NEW CT ANTI-TRAPPING AMENDMENT

Unfortunately, it appears that we are a victim of our own success. Your phone calls and e-mails were so successful in blocking Senator Meyer from bringing out any amendments in the Senate that would impact the use of leghold traps that they have decided to try it in the House first. The leghold trap amendment has now been proposed on H.B. No. 6552 AN ACT BANNING THE POSSESSION OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMALS AND THE IMPORTATION, POSSESSION AND LIBERATION OF WILD ANIMALS. It had been speculated that they would try to attach it to this bill. It is the same as Sen. Meyer was going to use in the Senate comprising a ban and adopting bureaucratic Massachusetts type legislation. See the MA results at http://www.macrwm.org/inthepress.htm It is unclear when and if action will take place, so immediate action is necessary. Once again we’d ask you to take time out of your day to make calls today and tomorrow. Use the same message as used for the Senate: “I’m calling to oppose any ban on leghold and body gripping traps, could you be transfer to me to Representative ----------.” Call between 10:00am and 3:00pm. Contact the following legislators at the specific number listed. In addition AND contact your own Representative.

 

Speaker of the House Christopher Donovan

860 240 8500

 

House Majority Leader Denise Merrill

860 240 8500

 

Representative Richard Roy

860 240 8500

 

Representative Brian Hurlburt

860 240 8500

 

House Minority Leader Larry Cafero

860 240 8700  

 

You can find your CT legislator at http://www.cga.ct.gov/maps/townlist.asp  or in the Blue pages under “Connecticut, State of” then “Legislators”. Also, inform your friends who have an interest. Ask them to communicate.

While we urge you to use your own words, use the KISS principle, and please…do not be insulting or negative towards Any Senator, Representative, or anyone else in the Capitol.  Identify yourself and Town, State your position and why you Support or Oppose the bill. Be Brief, if they have questions they will ask.

Review all current bills and other info at the CCS website www.ctsportsmen.com

 

CT Trap Ban Amendments

Senator Meyer and Representative Roy has attached the original context of SB #994 and their proposed amendment to SB #650: AN ACT CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A TRUST FOR THE CARE OF AN ANIMAL.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=650&which_year=2009
We must again, contact our Legislators and oppose SB #650 with the
specific mention that the final Fiscal Note :
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/fna/2009SB-00650-R00LCO06716-FNA.htm
which has a price tag of close to $500,000 per year for the next two (2) years.

The cost of S.B. 994, Connecticut's proposed ban on leghold and Conibear traps

April 16, 11:16 PM
S.B. 994, An Act Concerning Leghold Traps, proposes to ban the use of leghold and Conibear traps in Connecticut. The original note on the fiscal impact of the law indicated that there would be minimal effect. The Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), however, has now corrected that initial assessment, based in part on an analysis of the experience of Massachusetts in struggling with its 1996 trapping ban.

The predicted cost to the state in lost revenues is estimated at $15,464 per year due to the loss of trapping licenses through the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

The estimated cost to the state in additional expenses associated with nuisance-animal management is $482,000 in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

The estimated additional cost to Connecticut municipalities for nuisance-animal control is $92,000, as the services of volunteer trappers would no longer be available to Connecticut towns for the removal of problem beavers, and the towns would thus need to employ professional trapping companies.

The OFA cannot estimate other likely costs of the proposed trap ban: flooded basements, damaged roads, and contaminated drinking water due to flooding from beaver dams; increased damage to corn crops by raccoons; additional poultry losses to foxes and fishers; the loss of family pets to coyote predation. The list goes on and on.

Bad wildlife management is expensive. We might hope that the Humane Society of the United States, the key lobbyist for S.B. 994, will be willing to cover the costs if the law passes. But we all know that won’t happen. Connecticut taxpayers will get stuck with the bill.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4401-Connecticut-Nature-Examiner~y2009m4d16-The-cost-of-SB-994-Connecticuts-proposed-ban-on-leghold-and-Conibear-traps

Conibear traps and S.B. 994, the proposed Connecticut trap ban

News article by Jeff Serena from the Examiner.Com

S.B. 994, An Act Concerning Leghold Traps, is making its way toward consideration in the General Assembly. It originated in the Environment Committee with the effective lobbying of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in direct response to the highly publicized, ultimately fatal trapping of a great horned owl in January 2009. The trap in that incident was a leghold trap. Although the trap was illegal (unpadded, not offset, not anchored, anonymously set), and in such poor and rusted condition that it could not be made to work when tested later, it nonetheless provided sufficient ammunition for anti-trapping activists to set in motion a bill to ban leghold traps.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the General Assembly. By legislative sleight-of-hand, the Act Concerning Leghold Traps also includes language to ban Conibear traps. Conibears aren’t leghold traps. What are they doing in S.B. 994?
The Conibear trap is a killing trap. It’s known generically as a “body-gripping trap” among trappers and wildlife biologists, as a “body-crushing trap” among animal-rights activists, and as a “smooth wire trap” in the Connecticut trapping regulations. The Conibear trap is named for its inventor, Frank Conibear. A well-known professional trapper and wilderness guide in Canada’s Northwest Territories, Conibear retired from the field in 1944 and began working on a design for a new trap that would kill a trapped animal quickly, rather than holding it alive until the trapper arrived to dispatch it.
By the mid 1950s, Conibear had his new trap. It’s a deceptively simple device that works much like a mousetrap. Two spring-loaded metal frames form an opening into which an animal is guided or lured. As the animal puts its head into the trap, it trips a trigger that snaps the frames together on the animal’s neck or upper body, killing it. Death generally occurs instantly due to a broken neck or dislocated spine, or very rapidly due to physical trauma and drowning. The Canadian Association for the Protection of Fur Bearing Animals provided financing for Conibear’s new device, which quickly gained popularity as an efficient and humane trap. In 1961, the American Humane Association awarded Frank Conibear its Certificate of Merit for his invention.
In Connecticut, Conibear traps can only be legally set in the water. They are, therefore, used exclusively for trapping aquatic furbearers—large traps for beavers and river otters, and smaller traps for muskrats and minks. Although a trap set specifically for a beaver may occasionally catch a legal otter or muskrat, Conibears set in the water are extremely selective in excluding non-target animals, such as deer, birds, bobcats, and dogs.
Because they’re fast-killing and highly selective, Conibears pose a special challenge to anti-trapping activists. It’s easier to get a trap banned if you can plausibly argue that it causes a slow, agonizing death, or that it threatens pets or children or endangered species. As used by trappers in Connecticut, the Conibear trap plainly doesn’t do any of those things. And that’s why it’s in S.B. 994. There’s currently no practical way to get the Conibear trap banned on the merits, no matter how often you misinform people about it. But with public hackles up about the unfortunate owl, and a statewide ban on legholds a real possibility, you can slip the Conibear trap into the bill and reasonably hope that no one will notice. The trick may work, but it’s not a way to responsible or effective wildlife management.

Whidbey homeowners assess Mudslide Damages caused by Beaver Dam Failure

WHIDBEY ISLAND, Wash. – South Whidbey Island residents are cleaning up and assessing damages today after mudslides swamped their waterfront homes.

 

See video clip of the mudslide:

 

http://www.king5.com/video/index.html?nvid=348890

Connecticut Trapping Important to Coyote Removal

Trapping appears to be more important in the harvest of coyotes following the regulation change that allowed limited land trapping.  In the 5 seasons preceding this regulation change an average of 37 percent of the coyote harvested were trapped and 54 percent shot.  In the three seasons since the regulation change an average of 59 percent of the coyote harvest was from trapping and 32 percent was from hunting.

 

 

Fonfara Withdraws His Sponsorship of S.B. 994

Fonfara took his name off the sponsors list of SB 994. His office said he changed his mind!!!!

Way to go 1st district trappers!! Keep up the good work!

A short msg. of thanks to Mr. Fonfara is in order too!

Beta testing S.B. 994, Connecticut's proposed fur trapping ban

S.B. 994, Connecticut's proposed fur trapping ban
<

March 23, 1:47 PM
S.B. 994, "An Act Concerning Leghold Traps,"
<> has been
approved by a vote of 22-8 in the Connecticut General Assembly's Environment Committee, and will now be considered by the legislature. If enacted, the law will largely ban the use of leghold and Conibear traps in the state.Proponents of the measure argue that passage of S.B. 994 will finally end an unacceptably cruel practice. Opponents argue that trapping is not inhumane,and that it is an important tool for wildlife management in Connecticut.In 1996, voters in Massachusetts approved an anti-trapping ballot referendum expertly pushed by animal-rights organizations. Formally titled the Wildlife Protection Act, the law is more popularly known as Question One. Like S.B.994, Question One bans the use of leghold and Conibear traps. The Massachusetts experience, particularly with regard to management of the state's beaver population, is a useful case study for understanding the practical implications of S.B. 994.Prior to Question One, Massachusetts had a healthy beaver population estimated at approximately 23,000 animals. Homeowners and others dealing with occasional beaver problems, such as the destruction of trees and the flooding of yards and basements, could call MassWildlife <http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/> , the Massachusetts agency that is roughly the equivalent of the Wildlife Division of Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). MassWildlife would typically refer the caller to the Massachusetts Trappers Association. The MTA would recommend a trapper, who would come out during the trapping season, generally at no cost to the landowner, and kill the beaver.As in Connecticut, most Massachusetts beaver trapping was done with Conibear traps set in the water. Conibears are not leghold traps. They are lethal traps that work on much the same principle as the familiar mousetrap. A beaver is guided or baited into putting its head into the trap, triggering stiff wire arms that snap down on the animal's neck, dislocating the
beaver's spine and killing it.Question One banned Conibears but not "humane" box traps and suitcase traps.In Massachusetts, these traps are used to capture beavers alive and unharmed so that they can be killed later. Relocating beavers is illegal in Massachusetts. Box traps and suitcase traps make trapping, which is demanding work in the best of circumstances, even more difficult. They're
bulky, heavy, and time consuming to carry and set. They're also expensive,and with the market for furs so depressed, it's hard for a trapper to
justify replacing his Conibears with cage traps that may well cost more
money than a successful trapper will realize from the furs he takes in a
whole season's trapping.
The ban on Conibear traps very nearly ended fur trapping for beavers in
Massachusetts. In the last trapping season before the ban took effect,
trappers harvested 1,136 beavers in the state. By the 1997-98 season, the
number of beavers killed by trappers had dropped to ninety-eight.
Animal-rights organizations hailed the passage of Question One as a signal
victory for their cause. Then things began to get complicated.
Suddenly relieved of the pressure of its main predator, the beaver
population in Massachusetts grew explosively. By 2000, the population was
estimated to have tripled to about 70,000 animals. As the beaver population
increased, reports of damaged private property, blocked culverts, and
flooded roads due to beaver activity skyrocketed. Public water supplies in
towns like Sterling
<http://www.wwdmag.com/River-Contaminates-Town's-Water-Supply-When-State-Lea
ves-It-to-Beavers-article3199> and Chelmsford
<http://www.fishwildlife.org/furbearer_cases.html> were contaminated by
flooding caused or exacerbated by beavers.
Massachusetts had long had some problem beavers, but beavers were now a
widespread problem. As environmentalist firebrand Ted Williams wrote
<http://list.audubon.org/wa.exe?A2=ind0501&L=audubon-pa&P=77> in Audubon
magazine, "We've converted a resource to a pest."
The 1996 passage of Question One, which banned the use of leghold and
Conibear traps in Massachusetts, led to a dramatic increase in the state's
beaver population. By 2000, beavers had become serious pests, and their
activities were flooding highways, contaminating drinking water, and causing
extensive damage to private property.
In 2000, the Massachusetts legislature responded by modifying Question One
to allow local boards of health to issue emergency permits for the use of
Conibear traps, not just during trapping season but at any time of year, to
destroy beavers that pose a threat to human health and safety. This action
completed a fundamental shift in beaver management that had begun with
Question One four years earlier. Instead of actively managing the beaver
population strategically and across the state, Massachusetts now manages
beavers reactively through local damage control in an endless series of
small crises. With much of the state's beaver control now in the hands of
town health boards with no reporting requirements back to the state,
MassWildlife, the agency ostensibly responsible for wildlife management in
Massachusetts, can no longer even accurately estimate the size of the
state's beaver population.
Massachusetts homeowners once had their beaver problems resolved largely by
recreational fur trappers-at no cost. Now many homeowners pay nuisance
animal control operators hundreds of dollars, and sometimes more, for
trapping, fencing, tree wrapping, and the installation of flow-control
devices in beaver ponds. Massachusetts taxpayers have also taken a financial
hit, as highway departments and towns pay for beaver-control services.
Additional concerns about the growing beaver population have arisen,
including an increase in mosquito breeding habitat and a possible link to
mosquito-borne diseases like West Nile Virus.
And what about the beavers? Because of the large number of problem beavers
now being trapped for damage control, it's estimated that the number of
beavers being killed annually by trapping in Massachusetts (based on 2006
data, which are the most recent available) is higher than the number killed
before Question One.
When good technology managers consider purchasing a new hardware or software
product for their company, they make certain that the product has been
subjected to adequate beta testing to ensure that it will work in their
operating environment. As the General Assembly considers S.B. 994
<http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-00994-R00-SB.htm> , it needs to
look at Question One. Massachusetts has, in effect, done the beta testing
for Connecticut's proposed trap ban. The results couldn't be clearer. It
doesn't work.
When I began looking into the issues surrounding S.B. 994, I was about as
neutral as a person can be on an extraordinarily polarizing subject. Since
then, I've spent many hours reading about trapping: scientific papers, news
stories, blogs, and a lot of anti-trapping literature. I've spoken and
corresponded with trappers, wildlife biologists, and animal-rights
advocates. I've been privileged to meet thoughtful, gracious, helpful folks
on all sides of the debate. And I'm not neutral anymore. S.B. 994 is
flat-out bad legislation.
The people who are providing the main impetus for S.B. 994 surely have good
intentions. The Humane Society of the United States <http://www.hsus.org/>
(HSUS) is the key lobbyist for the trap ban. HSUS is a smart organization
that does much good work on behalf of animals. No one should confuse them
with groups on the lunatic fringe <http://www.petakillsanimals.com/> of the
animal-rights movement. Even folks who vehemently disagree with HSUS on
policy matters should still recognize that the organization's local staff
and volunteers are sensible people who genuinely care about Connecticut and
its wildlife.
Senator Ed Meyer <http://www.senatedems.ct.gov/Meyer.html> led the charge
for S.B. 994 in the Environment Committee, and seems likely to perform the
same role in the General Assembly. Senator Meyer represents the 12th Senate
District <http://www.cga.ct.gov/red/2001senate.htm> , where I happen to
live. He's a good man-an effective legislator who works hard on behalf of
his constituents and the people of Connecticut. I've voted for him twice,
and I hope to do so again. But even good legislators and smart organizations
sometimes make mistakes. S.B. 994 is a mistake. It will be best to tell them
so.
http://www.examiner.com:80/x-4401-Connecticut-Nature-Examiner~y2009m3d23-Bet
a-testing-SB-994-Connecticuts-proposed-fur-trapping-ban-Part-1
Support Your fellow sportsmen:
"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang
separately".
Benjamin Franklin
<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr151597.html>
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr151597.html

Collarum Testimonial

Just sending a quick note to say this trap works great. I have captured some hard to catch dogs with it that I do not think I would have captured otherwise. Your support has also been excellent. I e-mailed you several months ago in reference to a hard to catch dog. You sent another bite piece and additional instruction, which helped. While the Collarum did not catch that dog (she was eventually captured when she had puppies), it has caught other dogs that would have taken considerable time to capture. So, thank you for an outstanding product. I just wish we would have had it when trying to get those dogs which took us years to apprehend!
 
Deputy S.M. Jessee
Caroline County Sheriff's Office
Division of Animal Control
14080 Devils Three Jump Rd.
Milford, VA 22514
Office: (804) 633-9041 Fax: (804) 633-2084

--

STATE LEGISLATORS DON’T GIVE A DAM ABOUT THE CT RIVER VALLEY

Ban on Trapping Threatens Integrity of Connecticut River Flood Protection Dikes
 
West Hartford, CT. (March 26, 2009) – State Legislators may soon be voting on a controversial measure to ban certain kinds of traps in Connecticut, including traps currently used by wildlife professionals to control burrowing animals in the Connecticut River levee system. The Connecticut Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators Association, Inc. (CTNWCO Assoc., Inc.) expressed alarm at this proposal, citing millions of dollars in repairs to the levee system attributed to wildlife problems over the past several years. The same Legislators considering this ban have already allocated millions of taxpayer dollars to protect the safety and property of residents in the areas of these  levees. "We are deeply concerned about the state's ability to continue to keep the population levels of these animals in check without these vital tools," said Tom Logan, Vice President and spokesman for the CTNWCO Association. The General Assembly's Environment Committee recently approved a bill co-sponsored by Hartford state Senator John Fonfara and Plainville Representative Elizabeth "Betty" Boukus to ban foothold and Conibear traps in the state.
 
According to Nick Casparino, a Civil Engineer for the town of East Hartford, the town last year alone paid a private contractor $4 million to repair nearly four miles of town-owned dikes that protect it from the Connecticut River. The town has allocated $25 million to rehabilitating the dike system. Casparino said that more than $58,000 has been paid to the contractor so far for controlling and repairing wildlife damage to the dike system, but the project is still ongoing. Mr. Casparino said that the US Army Corps of Engineers is requiring an ongoing program to control wildlife and remediate the damage caused by wildlife, which is very extensive since they must bring in heavy equipment every time an animal burrows into the earthen dike.
 
According to a 2005 report on the state's dams, "Dam Safety in Connecticut", compiled by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Water Management, Connecticut had 22 deficient dams in 2004. The US Army Corps of Engineers' 2007 report on National Inventory of Dams indicated that there are 468 earthen dams in Connecticut, representing 64% of the 723 dams in the state. This report also indicated that 62% of the dams are privately owned, and 18% are owned by local governments. Wesley Marsh of the bureau of Water Management stated, "It will be hard to tell a private levee owner that they need to remedy a wildlife issue, then have the wildlife department tell them that they cannot trap the animal. Especially if they had a trapper previously managing the beaver population for no charge."
 
According to USA Today's December 22, 2008 article, "Most Levee Repairs Lagging", the US Army Corps of Engineers indicated that the worst offenders are Washington and California, where levees with "unacceptable maintenance deficiencies" protect densely populated cities like Seattle and Sacramento. While Connecticut has recently provided $5 million to improve Hartford's levees, no one knows how this trapping ban will affect the cost of repairing the levees in the future. One has to wonder if it will even be feasible to perform the repairs without being able to use the proper tools, such as traps, to control the burrowing animals causing the damage. If the repairs are delayed, the US Army Corps of Engineers could bar access to recovery funds, should there be a catastrophe. Tom Logan, Vice President of the Connecticut Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators Association, Inc., states, "The state lawmakers need to look at the overall picture of this ban on trapping, and look at where these tools can be used effectively to manage wildlife to protect human interests. How will a muskrat or beaver that is burrowing into a levee be caught without these tools being available anymore? It's ironic that the two states that are the worst offenders are states that ban these traps."
 
According to Dan Marks, a civil engineer and a consultant of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, burrowing animals like muskrats and beavers are the two most common wildlife species to cause structural damage. Muskrats burrow into the levees and weaken their integrity. Beavers obstruct spillways, burrow into the levee, and move mud and material to create their own dams. Mr. Marks says that water level devices are not a good option since they are expensive to install and maintain. He stated that last year in June a muskrat had undermined a repaired water-saturated levee that was holding back the relentless Mississippi River in eastern Missouri. The town residents had worked for several days to maintain the levee from the rising waters. This only affected about 100 homes, but the levee was protecting an area of about 3,000 acres, and the damage happened when everyone was sleeping.
 
Muskrats and beaver aren't the only wildlife causing damage to dikes.
 
"How can we control moles that are eroding the surface of these levees?" asked Richard Daniotti, owner of Wildlife Control Services of West Hartford. "These lawmakers are supposed to look out for the environment and the people. Yet if they ban the use of traps, they will only cause more poisons to be absorbed into the environment, including our waterways." Daniotti also pointed to the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) technical manual for wildlife control professionals to use in managing these animals, "FEMA highly recommends these same traps that the state lawmakers are trying to ban."
 
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Deputy Commissioner, Susan Frechette, testified at the environmental lawmakers hearing on March 9th in opposition to the trap ban, citing a detrimental impact on wildlife management. She testified that if the traps are banned under the proposed legislation, the most effective, and for some species, the only effective tool, will no longer be available to wildlife control professionals. Senator Edward Meyer of Guilford responded to Deputy Commissioner during the hearing by saying, "I am appalled that the department is condoning the use of these traps"
 
The Connecticut Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators Association is a non-profit organization to promote general standards and ethics as well as foster education, research, and knowledge within the nuisance wildlife control industry.
 
###
 
For more information on this topic or to schedule an interview with Tom Logan, please call 203-375-1211 or email Wildthingsllc@att.net
or
Richard Daniotti at 860-236-2683
 
Or visit our website www.ctnwcoa.com

--
Alan A. Huot, President
Wildlife Control Supplies

P.O. Box 538
East Granby, CT 06026
860-844-0101   860-413-9831 (FAX)

www.wildlifecontrolsupplies.com
"Products for Professionals"

Nomol Trap Setting

See a brief video clip of "How to Set the NoMol Trap" from the complete production
MOLES: Removal made Simple. Just posted on YouTube:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MZE6qoEA73A

Rockaby Mr. Opossum

Check out Mr. Lapierre's most current antics !!!

The Collarum

Short video clip of the Collarum "In Action" at the National Wildlife Research Center in Denver

Camporee 2008

Wow, Fantastic, Tremendous........a helluva lot of fun, those are just some of the words I'll use to describe the recent 1st Annual Camporee coordinted by none other than Kirk Lapierre. As with anything Kirk puts his mind to he pours his heart and soul into his endeavors and it sure came through at this event. The weather helped of course as it was an absolutely perfect early October day, but the food was out of this world, basically eat 'til you drop, there were scheduled demonstrations going on throughout the day, and of course the swap meet or tag sale tables. You could tell that people really enjoyed the day.

Unfortunately, I didn't get to attend the entire event as I had other commitments for the early part of the weekend, but Sunday was everything I described above. I picked up Jim Dreisacker (BatCone) on the way down and the State campground was very easy to find, it is almost parallel to the Hudson River. The grounds are wonderfully kept, it had a nice outdoor pavilion and I'm told the lodge where folks could sleep was very nice as well.

I for one am hoping Kirk has enough energy to pull the Camporee together for next year, this is certainly an event well worth supporting and for those that decided not to attend they really missed a worthwhile event. Kirk, please sign me up for next year !!

Critter Control Opens CT office

WCS had the pleasure of a visit by one of Critter Control's newest managers, Ray "Doug" Humphrey. Ray is the new manager of the Central Connecticut area office.
He comes to Critter Control with 28 years experience in a suburban police dept., and Doug has dealt with and resolved many conflicts between wildlife and people. WCS recently received an announcement from Critter Control's CEO, Kevin Clark, notifying the wildlife industry of their new office and introducing Doug. Doug brings with him a variety of skills, including his extensive investigative knowledge which will serve him well as a Critter Control representative.

WCS welcomes Doug Humphrey to the wildlife control industry !

NPMA 1st Nuisance Bird & Wildlife Conference - Nov. '08

The National Pest Management Association's First Ever Nuisance Bird and Wildlife Management Conference & Marketplace!


Educational Program & Registration is Live!

The National Pest Management Association (NPMA) is excited to offer its first ever Nuisance Bird and Wildlife Management Conference and Marketplace, November 19-21, 2008 at the Westin St. Louis in St. Louis, Missouri. The schedule of events and educational program including speakers is now online.



Click here to register.

Click here to view the conference program.



What It's All About?

This first rate educational program is divided into two tracks – an introductory track aimed at newcomers to nuisance bird and wildlife management and an advanced track geared toward veterans of this sector. From regulatory requirements, business models and public perception to mole control, bat management and bird control – both tracks provide valuable business and technical information for your level of service.



Who Should Attend?

Anyone who currently provides pest and nuisance wildlife management services, is just entering the market, or considering expanding their service offerings to this sector – this conference is for you!



Click here to register.



Take Advantage of the Marketplace!

A centerpiece of the conference is the Marketplace, which will connect pest and wildlife management professionals from around the country with suppliers of products and services related to this sector. During the conference, attendees will explore new business opportunities in the nuisance wildlife arena for the pest management professional.



Interested in Exhibiting at the Marketplace?

Space is filling up fast! Click here for more information or contact Alexis Wirtz at awirtz@pestworld.org or call 703-352-6762.

Thank You to Our Co-Sponsors!

Critter Control

National Wildlife Control Operators Association (NWCOA)
Wildlife Control Supplies

WCS joins YouTube

WCS has uploaded the first of many instructional videos to come to YouTube. YouTube with its' huge presence in cyberspace is an excellent medium for communicating short instructions on such things as using equipment, methods, techniques, new products, etc.

There are certain products which people find particularly confusing and those will be our initial focus. The first instructional video covers the proper and safe setting of the Belisle Footsnare. We have found the manufacturer supplied printed directions less than adequate for explaining the setting of this device.......so this is our "trial balloon" if you will. If there is a particular device or technique you'd like to see us include, please feel free to send us a note, we'll place it on our list.

So let me invite you to our Channel on YouTube, feel free to subscribe and be notified when new videos are uploaded. Click below:

www.youtube.com/shopwcs

Weep Holes for Rodent Prevention

As we enter the fall season many pests will gain access to commercial and residential accounts via weep holes in the buildings of these accounts. Weep holes are either the gaps left between some bricks in external walls or the small openings in window framing. Weep holes serve two important purposes: 1) Ventilation of the internal wall cavity - without ventilation, mildew, dry rot and damp reduce the life of the internal wall studs and other building materials within the cavity, and 2) Drainage - water that enters the cavity due to capillary action, condensation, damage, or accidental flooding needs to escape somewhere.

Though necessary, unfortunately, weep holes also present a problem in that they also provide access to the wall cavity for rodents and insects, especially as temperatures cool down and pests seek harborage for warmth. Swarming bees and European wasps also love cavities. Field mice make a track through the weep holes looking for nest sites. Snakes, cockroaches and spiders find refuge in the cavity.

In desperation, many homeowners and commercial building occupants will resort to blocking weep holes with any number of materials such as silicon sealants, rolled up paper, plastic, scourer pads or steel wool to keep the pests out. These so-called solutions obstruct airflow to the cavity and set up moisture problems down the road. This can be very costly to fix later. The better way is to use small mesh screening inserts or weep hole inserts that can be purchased from your distributors or construction product distributors. These will keep the pests from entering in the first place. Applying a repellent residual first can also be useful for insect pests.

When thinking about pests that enter the weep holes, keep this rule of thumb in mind.1/2, ¼ and 1/16. Rats require a space only ½ of an inch wide to enter a building. Mice require a space of only ¼ of an inch wide to enter a building. And, most insect pests require only 1/16 of an inch wide space to enter a building. Weep holes come in various sizes, but can allow for most any of these pests. Excluding them with inserts or screening that allows the weep hole to still function as it should, while preventing the pests from entering is what is needed to properly keep pests out.

PestWorld 2007

PestWorld 2007 is the last major show of 2007 that WCS attends. This year the National Pest Management Association (NPMA) has chosen the Gaylord Palms hotel in Orlando, FL for the site of PestWorld, and is being held from Oct. 16 through the 20th.

This is a major event in the wildlife/pest control industries and I highly recommend attending to anyone just "thinking about it" ! Out side of the tradeshow area which contains all of the major manufacturers and distributors in the industry there is a wealth of information and educational opportunities going on in the sessions being held throughtout the show. The NPMA does an excellent job of attracting and presenting an information filled program that everyone will find something of interest. This is a top-notch quality event.

For those of you attending the show, please be sure and stop by booth #818 and visit with us.

See you there.....

Alan

Pneu-Dart Distribution

Wildlife Control Supplies is proud to announce the addition of Pneu-Dart’s chemical capture remote injection delivery systems to their customer product offering. Recognizing the need for its’ professional customer base, WCS selected Pneu-Dart for its’ quality, excellent product support, and wide range of products. Pneu-Dart, of Williamsport, PA, has been manufacturing quality equipment for remote drug delivery since 1967. Pneu-Dart offers a wide range of air-activated, cartridge-fired and gas-powered projectors. From the popular Blo-Jector blowgun style projector to the new high-tech X-Caliber gauged CO2 rifle, Pneu-Dart has the drug delivery solution to suit every professionals needs.

Pneu-Dart also manufactures a vast line of dart types. A variety of injection darts are available, as well as darts for collecting DNA and biopsies. There are also transmitter darts, marking darts and the ever-popular Bear-Scare dart, designed to blow apart on impact and frighten off aggressive animals without harming them.

Wildlife Control Supplies is pleased to offer our customers this exciting line of products. Contact us toll-free 1-877-684-7262 or on the web at http://www.wildlifecontrolsupplies.com/.