Sorry, "humane" does not mean "best method". Humane, in this context, means alleviation of suffering. I should remind everyone
at this point that many people consider the act of trapping an animal an "inhumane" act, so obviously there is a lot of wiggle room in this definition.
Furthermore "best" implies a single ultimate method which results in the most "humane" dispatch. A very easy way to basically eliminate fur trapping would be to require that all animals captured in traps be euthanized in a carbon dioxide chamber -- should that be determined to be the "best" method.
And Mike said: "Not less blood, or a "bit quicker".
Frankly, I don't see how a quicker means of dispatch could be less
humane, but maybe I'm not reading that right. However I can equate that to the CO2 chamber VS a bullet to the brain. It would not be as quick to take an animal out of the trap and euthanize it in CO2 chamber as it would be to shoot it. Frankly, I'm going to come down on the side of expediency, and shoot the critter.
Also, there are strong arguments for using methods that allow less fluids to escape from the animal's body. Take the skunk, which has become the bone of contention in this debate. Shooting a skunk in the brain will cause it to spray virtually every time. A skunk that has sprayed is terribly unpleasant to handle -- to the point that an argument could be made for simply disposing of the entire skunk. So, if we are concerned about utilizing the resource, and I think we should be, then the argument can be made that a viable means of dispatch is one that results in the skunk not
These issues surrounding dispatch are not cut and dried.