Trapping and Marking Terrestrial Mammals for Research: Integrating Ethics, Performance Criteria, Techniques, and Common Sense

Abstract

We propose that researchers integrate ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense when developing research trapping programs and in which members of institutional animal care and use committees address these topics when evaluating research protocols. To ask questions about ethics is in the best tradition of science, and researchers must be familiar with codes of ethics and guidelines for research published by professional societies. Researchers should always work to improve research methods and to decrease the effects on research animals, if for no other reason than to minimize the chances that the methods influence the animals' behavior in ways that affect research results. Traps used in research should meet performance criteria that address state-of-the-art trapping technology and that optimize animal welfare conditions within the context of the research. The proposal includes the following criteria for traps used in research: As Criterion I, killing-traps should render >/= 70% of animals caught irreversibly unconscious in </= 3 min (calculated with 95% confidence). As Criterion II, live-traps should trap >/= 70% of animals with </= 50 points scored for physical injury (calculated with 95% confidence). The types of traps described include killing-traps (snap traps, rotating jaw traps, snares, pitfalls, and drowning sets), common sets, and the common types of live-traps (box and cage traps, pitfalls, foothold traps. snares, corrals and nets, and dart collars). Also described are trapping methods for specific mammals, according to which traps fulfill Criteria I and II for which species, and techniques for short-term, long-term, and permanent marking of mammals.

The use of box-traps for wild roe deer: behaviour, injuries and recaptures

“…There is increasing interest in capture effects, primarily to minimize the impact on the study species, but also for pure animal welfare reasons (Powell and Proulx 2003;Iossa et al 2007). Novelty itself is a strong stressor (Dantzer and Mormede 1983), and therefore, it is important that the roe deer are familiar with the un-set traps and are accustomed to feeding from them before they are actually trapped and restrained.…”

Evaluating the function of wildcat faecal marks in relation to the defence of favourable hunting areas

“…The traps were left open for 24 hr for 3 consecutive nights, and bread soaked in oil was used as bait. To minimise the time that small mammals were in the traps and their potential vulnerability to predators, traps were monitored at least every 12 hr (sunrise and sunset) (GURNELL & FLOWERDEW 1994;POWELL & PROULX 2003). During study, bedding was included in the live-traps to reduce mortalities; we used raw wool with natural lanolin because it is an excellent insulator that repels water.…”

“…During study, bedding was included in the live-traps to reduce mortalities; we used raw wool with natural lanolin because it is an excellent insulator that repels water. Additionally, traps were set under the cover of shrubs or dense herbs to conceal them from harassment by predators and to provide some thermal insulation (GURNELL & FLOWERDEW 1994;POWELL & PROULX 2003). No evidence of predators approaching the traps was recorded during the study.…”

Ethical regulation and animal science: why animal behaviour is not so special

“…Animal behaviour research has a central role here (Sutherland 1995;Festa-Bianchet & Apollonio 2003) and, because the research and wildlife management methods may not be completely benign for the individual animals involved (e.g. trapping, tagging, translocation, captive breeding and reintroduction; see Cuthill 1991;Farnsworth & Rosovsky 1993;Putman 1995;Powell & Proulx 2003;Wilson & McMahon 2006), an ethical judgement on the worth of the research must be made. Just as the use of animals in biomedical research is fundamentally 'species-ist' (Singer 1990;Ryder 2005; i.e.…”