Capturing beavers in box traps

Koenen, Kiana K. G.; DeStefano, Stephen; Henner, Chrissie; Beroldi, Traci

doi:10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[1153:ftfcbi]2.0.co;2

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used box and Bailey traps to capture beavers in April-October 2001. Box traps were baited with aspen Populus and scent lure to attract beavers (Koenen et al, 2005), whereas Bailey traps were not baited and used to intercept moving beavers. Captured beavers were immobilized with an intramuscular injection of ketamine hydrochloride (10-13 mg kg À1 body mass) and acepromazine maleate (2.5 mg) to calm the animal and facilitate handling (Lancia, Brooks & Fleming, 1978).…”

Section: Demography and Movementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transition to independence by subadult beavers (Castor canadensis) in an unexploited, exponentially growing population

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a 4-year study of beavers Castor canadensis to compare the movements, survival and habitat of adults established in existing colonies to juveniles dispersing to new sites in a region with high beaver densities along a suburban-rural gradient. Estimates of annual survival were high for adult and juvenile beavers. Of nine known mortalities, seven (78%) were juveniles. Mortalities occurred during spring-summer, and none during fall-winter. There was a trend toward higher-to-lower survival along the suburban-rural gradient, respectively. Human-induced mortality (e.g. trapping and shooting) was higher in rural areas, whereas nonhuman-induced mortality (e.g. disease, accidents) was higher in suburban areas. Fifteen (14 subadults and one adult) beavers moved from natal colonies to other areas. The average dispersal distance for subadults was 4.5 km (SE = 1.0) along streams or rivers, or 3.5 km (SE = 0.7) straight-line point-to-point. Most dispersal movements were made in spring (April-June). In two cases, individual subadults made return movements from their dispersal sites back to their natal colonies. Dispersal sites tended to be in smaller, shallower wetlands or streams and in areas with higher overstorey canopy closure compared with natal colonies. Woody vegetation usually preferred by beavers for food tended to be less common at dispersal sites than at natal colonies. In regions with high densities of beaver, dispersing juveniles are likely to attempt to colonize lower quality sites. High densities of beavers also lead to more human-beaver conflicts and, in Massachusetts, the pest control management options in place during the past decade have been ineffectual at controlling population levels. Alternately, in regions with no beavers or very low densities and where reintroductions are being attempted, the landscape matrix surrounding release sites should include suitable sites for dispersing young to establish colonies.

show abstract

Section: Demography and Movementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transition to independence by subadult beavers (Castor canadensis) in an unexploited, exponentially growing population

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In multi-trap comparisons of injuries, both Mowat et al (1994) and Kolbe et al (2003) found no or minimal injuries to lynx in cage traps. Cage traps have also been used for nutria (Robicheaux andLinscombe 1978, Baker andClarke 1988), and the low injury scores we observed with cage traps for beavers (also see Koenen et al 2005) and muskrats suggest similar lowinjury potential on nutria. Although cage traps might also produce few injuries in larger canids, we did not conduct any such testing and have notable concerns with respect to efficiency on these species (see efficiency discussion below).…”

Section: Injury Scoresmentioning

confidence: 72%

Best Management Practices for Trapping Furbearers in the United States

White

Batcheller

Boggess

et al. 2020

Wildlife Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans have used wild furbearers for various purposes for thousands of years. Today, furbearers are sustainably used by the public for their pelts, leather, bones, glands, meat, or other purposes. In North America, contemporary harvest of furbearers has evolved along with trap technologies and societal concerns, and is now highly regulated and more closely coupled with harvest analysis and population monitoring. Traps and regulated trapping programs provide personal or cultural rewards that can also support conservation, and can assist with advancing ecological knowledge through research, protecting endangered species, restoring populations or habitats, protecting personal property, and enhancing public health and safety. However, animal welfare and trap selectivity remain important topics for furbearer management in North America, as they have for more than a century. A related international challenge to modern furbearer management came with the Wild Fur Regulation by the European Union, which passed in 1991. This regulation prohibited use of foothold traps in many European countries and the importation of furs and manufactured fur products to Europe from countries that allowed use of foothold traps or trapping methods that did not meet internationally agreed‐upon humane trapping standards. To address existing national concerns and requirements of the Wild Fur Regulation, the United States and European Union signed a non‐binding bilateral understanding that included a commitment by the United States to evaluate trap performance and advance the use of improved traps through development of best management practices (BMPs) for trapping. Our testing followed internationally accepted restraining‐trap standards for quantifying injuries and capture efficiency, and we established BMP pass‐fail thresholds for these metrics. We also quantified furbearer selectivity, and qualitatively assessed practicality and user safety for each trap, yielding overall species‐specific performance profiles for individual trap models. We present performance data for 84 models of restraining traps (6 cage traps, 68 foothold traps, 9 foot‐encapsulating traps, and 1 power‐activated footsnare) on 19 furbearing species, or 231 trap‐species combinations. We conducted post‐mortem examinations on 8,566 furbearers captured by trappers. Of the 231 trap model‐species combinations tested, we had sufficient data to evaluate 173 combinations, of which about 59% met all BMP criteria. Pooling species, cage traps produced the lowest average injury score (common injuries included tooth breakage), with minimal differences across other trap types; species‐specific patterns were generally similar, with the exception of raccoons (Procyon lotor) for which foot‐encapsulating traps performed better than other foot‐restraining trap types. Padded‐jaw foothold traps performed better than standard‐jaw models for many species, though often similar to and occasionally worse than offset‐ or laminated‐jaw models. Most traps we tested had high capture efficiency; ...

show abstract

“…Live captures of beavers were particularly common during our project (Table 2). Although we did not compare the two box trap styles, Comstock traps seem to provide many of the benefits for beaver livecapture outlined by Koenen et al (2005) when placed correctly without having to modify the original box trap design. Our experience shows that Comstock traps also could be useful for studies seeking to live-capture mink and muskrat if set in proper locations.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Developing and adapting capture methods are important aspects of furbearer research (Kamler et al 2002;Kolbe et al 2003;Koenen et al 2005). Successful live-capture methods for furbearers are typically special-ized to target a focal species (Kamler et al 2002;McNew et al 2007) while treating both target and nontarget species humanely (Olsen et al 1986;Sikes and Gannon 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functionality of a New Live-Capture Device for River Otters

Rutter

Hanrahan

Nielsen

et al. 2019

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessments of novel capture techniques are important to wildlife research. We used Comstock traps, a new live-capture technique, to capture North American river otters Lontra canadensis. We measured Comstock trap functionality in terms of river otter capture efficiency, furbearer capture efficiency, nonfurbearer capture efficiency, and malfunction rate. During 2014–2016, we captured 36 river otters (19 male, 17 female) in Comstock traps during 2,533 trap nights (1 capture/63 trap nights) at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in southern Illinois, USA. Eleven of 20 (55%) river otters assessed for capture-related injuries received an injury as a result of capture in a Comstock trap. The most common injury was claw loss (45%), followed by tooth fracture (25%) and lacerations (10%). The ease of setting Comstock traps and of releasing nontarget captures made them an appealing option for river otter live capture; however, two river otters died because of hypothermia, two died because of drowning, and one died because of traumatic injuries sustained during capture. Special care should be taken when selecting locations to set Comstock traps with regard to temperature and fluctuating water levels. Researchers attempting to live-capture river otters using this method would benefit by restricting their use to locations with predictable water levels and seasons with mild weather patterns.

show abstract

Capturing beavers in box traps

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Transition to independence by subadult beavers (Castor canadensis) in an unexploited, exponentially growing population

Transition to independence by subadult beavers (Castor canadensis) in an unexploited, exponentially growing population

Best Management Practices for Trapping Furbearers in the United States

Functionality of a New Live-Capture Device for River Otters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About