Initial comparison: jaws, cables, and cage-traps to capture coyotes

Abstract

The need for alternative predator capture techniques is increasing because of concerns about the efficiency, selectivity, and injury of currently available capture methods. There also is a need for comparative data evaluating new or seldom used methods. In an initial evaluation, we first surveyed wildlife managers for information on cage-trapping; using these data, we conducted a field study of 4 coyote (Canis latrans) capture systems for animal damage management. We tested the SoftCatch®, Collarum®, Wildlife Services-Turman, and Tomahawk®, systems for capturing coyotes in Arizona and south Texas during 2001 and 2002. We determined capture efficiency and selectivity and performed whole-body necropsies to identify trap-related injuries. Surveys indicated that coyotes usually were captured in large (>1.6-m-length) cage-traps baited with meat or carcasses. In our field evaluation, we estimated a capture efficiency (percentage of coyote captures per capture opportunity) of 0% for the Tomahawk cage-trap, 87% for the Collarum, 88% for the WS-T throw arm, and 100% for the SoftCatch. Cage-traps were the least selective, capturing 34 noncoyote animals, and Collarums were the most selective, capturing no noncoyote animals. The WS-T and SoftCatch devices showed intermediate selectivity of 50% and 69%, respectively. All devices showed low injury scores relative to jawed devices in previous studies; 92%, 57%, and 92% of coyotes captured in the Collarum, WS-T, and SoftCatch showed no indicators of poor welfare, respectively.