Proposed Prohibition of the Use of Rodent Glueboard Traps

MAF Public Discussion Paper No: 29

ISBN: 0-478-07658-4
ISSN: 1171-8951
December 2002

Notes for Submitters

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is consulting on a proposal to prohibit rodent glueboard traps. This proposal has been forwarded to the Minister of Agriculture by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

This paper has been prepared for consultation and discussion only, and does not represent the policy of the Government or MAF.

Your submission is invited on the proposal. Submissions may be the subject of requests for information under the Official Information Act 1992 (OIA). The OIA specifies that information is to be made available to requesters unless there are sufficient grounds for withholding it, as set out in the OIA. Submitters may wish to indicate grounds for withholding specific information contained in their submission, such that the information is commercially sensitive or they wish personal information to be withheld. Any decision to withhold information requested under the OIA is reviewable by the Ombudsman.

All those making a submission will receive a copy of the submissions analysis along with the final proposals. The Minister of Agriculture will consider submissions during the development of final proposals.

Please mail, fax, or email your submission to:

Kerry Milanovic-King
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
WELLINGTON

Email: kerry.milanovic-king@maf.govt.nz
 Direct dial: 04 474 4189
Executive Assistant Fax: 04 474 4206

If you would like further information to assist with making a submission, or if you have any enquiries, please contact:

Mark Neeson
Principal Adviser
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
WELLINGTON

Email: mark.neeson@maf.govt.nz
 Fax: 04 474 4163
Direct dial: 04 498 9831

All submissions must be received by 5.00 p.m. on 28 February 2003. Late submissions may not be accepted.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Criteria
  3. Evaluation of NAWAC’s Proposal Against the Criteria in Section 33
  4. Conclusion
  5. Summary of Options
  6. References

1. Introduction

This document provides an assessment of glueboards against criteria in section 33 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 ("the Act") relating to the suitability of restrictions or prohibitions on the use of traps. It is intended to assist consultation with interested parties.

The preparation of this evaluation has identified a lack of published scientific data or evidence regarding the animal welfare concerns associated with glueboards. Only two scientific studies were found in a literature search. This assessment relies heavily on these two studies and on the views of the Minister’s independent National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) – whose members have internationally recognised scientific expertise in the areas of animal welfare, science, physiology, pain, distress, vertebrate pest control and veterinary science.

1.1 Background

NAWAC is established under section 56 of the Act. Under section 57 of the Act, NAWAC is charged with providing advice to the Minister on any matter relating to the welfare of animals in New Zealand. Section 57 also provides that NAWAC may make recommendations to discharge certain functions under the Act. One such function, contained in section 32 of the Act, empowers NAWAC to provide advice to the Minister with respect to declaring a trap or device to be a restricted or prohibited trap or device. It may recommend that the Minister advise the Governor-General to issue an Order in Council to that effect.

On 13 April 2000, NAWAC recommended to the Minister the prohibition of: commercial importation, sale or use [of glueboards] under the powers of Sections 32-35 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

On 15 November 2000, the Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2000 inserted the word "adhesive" into the definition of "trap" in section 2 of the Act. Previously, it had been unclear whether the definition of "trap" would include glueboards.

While glueboards were approved by MAF Quality Management in the past, in light of NAWAC’s recommendation it is timely to consider the wider implications of the use of glueboards, including the animal welfare concerns their use raises.

In order to advise the Governor-General that a trap or device should be prohibited or restricted, the Minister is required to evaluate the proposal against the criteria specified in section 33 of the Act. The Minister is also required to undertake consultation to the extent that it is reasonably practicable and with such persons as the Minister believes are representative of the interests likely to be substantially affected by a prohibition or restriction. Section 32(1) of the Act further requires that the Minister must consult with NAWAC before advising the Governor-General that a trap should be prohibited or restricted.

The penalties for breaching any restriction or prohibition that may result from this process are up to six months imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $25,000 for an individual or a maximum fine of $125,000 for a body corporate.

2. Criteria

The criteria that the Minister must consider when deciding whether or not to recommend making a trap prohibited or restricted are set down in section 33 of the Animal Welfare Act.

The criteria are:

The Minister must, in deciding whether or not to recommend the making of an Order in Council under section 32(1) or section 32(6), have regard to the following matters:

  1. The nature and purpose of the trap or device; and
  2. Whether any pain or distress that the trap or device is likely to cause would be unreasonable; and
  3. Whether the use of other instruments under this Act, or instruments under other Acts, are adequate to manage the effects of the trap or device on animal welfare; and
  4. Whether the trap or device conforms to any relevant New Zealand standard within the meaning of the Standards Act 1988; and
  5. The availability and cost-effectiveness of, and the feasibility of a transition to, other traps or devices; and
  6. Whether the trap or device could be modified, or the method of use controlled, to avoid unacceptable effects on animal welfare; and
  7. The consultation conducted under section 32(1) or section 32(6), as the case may be, and any consultation conducted under section 184(1); and
  8. Any other matter considered relevant by the Minister.

Glueboards, or glue traps as they are sometimes known, are evaluated below, in detail, against these criteria. While all factors must be considered, no one factor is determinative. The overall outcome of the analysis must be assessed to determine the appropriate course of action.

3. Evaluation of NAWAC’s Proposal Against the Criteria in Section 33

3.1 Nature & purpose (Section 33 (a) )

Glueboards are a simple trap in both design and use. They consist of a non-drying adhesive either attached to one side of a flat surface or contained in a shallow tray. Sizes vary according to manufacturer, but dimensions generally range from 12cm x 9cm ("mouse" size) to 25cm x 12cm ("rat" size). Some are covered with folded cardboard to ensure that dust etc. does not contaminate the glueboard and reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive surface. They cost between $1.40 and $3.40 depending on the size of the glueboard and any bulk purchase discounting.

Glueboards are used as a method of pest control in both commercial and residential settings, and are often favoured in areas where alternative methods may be unsuitable. A common example is use in food production premises where poisoning is not favoured due to the possibility of contamination (refer section 3.5.2). They are placed along pathways used by rodents, which are captured (along with other debris, including insects) in the adhesive as they attempt to walk across the glueboard. Glueboards may also be placed inside non-lethal mechanical traps to facilitate easy removal of captured animals.

Once captured on a glueboard, an animal is usually unable to free itself from the adhesive, and will generally bring additional body parts into contact with the adhesive as it attempts to free itself. In doing so, the animal will tend to further entrap itself.

In laboratory testing, mice fixed to a glueboard by all four feet were occasionally able to temporarily free one or other of their limbs, although they became further ensnared over time. The tests indicated, however, that mice might be able to escape from glueboards if they are not initially captured by all four feet.

3.2 Whether any pain or distress that the trap or device is likely to cause would be unreasonable (Section 33 (b) )

Glueboards can be described as non-lethal or restraining traps. That is not to say that trapped animals will not die on a glueboard, but such death will arise as a result of being permanently stuck, leading to dehydration or suffocation, rather than through primary operation of the trap.

In testing, of 40 mice placed on two brands of glueboard, 35 survived for 24 hours attached to the board. At various stages during this period, most animals:

struggled vigorously when initially placed on the glueboard. In an apparent attempt to free themselves, animals stretched, twisted, and pulled on body parts caught in the glue; some mice bit and chewed on strands of adhesive or on their hair embedded in the adhesive. This action often resulted in additional body parts becoming embedded in the glue…(and)…as a result of struggling, patches of hair were sometimes pulled out of the body or limbs, exposing bare, raw patches of skin; legs were sometimes broken by vigorous struggling.

Normal eye condition lasted for about 1 h in most animals. Pathological conditions developed…(and)…sometimes progressed…so that the eye and eyelids became covered with a thick, gelatinous exudate which, in its severest state, was milky white and could not be removed by blinking the eye.

These reported reactions indicate a significant amount of distress and pain over a prolonged period. As further indication of distress, the study reports that:

Within 3-5 h after capture, most of the animals showed heavy defecation and urination…(and)…by 24 h, the wastes were often smeared over much of a mouse’s body.

A further matter arising because glueboards are non-lethal traps is the disposal of captured animals. Immobile animals may be humanely disposed of via a blow to the base of the skull, but the method of their capture also exposes them to less humane disposal methods. NAWAC is concerned that animals may be drowned, incinerated or simply thrown into rubbish bins.

To ascertain whether such pain or distress is unreasonable a two step approach is adopted:

  1. The level of pain or distress is compared to the duration of suffering. This analysis determines a trap’s "acceptability" (which forms one element of its reasonableness). A higher degree of pain or distress may be more acceptable in a method that induces a quick death. Similarly, a slow death may be more acceptable if it involves low levels of pain or distress.
  2. A trap’s acceptability in terms of pain or distress must then be assessed against the acceptability of practical and cost-effective alternatives.

3.2.1 Level of Pain or Distress

As indicated above (section 3.2), the level of pain or distress experienced by animals trapped on glueboards will vary. All animals will suffer some level of stress or discomfort on becoming stuck. Some animals suffer pain on having fur pulled off to expose raw skin, while others suffer broken limbs attempting to escape.

While the available evidence suggests that the level of physical pain associated with glueboards may range from low to high, the fact that animals may remain alive on glueboards for long periods means that even low levels of pain may be considered unacceptable.

Leaving physical pain aside, the distress caused by glueboards can be considered unacceptable. Animals panic and defecate and urinate excessively when captured on a glueboard. Examination of the eyes of test mice (section 3.2) further supports a conclusion that the animals were experiencing a significant amount of distress. This high level of distress continues over a prolonged period.

In summary, when animals are left on glueboards for extended periods, the animals suffer a level of pain or distress that is unacceptable. However, frequent checking of glueboards and humane disposal of trapped animals could produce a higher degree of acceptability.

3.2.2 Alternatives

Alternative pest control methods do exist. The degree of pain and distress caused by four alternatives is discussed below, although the problem of a lack of scientific data is again encountered. The availability and practicality of these alternatives is discussed below.

3.2.2.1 Curiosity Traps

Curiosity traps are non-lethal traps. Many alternatives have been developed in pursuit of the "better mouse trap". A common example is essentially a box with a hole that an animal will investigate as a potential burrow. A wind-up paddle is triggered by the animal’s investigations and sweeps the animal into a holding compartment. Another example is a length of tube that an animal will again investigate as a potential burrow. The tube has a bend, which acts as a pivot. When the animal moves into the tube beyond the pivot, the tube rocks up (like a see-saw), catching the animal.

There appears to be little pain associated with these traps, although some distress is likely to occur as a result of the animal being physically contained. There is also the possibility that animals may die as a result of being contained. As with glueboards, there is potential for levels of pain or distress to vary significantly depending on how frequently traps are checked. However, the level of distress is likely to be lower as the mouse will still have some freedom to move (even if limited), and will not become further ensnared by moving.

3.2.2.2 Electrocution

A number of devices have been developed that entice an animal into a box with a hole fashioned as a potential burrow, usually with the added incentive of bait. Once inside, the devices have a switch of some form that detects the presence of the animal causing an electric current to pass through a plate at the bottom of the box, electrocuting the animal.

Electrocution is likely to be a swift death. The "Rat Zapper 2000™", for example, produces a charge that lasts approximately two minutes, killing the animal. There are concerns, however, about the level of pain and distress occurring within this period. NAWAC is currently considering the use of such devices.

3.2.2.3 Poisons

A variety of registered poisons are available for the control of pests. The registration process (under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997) involves an assessment of the compound in question, including an assessment of animal welfare issues such as the level of pain or distress caused.

3.2.2.4 Snap Traps

Snap traps consist of a spring-loaded arm fastened to a board. A trigger activates the arm when pressed by a passing or investigating animal, causing the arm to "snap" down on the animal. The force of impact of the arm usually causes death or will render the animal insensible, with death following rapidly. Some snap traps are more effective than others, however, and death may not follow rapidly if animals are not struck on the head or neck.

A similar method of euthanasia (i.e. some form of impact) would need to be used on animals caught in non-lethal traps, such as glueboards or curiosity traps, to dispose of them humanely. However, snap traps do not usually require animals to first be captured and held (for potentially long periods of time), and therefore produce a more acceptable level of pain or distress than non-lethal traps.

3.2.3 Conclusion

In light of the above assessment and that contained in section 3.5 below, an argument can be made that glueboards produce an unreasonable level of pain or distress. A high degree of distress and varying degrees of pain occur over time.

However, an important aspect of this argument is the length of time that animals are left in the trap. If animals are left on glueboards for only very short periods, the level of pain and/or distress could be considered more acceptable, thereby reducing the unreasonableness of the level of pain and distress caused by glueboards.

Restrictions designed to ensure animals are being left on glueboards for only short periods would, however, be difficult to enforce in practice (section 3.8.2).

3.3 Whether the use of other instruments under this act, or iNstruments under other acts, are adequate to manage the effects of the trap or device (Section 33 (c) )

Part 5 of the Act allows for the creation of codes of welfare in relation to types of animals. A code of welfare establishes minimum standards and recommends best practice to be observed in caring for the types of animals covered by that code. A code of welfare would not be an appropriate mechanism in this instance as such codes "relate to animals that are owned by any person or are in the charge of any person". The requirement of ownership or control is not met as the traps are used for the control of wild rodent populations.

It may be possible to use the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to prohibit the importation of glueboards. A prohibition may be made by Order in Council under section 54 of the Customs and Excise Act. While this would significantly reduce the use of glueboards in New Zealand, it would not affect the use of glueboards produced in New Zealand in a commercial or "home-made" setting. It would also be necessary to show that the prohibition was in the public interest.

No other Act provides an effective alternative method of regulating the use of glueboards, if such regulation is deemed necessary.

3.3.1 Conclusion

A prohibition or restrictions under section 32 of the Act appear to be the appropriate instrument for addressing the animal welfare concerns posed by glueboards - if such action is considered necessary.

3.4 Whether the trap or device conforms to any relevant new zealand standard within the meaning of the standards act 1998 (Section 33 (d) )

There is no relevant New Zealand standard for the production of glueboards.

3.5 The availability and cost-effectiveness of, & the feasibility of a transition to, other traps or devices (Section 33 (e) )

As indicated above, alternatives to glueboards are available. However, some of these may be either unsuitable in situations where glueboards are commonly used or do not provide an effective alternative. The availability and cost effectiveness of each of the four types of devices discussed in sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 are discussed below.

Glueboards are readily obtainable through pest control operators, costing between $1.40 and $3.40 per unit depending on the size of the glueboard and any bulk ordering discounts. While inexpensive, glueboards are not re-usable.

3.5.1 Availability and Cost-effectiveness of Alternatives

3.5.1.1 Curiosity Traps

A variety of these devices are available. The cost of each device varies considerably depending, among other things, on the complexity of the device but, invariably, the purchase price exceeds that of a glueboard. However, curiosity traps have an advantage in that they are re-usable, which may offset the disparity in original capital outlay between a glueboard and a curiosity trap. Prices start at around $12.00.

Initial outlay is only one factor in cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness of the trap in catching animals is another factor that must be considered. A study conducted in 1998 compared the effectiveness of various rodent control devices; one element of the study compared glueboards with multiple-catch curiosity traps. Nineteen curiosity traps (here the "Tin Cat ®") and 28 glueboards were set up in a poultry layer research facility. A maximum of three mice captured by a multiple-catch curiosity trap was recorded for any given night. The researchers estimated that this restriction reflected the maximum number of mice that could be caught on an individual glueboard given its surface area. Over six nights, the curiosity traps caught 96 mice while the glueboards caught 46 mice.

In the same study, 48 units of a different curiosity trap (the "Ketch All ®") were used over a single night in a comparison against 48 glueboards. Once again, a maximum of three mice was recorded from any individual curiosity trap. The curiosity traps caught 47 mice overnight, while the glueboards caught seven.

Although it is difficult to reach definitive conclusions on the basis of a single study, the above results indicate that curiosity traps are more effective than glueboards. At the very least, the study indicates that curiosity traps provide an effective alternative to glueboards in terms of catch rates.

3.5.1.2 Electrocution

Electrocution devices are readily available in New Zealand. As with curiosity traps, they involve a capital outlay greater than a glueboard - approximately $95.00 for the "Rat Zapper 2000 ™". They are re-useable.

However, such devices work on essentially the same principle as a curiosity device as both involve enticing animals into similar apertures. One short study has been completed on the killing effectiveness of the "Rat Zapper 2000 ™". It concluded that the device did not meet the draft NAWAC guidelines for traps, as it failed to kill all sample animals. However, the study noted that the trap had the potential to meet the guidelines if modifications to the electronics were carried out. Testing the effectiveness of the trap on other species of rat and mice was also recommended.

3.5.1.3 Poisons

Again there is a lack of scientific data comparing the effectiveness of glueboards against poisons for the purposes of pest control. Poisons are, however, widely recognised and used as an effective method of pest control and are widely available within New Zealand. Poison prices range from around $10-12 per kilogram.

3.5.1.6 Snap Traps

Snap traps are also common in New Zealand. Purchased from a pest control operator, an individual trap can cost anywhere between 50c and $13.00. The fact that they are re-usable makes them comparable in price to glueboards, if not cheaper.

Data are available on the effectiveness of snap traps versus glueboards. Over a single night test, 48 glueboards were installed in a food manufacturing plant along with 96 snap traps. Two snap traps were used to each glueboard to compensate for differences in surface area and the possibility that a glue board could catch more than one mouse. The glueboards caught four mice, while the snap traps caught 56 mice.

Table 1: Comparison of Options

Type Price Range Reuse? Toxic? Advantages Disadvantages

Glueboards

$1.40 - $3.30 No No

Cheap. Safe for use in food production premises.

Potential for prolonged suffering. Potential for further suffering depending on method of euthanasia used.

Curiosity traps

From $12.00 Yes No

Safe for use in food production premises.

Potential for suffering during euthanasia.

Electrocution

$95.00 Yes No

Safe for use in food production premises. Easy disposal of bodies.

Unclear animal welfare issues.

 

Poisons

$10-12 /kilo No Yes

Easy application. Do not need to check for catches.

Toxicity makes them unsafe in many situations. Animals move off to die – may be difficult to find. Potential for suffering.

Snap traps

$0.50 - $13.00 Yes No

Relatively cheap. Rapid death.

Potentially messy. May be unhygienic if bodies left in trap. Potential suffering depending on the accuracy of the strike.

3.5.2 Feasibility of Transition

Practically, a transition to other traps or devices is likely to be feasible and the capital costs associated with purchasing alternatives do not appear to be marked when viewed over time (i.e. more expensive products are re-usable).

Snap traps are nearest in price to glueboards at around twice the price, and have the advantage of being re-usable and arguably more effective. Electrocution devices or curiosity traps are more expensive but are also re-usable. A transition from glueboards to other pest control methods therefore appears feasible, although it would involve greater initial capital outlay. However, this initial outlay may be offset by the ability to re-use traps and, potentially, more effective control.

An important matter regarding the feasibility of transition is the limitation on the potential use of rodenticides. A major New Zealand distributor of glueboards have advised that the main users of glueboards are in the commercial food production sector. Such users are often averse to using pesticides in their plants due to the risk of contamination. This concern may be further compounded by applicable standards to which such premises must adhere. Food production premises in the dairy industry, for example, are required to develop a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) programme to identify the potential for contaminants to enter their production systems. HACCP programmes must not only identify potential contamination risks, but also implement procedures for addressing the risks of contamination associated with the most vulnerable points in the production process.

Such risks and obligations often lead to the favouring of non-toxic methods of pest control. However, as seen above, glueboards are not the only alternative in these situations. Snap-traps, curiosity traps and electrocution devices can also be used instead of poisons where the latter poses a contamination risk.

Glueboards may also be favoured because the animal will die in the trap rather than crawl away to die unseen, as may be the case with poisons. This is a reason why a pest control operator in a residential environment may use glueboards. Curiosity traps or snap traps provide an alternative in such situations, although some householders may find the remains of an animal found in a snap trap to be aesthetically disturbing. That said, similar means must be used to humanely euthanase animals caught in glueboards or curiosity traps.

3.5.3 Conclusion

A transition to alternatives appears feasible and there is a range of cost-effective alternatives available that are at least as effective as glueboards and quite possibly more so.

3.6 Whether the trap or device could be modified, or the method of use controlled, to avoid unacceptable effects on animal welfare (Section 33 (f) )

Glueboards are simple traps consisting fundamentally of an adhesive surface on a flat object. Modification of the trap is therefore limited without creating a wholly new trap or device.

One possible modification could be the use of toxins in the adhesive. Such a modification could ensure that trapped animals are quickly killed rather than left stuck to the boards until disposed of. Problems arise with this, however, as non-toxicity is one of the primary reasons glueboards are used, especially in food production premises. Toxicity may also pose a danger to non-expert users of glueboards.

Controls on the method of use create significant possibilities for managing the animal welfare concerns associated with glueboards. For example, conditions as to the maximum number of hours that may lapse between checks on the glueboards may be imposed. Conditions may also specify appropriate measures that must be used in the destruction of any animals found in the traps. Conditions are likely to be difficult to enforce, however (sections 3.8.2 and 3.8.3).

3.7 The consultation conducted under Section 32 (1) or Section 32 (6), as the case may be, & any consultation conducted under Section 184 (1) (Section 33 (g) )

The mandatory formal consultation with NAWAC and others has not yet been undertaken. Consultation under section 184(1) of the Act is an important part of the decision making process, especially with the lack of published studies on the use of glueboards.

3.8 Any other matter considered relevant by the Minister (Section 33 (h) )

3.8.1 "Home-made" Glueboards

Due to the simple nature of glueboards it is possible that individuals may be able to make their own if a ban on their sale and use was implemented. The adhesive used in glueboards is available overseas in pails, although this glue is no longer imported into New Zealand due to low consumer demand.

If glueboards were prohibited, "home-made" glueboards would also be illegal. However, given that the primary users of glueboards are commercial enterprises in the food production or pest control industries and that alternatives are available, it is unlikely that this would be a major issue.

3.8.2 Viability of Regulation

Restrictions on the way glueboards may be used (as opposed to an outright prohibition of use) are likely to be difficult to enforce. To address the animal welfare issues associated with glueboards, glueboards would need to be examined at regular intervals to ensure that animals were not left trapped for extended periods of time. Regulations would also need to stipulate how animals are euthanased following capture on a glueboard as the method of disposal offers other significant opportunity for animal welfare abuses (e.g. drowning, incineration).

It would be difficult to police compliance with inspection and euthanasia requirements. Imposing restrictions on the way in which glueboards are used may not produce any real benefit.

3.8.3 Commercial vs Home Use

A targeted prohibition may be possible but may not adequately address the animal welfare concerns.

Although glueboards are used predominantly in commercial premises, some residential use does occur. However, it is likely that residential use raises similar animal welfare concerns to those encountered in commercial use. For example, a primary factor in determining whether an unreasonable level of pain or distress is caused by glueboards is the length of time animals are left trapped before they are destroyed. It would be unlikely that residential users of glueboards would check for trapped animals more often than commercial premises, although this is a matter of conjecture.

Further, the (above) discussion on the availability of alternatives and the relative levels of pain and distress they cause (sections 3.2 and 3.5) are as relevant to a residential situation as a commercial one.

If restrictions on the use of glueboards were pursued, as opposed to outright prohibition, they would be likely to be somewhat easier to enforce in commercial premises. However, as outlined in paragraphs 4.8.3 and 4.8.4, any restrictions are likely to be difficult to enforce.

4. Conclusion

There is a lack of relevant and reliable information on this topic, particularly in a New Zealand context. Consequently, the consultation process will be an important way of gathering information on the use of glueboards in New Zealand.

On the available information and having regard to the criteria in section 33 of the Act, some form of regulation on the use of glueboards may be appropriate. Placing restrictions on their use could address the concerns of suffering associated with these traps, but this may be not be an effective method due to the difficulty in enforcing restrictions on disposal methods and inspection times.

5. Summary of Options

The key options are summarised below.

5.1 Option 1: No Action

Under this option, no regulatory action is taken and the status quo remains.

5.2 Option 2: Restriction

Glueboards are declared a restricted trap or device under section 32 of the Act. A breach of these restrictions would be an offence. There are four options for imposing restrictions:

A

  1. A maximum time between inspections of glueboards is set.
  2. Captured animals must be disposed of humanely and in a manner that renders them immediately unconscious.

B

  1. A maximum time between inspections of glueboards is set.
  2. Captured animals must be disposed of humanely and in a manner that renders them immediately unconscious.
  3. Glueboards may only be used in commercial food production premises.

C

  1. A maximum time between inspections of glueboards is set.
  2. Captured animals must be disposed of humanely and in a manner that renders them immediately unconscious.
  3. Glueboards may only be used in residential situations.

D

  1. A maximum time between inspections of glueboards is set.
  2. Captured animals must be disposed of humanely and in a manner that renders them immediately unconscious.
  3. Glueboards may only be used in commercial food production premises or by commercial pest control operators in residential premises.

5.3 Option 3: Prohibition

Glueboards are made a prohibited trap under section 32 of the Act. Sale or use of glueboards becomes an offence under the Act.

6. References

Corrigan, R.M. (1998). "The Efficacy of Glue Traps Against Wild Populations of House Mice, Mus domesticus, Rutty" in Baker, R.O. and Crabb, A.C. (eds). Proceedings of the 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis.

Frantz, S.C. and C.M. Padula (1983). "A Laboratory Test Method for Evaluation the Efficacy of Glueboards for Trapping House Mice". Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials: Fourth Symposium, ASTM STP 817, D E Kaukinen Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2000). Food Assurance Authority (Dairy and Plants) Circular no. 60: D101.2 Product Safety Programmes.

Warburton, B. and N. Poutu (2002). "Evaluation of the Killing Effectiveness of the Rat Zapper 2000™ for Killing Rats". Landcare Research Contract Report LC0102/034. Prepared for the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. Lincoln: Landcare Research.

Page last updated: 30 April 2008