Field‐Assessed Injury to Wolves Captured in Rubber‐Padded Traps

Abstract

Minimizing and understanding the causes of capture‐related injury should be a goal of every project that catches animals. We investigated the influence of age, weight, and sex on the field‐assessed foot injury of 96 wolves (Canis lupus) captured in rubber‐padded foothold traps. We then compared our results with those of 6 other types of wolf traps as reported in the literature. Injury from rubber‐padded traps was lower than that of other traps, and age, weight, or sex did not influence foot damage. Rubber‐padded foothold traps appear to be humane, and managers should consider their use for live capture of wolves.

Anthropogenic impacts to the recovery of the Mexican gray wolf with a focus on trapping-related incidents

“…The most frequently tested type of trap was the smooth‐jaw (i.e., without teeth), non‐laminated foothold trap. These traps consistently resulted in more severe injuries to wolves (Van Ballenberghe , Kuehn et al , Sahr and Knowlton , Frame and Meier ), coyotes (Onderka et al ; Phillips et al ; Hubert et al ; B. White, unpublished data), and other carnivores (Olsen et al , Kreeger et al , Earle et al ; Tables ) than did other types of traps and snares.…”

“…This category, incorporating all traps except the rubber‐padded model used by Frame and Meier (), is included because Van Ballenberghe () made 109 captures of wolves using 3 models of smooth‐jawed and toothed, offset‐jaw traps but did not have sufficiently large sample sizes with all devices to make a comparison and so made differentiation among these models. A foot snare was also tested, but sample size was insufficient for inclusion in the original work.…”

“…Conventional Class I 17 17 3 10 15 75 Class II 50 48 97 62 53 16 Class III 26 30 16 24 8 Class IV 7 5 12 8 1 N 269 116 40 129 663 96 a Incorporates data from 1 Kuehn et al (1986), 2 Frame and Meier (2007), and 3 Van Ballenberghe (1984). b Each captured animal was assigned to 1 of 4 injury categories as described by Van Ballenberghe (1984): Class I ¼ ''slight foot and/or leg edema with no lacerations and no evidence of broken bones or dislocated joints,'' Class II ¼ ''moderate edema with a skin laceration 2.5 cm or less long, bones and joints as in class I,'' Class III ¼ ''injuries-skin laceration >2.5 cm long with visible damage to underlying tissues, tendons intact, bone breakage limited to one phalanx or metacarpal,'' Class IV ¼ ''various combinations of deep, wide lacerations, severed tendons, broken metacarpals, broken radius and ulna bones, and joint dislocations of the leg.''…”

“…b Each captured animal was assigned to 1 of 4 injury categories as described by Van Ballenberghe (1984): Class I ¼ ''slight foot and/or leg edema with no lacerations and no evidence of broken bones or dislocated joints,'' Class II ¼ ''moderate edema with a skin laceration 2.5 cm or less long, bones and joints as in class I,'' Class III ¼ ''injuries-skin laceration >2.5 cm long with visible damage to underlying tissues, tendons intact, bone breakage limited to one phalanx or metacarpal,'' Class IV ¼ ''various combinations of deep, wide lacerations, severed tendons, broken metacarpals, broken radius and ulna bones, and joint dislocations of the leg.'' c This category, incorporating all traps except the rubber-padded model used by Frame and Meier (2007), is included because Van Ballenberghe (1984) made 109 captures of wolves using 3 models of smooth-jawed and toothed, offset-jaw traps but did not have sufficiently large sample sizes with all devices to make a comparison and so made differentiation among these models. A foot snare was also tested, but sample size was insufficient for inclusion in the original work.…”

Treatment of a forelimb fracture and rehabilitation of a free-ranging Iberian Wolf (Canis lupus signatus)

“…prey-inflicted injuries), and mainly by human-related activities (ex. traffic accidents, illegal trapping) or captures for scientific purposes (Mech & Boitani 2003, Arnemo et al 2006, Frame & Meier 2007, which could lead to the animal death or to a limited locomotor functionality, especially in bone limbs which can hamper the wolf biological requirements for covering wide ranges and hunt large prey. However, there are studies based on osteological collections from free-ranging wolves demonstrating successful ossification of old fractures (Wobeser 1992, Kreeger 2003.…”