

The device with the worst welfare profile is also environmentally fragile and, used alone, unlikely to control a population. That convergence is ours to state and it is the practical case for not using them.

18. What the review recommends instead

The constructive list, from the standard reference on the subject.

A comprehensive review of the humaneness of rodent pest control determined that the most humane currently available methods include: deterrence and proofing; well-designed snap traps; electrocution traps; cyanide gas; bait poison alpha-chloralose; and live-trapping followed by humane killing.⁷

18.1 Well-designed snap traps

Which is the trade's oldest and cheapest device, listed among the most humane available methods.⁷

The qualifier is doing work. A snap trap kills by means of a rapidly descending bar,⁶ and whether it strikes correctly depends on trigger design and placement, which §10 established is the variable that matters.

18.2 And newer designs

The same assessment notes that newer snap-traps are being developed with goal of meeting modern requirements for efficacy and animal welfare outcomes.⁷

19. Note the order

The first item on that list is not a device.

Deterrence and proofing comes before every trap and every poison.⁷

19.1 And it is the only item that reduces the number

Every other method on the list is a way of killing an animal more or less badly. Proofing is the only one that results in fewer animals needing to be killed.⁷

19.2 Which this journal has argued from three directions

Our article on rodent exclusion materials made the engineering case. Our article on injury levels and thresholds found the entomological literature putting thresholds and physical controls ahead of chemistry. Our article on service economics found the business model rewarding the opposite order.

Here the welfare literature reaches the same ranking independently, which is four disciplines agreeing. That observation is ours.

20. The electrocution caveat

One item on the recommended list carries a warning.

A certification standard notes that electrocution is a method for killing small rodents and that some evidence suggests that electrocution may not result in death for small rodents.⁸

20.1 Which returns to the remain-in-this-state clause

The certification criterion requires unconsciousness to persist until death.³ A device that stuns a small animal without killing it fails that criterion in the specific way the clause was written to catch.

We have not seen the underlying evidence and report the caveat as stated.

21. The bias argument

The framing offered by welfare organisations, stated because it is the honest version of what is at issue.

A government consultation summary records the contention that less humane methods have been sanctioned or been deemed acceptable despite evidence that the welfare of these animals is compromised in a way that would not be tolerated for a more valued species, and an organisation pointing to the inherent bias in our systems against animals who have been deemed as pests and therefore afforded less consideration.¹²

21.1 The observation is structurally correct

A marten is covered by a certified trap regime because its fur is traded. A rat is not, and nothing about the animal's capacity to suffer differs on that basis.¹

21.2 And the counter-consideration

The consultation also records the acknowledgement that alternatives can lack the immediacy of glue traps, alongside the observation that those nations with a ban are able to manage with only those alternatives available to them.¹²

That is a fair exchange and we report both halves of it.

22. Our own position

The disclosure this article requires, and it is not comfortable.

We are a pest control contractor. Killing animals is part of the work, it is why clients call, and nothing in this article argues otherwise. Rodents in a food premises or a dwelling are a genuine hazard and our articles on allergen exposure and on disease risk are about why.

22.1 What the evidence says about how

That the most humane available methods start with proofing and include well-designed snap traps, and that glue boards are assessed as inhumane by veterinary associations in two countries and prohibited by at least one Canadian certification standard.⁷⁸

22.2 What we will not do

Argue that the welfare question does not apply because the animal is a pest. Section 21.1 is correct and a trade that relies on that distinction is relying on a legal category rather than on a reason.

23. The standard we would hold to

Since none is imposed, one has to be adopted.

Proofing first. It is the top item on the humaneness ranking and it is the only measure that reduces the number of animals killed at all.⁷

Kill traps set to kill. Correct trigger, correct placement, correct orientation, because §10 shows that the same trap performs differently depending on how it is set.¹

A capture device implies an obligation. Anything that holds an animal alive commits the person who set it to returning promptly and dispatching it competently, and a contractor who cannot commit to that should not set it.¹⁰

And a client is entitled to ask what will be used. Including whether a glue board will be placed, how often devices will be checked, and what happens to an animal found alive.

23.1 What this costs us

Glue boards are cheap, fast to place, require no setting skill and produce visible results a client can see. Declining to use them removes an easy option and adds labour to the alternatives.

Against that, §17 establishes that they lose adhesion to dust, humidity and temperature and that trapping without proofing will not outpace a population.⁷⁹ Our view is that the cost is smaller than it looks and the alternative is better work.

23.2 Why we are publishing this rather than a policy statement

Because a policy statement is a claim and a reference list is checkable. The figures in §§3, 4 and 14 are the ones that make the case, and anybody can read the sources for themselves.

24. The Manitoba position

What applies locally, with our usual caveat.

Canada is a party to the agreement,⁴ and trapping regulation for furbearers is provincial. We did not locate any Manitoba provision setting welfare criteria for devices used on commensal rodents in structures, and we are not qualified to state the provincial position with authority.

24.1 The wildlife side is different

Squirrels, raccoons, skunks and bats in structures fall under provincial wildlife regulation rather than under pest control regulation, and this journal's articles on wildlife translocation and on bat exclusion both touch on that framework.

The commensal rodent case is the one with no evident welfare provision at all, which is why this article is about it.

24.2 What we can say

That no certification requirement of the kind described in §4 applies to the traps used in structural pest control in this province, so far as we could establish, and that the choice of device is therefore the contractor's.

Which makes it a professional judgement rather than a compliance question, and professional judgements are the ones worth publishing a standard for.

25. Limitations and open questions

We did not read the agreement. Every criterion here reaches us through reviews, advocacy summaries and a hunting federation's explanatory page, and the exact wording may differ.³⁴

Several sources campaign on this question. A wildlife conservancy, a humane trapping association, two welfare organisations and a certification body all hold positions, and each is flagged in the reference list.³⁷⁸⁹

The glue board death times come from a 1983 study read within a 2003 review. We have not seen the original, its sample size or its conditions.⁶

The veterinary positions are reported at second hand. We have not read either association's statement directly.⁷⁸

We found no welfare data on snap trap performance against rodents. Well-designed is doing a great deal of work in §18 and we could not find a study establishing which designs meet which criterion.⁷

The provincial position is unverified. Section 24 states what we could not find rather than what is the case.

Sections 1.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1, 10.3, 11.1, 12.1, 13.2, 14.1, 16.3, 17, 19, 20.1, 22 and 23 are our reasoning. The scope argument, the category error, the comparison of death times against the certification limit, the convergence of welfare and efficacy, the ranking observation and the standard proposed are ours rather than sourced positions.

26. Conclusion

A killing trap is certified if data from at least twelve animals of the target species show that at least eighty per cent are unconscious and insensible within the time limit and remain so until death, with the limit at three hundred seconds. European delegations had wanted thirty. Restraining traps are rated instead on injury indicators, and the agreement binds on trade in the fur of the species it covers.³²¹

That last clause is why none of it reaches this trade. Rats and mice are not traded for their fur, so no certified trap regime, no twelve-animal test and no time limit applies to the devices a structural operator sets. The device that sits furthest outside it is classified in the welfare literature as a restraining trap and is routinely used as a killing one: the shortest death time recorded in one study was three hours, some animals were still alive at twenty-four, and two national veterinary associations describe its use on rodents as unacceptable.⁶⁷⁸

The useful finding is that nothing here asks this trade to work worse. The standard reference on the subject ranks deterrence and proofing first and well-designed snap traps immediately after, the same assessment notes that glue boards lose adhesion to dust, humidity and temperature, and a welfare organisation observes that trapping without proofing will not outpace population growth.⁷⁹ Four disciplines have now arrived at the same ranking of methods in this journal, and the welfare literature is the fourth. Where a regulator has set no standard, the contractor sets one, and it is better to publish it with the numbers attached than to leave it implied.

References

1. Updating the AIHTS trapping standards to improve animal welfare and capture efficiency and selectivity. Review article in an open-access animals title. Used for the account that the agreement has been the benchmark for humane restraining and killing traps for more than twenty years while wildlife biologists, managers and conservation groups have voiced concerns about the effectiveness of its standards and test procedures; for the statement that restraining and killing traps used to capture members of certain mammalian species traded among the parties for their fur should be certified in accordance with the standards; for the characterisation of the agreement as binding with direct impact on fur trading between signatory parties, while the international standards body's procedures have no legal value or enforcement capability and are voluntary; for the record that the agreement would result in the banning of steel-jawed leghold traps in three named jurisdictions; for the statement that no peer-reviewed or technical reports were made available on more than 190 traps certified by a national fur institute, with the argument that trap assessment needs to be transparent and no certified trap should be released without publication of findings; for the position that it is not sufficient to identify restraining traps that hold animals with little injury or killing traps that render animals unconscious quickly, and that assessment must include trap components and sets as well as handling methods; and for the worked example in which a rotating-jaw trap rendering martens irreversibly unconscious within three minutes using a four-prong trigger and specific cubby box failed to strike animals in the head and became less capture efficient when the trigger was replaced. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/8/1262
2. A scientific review on proposed humane trapping standards. Review document submitted to a regulatory docket. Used for the account that a 1996 working group report recognised that in evaluating whether trapping is humane its effect on the welfare of the trapped animal must be assessed, that the method of killing must onset rapid unconsciousness and insensibility, and that poor welfare must be minimised during the period between the start of the killing action and that state; for the record that European experts stated the animal should be rendered unconscious within 30 seconds after triggering a killing trap, contrasting with Canadian, Russian and United States experts who stated 60, 180 or 300 seconds depending on the species category; for the report that the agreement was signed in 1997 and that a trapping method should be considered humane if at least 80 per cent of 12 test animals are unconscious within the time limit; for the description of drowning traps restraining the animal underwater and killing by drowning or asphyxia, used for three named species; and for the statement that with the exception of one named country, females of pest species with dependent offspring are not protected, with the consequence that young are exposed to slow death from starvation and malnutrition. https://downloads.regulations.gov/APHIS-2016-0082-0010/attachment_78.pdf
3. Trapping regulations chapter, wildlife conservancy online publication. Advocacy source campaigning on trapping regulation, cited as attributed material. Used for the summary that the agreement sets out a process to certify humane traps and a timeline to improve trap methods and design standards; for the statement that the welfare of animals captured in killing devices is based on time to death while that of animals captured in live-restraining devices is evaluated on injury scores, with thresholds being, for restraining traps, the level of indicators beyond which welfare is considered poor, and for killing traps, the time to unconsciousness and insensibility and the maintenance of that state until death; for the three certification requirements, namely that data derive from at least 12 specimens of the same target species, that at least 80 per cent of these animals are unconscious and insensible within the time limit and remain so until death, and that the time limit is 300 seconds; and for the account that species-specific computer simulation models have eliminated the need for live animal testing for certification of manufactured traps, together with the stated objections that such models assume laboratory conditions replicate the natural environment and assume that trappers set traps correctly. https://www.exposedwildlifeconservancy.org/chapter/3-regulations
4. Agreement on international humane trapping standards, explanatory page of a European hunting and conservation federation. Stakeholder organisation source, cited as attributed material. Used for the account that the agreement was negotiated between three named parties with a similar agreement with a fourth and concluded successfully in 1998, was approved by a council decision, and entered into force on 22 July 2008 following deposit of a ratification; for the implementation schedule giving parties until 2013 to test and certify trapping methods and until 2016 to prohibit the use of traps not certified in accordance with the standards; and for the record that an international standards body began work through a technical committee in 1987, that the process did not manage to establish the welfare thresholds for which it strived, and that its work resulted in 1999 in an agreement on methods for testing restraining traps. https://www.face.eu/international-agreements/aihts/
5. The humaneness of rodent pest control. Review article in an animal welfare title, read as a document copy. Used for the account that leaving rodents to die brings many problems since animals will die more slowly from dehydration, starvation or exhaustion, and that exhausted animals can fall face down into the glue and suffocate; for the reported study finding that the shortest recorded death time was three hours but that some animals were still alive 24 hours after being trapped; for the note that in some countries it is not uncommon to use such traps to kill simply by leaving animals trapped until they die, presumably of starvation or dehydration, raising obvious welfare issues; and for the description of snap traps as spring-based devices which kill by means of a rapidly descending bar. https://scispace.com/pdf/the-humaneness-of-rodent-pest-control-1rv7oxbnfa.pdf
6. Evaluation of the humaneness of rodent capture using glue traps, prepared for a national humane trapping association. Commissioned assessment by an organisation campaigning on this question, cited as attributed material. Used for the conclusion that glue traps are inhumane because trapped rodents experience a high degree of fear and physical injury and, when released, cannot resume normal behaviour; for the statement that this agrees with a national veterinary medical association pest control position describing use of sticky boards to capture rodents as an inhumane method; for the observation that the finding of live animals after 24 hours raises the questions of what is an acceptable time to death and what methods are used to kill live-captured animals, since glue trapped rodents cannot be freed and relocated; for the cited description of the ideal kill trap as one that kills without the captured animal experiencing any pain or suffering, including the animal experiencing irreversible unconsciousness within 60 seconds; for the statement that glue traps may not be the most effective method of control due to susceptibility to dust, humidity and temperature; for the cited review determination that the most humane currently available methods include deterrence and proofing, well-designed snap traps, electrocution traps, cyanide gas, a named bait poison, and live-trapping followed by humane killing; and for the note that newer snap traps are being developed with the goal of meeting modern requirements for efficacy and animal welfare outcomes. https://caht.ca/evaluation-of-the-humaneness-of-rodent-capture-using-glue-traps/
7. Wildlife and rodent control standards, humane wildlife control certification programme. Certification body standard produced by an animal welfare organisation, cited as attributed material. Used for the statement that glue traps used to capture rodents or other small animals are prohibited under the standard because such traps merely capture but do not kill animals, that captured animals often suffer physical injury from struggling against the restraint of the glue and may be alive 24 hours after capture before eventually dying from dehydration or exhaustion, and that for these reasons their use for rodent pest control is not condoned by a national veterinary medical association while the equivalent American body states that they are not an acceptable means of control; for the note that electrocution is a method for killing small rodents and that some evidence suggests it may not result in death for small rodents; and for the observation that differences in accepted killing methods often arise from distinctions made between domestic animals and captive wildlife on one hand and free-living wildlife on the other, with a lower standard of welfare applied. https://animalkind.ca/wp-content/uploads/AnimalKind-Wildlife-Control-Standards.pdf
8. What are glue boards and why are they inhumane? Knowledgebase entry of a national animal welfare organisation. Advocacy source campaigning for prohibition, cited as attributed material. Used for the description that an animal's feet are generally stuck first but as escape attempts are made other parts of the body also become stuck, which may result in bone fractures, skin tears and bruising; for the statements that glue boards do not kill animals instantly nor painlessly so a humane death is not possible with these devices, that trapped animals may suffer for many hours or days succumbing slowly to starvation, exposure or dehydration, and that a significant problem is that they are not checked as soon as an animal is trapped so prolonged suffering cannot be avoided; for the report that there is no guarantee that trapped live animals will be humanely killed or killed at all; for the statement that it is unclear how pest control operators kill trapped animals; and for the observation that unless proofing is undertaken it is unlikely that sufficient rodents will be killed using traps to counter population growth. https://kb.rspca.org.au/categories/wild-animals/introduced-species/control-methods/what-are-glue-boards-and-why-are-they-inhumane
9. Veterinary association position on the use and sale of rodent glue traps, issued jointly by a national veterinary association and a zoological veterinary society. Professional body position statement. Used for the account of an industry voluntary code of practice recommending that glue traps are inspected at appropriate intervals to minimise the time animals spend in the trap, within 12 hours of placing or as soon as reasonably practicable, and revisited at a minimum of every 12 hours; and for the observations that instructions for glue traps frequently fail to explain the need to kill the trapped rodent or give examples of how to do so humanely, and that although a blow to the head is often recommended to result in instant death it is questionable whether members of the public would be willing or able to do this effectively. https://www.bva.co.uk/media/4362/full-bva-position-on-the-use-and-sale-of-rodent-glue-traps.pdf
10. Scientific assessment of the welfare of trapped mammals: key considerations for the use of a named humaneness assessment model. Open-access review article. Used for the statement that the use of traps is key to the success of many wildlife management programmes but that the species trapped, type of trap used and its application influence the impacts on animal welfare, and that scientific assessment is necessary to justify trap use, aid selection, improve performance and develop international standards; for the classification of restraining traps, designed to hold but not kill, as including cage or box traps, snares, net traps, glue boards and leg-hold or foot-hold traps, while killing traps include body-grip traps, snap or break-back traps and electrocution traps; and for the description of the assessment model in which the intensity of suffering is assigned on a scale from no impact through mild, moderate and severe to extreme, with the duration estimated from the time the method begins to have an impact. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8833337/
11. Targeted stakeholder consultation on glue traps, summary of responses, published by a national government. Government consultation document reporting stakeholder positions. Used for the recorded contention that less humane methods have been sanctioned or deemed acceptable despite evidence that the welfare of these animals is compromised in a way that would not be tolerated for a more valued species, with one organisation pointing to an inherent bias in systems against animals deemed pests and therefore afforded less consideration; and for the recorded acknowledgement that alternatives can lack the immediacy of glue traps, alongside the observation that nations with a ban are able to manage with only the alternatives available to them, together with the emphasis placed on preventing rodent ingress. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2022-12/targeted-stakeholder-consultation-glue-traps-summary-responses.pdf
12. Agreement on international humane trapping standards, resource page of a furbearer conservation organisation. Stakeholder source, cited as attributed material. Used for the summary that the agreement establishes standardised criteria for rating traps based on species and method of use, with lethal traps rated according to time to loss of consciousness and restraining traps according to potential for infliction of injury, and that these ratings form only part of the overall trap approval process; for the statement that where no traps are currently certified for a particular species the agreement mandates that research continues; and for the requirement that parties ensure appropriate processes are in place for permitting the use of traps and for enforcing and regulating trapping laws and trap use within their jurisdiction. https://furbearerconservation.com/aihts-resources