Increasing the target-specificity of the M-44 ejector by exploiting differences in head morphology between foxes and large dasyurids

Nicholson, Evelyn; Gigliotti, Frank

doi:10.1071/wr05015

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because the ejector is anchored in position, the risk of bait caching is also eliminated (Busana et al ., 1998). Recent research in Australia has investigated modifications to the design of M‐44s to prevent them being triggered by non‐target species (Nicholson & Gigliotti, 2005).…”

Section: Target‐specific Predator Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐target impacts of poison baiting for predator control in Australia

Glen

Gentle²,

Dickman

2007

Mammal Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Mammalian predators are controlled by poison baiting in many parts of the world, often to alleviate their impacts on agriculture or the environment. Although predator control can have substantial benefits, the poisons used may also be potentially harmful to other wildlife. 2. Impacts on non-target species must be minimized, but can be difficult to predict or quantify. Species and individuals vary in their sensitivity to toxins and their propensity to consume poison baits, while populations vary in their resilience. Wildlife populations can accrue benefits from predator control, which outweigh the occasional deaths of non-target animals. We review recent advances in Australia, providing a framework for assessing non-target effects of poisoning operations and for developing techniques to minimize such effects. We also emphasize that weak or circumstantial evidence of non-target effects can be misleading. 3. Weak evidence that poison baiting presents a potential risk to non-target species comes from measuring the sensitivity of species to the toxin in the laboratory. More convincing evidence may be obtained by quantifying susceptibility in the field. This requires detailed information on the propensity of animals to locate and consume poison baits, as well as the likelihood of mortality if baits are consumed. Still stronger evidence may be obtained if predator baiting causes non-target mortality in the field (with toxin detected by post-mortem examination). Conclusive proof of a negative impact on populations of non-target species can be obtained only if any observed non-target mortality is followed by sustained reductions in population density. 4. Such proof is difficult to obtain and the possibility of a population-level impact cannot be reliably confirmed or dismissed without rigorous trials. In the absence of conclusive evidence, wildlife managers should adopt a precautionary approach which seeks to minimize potential risk to non-target individuals, while clarifying population-level effects through continued research.

show abstract

Section: Target‐specific Predator Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐target impacts of poison baiting for predator control in Australia

Glen

Gentle²,

Dickman

2007

Mammal Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other morphological differences that might be used to prevent non‐targets from accessing harmful elements of control activities include bite size, strength, shape, and reach (e.g. Sinclair & Bird 1984; Nicholson & Gigliotti 2005).…”

Section: Conceptual Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The development of target‐specific vertebrate pest management tools for complex faunal communities

Bengsen¹,

Leung²,

Lapidge³

et al. 2008

Eco Management Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of vertebrate pest control in complex faunal communities can be compromised by adverse impacts on non-target species. We present a five-step framework to guide the design of pest control programmes to overcome this constraint. The model consists of: (i) selection of the most appropriate basis for control; (ii) identification of opportunities to prevent non-target species from interacting with control activities; (iii) classification of non-target species by dissimilarity to the target pest; (iv) use of a recognition systems approach to identify further differences between pests and non-target species; and (v) experimental evaluation of prototype control methodologies. Application of the framework to the problem of feral Pig ( Sus scrofa ) control in the tropical forests of the Daintree region in north Queensland identified six design features which, if successfully evaluated and implemented, could allow the implementation of strategic, sustained Pig control using poison baits where it has previously been unacceptable.

show abstract

The canid pest ejector challenge: controlling urban foxes while keeping domestic dogs safe

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ContextIt is widely recognised that red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are abundant within urban areas; however, it is difficult to apply lethal control measures using poison baits in cities because of concerns about the safety of domestic pets, particularly dogs (Canis familiaris). AimsWe tested canid pest ejectors (CPEs) as a potential method of fox control by measuring visitation and activation behaviour of foxes and other wildlife while assessing non-target risk to domestic dogs. MethodsWe compared eight urban and eight peri-urban sites in Sydney, with half of the sites having restricted access for domestic dogs. We allocated five camera traps and ejectors per site. Through generalised linear mixed models, we compared the probability of ejector activation between foxes and dogs. We also assessed the relationship between dog visitation and distance to habitation and dog restrictions as measures of dog safety. Key resultsBoth species of canids were equally likely to pull the ejector (P=0.26). As expected, dog visitation was significantly lower in sites with dog restrictions (P<0.001). However, it was not related to distance from habitation. Only two non-canid species were recorded pulling the ejector, suggesting high target-specificity for canids. ConclusionsIn sites with dog restrictions, the risk of dog casualties from CPEs is minimal. However, distance from habitation does not increase dog safety, at least within 250m. The ejector is highly specific for canids. ImplicationsWe provide specific recommendations for the design of a potential fox control program using CPEs in urban and peri-urban areas. The ejector may be a safe method for fox control in cities when deployed at places without domestic dogs.

show abstract

Increasing the target-specificity of the M-44 ejector by exploiting differences in head morphology between foxes and large dasyurids

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Non‐target impacts of poison baiting for predator control in Australia

Non‐target impacts of poison baiting for predator control in Australia

The development of target‐specific vertebrate pest management tools for complex faunal communities

The canid pest ejector challenge: controlling urban foxes while keeping domestic dogs safe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About