WO1996008964A1

WO1996008964A1 - Effective, economical, selective, safer and environmentally friendly method of catching muskrats using plastic tube nets

Info

Publication number: WO1996008964A1
Application number: PCT/BE1995/000079
Authority: WO
Inventors: Joannes Reynders
Original assignee: Joannes Reynders
Priority date: 1994-09-21
Filing date: 1995-09-06
Publication date: 1996-03-28
Also published as: EP0730402A1; BE1008722A4

Abstract

Using tube nets placed in large numbers. The ideal size is 50 cm long and 25 to 30 cm diameter, manufactured from plastic ((1) figure 1). Sealed at the bottom ((3) figure 1) and provided at the top with one or more flaps ((6) figure 2) or throats (funnels) ((2) figure 1). Fitted with escape openings for small animals ((4) figures 1 and 2). The core of the problem is that there is currently no structural and preventive approach, and many unwanted creatures are trapped. Using tube nets placed permanently in large numbers of locations, the muskrats will be trapped while on the move, before they have chance to breed, quickly reducing the population.

Description

EFFECTIVE, ECONOMICAL, SELECTIVE, SAFER AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY METHOD OF CATCHING MUSKRATS USING PLASTIC TUBE NETS ************************************************************

For 40 years the muskrat has been fought using traps, poison and all manner of nets. With the result that there are now more muskrats than ever in Europe - 400,000 per year in the Netherlands alone, for example. That figure 5 could be reduced to 100,000 a year or less if the mesh of the net were made smaller.

The disadvantages of trapping, netting and poisoning are:

I) 15% of the animals trapped are not muskrats (mostly waterfowl); the figure for poisoning is unknown.

10 2) It is necessary to search out the rats and destroy them time and again.

3 ) It is extremely labour-intensive due to the constant need to place and clear material .

4) A lot of material is stolen and/or destroyed.

15 5) It is expensive and has a limited life due to exten¬ sive losses and rusting.

6) A new trapper needs two years to master the skills fully.

7) Nets often hinder the water flow and quickly become 20 clogged by sand and floating debris.

8) Poisons continually enter the environment and are consumed by other animals.

9) Great damage is caused to agriculture and dikes.

10) Environmental and nature organisations are totally 25 opposed to these methods.

II) These methods are not preventive: it is a case of constantly trying to keep down the rat population after they have bred.

12) Tonnes of heavy metals are released into the atmos- 30 phere (zinc from the nets due to rusting).

13) The results show that these methods are not effective

In the course of three years I have developed a system for reducing and maintaining the muskrat population at a very low level. This is achieved by p. cing tube nets 5 in larσe numbers, for example 4.000 in the Belgian pro¬ vince of Limburg (covering 1/9 of Belguim) . In my area, which covers 1/4 of Limburg, I have cut the number of catches in the course of three years from around 6.000 to 1.000 per year. I currently have 900 nets 0 out in my area; this needs to be increased to 1.000 and the problem will be solved. These nets are placed everywhere and stay in position for ever, wherever muskrats are or have been present, includ¬ ing at strategic locations which the rats pass in large numbers during the spring and autumn migrations. This has a preventive effect since the rats are caught before they have a chance to breed, thus leading to a rapid reduction in the rat population. The nets are made from new or re¬ cycled plastic. There are various types, the two most common being: 1) a throated net (fig.l) 2) a net with flap (fig.2) The throated net is the most common, being used in deep water.The nets can be used in a variety of shapes, such as square, oval, hexagonal, etc., though round is the most obvious. Several colours are also available.

The net with a flap is desiqned for use in shallow water. The throated net is able to expand (the throat (2) fig.l widens), enabling the rat to enter easily but preventing escape or habituation; thereafter the rats drown. The throat and flap contain escape holes ( (4) fig.1+2 ) for small fry such as crabs, frogs, fish, voles, etc., so that the nets work very selectively, the ends of the nets are sealed by welding or with a cover (fig. 1+2, (3) ). The flap (fig. 2, (6) ) in the flapped nets is hinged (5) this hinge is attached to the net itself or is fixed in some other way. The flap and throat can be made from PVC thread or other material.

Alternatively, both systems can be made up as a complete net and pushed into the tube. However, the cheapest, most effective and longest lasting method is to make only the throat and the flap from plastic.

The tubes, which are dug transversely into the dike, can be of various shapes and sizes, from 20 cm. to 150 cm. long and from 6 to 70cm in diameter. The ideal size is 50 cm. long and 25 to 30 cm. in diameter. There are vari¬ ous reasons for this: cheap, quick to position, no deep water needed, highly effective, etc.

Using this system it would even be possible to eradicate the muskrat altogether. These throats and flaps can also be used to make normal nets, i.e. without tubes, either wholly or partly from plastic and thread. The advantages of these tube nets are: l)No other animals are trapped by mistake. 2) hey work all year round.

3)They are not stolen or destroyed (they are underwater and underground and thus invisible).

4)Once in position, little work is required. 5)Cheap due to long life. 6)No bait or other material is needed. 7)A new trapper can be trained in a week. 8)If there are no muskrats we can concentrate on clearing water and coypu in an environmentally friendly way. 9)The tubes do not obstruct the water flow and do not get dirty or become clogged. 10)No poison or traps needed: more environmentally friendly and safer. ll)This system will enable the muskrat population to be reduced to and maintained at an acceptable level within a few years. 12)No more damage to farm crops and dikes. 13)Environmental and nature organisations are very happy with this system (Nature Help Centre, Opglabbeek,

Limburg, Belgium). 14)Less danger from the disease (leptospirosis) spread by rats. 15)No-one will lose their jobs because of the new system, because the system must be maintained. 16)It is no longer necessary to look for the rats: they enter the nets automatically while on the move. 17)The system continues working during staff illness or holiday.

18)The results show yhat the system is highly effective.

The muskrat population can be reduced to and maintained at an acceptable level within three years. The system is a new application and working method using new and fami- liar resources. It is effective, economical, environmen¬ tally friendly and selective.

I request protection to:

1) catch muskrats using tube nets in any form whatsoever, with one or more flaps and/or throats (funnels with or without flap),used en masse,and all derivatives hereof

2) produce or have produced all necessary materials: tubes, covers, throats, flaps, etc. Effective, economical, selective, safer and environmentally method of catching muskrats using plastic tube nets ***********************************************************

Using tube nets placed in large numbers. The ideal size is 50 cm long and 25 to 30 cm diameter, manufactured from plastic ( (1) fig. 1 ).

Sealed at the bottom ( (3) fig. 1) and provided at the 5 top with one or more flaps ((6) fig.2) or throats (funnels) ((2) fig.l).

Fitted with escape openings for small animals ((4) fig. 1+2 )

The core of the problem is that there is currently no 10 structural and preventive approach, and many unwanted creatures are trapped.

Using tube nets placed permanently in large numbers of locations, the muskrats will be trapped while on the move, before they have chance to breed, quickly reducing 15 the population.