Do lethal trap devices threaten foot-hold trap capture efficacy?

Title
Do lethal trap devices threaten foot-hold trap capture efficacy?
Publication Date
2019
Author(s)
Meek, Paul D
Shorter, Kathleen
( author )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1309-5884
Email: kshorter@une.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:kshorter
Falzon, Greg
( author )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1989-9357
Email: gfalzon2@une.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:gfalzon2
Type of document
Journal Article
Language
en
Entity Type
Publication
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Place of publication
United Kingdom
DOI
10.1080/09670874.2018.1462538
UNE publication id
une:1959.11/26659
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.
Link
Citation
International Journal of Pest Management, 65(1), p. 66-71
ISSN
1366-5863
0967-0874
Start page
66
End page
71

Files:

NameSizeformatDescriptionLink