Not for sensitive viewers. The following imagery is disturbing - parental guidance is advised.
|
|  |
What is needed is a landmark change of thinking to shift the focus away from the control of predators to the protection of livestock, and an appreciation for and partnership with natural eco-system processes and patterns. In this way, we can harness the eco-system’s inherent potential to provide sustainability and economic wealth.
What is the definition of a gin trap?
Gin Traps (variably referred to as “gin traps”, “soft traps”, “soft catch traps”, “slaughter irons”, “steel jawed leg or foot hold traps”) - the gin trap/foothold trap is made up of two metal jaws, one or two springs that slam the jaws closed, and a trigger plate in the middle which is usually a round/square pan that trigger the trap. When the animal steps on the trigger the trap jaws closes around the foot, preventing the animal from escaping. Modified traps are also available with offset jaws, or lamination, or both. Traps are also available with a padded jaw, which has rubber inserts inside the jaws.
What are the medical and ethical consequences of spring loaded devices (inclusive of Gin Traps)?
Gin traps invariably cause injuries to trapped victims. These injuries may include at the very least, abrasions and or bruising of the trapped limb. However gin-trap traumas are frequently associated with ligament and tendon damage, serious skin breaches, bone breakages and limb amputations. The severity of the injuries caused by gin-traps will largely depend on the trap design, the spring strength needed to close the jaws of the trap, and the size and species of the victim.
Gin-trap injuries can be associated with:
Gin-traps are used extensively on livestock farms throughout South Africa without any professional supervision. In addition to these traps catching thousands of non target animals as described above, these traps often remain unchecked for long periods. This results in a lingering death from dehydration and starvation, such as the Cape fox (photo above left) and the leopard (photo above right).
Age analysis of jackals killed on farms has vividly illustrated that many jackals survive in the midst of the thousands of gin-traps placed out on farmland every year, to ages in excess of 10 years. This is testimony to the futility of this trapping method for the black backed jackal and a disturbing reminder of the unnecessary annual maiming of thousands of innocent animals in this manner.
Data would indicate that despite over 3 centuries of use, gin traps:
Many attempts have been made to reduce the injuries caused by gin traps through the incorporation of various padding and various spring mechanisms. This has led to the re-branding of some types of gin traps to names such us “leg hold devices” and “soft catch traps” etc. Nevertheless, this has not diminished their inhumane nature or the severe consequences of their application as seen through unacceptable injuries as well as the negative and unselective impact on biodiversity.
Gin-trap injuries can be associated with:
- Abrasions and lacerations: the jaw edges have historically been sharp and even spiked metal edges that cut into the skin of the victim on closure. Recent rubber edges are still made of hard industrial rubber, and if anything, have probably reduced lacerations and abrasions, but not addressed many of the underlying injuries discussed below. An open wound (laceration or abrasion) occurring with a fracture is known as a compound fracture, which is likely to result in bone infections and the likely consequent death in such animals.
- Ligament, tendon and muscle injuries: these tissues get injured as the animal struggles to break free of the trap. If the animal is released, it may appear to run away apparently uninjured, but at such times hidden injuries may be masked by adrenalin. These animals may be severely impaired and unable to catch prey or protect themselves effectively, with the result that they may eventually die.
- Fractures occur as a result of three mechanisms; the direct blow of the closing jaws of the trap, the attempts of the trapped animal to free itself or torsion fractures occurring proximally on the limbs as the animal struggles to free itself of the traps. Joint fractures can also occur which are usually accompanied by ligament and tendon injuries.
- Tooth fractures; Teeth are often fractured as the animal bites at the metal trap in its attempt to free itself.
- Vascular occlusion injuries occur when the pressure exerted by the clamped jaws of the trap exceeds that of the systolic blood supply to the limb of the trapped victim. In such instances it will cause the blood supply to this limb to be significantly cut off. The tissues deprived of the blood supply distal to the gin-trap will die within a 4 hour period of the supply being interrupted. This kind of tissue injury is called ischemic-hypoxic tissue necrosis, and is commonly referred to as dry gangrene. This will lead to permanent disability of all tissues affected by the cut off of this blood supply. As no trapper can be selective as to what animal they will catch in gin traps, nor what the systolic pressure of that animal would be, there is no way to totally exclude this type of injury on animals caught in these traps.
- Release injuries: amputations: predators will attempt to release themselves from these traps by struggling and pulling against the trap. On many occasions the friction and cutting action caused by the jaws of the trap during this struggle, which could last for several days, will result in complete bone fractures. The trapped animal may manage to free itself through the amputation of the limb section, with the associated dire consequences of such a situation.
- Dehydration and death: Most mammals can survive between 2 to 4 days without water depending on climatic conditions and their state of hydration at the outset, thereafter dehydration and inevitable death will set in. Although the current law in South Africa requires that gin-traps be checked every 24 hours, it is our experience that many animals die in these traps as traps are infrequently checked by trappers. These animals die of dehydration.
Gin-traps are used extensively on livestock farms throughout South Africa without any professional supervision. In addition to these traps catching thousands of non target animals as described above, these traps often remain unchecked for long periods. This results in a lingering death from dehydration and starvation, such as the Cape fox (photo above left) and the leopard (photo above right).
Age analysis of jackals killed on farms has vividly illustrated that many jackals survive in the midst of the thousands of gin-traps placed out on farmland every year, to ages in excess of 10 years. This is testimony to the futility of this trapping method for the black backed jackal and a disturbing reminder of the unnecessary annual maiming of thousands of innocent animals in this manner.
Data would indicate that despite over 3 centuries of use, gin traps:
- Have not successfully addressed the jackal or caracal livestock conflict;
- Have not been effective in addressing the reported jackal and caracal population expansion;
- Have resulted in the maiming, injury and death of thousands of non-target animals
- Have had a significant negative impact on biodiversity over an extremely widespread area.
- Have been historically and still are currently abused in their application over large areas of South African soil.
Many attempts have been made to reduce the injuries caused by gin traps through the incorporation of various padding and various spring mechanisms. This has led to the re-branding of some types of gin traps to names such us “leg hold devices” and “soft catch traps” etc. Nevertheless, this has not diminished their inhumane nature or the severe consequences of their application as seen through unacceptable injuries as well as the negative and unselective impact on biodiversity.
|  |
What are Indiscriminant Lethal Controls
Lethal control in respect of management of human-wildlife conflicts usually involve the killing of animals that may be involved in the conflict. Traditionally these methods are indiscriminate in their impact on species. This indiscriminate nature often a involves indiscriminate affect of different species and to individuals within a species. The methods are also often indiscriminate as to the problem individual animal/species and thus it kills the not implicated individual animal/species.
Lethal controls is the usual manner of dealing with these conflicts situations in South Africa. Literally hundreds of thousands of animals are killed in this manner each year. Not only is this ecologically damaging (if not disastrous) many of these measures are torturous and ethically unacceptable.
These methods include the use of gin traps, leg hold traps, killer traps, poisons, hunting dogs, hunting, helicopter hunting, snares and denning.
The impact of these practices on faunal diversity in South Africa has never been quantified, but probably constitutes one of the biggest environmental threats to our biodiversity.
What remain inexplicable is that after 300 years of employing these methods, the very people promoting them are the first to admit that the methods have not worked, yet they promote the ongoing and intensified attempts to continue with these methods. This defies logic.
Lethal controls is the usual manner of dealing with these conflicts situations in South Africa. Literally hundreds of thousands of animals are killed in this manner each year. Not only is this ecologically damaging (if not disastrous) many of these measures are torturous and ethically unacceptable.
These methods include the use of gin traps, leg hold traps, killer traps, poisons, hunting dogs, hunting, helicopter hunting, snares and denning.
The impact of these practices on faunal diversity in South Africa has never been quantified, but probably constitutes one of the biggest environmental threats to our biodiversity.
What remain inexplicable is that after 300 years of employing these methods, the very people promoting them are the first to admit that the methods have not worked, yet they promote the ongoing and intensified attempts to continue with these methods. This defies logic.
|  |
Are they legal and how available are they?
In the current South African law they are prohibited methods with listed and protected species but may be used on other species, which makes no logical sense as the method is indiscriminant. You can current obtain these devices freely and hundreds of thousand of them are in circulation.
We have recommended that legislative have to effectively control (through permits) all the methods or even those potentially or unintentionally used in the exploitation of any wild animals, regardless of its intended target. This is specifically so if the method lacks discrimination. This control of the method of exploitation must be independent of the intended target animal of permit application. Thus the method, per se, must be controlled if there is any risk of it affecting prioritised species or unintended by-catch, whether the intention is there or not. Thus you should not only need a permit to hunt an intended listed species, but also to execute a certain hunting method. By way of practical example in the scenarios currently contemplated, if a gin trap/dog pack is seemingly set/used for jackal (not listed) hunting, and a leopard is caught/killed hereby, you have absolutely no legislative/prosecutable control or remedy as the current legislation dictates. You will find it nigh impossible to prove intent even if the hunt was targeting the leopard, as the onus of proof rest with the prosecutor.
In South Africa, if you commit a crime (like hunting a listed species) with a restricted method while targeting a non-listed species (thus uncontrolled), you cannot be prosecuted as you lack required mens rea (a guilty mind) for the authorities to institute effective controls and successful prosecutorial procedures. Thus the way the state regulations are contemplated, effectively gives such perpetrators a watertight defence to continue to harm both listed and unlisted species, when done maliciously or by “accident”. In law it is near impossible to prove intent in these circumstances. This is nothing less than entrenching the dysfunctional effect of the status quo.
We have recommended that legislative have to effectively control (through permits) all the methods or even those potentially or unintentionally used in the exploitation of any wild animals, regardless of its intended target. This is specifically so if the method lacks discrimination. This control of the method of exploitation must be independent of the intended target animal of permit application. Thus the method, per se, must be controlled if there is any risk of it affecting prioritised species or unintended by-catch, whether the intention is there or not. Thus you should not only need a permit to hunt an intended listed species, but also to execute a certain hunting method. By way of practical example in the scenarios currently contemplated, if a gin trap/dog pack is seemingly set/used for jackal (not listed) hunting, and a leopard is caught/killed hereby, you have absolutely no legislative/prosecutable control or remedy as the current legislation dictates. You will find it nigh impossible to prove intent even if the hunt was targeting the leopard, as the onus of proof rest with the prosecutor.
In South Africa, if you commit a crime (like hunting a listed species) with a restricted method while targeting a non-listed species (thus uncontrolled), you cannot be prosecuted as you lack required mens rea (a guilty mind) for the authorities to institute effective controls and successful prosecutorial procedures. Thus the way the state regulations are contemplated, effectively gives such perpetrators a watertight defence to continue to harm both listed and unlisted species, when done maliciously or by “accident”. In law it is near impossible to prove intent in these circumstances. This is nothing less than entrenching the dysfunctional effect of the status quo.
What is their effect on biodiversity?
The by-catch from these methods is massive. No quantification of this impact has ever been adequately recorded. The specificity of gin traps is less than 10%. That is for every 1 animal killed that may be a problem animal, 9 innocent animals die needless deaths.
The social structures of animals are impacted and the trophic cascades that result are disastrous.
The social structures of animals are impacted and the trophic cascades that result are disastrous.
What is a soft trap?
The South African government, in 2010, created a new term as an attempt to re-brand gin traps in their Norms and Standards of the Management of Damage Causing Animals. They believed this would effectively allow the ongoing use of these tools of barbarism. There can be no place for the continued use of gin traps (cynically called “soft” traps – they are the same thing). There is no scientific or any ethical justification for their use. They remain indiscriminate, lethal controls of little efficacy in targeting culprit individual damage causing animals. Their continued use, even as a restricted method, in the management of damage causing animals flies in the face of the very principles effective biodiversity management. Furthermore it is in contravention to the Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962, and the TOPS regulations.
It is not possible to define gin traps and soft traps to exclude gin traps from the ambit of soft traps, or visa versa. As such, the attempt to do so is nonsensical, illogical and perhaps even cynical.
The definition of “soft traps” and is problematic to the extreme. The government tried to create a new and false differentiation between gin traps and soft traps. There is no such differentiation in reality and making such a distinction has no merit in law. This creates confusion and a sinister loophole in the statutes to prevent effective control of these devices. It also renders other legislation, like NEMBA and TOPS, impossible to implement in terms of gin trap prohibitions.
The state tried to define soft traps in terms of the following minimum requirements--
The problems with the minimum requirements are:
It is not possible to define gin traps and soft traps to exclude gin traps from the ambit of soft traps, or visa versa. As such, the attempt to do so is nonsensical, illogical and perhaps even cynical.
The definition of “soft traps” and is problematic to the extreme. The government tried to create a new and false differentiation between gin traps and soft traps. There is no such differentiation in reality and making such a distinction has no merit in law. This creates confusion and a sinister loophole in the statutes to prevent effective control of these devices. It also renders other legislation, like NEMBA and TOPS, impossible to implement in terms of gin trap prohibitions.
The state tried to define soft traps in terms of the following minimum requirements--
- the size and type of soft trap must be target specific and selective towards trapping the individual damage-causing animal;
- have a screw capable of adjusting the tension of the pan, which must be set for at least 1.75 kg. to exclude most foxes and carnivores smaller than the black-backed jackal, in order to release the jaws of the soft trap when the target animal sets off the soft trap;
- leave a space of at least 5 mm between the closed jaws when the soft trap is set off;
- the chain which connects the device to a drag iron must have at least two swivels and a steel spring to absorb shock and minimize injury; and
- the jaws of the soft trap must not be serrated or spiked and may be padded.
The problems with the minimum requirements are:
- The name soft trap is an oxymoron as has nothing soft in its structure, mechanism of action, impact on faunal species or biodiversity in general. We are of the opinion that this distinction included in the Norms & Standards are sinister and intended to render the implementation of controls against gin traps ineffectual. SOFT TRAPS as defined, are GIN TRAPS.
- The definition suggested that these traps must be target specific and selective. This is not practically possible. These traps are by their nature non specific and indiscriminate and almost invariable lethal. In no way is it thus possible to assert they can have specificity or selectiveness. There is no research to support the stance that gin traps are target specific, effective or selective in trapping damage causing animals. There are however numerous scientific papers as well as comments by top academics and researchers to illustrate the lack of target specificity and poor efficacy of the use of gin traps to trap damage causing animals in farming areas.
- The selection of a minimum weight of 1.75kg is utterly arbitrary and entirely irrelevant, as almost all traditional by-catch of gin traps of these species are above this weight category and thus susceptible to their impact. There has only been research by one researcher in South Africa in an area of questionable mammalian biodiversity to lend any support to this weight category. Although the trapping of certain species such as the Cape fox Vulpes charma and the Bat eared fox Otocyon megalotis may be slightly reduced by setting the tread plate to release at pressures in excess off 1.75kg. This mechanism has been in operation in South Africa for over 10 years as seen in the “Terminator” gin trap tread plate mechanism. However in practice, this has not alleviated the by-catch of thousands of non target innocent species. Skinner & Chimimba (2005) indicate that the following species (for example) would fall prey to these devices as they fall above this weight category:Cape fox, African wild cat, bat eared fox, civets, genets, black footed cats, primates, antelope, dassies, rock rabbits, spring hare, scrub hares, cane rats, leopard cheetah, lion, hyena, caracal, jackal, domestic dogs, humans, etc (to arbitrarily select a few species). Haw (in prep, 2010) demonstrated that “terminator” traps (which are described in the Norms & Standards as soft traps) had a 8% specificity in capturing predators demonstrated to have sheep remains in their stomachs, demonstrating either scavenging or predation events.
- The actual description of soft traps is the actual parameters of the most commonly used gin traps in South Africa, namely those manufactured by Mr Peter Schneekluth of Prince Albert, being sold under the name of “terminator” traps and “leopard” traps. These traps fall exactly into the Norms & Standards definitions and description of minimum standards as it stands in the current document.
- In addition the power of the spring mechanism has not been coherently addressed. This is perhaps the most important aspect of the gin trap mechanism with respect to causing injury to trapped wildlife. A trap such as the “Terminator” is way too powerful even for an animal the size of a leopard. This has been vividly illustrated on numerous occasions where numerous species of wild animals trapped with the Terminator gin trap have had to be euthanized as a result of their limb injuries associated with this trapping specific mechanism.
Do South African production bodies allow lethal controls?
- National Wool Growers Association NWGA
- Red Meat Producers Organisation RPO
- South African Mohair Growers Association SAMGA
Answer from Newsletter excerpt May 2009
The leopard in this photo was found in a gin trap on farm renowned for its mohair production internationally.“We believe it wrong that such production practices are rewarded” - Dr Bool Smuts
This leopard was killed on Snyberg farm of Messrs Werner and GT Ferreira in the Uniondale district, Western Cape (picture left). The leopard was caught and left in the gin trap, it first died of dehydration and sepsis, and then was left to rot. The farm of Messrs Ferreira, has repeatedly won angora industry awards for its produce and practices, and in 2008 achieved world record price for its mohair.
Lobby groups of the meats and animal fibre producers, the National Woolgrowers Association (NWGA), South African Mohair Growers Association and the Red Meat Producers Organization (RPO), continue in their support of lethal controls and lobby for the gin trap use in production practices.
The so-called "National" Problem Animal Committee run by these organisations demands that these practices be continued in their usage and be upheld by governing legislation. This committee is chaired by Mr Petrus de Wet.
Furthermore, the groups’ specialist advisors for "problem animal controls" include Mr Peter Schneekluth, the producer of up to 1200 gin traps per month (15 000 per year) from his factory in the touristy town of Prince Albert in the Western Cape.
NWGA contact:
Mr Petrus De Wet
Chairman “National” Problem Animal Committee and NWGA
Tel: 082 575 3231, Email: blesbok@intekom.co.za
RPO contact:
Mr Gerhard Schutte
CEO
Tel: 082 556 7296, Email rpo@lantic.net
Mr Peter Schneekluth
Gin trap factory, Prince Albert
Tel: 044 696 5150 / 023 541 136, Email: jackalcontrol@absamail.co.za
We believe that these organizations are failing the producers of meats and animal fibres. There are MANY farmers that do not partake in these barbaric practices. The pictures like that of the leopard trapped at Mr Messrs Ferreira’s farm near Uniondale negatively influence their product image in the market, which will no longer be tolerated by consumers. Besides it is unfair on ethical producers to be grouped and associated with these practices.
“Perhaps the point of living is not to be placid & happy and un-touched by the world, but to be deeply, painfully sensitive to it, to see its cruelty & savagery for what they are, and accept all this as readily as we accept its beauty. To be touched by it, hurt by it even, but not be indifferent to it.”
John Simpson, CBE, Writer, Broadcaster
BBC World Affairs Editor
John Simpson, CBE, Writer, Broadcaster
BBC World Affairs Editor
SIGN PETITION
THE TRAPPING TRUTH - BYCATCH
The first serval seen in Baviaanskloof for years - it was found in gin trap and was euthenased 4 days later as the foot could not be rescued.
Bycatch is an often ignored reality of gin trapping. veterinarian and MSC student, Anna Haw, spent nights with a local trapper on a farm in the Karoo. The results are shocking:
Download full poster
- 45 % of animals caught were non-target species
- a further 25 % were non-culprit predators
Download full poster
TRAPPING IN AMERICA
Cull of the Wild Documentary Movie
http://www.21paradigm.com/cullsynopsis.php
Every year, between 4 and 5 million animals are trapped and killed in the United States for the commercial fur trade. Untargeted millions suffer similar gruesome deaths in traps set for other species. In this timely and crucial investigation, CULL OF THE WILD examines the brutal legacy of America’s trapping industry, revealing political affiliation in the US Senate as one of the main reasons for the wasteful and wanton slaughter. Ultimately, viewers are given reason to hope that change can be accomplished through grassroots activism.
http://www.21paradigm.com/cullsynopsis.php
Every year, between 4 and 5 million animals are trapped and killed in the United States for the commercial fur trade. Untargeted millions suffer similar gruesome deaths in traps set for other species. In this timely and crucial investigation, CULL OF THE WILD examines the brutal legacy of America’s trapping industry, revealing political affiliation in the US Senate as one of the main reasons for the wasteful and wanton slaughter. Ultimately, viewers are given reason to hope that change can be accomplished through grassroots activism.
GIN TRAP FACTORY IN PRINCE ALBERT
This factory produces up to 15 000 traps each year from the tourist village of Prince Albert.
WANT TO HELP ....
Show retailers that YOU care.
Please write to the customer services of your supermarket and ask for Wildlife Friendly Products.
Please write to the customer services of your supermarket and ask for Wildlife Friendly Products.
a) Fill in the customer contact forms at the links below:
 Leopard found in gin trap on farm internationally renowned for its mohair production |
