Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
This invention relates to traps for catching wild animals with reduced chance of injury to the animals, while improving the likelihood of holding the animal.
In the past, there have been many attempts at creating traps with reduced risk of injury to the animal, [U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,751,901; 6,732,471; 4,817,313; 4,711,049; 4,638,590; 2,083,451; 1,913,893; 1,907,360]. Many of these concepts have involved the use of a snare type trap in which damage to the animal is reduced specifically during trap actuation or closing on the animal's leg. None of these traps have proven to be effective in terms of long term operation for capturing and holding the animals.
While traps have taken many forms throughout their history, [U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,832,447; 6,032,405; 5,907,922; 5,736,203; 5,109,627; 5,109,626; 4,557,067; 4,557,066; 4,555,863; 3,534,493; 2,216,927; 1,913,893; 1,577,000; 1,570,578; 1,461,743; 1,012,386; 440,336] the basic concept of two opposing U-shaped jaws with a spring clamping mechanism have proven to be the most effective for capturing and holding animals, [U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,972,626; 4,622,774; 4,486,972; 4,240,223; 4,479,324; 4,045,905; 2,020,153; 1,630,419; 1,391,570; 716,255]. While two opposing U-shaped jaws have proven effective in capturing and holding animals, there is a risk of injury to the animal.
Other patents have attempted to incorporate reduced injury to the U-shaped opposing design through the use of a rubber, or compliant jaw covering, [U.S. Pat. Nos. 870,251; 1,825,193; 2,146,464; 3,939,596; 4,175,351; 4,184,282]. While these traps represent a significant improvement for impact damage when the trap closes on the animal, they fail to address two specific problems. First, the holding power of these traps is insufficient. Secondly, the rubber jaw lining conforms to the animal's leg, and forms an effective barrier to blood flow to the lower extremity. This results in loss of feeling to the limb, allowing the animal to damage itself in an effort to escape.
Two trap innovations have dealt with the ability to increase the clamping force on an animal's leg. U.S. Pat. No. 2,128,579—attempts to accomplish this with slots on the main jaws and an auxiliary jaw which slides in those slots. The primary shortcomings of this design are that 1) the slots would tend to plug up with dirt during operation, rendering the trap ineffective, and 2) there is no attempt to reduce the impact damage to the animal extremity. U.S. Pat. No. 2,316,970 attempts to regulate the trap holding power through the use of levers applied to the trap retention chain. The problem with this design is that animal does not pull in a direct line at all times, therefore allowing the holding force of the trap to be ineffective in other than ideal pulling conditions.
The principal objective of this invention is to address the limitations of existing trap models, specifically: reduced likelihood of impact damage to the animal, increased holding power, and reduced likelihood of circulation reduction to trapped animal extremities. The trap design incorporates two U-shaped opposing jaws which do not contact the animal. Two auxiliary jaws provide the clamping contact with the animal. These auxiliary jaws are allowed to rotate on the main jaws. The design of the auxiliary jaws provides for additional functionality over existing traps. The auxiliary jaws are covered with rubber or some other compliant material to reduce impact shock to the animal upon clamping. The rotation of the auxiliary jaws absorbs additional impact energy upon striking the animal's extremity, aided by an auxiliary spring located in the auxiliary jaw subassembly. The auxiliary jaw rotation serves two additional purposes. The center of rotation is such that as the animal pulls outward from the center of the trap, the auxiliary jaws cam closer together and provide added holding power. After the animal tires and relaxes, the auxiliary jaws are allowed to cam outward and reduce clamping force, therefore allowing circulation to be restored to the extremity of the animal beyond the clamping point. No previous design incorporates the rotating camming auxiliary jaws allowing this invention to have superior and unique performance compared with all previous trap models.
a) and b) show the preferred embodiment of the main trap jaws in the flat and formed state, respectively.
a) and b) show the preferred embodiment of the auxiliary jaws which rotate on the main jaws.
The majority of the components in this invention are to be formed using traditional heavy sheet metal construction techniques. Laser cutting, water jet cutting, electro-discharge machining, stamping, forming and machining are alternative processes that may be used. With respect to specific parts, the trap frame (1) as shown in
The substantially U-shaped main jaws are shown in detail in their preferred embodiment in
An auxiliary jaw subassembly as shown in
The compliant material (6) shown in
The retention plate or keeper (9) shown in
A coil spring or preferably flat spring (16) is to be installed between the auxiliary jaw (3) and main jaw (2) using a nut and bolt. This spring (16) provides sufficient force to allow the auxiliary jaw subassembly contact points through the compliant material (6) to maintain contact with the animal's extremities at all times following closure of the trap. It also allows for sufficient auxiliary jaw subassembly rotation to allow for restored blood flow to the animal extremity upon relaxation. This spring (16) is created through cutting or stamping, followed by forming to the finished part shape.
The trap pan (11) as shown in
A means for attaching the trap to the ground or other restraining mechanism must be provided. This restraining mechanism will preferably be located near the center of the trap frame (1). Because this retention mechanism is not a unique feature to this trap, its detail has been omitted.