Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards

Transcription

1 Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards Joint Management Committee Meeting Brussels, Belgium 4 and 5 December 2012 The fourth official Joint Management Committee (JMC) meeting under the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) was held on 4-5 December 2012, in Brussels, Belgium. The European Commission hosted the meeting. There was a useful exchange and renewed commitment to work together to fulfill the terms of the agreement. 1. Status Reports: Status Report of Canada SUMMARY OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OBLIGATIONS TOWARD IMPLEMENTING THE AGREEMENT ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANE TRAPPING STANDARDS CANADIAN STATUS REPORT, December 2012 The federal government of Canada is responsible for negotiating and representing Canadian interests in international agreements. As a consequence on behalf of the provincial and territorial governments, who are the competent authorities, and also on their behalf, the federal government negotiated and signed the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) in Implementation of the Agreement in Canada is vested with the provincial and territorial governments who have jurisdiction over the management of fur bearing wildlife within their borders, and with Canada on federal government lands. The AIHTS came into force in July Competent Authorities for Canada: Government of British Columbia Government of Alberta Government of Saskatchewan Government of Manitoba Government of Ontario Government of Quebec Government of New Brunswick

2 Government of Nova Scotia Government of Prince Edward Island Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Government of Yukon Government of Northwest Territories Government of Nunavut Note: the major difference between a Canadian province and a territory is that provinces exercise constitutional powers in their own right, whereas territories exercise delegated powers under the authority of the Parliament of Canada. TIMELINES OBLIGATIONS & ACTIONS January 1998 Article 13.2: Implement a system to issue certificate of origin for fur and fur products. Status: Fully implemented within timeline and remains in place Updated coordinates for all Canadian certificate issuers June 1999-Dec 2012 Annex I, Part II, Implementation Schedule, Sections and 4.2.3: Test Traps in order to determine compliance with AIHTS. Tools and scientifically valid methods that reduce costs and delays have been developed for assessing trap performance. Work continues to be carried out by the Fur Institute of Canada, the majority of which is under contract with the Trap Effectiveness Research Team at the Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (formerly Alberta Research Council). Field testing is often carried out by a particular provincial jurisdiction. Status:

3 Field-testing with restraining traps is ongoing, based on species-specific priorities established by the Canadian Wildlife Directors Committee. Extensive mechanical tests and detailed trap component measurements continue to be carried out on killing-type traps as manufacturers submit them. The mechanical testing program was extended in 2003 to develop data for restraining traps and is ongoing. Mechanical testing is required for input into the speciesspecific Computer Simulation Models Program to rate trap performance and ultimately for trap certification. A Manufacturers Trap Development Program was established in 1998 to encourage manufacturers to submit more speciesspecific killing traps for rating against the AIHTS and, as a result, the number of species-specific certified traps increased each year and the program is ongoing. A detailed list of those traps that have met the AIHTS requirements indicating their certification status as of October 16, 2012 is attached. Summary Listing of Certified Traps Species Killing Traps Number of Traps Meeting AIHTS Beaver (on land and underwater) 22 River otter (underwater) 14 Fisher 13 Marten (Martes americana ) * 12* Weasel 19 Muskrat (traps set on land) 19 Muskrat (traps set underwater) Any jaw-type trap (body gripping or leg/foothold) set as a submersion set that exerts clamping force on a muskrat and that maintains a muskrat underwater

4 Canada Lynx 13 Raccoon 27 Badger N/A Restraining Traps Bobcat 7 Coyote 6 Canada Lynx 5 Wolf Raccoon (foot encapsulating traps) Raccoon (cage/box traps) * Traps are also certified for Martes martes and Martes zibellina. See note below Completed field studies as Phase 1 of a project to develop generic characteristics of the geometric components of cage/box traps used to capture raccoon. Field and necropsy data was analyzed and discussions are ongoing to determine the direction of the next phase. However, further analysis indicated that development of a generic formula to rate cage/box traps was not practical. Consequently, the AIHTS field testing protocol is being followed for testing these traps on a species by species basis. Regarding the development of species-specific Computer Simulation Models for rating killing traps, CSMs have been completed for marten, fisher, raccoon, beaver (on land and underwater), muskrat (on land) and otter (underwater), lynx and weasel. Data has been collected and integrated for the development of a CSM or hybrid CSM for rating otter killing traps used on land for 2013 completion. Work continued toward developing a Computer Simulation Model for evaluating restraining traps used to capture coyotes. This effort was made possible because of the data gathered from the extensive field tests, both in Canada and the USA, using a variety of restraining traps to capture coyotes. Following a review of the potential for completing this complex initiative it was agreed that significantly more data would be required to achieve the objective. In light of this status, the funding needed and the urgency in providing information on certified traps to manufacturers and trappers, it was decided to embark on a project to field test selected coyote traps. This project is ongoing.

5 The work on development of Computer Simulation Models for optimization of rotating-jaw and mousetrap-type devices was completed and the program has been used to assist several manufacturers in modifying trap designs. The investment in support of implementation of the AIHTS in Canada since ratification in 1999 was $28,500,000 (CAD). June 2002 Annex 1, Part IV, Section 6.2: Additional behavioural and physiological research. Status: Results of earlier research involving the remote monitoring of raccoon captured in cage traps will ultimately be incorporated with the data gathered during the field studies on cage/box traps mentioned above under requirements of Article 4.2. June 2007 Articles 7a, d, and 8c: Establish a Trap Certification Program. Status: Trap Certification Procedures and Protocol to be applied by Canadian Competent Authorities were approved and implemented by the competent authorities on May 1, It has been updated and it remains in place. Copies of the updated version were distributed to all JMC delegates in It was also sent to manufacturers in Canada and several other countries who may wish to market their traps in Canada and will therefore need to have them certified. Canada has certified a Russian trap used for capturing sable. One hundred and sixty seven AIHTS certificates of compliance have been issued to various manufacturers to date for traps that meet the AIHTS requirements. * As a result of a Russian scientific morphology study of three marten species, killing traps that meet the AIHTS for one of them (i.e. Martes americana) meet the Standard for the other two (Martes martes, Martes zibeline). June 2012 Articles 7 d: Provide instructions for appropriate trap setting

6 A compendium of Best Trapping Practices was developed and distributed to trap manufacturers, Provincial/Territorial Trapper Associations and local trapper Councils. The document graphically illustrates and describes species-specific trap setting methods for both killing and restraining trap systems. These are based on the results of compound and field tests that led to the certification of the devices set out on the Fur Institute s Certified Trap List. The compendium has been included on the FIC website. June 2000 Article 14.2: Joint Management Committee Meetings Status: Canada considers this progress report as a means of meeting its obligation under Article 14.2, as well as keeping the Parties to the AIHTS and the USA informed. June 1, 2000 Annex IV, Declaration by the Government of Canada Status: All jaw-type leghold restraining traps are prohibited for the seven listed species. [Martes Americana (Marten), Mustela erminea (Ermine), Castor Canadensis (Beaver), Ondatra zibethicus (Muskrat), Martes pennanti (Fisher), Taxidea taxus (Badger), Lutra Canadensis (Otter)]. April 1, 2001

7 Status: Completed the harmonized implementation of the prohibition of conventional steel-jawed leghold restraining traps for five listed species. (Canis latrans (Coyote), Felis rufus (Bobcat), Procyon lotor (Raccoon), Canis lupus (Wolf), Lynx Canadensis (Lynx)]. Provinces and territories (competent authorities) introduced and have implemented regulatory changes in 2001 regarding prohibition of conventional steel-jawed leghold restraining traps. June 2007 Article 7c and Annex I, Part II, Section 4.2.2: Prohibit the use of traps for the listed species that do not comply with the Standards. Status: Competent authorities began a three-phase process in the fall of 2007 for implementing the AIHTS to regulate the use only of species-specific certified traps. Phase II includes killing traps used for five species and restraining traps used for one species. As part of Phase I, three more species will be added Phases 2 and 3 will follow pending development of testing technologies. (See detailed explanation with attached list of certified traps.) June 2007 Article 8b: Update jurisdictional trapper education programs to ensure trappers understand requirements of AIHTS and are

8 Status: trained in use of any new devices. All provinces and territories in Canada have requirements in place for trapper education programs. An educational and didactical 11-hour DVD series called Focus on Trapping was edited. It includes 25 programmes covering all aspects of trapper training. Also, in order to harmonize trapper education programs across Canada, National Trapper Education Curriculum Guidelines have been produced. These have been widely circulated to all jurisdictions in Canada and copies were forwarded to delegates of the November 2004 JMC meeting. Since June 2000, more than a hundred and fifty meetings were carried out in all parts of Canada, including rural and remote Aboriginal communities. The purpose of such meetings was to inform trappers about the AIHTS and the implications it may have on their trapping activities. Some of these sessions were also organized to train wildlife conservation officers on the implementation of the AIHTS. This work is ongoing. In Ontario all three trapping agreements between Aboriginal organizations and the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources include provision for the delivery of trapper education to First Nation trappers. The agreed-upon curriculum includes the opportunity to incorporate traditional harvesting knowledge to be preserved for future generations. The aboriginal curriculum qualification standards are at least the equivalent provincial training and certification system. Certified Trap Identification Sheets and Booklets have been produced and are available on websites. This information was distributed to all Wildlife Conservation officers in Canada to facilitate AIHTS enforcement in the field. The list of certified traps is made available on various websites and is updated regularly. Additional Activities:

9 Technical meetings and other communications have taken place between representatives from Canada, the USA, Russia, Spain, Holland, England, Sweden and New Zealand to exchange information about trap testing and the potential for reducing duplication of effort and costs. Two individuals from Canada with wide trapping and trap standards experience attended the EU Technical Workshop in York, U.K. in the fall of 2008 to provide information and assistance to the trap research activities contracted by the EU Commission. Follow-up communications were made with respect to the draft proceedings of the Workshop. Status Report of the Russian Federation STATUS REPORT of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION 2012 In 2008 the Russian Federation ratified Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS). In accordance with AIHTS, it completely came to operation 4 months later from July Adoption of this very crucial decision took significant period of time because of specific for Russia scale of financial, economic, social, and legislative aspects, directly related to vital needs of people. AIHTS concerns local populations living in remote thinly populated areas, in regions of Extreme North, Siberia, and Far East of Russia. Great part of these people s incomes is provided by hunting and fur trade. There is a great part of aboriginal peoples among fur trappers. AIHTS is based on principle of animal resources use by methods, excluding cruel animal treatment, and in accordance with common humanity principles. This principle is established in Russian legislation by Federal Law On Wild Animals. The principle got further development in Federal Law #209-FZ of July On hunt, and hunting resources conservation, and making

10 alterations in separate legislative acts of the Russian Federation (hereafter the Hunting Law). The Hunting Law regulates relationships concerning hunt, hunters, hunting management, game resources, except animals inhabiting reserves and other specially protected natural territories. The Hunting Law is a base for building of new, modern legislative framework of hunt and hunting management in the Russian Federation. Very briefly main regulations of the Hunting Law are following. Point 5 of Article 2 of the Hunting Law states one of legal regulation principles at the field of hunt and hunting resources conservation hunting resources have to be used with hunting instruments and methods according to requirements of humanity and prevention of cruel animal treatment. Article 22 of the Hunting Law directly refers to AIHTS phraseology, stating that hunting instruments and methods have to correspond to international human trapping standards for wild animals. Powers of federal and regional authorities at the field of hunt and hunting resources conservation are also determined by the Hunting Law. Among others, powers of regional authorities include hunting resources and their habitat protection and use organization and execution, establishment of bag limits and quotas, hunting resources number regulation, state hunting control and supervision execution at the territory of the Russian Federation regions, including control of traps and other hunting instruments use. The Hunting Law provides issuing of a number of regulatory legal acts for relationships at the field of hunt and hunting management. Since the Hunting Law came to operation in 2010 more than 20 orders were issued. Certainly, not all of them concern AIHTS. But some orders regulate activity of hunting managers, permitting activities, process of hunt itself, provide activity of regional authorities on realization of powers at the field of hunt and hunting resources conservation. A number of orders issued which define quantitative characters of game resources bag. In accordance with these orders harvesting of certain hunting species have to conduct in relation with bag limits and quotas. Limits are established for region of the Russian Federation as a whole. The limit is a sum of quotas established for separate hunting management territories. Every limit or quota have to pass ecological expertise. For some species (including sable and lynx) limits have to be agreed with federal

11 authority, some others (including otter and badger) haven t to be agreed. Limits and quotas are established in compliance with acceptable bag norms. Bag planning for other (without limits) hunting resources species (including beavers, muskrat, wolf, pine marten, ermine, raccoon dog, raccoon) is also carried out in compliance with acceptable bag norms. These orders are following: 1. From April # 121 On establishing of procedure for giving out permits for hunting resources harvesting and of permit form harvesting ; 2. From April # 138 On establishing of acceptable bag norms and of number norms for hunting resources at hunting management territories ; 3. From May # 164 On establishing of the game resources species list, harvesting of which is conducted in relation with bag limits ; 4. From June # 228 On establishing of procedure for reception of document on bag limits establishing for hunting resources, introduction of an amendment into the document, and request to content of the document. Bag planning is based on numbers and distribution data for hunting resources. The data are obtained by hunting resources counts and monitoring. System of reports is elaborated to obtain, to analyze, and to use information on various game management parameters including numbers and bag parameters for game resources. These orders are following: 1. From September # 344 On establishing of Procedure for hunting resources state monitoring carrying out and data use ; 2. From January # 23 On establishing of request to content, reports form, and to procedure of reports submission on carrying out of given powers of the Russian Federation at the field of hunt and hunting resources conservation ; 3. From December # 963 On establishing of Procedure for conducting of state count, state monitoring, and state cadastre for objects of animal world ; 4. From January # 1 On establishing of Methodical directions for regional authority to carry out power given by the Russian Federation to conduct state monitoring of hunting resources and their habitats by winter transect count ;

12 Ecologically optimal numbers of hunting resources is reflected in norms of maximal number. If numbers of hunting resources exceed these optimal numbers, and there is threat of any damage from hunting resources, decision on number regulation have to be made. Following order is regulating this process: From January # 1 On establishing of Procedure for decision making on hunting resources number regulation and form of the decision. Probably nobody has doubts that any innovation in hunting practice requires explanation, training and propaganda among hunters. This is correct also for introduction of new traps in accordance to AIHTS. Necessary for hunter knowledge dimension is stated by following order: From June # 568 On establishing of Demands of hunting minimum. MOST IMPORTANT ORDER from November # 512 On establishing of Hunting Regulations. Beside common conditions Hunting Regulations contain demands for shooting of ungulates, bears, game birds; shooting and trapping of furbearers; demands for use of hunting dogs and falconry; demands for trapping and shooting of hunting animals; demands for conservation of hunting animals, including number regulation; also, in appendices hunting dates for ungulates, bears and furbearers. In strict accordance with obligations related to AIHTS, prohibition of use of standard leg-holding restraining traps with steel jaws was introduced in the Russian Federation. For the prohibition violators responsibility in accordance with Administrative Code, the prohibition had to be introduced to Hunting Regulations. This introduction was made by order from November # 373. Thus the Russian Federation has legislative and normative base of AIHTS implementation, and responsible authorities are defined.

13 Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation has good interaction with regional authorities, responsible for AIHTS practical implementation. The Ministry also has productive relationship with organizations of fur trade Sojuzpushnina and Russian Fur Union. Traps of new type of Russian and foreign production are for sale in majority of regions of Russia. In important fur regions interested fur trade organizations provide new traps for trappers. For example, presently in Evenkia region in Siberia more than half of trappers are provided by new traps. The rest of trappers will pass to new traps gradually, in period defined by AIHTS. Presently they are stressing on shooting and use of traditional wood traps. These wood traps require more time and efforts to make, install and check them. The analysis shows that main part of sables taken by Russian trappers are shot or trapped by methods in accordance with AIHTS. That means first of all traditional wood traps. At sites of some trappers such traps are predominant. Distance between wood traps here is sometimes m. Metallic industrial traps are installed at such trap routes only additionally to wood traps. Wood traps are better than metallic industrial traps by many parameters. They are more productive, give fur of better quality, meet international standards for human trapping. Their shortcomings are stationarity and difficulty of certification. Due to changes in economical situation in fur trade, trappers are gradually rejecting metallic leg-holding traps. These traps are expensive, and their annual purchasing makes fur trade low-profit. Trappers try to avoid these expenses and construct traditional wood traps. Vast majority of exported sable skins are taken from furbearers trapped by wood traps or shooted with dog. Foundation of fur trade in the Russian Federation is sable. This valuable furbearer inhabits spacious range in Asiatic Russia, in Siberia and Far East. Sable bag is very important for people, including small aboriginal populations, in remote difficult to access regions of Siberia and Far East. Just in these regions majority of skins are taken. Some regions are leading in bag size. Largest are Krasnoyarsk region and Sakha (Yakutia) Republic.

14 In 2013 the Russian Federation will host 5 th JMC meeting of AIHTS. It is pleasure for us to invite all of you to hospitable Yakutsk, preliminary in October Probably temperature will be relatively warm about 30 degrees below zero. Status Report of the European Union Status Report of the European Union Progress report on the implementation in the EU of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards The European Commission represents the EU at the Joint Management Committee (JMC) of the Agreement on international humane trapping standards (AIHTS). In 1998, the EU concluded two international agreements for the purpose of establishing humane trapping standards and avoiding trade disputes. The first agreement was concluded with Canada and the Russian Federation and was approved by Council Decision 98/142/EC of 26 January The second one concerns the United States of America and has the form of an agreed minute. This was approved by Council Decision 98/487/EC of 13 July These agreements allowed the EU to exempt Canada, the Russian Federation and the USA from the import ban under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91, the Leghold Traps Regulation. In the EU, the use of all leghold traps is prohibited by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 November 1991 prohibiting both the use of leghold traps in the EU and the introduction into the EU of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of 1 Council Decision 98/142/EC of 26 January 1998 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement on international humane trapping standards between the European Community, Canada and the Russian Federation and of an Agreed Minute between Canada and the European Community concerning the signing of the said Agreement (OJ L 42, , p. 40). 2 Council Decision 98/487/EC of 13 July 1998 concerning the conclusion of an International Agreement in the form of an Agreed Minute between the European Community and the United States of America on humane trapping standards (OJ L 219, , p. 24).

15 leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards3. As regards the implementation in the EU of the Agreement on Humane Trapping the Commission thought that it would be useful to have a further harmonisation of national measures in Member States and submitted in 2004 a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing humane trapping standards for certain animal species COM (2004) 532 final. This proposal was submitted to the other institutions for adoption under the co-decision procedure with the objective of harmonising the remaining obligations and commitments arising from the AIHTS and the Agreed Minute. It was, however rejected for a variety of reasons by the European Parliament in the first parliamentary reading. As a result, the Commission decided to withdraw its proposal. The withdrawal took legal effect on 2 of June 2012 with the publication in the OJ C 156, , p. 10 of the list of obsolete Commission proposals withdrawn. Because the use of all leghold traps is already prohibited in the EU, the new Directive would only apply to other traps that producers want to be considered as humane for catching animals belonging to the 19 species listed in the Annexes to the Agreement. With regard to animal species other than the 19 mentioned, the use of traps other than leghold traps that do not comply with the humane trapping standards would remain possible if they are in conformity with other EU legislation. In other words, the proposal only intended to ban the use of inhumane traps used for catching animals belonging to the listed species. Despite the withdrawal, the Commission will keep its commitment to continued engagement on humane trapping standards. The Commission considers that it is not necessary for the EU to do an implementing act, since other options can be taken to address this matter, which can avoid overregulation. In fact, as far as leghold traps are concerned, the EU is already implementing legislation that goes further than the Agreement. Therefore, some elements of the Agreement such as the prohibition of leghold traps have already been implemented by way of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91. The Commission will monitor implementation of the agreement with the Member States. The Commission intends to continue to foster stakeholder engagement on the subject matter, in particular as regards the use of traps other than leghold traps. For this purpose, stakeholder engagement could be continued in the form of regular meetings for sharing good practice with the interested parties. 3 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91, OJ L 308, , p. 1.

16 The Commission has been informed by one Member State of concerns about implementation of HTS in the USA, (which had been expressed by one NGO). That NGO claims the existence in the USA of a regular and widespread practice of trapping methods to be considered "non-humane" and provided documentation. It also refers to the Born Free USA's Victims of Vanity US Trapping Investigation. At the 4th JMC meeting of the AIHTS, the Commission raised the issue, expounded the received documentation to the US delegation and informed the delegates that this documentation had been provided by the EU Member State's authorities. The Commission explained that because this matter is important for the EU it considered necessary to consult the US authorities concerning the facts exposed and would like to invite the US delegation to provide their views on this matter with a view to find a solution. Conscious of the need of the US delegation to consult in the US, the Commission expects a response from the US if possible by March The Commission has informed the Italian authorities about this outcome and will keep them informed of the follow-up. Report of the United States Observer Delegation Report of the United States Observer Delegation Attendees of the fourth formal Joint Management Committee: Julie Young (head of delegation), Bryant White, and Deb Hahn. Summary The United States (US) delegation appreciated the opportunity to participate as a permanent observer in the fourth formal meeting of the Joint Management Committee (JMC) for the AIHTS. The US, while not party to the Agreement among Canada, Russia, and the European Union, has interest in its progress and conducts related activities referencing the same international testing standards. The US would like to emphasize its status as an observer and not a formal signatory of the Agreement. Authority for management of resident wildlife in the United States rests with the individual states and tribes, necessitating a cooperative effort among the state wildlife agencies, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), and the federal government to improve animal welfare in US trapping programs. The US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife

17 Services is the federal agency responsible for technical communications related to the separate understanding with the EU on trap testing relative to international standards and has coordinated funding for the US program in cooperation with state wildlife management agencies. In the US, wild furbearer management programs depend on traps and trappers for management of game species and rare (threatened or endangered) species, for reintroduction of wildlife species to historical ranges, for habitat protection and management, for protection of private and public property, for maintenance of public health and safety, and for a wide range of research activities that require wildlife capture. In addition, trapping provides for subsistence and income in rural societies. With the resurgence of rabies, bovine tuberculosis, and other wildlife-borne diseases in some states, trapping for disease surveillance has increased in importance. Regulated trapping and habitat modification are the principal means available to state wildlife conservation agencies for public participation in maintaining healthy furbearer populations. The US delegation provided a summary of progress of US research related to implementation of the separate understanding between the European Union (EU) and the US. The US program builds on efforts undertaken by states, which hold constitutional authority for management of resident wildlife. About $9.5 million has been spent to date on this national trap testing program, including federal funds and state contributions, direct and in-kind. While the majority of funds have been used for trap testing, at least $1 million has been spent for outreach programs. In addition, federal and state wildlife management agencies conduct related, specialized research and development programs to improve animal capture systems. Research by US state wildlife management agencies preceding the US-EU understanding included a survey of trap ownership and use in the US and a review of technical literature on trap research for the prioritized list of 23 species included in the US program. A second survey of trap ownership and use in the US was conducted in We expect such surveys will be done periodically as a means to assess changes in the pattern of trap use and trapping. The US program is based on a Best Management Practices (BMPs) approach that identifies performance profiles of animal capture devices for five variables: animal welfare, efficiency, selectivity, practicality, and safety. BMPs are typically provided for traps that are commonly used, most promising, commercially available, or have commercially available trap modifications. BMP tests are designed to give a good measure of how well and how consistently traps actually perform in the field. They provide detailed descriptions of mechanical features of each device and make this information widely available for voluntary use by trappers, agency personnel, and manufacturers (fishwildlife.org/furbearer_resources.html). In 2011, BMPs were completed on badger and Canada lynx. In 2012, one new BMP was produced for

18 Ringtail Cat (Bassarisk) and additional data were obtained to enable completion of the BMP on gray wolf in The BMPs, which provide information on trapping devices approved through the process, are provided to state and federal wildlife agencies, trapper associations, state and national wildlife biologist meetings, and state agency trapper education programs via the internet and interactive CD-ROMs. Also, over 30 workshops have been held throughout the US to educate state agency personnel and other wildlife professional about BMPs. Since the start of the US testing program in 1997, over 175 types of commercially available traps have been evaluated with 21 (of 23) furbearer species, with more than 1200 trappers, wildlife technicians, and state agency biologists in 41 states and 5 US regions directly involved. These efforts provided data from over 500,000 trap nights. For these 21 species, BMPs have been completed on 8 of 8 High Priority species, 9 of 10 Medium Priority species, and 3 of 5 Lower Priority Species. Producing BMPs involves both state and federal government agencies and is one of the most ambitious, nationally coordinated projects in wildlife management undertaken in the US in recent years. The US program, coordinated through the AFWA, has included routine information exchange with other wildlife researchers worldwide. Reports and resource material are available at the AFWA website ( The US delegation values the opportunity to exchange technical information and to learn of research progress on trapping in the EU, Canada, and Russian Federation. The US delegation very much appreciates the standing invitation by the three parties to the Agreement to participate as a permanent observer in these meetings. Attachment Copy of power point presentation given by US delegation at JMC meeting. 2. Next meeting: The Russian Federation will host the next Joint Management Committee meeting, in Yakutsk in October List of Participants: EU DELEGATION

19 Mrs Pia Bucella Director of Nature, Biodiveristy and Land Use Directorate-General Environment European Commission Mr François Wakenhut Head of Unit Biodiveristy Directorate-General Environment European Commission Ms Julie Raynal Policy Officer in charge of overall international coordination Directorate-General Environment European Commission Mr Robert Flies Assistant to the Director Directorate-General Environment European Commission Mr Paulo Paixão Policy Officer in charge of the Humane Trapping Standards file Directorate-General Environment European Commission Mr Fabian Clement Secretary Meeting logistics and administrative support Directorate-General Environment European Commission CANADIAN DELEGATION Ms. Ann Cronin-Cossette Deputy Director EU/European Commercial Relations and Advocacy Division (GUB) Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada Mr. Basile Van Havre Director, Population Conservation and Management Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada

20 Ms. Anne Murphy Senior Governmental Relations Officer Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Mr. Pierre Canac-Marquis Coordonnateur Piégeage, Opérations Contrôle de la Rage Ministère des Ressources naturelles du Québec Mr. Mike O'Brien Manager Sustainable Wildlife Use Wildlife Division Nova Scotia Dept. of Natural Resources Mr. Michael Anderson (TBC) Research Director Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, Inc. Natural Resources Secretariat Mr. Daniel Tremblay Senior Desk Officer EU/European Commercial Relations and Advocacy Division (GUB) Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada Mr. Guillaume Cliche First Secretary Trade Policy and Commercial Affairs Mission of Canada to the European Union RUSSIAN FEDERATION DELEGATION Mr. Andrey A. Sitsko (Head of Delegation) Deputy Director Department of State Policy and Regulation of Game Management and Wildlife, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation 4/6 Bolshaya Gruzinskaya str., Moscow, D-242, GSP-5, Phone: (499) FAX: (499) Dr. Vasily V. Lavrovskiy Counsellor (Agricultural Affairs) The Mission of the Russian Federation to EC

21 Mr. Anton P. Mezhnev Head of Division of State Monitoring of Wild Animals Resources and Habitats, Department of State Policy and Regulation of Game Management and Wildlife, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation 4/6 Bolshaya Gruzinskaya str., Moscow, D-242, GSP-5, Phone: (499) FAX: (499) Mr. Arcady J. Revzin General Director Soyuzpushnina Company Mr. Nikolay N. Smetanin Head of Department of Hunting Management of Sakha (Yakutia) Republic 14 Tchernyshevskogo str., Yakutsk, Phone: (4112) Mr. Sergey G. Stolbov President Russian Fur Union UNITED STATES DELEGATION Dr. Julie K. Young (Head of Delegation) Predator Ecology Research Leader National Wildlife Research Center USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services c/o Utah State University, Room 163, BNR Bldg. Logan, UT Phone: FAX: Ms. Deborah M. Hahn International Resource Director Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 725, Washington, DC 20001

22 Phone: Mr. H. Bryant White Staff Biologist Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies c/o Missouri Department of Conservation Central Regional Office and Conservation Research Center 3500 East Gans Road Columbia, MO Phone: ext FAX: