- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


Nun's Island dog dies in beaver trap!

November 8th, 2008, 08:36 AM

November 8th, 2008, 08:44 AM
Poor pup :rip:

I love Luty's reply. Developers do cut down too many trees, rather than work with horticulturists to try to save as many as possible.

November 8th, 2008, 08:49 AM
The dog who was killed was 12 years old!! Poor dog :rip:

November 9th, 2008, 09:56 AM
I love Luty's reply.

Me too ! :thumbs up

I would be fuming if that happened to one of my dogs ! :mad:

November 9th, 2008, 09:58 AM
Luty was very proactive, she has pictures of the trap to prove they were submerged in water!

November 9th, 2008, 10:00 AM
Luty was very proactive, she has pictures of the trap to prove they were submerged in water!

Way to go :thumbs up I know her and I wouldn't mess with her when it comes to animal welfare :thumbs up

November 9th, 2008, 10:45 AM
That is sickening and heartbreaking :yell::sad:

November 9th, 2008, 05:03 PM
Yep, Sickening.. Poor Doggie :(

November 10th, 2008, 12:49 PM
Yes, poor dog. What a way to die for any animal. Just asking here, how come no ones mentions the poor beaver...(which, if caught would have also died a painful death). I mean, yes it is not a companion animal, but gosh like I said above. What a way to die. Caught in a trap, struggling to get out, while downing at the same time.

I hope they got the trap company info and also the people involved and charged. They might not get charged on the the trap, but submerging it under water, so you are drowing the animal, is illigal here.

I also love this quote and would shake this ladys hand.

"It's fine for the developers to cut down all the trees on the island, but not the beavers. I wish somebody would set a trap for developers," she said.


November 10th, 2008, 12:53 PM
They had permission to put it underwater, so it would be out of reach of children :sad:

November 10th, 2008, 01:16 PM
They had permission to put it underwater, so it would be out of reach of children :sad:

Permission from who? The Humane Society? I don't think so. I believe that it would be a big fat no from them and in doing so you will be charged. I hope this quote does not classify as "permission"

"The traps were placed under water near the shoreline and were not accessible to children, Morin said."


November 10th, 2008, 01:35 PM
They had permission to put it underwater, so it would be out of reach of children

Luty took pictures of the traps,they weren't underwater! I agree with you, poor beavers and poor dog!

November 10th, 2008, 01:52 PM
The locations of the Beaver traps should have been public knowledge in order to protect it's citizens. I cannot believe this is allowed to happen. Was this endorsed by the municipality (obviously). I would love to be at their next meeting as a bystander. I hope people raise h*ll!

November 10th, 2008, 04:11 PM
Poor pup,poor Beavers:cry:
Trapping any animal this way should be illegal,the same with legtraps or any other torture-device.
I :pray:they did not get any beavers,that poor dog must have died a horrible death,but the pain is the same,no matter what animal:sad:

November 11th, 2008, 08:47 AM
Poor pup,poor Beavers:cry:
Trapping any animal this way should be illegal,the same with legtraps or any other torture-device.

Drowning a animal is illegal. Also same with the use of inhumane traps. This "professional" company is probably more so then not a, what I like to call them Shady. They are in it only for the money and not the best interest of the animal. No wildlife control company that truly cares for the animals well-being, while thinking/doing the situation less stressful as possible for the animal and would not pull a stunt like this.

I do have to add that I work for a shelter and the one Wildlife Control Company that all of the HS/SPCA use. That they are associated with every HS/SPCA in Ontario. They are called Humane Wildlife Control. These guys are the best. I believe that they are formerly called AAA, but don't quote me on it. They truly care for the animals that they are dealing with. I have worked with them while out on the road for work.


November 11th, 2008, 09:06 AM
It states the "borough" wanted the beavers trapped, is that the same as the municipality?

November 11th, 2008, 10:05 AM
It states the "borough" wanted the beavers trapped, is that the same as the municipality?

I guess what I am trying to say is that while they had "permission". Part of these, or all of it is illegal. Drowning and depending on what kind of trap they have, that as well could be illegal.


November 11th, 2008, 10:36 AM
Drowning and depending on what kind of trap they have, that as well could be illegal.

Unfortunately, drowning beavers is not illegal and it's common practice to place traps in water, at least where the fur industry is concerned. From the Fur Institute of Canada's website, talking about the recent Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards ( (humane being an oxymoron in this case):

Criteria - Killing Traps


Traps designed and set with the intention of killing a trapped animal of the target species.
(Does not apply to traps individually constructed by trappers)

Requirements and Thresholds:

A trapping method meets the standards for killing traps when, in the compound tests:

A minimum of 12 animals of a given species are successfully tested.
At least 80% (10 out of 12) of these animals became irreversibly unconscious within an allowable period of time. (see following table)

Maximum admissible length of time to loss of consciousness - Species
45 seconds - Ermine
120 seconds (2 minutes) - Marten
300 seconds (5 minutes) - Beaver,

And from the Animal Protection Institute website:

Under the “Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards” (AIHTS), signed by Canada, leghold and other restraining traps would be labeled “humane” even if as many as 20 percent of animals tested in them endure fractured limbs, internal trauma, and spinal cord injuries. The AIHTS fails to assess pain and physiological stresses related to trap injuries, confining assessment almost exclusively to injuries of the trapped limb. Injuries are graded according to severity rated on a “trauma scale.” Animal advocates objected to the use of this term (and to use of the term “humane” in describing trap standards), as a complete assessment of trauma would necessarily include the pain and physiological factors the standards fail to take into consideration.

The AIHTS fails to specify a humane method for killing animals captured in restraining traps. The agreement allows clubbing and suffocation — the standard methods of killing trapped animals.

In order for kill-type traps such as the Conibear to be certified, animals must be rendered unconscious within 300 seconds. What this means is that animals can be forced to endure five long minutes of suffering as their bodies are crushed between two steel jaws — and the trap will still be labeled as “humane.”

Internationally, scientists have condemned this standard as inhumane. Indeed, the term “humane” is highly misleading when applied to the standards. The AIHTS acknowledges that “in certain situations with killing traps there will be a short period of time during which the level of welfare may be poor.”

End Result?

The AIHTS agreement between Canada and the EU is to take effect in the fall of 2007. If at that point Canada has not switched to using certified traps, the EU could conceivably prohibit the import of furs from Canada into EU member countries. However, the likelihood is that Canada will comply, given the weak trapping standards and large loopholes contained in their agreement that allow trappers to continue using steel jaw leghold traps in “drowning sets” for muskrat, beaver, and other aquatic animals.

November 11th, 2008, 11:23 AM
Thats funny, because I know officers who have charged individual(s) on trapping and drowning. And clubbing and suffocation is illegal here in Ontario. You club a wild animal here, strangle it and caught, you'll be charged.

NEWMARKET, ON, (June 2, 2006) - With the increase of human-wildlife interaction that comes with the spring season the Ontario SPCA would like to remind everyone that drowning wildlife is an inhumane and unacceptable death in Ontario punishable by law.

On May 23, 2006 the Ontario Court of Justice in Goderich found Robert Gridzak guilty of causing wildlife unnecessary suffering after he trapped and drowned two skunks by submerging the trapped skunks in a pond. Gridzak received a $500 fine and was ordered to pay $130 in surcharges. Under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act it is prohibited to cause wildlife unnecessary suffering when attempting to deter it from your property. The maximum fine is $25,000.

"Drowning is a painful and inhumane death and it is unacceptable as a deterrence method," says Ontario SPCA Senior Inspector, Western Region, Darren Grandel. "Failure to adhere to prohibitions stipulated under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act will not be tolerated and will lead to prosecution." There are numerous measures that can be taken to deter wildlife humanely to avoid trapping or killing. The public is advised to animal-proof their buildings, and should understand that the removal of wildlife, particularly during the spring birthing season, may be counter-productive and could result in the starvation and death of young animals left behind in inaccessible locations.

Here is an alternative:

one alternative to killing the beavers would be wrapping screen or metal mesh around tree trunks to protect them from being chopped.

But then again, it is easier to just trap and kill it. And cheaper too.


November 11th, 2008, 11:35 AM
Here's another article about the situation:

November 11th, 2008, 11:49 AM
Thanks for the article. I guess beavers are doing what beavers do. ANd of course, it is us..the ones who are taking away their habitats away and they have become a nousiance to us. How sad.

Sadly, we being the most compassionate, intelligant is just frightning..when we treat our animals, the way they are treated.


November 11th, 2008, 03:38 PM
Poodletalk,thank's...once again the MONR prefers rather to kill than relocate:evil:
I don't know what that ministry is good for,they are continuosly ordering the killing of our wild-life,be it Beaver,Raccoons,Foxes,Skunks or Cormorants,instead of educating people.
People should know,that by taking the little habitat wild animals have left,the PEOPLE not the animals have to adjust.
It just makes me so angry:yell: