Selectivity and injury risk in an improved neck snare for live‐capture of foxes

Neck snares have been considered valuable for the control of canids and to catch canids for scientific purposes, but they have been criticized for perceived low target selectivity and poor animal-welfare. In 2006, we designed an experimental passive neck snare for live-capture of red fox (Vulpes vulpes), in which postcapture selectivity was addressed by means of a breakaway device and minimum loop size. In field trials during 2007–2009, performance was compared against snare types already in use (i.e., nonexperimental snares) by full-time game managers at 34 different sites in the United Kingdom (UK). Red fox, European badger (Meles meles), and brown hare (Lepus europaeus) made up 91% of 1,296 captures. Capture rate of red fox (n = 359) was similar in experimental and nonexperimental snares (6.6 captures/1,000 snare-days). The percentage of European badgers that escaped after capture was 39% (n = 76) in experimental and 14% (n = 36) in nonexperimental snares. The percentage of brown hares that escaped after capture was 33% (n = 384) in experimental snares compared with 18% (n = 311) in nonexperimental snares, but it was further improved to 68% (n = 192) in a second version of the experimental snare with increased minimum loop size. In experimental snares, 31% of captured badgers, 10% of captured brown hares, and 6% of captured foxes escaped by opening the breakaway device. The study showed that careful snare design can improve selectivity without sacrificing effectiveness. For restrained animals, however, condition was also strongly influenced by operating practices. Entanglement with nearby objects was the principal determinant of externally visible injury or death in restrained animals. Given a well-designed snare, entanglement can largely be avoided through choice of snare location as described in UK best practice guidelines. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.

[1]  S. Pietravalle,et al.  Estimates of regional population densities of badger Meles meles, fox Vulpes vulpes and hare Lepus europaeus using walked distance sampling , 2012, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[2]  J. Belant,et al.  Evaluation of 2 cable restraints with minimum loop stops to capture coyotes , 2011 .

[3]  J. Reynolds,et al.  The consequences of predator control for brown hares (Lepus europaeus) on UK farmland , 2010, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[4]  Stephen M. Vantassel,et al.  Using Advancements in Cable-Trapping to Overcome Barriers to Furbearer Management in the United States , 2010 .

[5]  J. Shivik,et al.  Evaluation of Cage-Traps and Cable Restraint Devices to Capture Red Foxes in Spain , 2008 .

[6]  S. Harris,et al.  Mammal trapping: a review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps , 2007, Animal Welfare.

[7]  Daniel J. Martin,et al.  Initial comparison: jaws, cables, and cage-traps to capture coyotes , 2005 .

[8]  J. Fisher,et al.  UTILIZING BEHAVIORAL BIOPHYSICS TO MITIGATE MORTALITY OF SNARED ENDANGERED NEWFOUNDLAND MARTEN , 2005 .

[9]  J. Reynolds.  Trade-offs between welfare, conservation, utility and economics in wildlife management — a review of conflicts, compromises and regulation , 2004, Animal Welfare.

[10]  S. Harris,et al.  Differences in the capture rate of cage-trapped red foxes Vulpes vulpes and an evaluation of rabies control measures in Britain , 2001 .

[11]  J. Reynolds,et al.  Variation in abundance of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) between three regions of rural Britain, in relation to landscape and other variables , 2000 .

[12]  J. Reynolds,et al.  Demography of rural foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ) in relation to cull intensity in three contrasting regions of Britain , 2000 .

[13]  R. L. Phillips,et al.  An evaluation of breakaway snares for use in coyote control. , 1990 .

[14]  F. S. Guthery,et al.  Effectiveness and Selectivity of Neck Snares in Predator Control , 1978 .

[15]  T. Z. Atkeson.  Incidence of Crippling Loss in Steel Trapping , 1956 .

[16]  J. Shivik,et al.  Traditional and New Cable Restraint Systems to Capture Fox in Central Spain , 2010 .

[17]  M. Conover,et al.  Successful use of neck snares to live-capture red foxes , 2007 .

[18]  P. Coates,et al.  Effi cacy of CPTH-treated egg baits for removing ravens , 2007 .

[19]  R. Warner,et al.  Electronic signaling for prompt removal of an animal from a trap , 2003 .

[20]  E. Strauss,et al.  Box-trapping eastern coyotes in southeastern Massachusetts , 2002 .

[21]  Shelley D. Pruss,et al.  Evaluation of a modified neck snare to live-capture coyotes , 2002 .

[22]  J. Shivik,et al.  Preliminary evaluation of new cable restraints to capture coyotes. , 2000 .

[23]  B. Sacks,et al.  Relative Vulnerability of Coyotes to Removal Methods on a Northern California Ranch , 1999 .

[24]  S. Harrop.  The agreements on international humane trapping standards ‐background, critique and the texts , 1998 .

[25]  S. Harrop.  THE DYNAMICS OF WILD ANIMAL WELFARE LAW , 1997 .

[26]  P. Cavallini.  VARIATION IN THE BODY SIZE OF THE RED FOX , 1995 .

[27]  R. L. Phillips,et al.  Developing international trap standards - a progress report , 1994 .

[28]  G. Proulx,et al.  A SNOWSHOE HARE SNARE SYSTEM TO MINIMIZE CAPTURE OF MARTEN , 1994 .

[29]  F. Knowlton,et al.  Relative vulnerability of coyotes to some capture procedures , 1990 .

[30]  M. W. Barrett,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF POWER SNARES TO EFFECTIVELY KILL RED FOX , 1990 .

[31]  C. E. Harris,et al.  Differential Behavior of Coyotes with Regard to Home Range Limits , 1983 .

[32]  M. Boddicker.  SNARES FOR PREDATOR CONTROL , 1982 .

[33]  Stephen J. Hibler.  Coyote Movement Patterns with Emphasis on Home Range Characteristics , 1977 .