Do lethal trap devices threaten foot-hold trap capture efficacy? |
| |
| Authors: | Paul D Meek Kathleen Shorter Greg Falzon |
| |
| Institution: | 1. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia;2. School of Environmental and Rural Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia;3. School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | Foot-hold trapping is an important tool used in pest management programs in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and in North America. Research on humane trapping methods including the addition of sedatives (Tranquilizer Trap Device) and toxins (Lethal Trap Device) to foot-hold traps to improve the welfare of trapped pest animals is important. Lethal Trap Devices (LTD) are being tested in Australia to determine if deploying a toxin with a foot-hold trap is effective at delivering a lethal dose of toxin to trapped predators. This study aimed to test whether fitting an LTD to two different foot-hold jaw traps (Victor Soft catch #3 and Bridger #5) would affect the jaw closure time and as such affect capture rates. We found that two spring Victor Soft catch traps were faster (20.91, SD 0.72 ms) than four spring Bridger #5 traps (26.79, SD 0.48 ms) even when fitted with a Lethal Trap Device. Fitting a Lethal Trap Device to either of these trap models did not affect closure time and as such would not have any effect on capture efficacy. |
| |
| Keywords: | Trapping predator leg-hold trap jaw trap |
|
|
