Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:48:12.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-lethal control of fox predation: the potential of generalised aversion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

DW Macdonald  and
SE Baker
DW Macdonald*
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
SE Baker
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
*
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Traditionally, game-keepers and agriculturalists have controlled predators using lethal methods, but there are circumstances under which these may be ineffective or inappropriate for animal welfare or conservation reasons. Generalised aversion is potentially a form of non-lethal control, in which predators are conditioned to avoid foul-tasting bait, causing them subsequently to generalise this avoidance to similar, but untreated, prey, thereby affording it protection. In this exploratory study, a group of captive red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) was successfully conditioned to avoid untreated milk after drinking milk containing BitrexTM, a bitter substance that they were unable to detect except by taste. Our foxes were members of a family group and so housed together to reduce stress, and therefore the individuals’ responses to the various treatments may not have been independent. As a result, we combined data from the three animals, and our most conservative analyses consider the sampling population to be this fox group; we do not make inferences about foxes in general, but confine them to this fox-group. This trial was a pilot to reveal the potential for future work on wild animals. Successful application of generalised aversion to non-lethal predator control has far-reaching implications for the sport hunting industry, nature reserve management and the conservation of threatened predators requiring control, as well as clear animal welfare benefits.

Keywords

animal welfareBitrex™conditioned taste aversiongeneralised aversionred foxrepellency
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 77 - 85
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Andelt, WF, Burnham, P and Baker, KP 1994 Effectiveness of capsaicin and Bitrex repellents for deterring browsing by captive mule deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 330–334Google Scholar
Anon 1993 Appalled by cull. Shropshire Star, 14 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, RPD and Macdonald, DW 1994 Can repellents function as a non-lethal means of controlling moles (Talpa europaea)! Journal of Applied Ecology 31: 731–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, ML and Decker, DG 1994 Responses of captive fish crows to eggs treated with chemical repellents. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, ML and Winder, F 1987 Emergency action to protect endangered bird species in the European community. Article 6166. Protection of Sterna dougalli. RSPB and IWC Contract Report. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Sandy, UKGoogle Scholar
Baker, P and Harris, S 1997 How will a ban on hunting affect the British fox population? Electra Publishing: Cheddar, UKGoogle Scholar
Baker, SE and Macdonald, DW 1999 Non-lethal predator control: exploring the options. In: Cowan, DP and Feare, CJ (eds) Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management pp 267–282. Filander Verlag: Fürth, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Cadbury, CJ 1989 Relationship between game management and nature conservation. RSPB Report. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Sandy, UKGoogle Scholar
Cowan, DP, Reynolds, JC and Gill, EL 2000 Manipulating predatory behaviour through conditioned taste aversion: can it help endangered species! In: Gosling LM and Sutherland WJ (eds) Behaviour and Conservation pp 281–299. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Dimmick, CR and Nicolaus, LK 1990 Efficiency of conditioned aversion in reducing depredations by crows. Journal of Applied Ecology Π: 200–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durdin, C 1992 Supplementary feeding of kestrels protects little terns in Norfolk. The Seabird Group, Newsletter 63: 1–2Google Scholar
Emsley, J 1985 A prime case for bitterness. New Scientist, 9 May, p 40Google Scholar
Forster, JA 1975 Electric fencing to protect sandwich tern nests against foxes. Biological Conservation 7: 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, J and Hankins, WG 1977 On the origin of taste aversion paradigms. In: Barlor, LM, Best, MR and Domjan, M (eds) Learning Mechanisms in Food Selection pp 3–22. Baylor University Press: Waco, Texas, USAGoogle Scholar
Garcia, J and Koelling, RA 1966 Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science 4: 123–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, J, Hankins, WG and Rusiniak, K 1974 Behavioral regulation of the milieu interne in man and rat. Science 185: 824–831CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, RE and Cadbury, CJ 1987 Breeding waders of lowland wet grasslands. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Conservation Review 1: 10–13Google Scholar
Gustavson, CR and Gustavson, JC 1985 Predation control using conditioned food aversion methodology: theory, practice and implications. In: Braveman NS and Bronstein P (eds) Experimental assessments and clinical applications of conditioned food aversions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol 443 pp 348-356. New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddon, PC and Knight, RC 1983 A Guide to Little Tern Conservation. RSPB report. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Sandy, UKGoogle Scholar
Harris, S 1997 Taking issue: killing with cruelty. BBC Wildlife 15(12): 34–35Google Scholar
Hill, DA and Robertson, PA 1988 Breeding success of wild and hand-reared ring-necked pheasants. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 446–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, D and Young, A 1991 Little Tern Protection at Gronant 1991. RSPB report. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Sandy, UKGoogle Scholar
Kaukeinen, DE and Buckle, AP 1992 Evaluation of aversive agents to increase the selectivity of rodenticides with emphasis on denatonium benzoate (Bitrex) bittering agent. In: Borecco, JE and Marsh, RE (eds) Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 15 pp 192–198. University of California: Davis, USAGoogle Scholar
King, CM 1994 Monitoring and Control of Mustelids on Conservation Lands. Part I: Planning and Assessing an Operation. Department of Conservation Technical Series 3. Department of Conservation: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Kleinkauf, A, Macdonald, DW and Tattersall, FH 1999 A bitter attempt to prevent non-target poisoning of small mammals. Mammal Review 29: 201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, PJW and Yalden, DW 1977 The decline of the rarer carnivores in Great Britain during the nineteenth century. Mammal Review 7: 95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leif, AP 1994 Survival and reproduction of wild and pen-reared ring-necked pheasant hens. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 501–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstrom, E, Angelstam, P, Widen, P and Andren, H 1987 Do predators synchronise vole and grouse fluctuations? An experiment. Oikos 48: 121–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linhart, SB, Sterner, RT, Dasch, GJ and Theade, JW 1984 Efficacy of light and sound stimuli for reducing coyote predation upon pastured sheep. Protection Ecology 6: 75–84Google Scholar
Linnell, JDC, Aanes, R and Swenson, JE 1997 Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 6(9): 1245-1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, DW, Mace, GM and Barreto, GR 1999 The effects of predators on fragmented prey populations: a case study for the conservation of endangered prey. Journal of Zoology (London) 247: 487–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, DW, Tattersall, FH, Johnson, PJ, Carbone, C, Reynolds, JC, Langbein, J, Rushton, SP and Shirley, MDF 2000 Managing British Mammals: Case Studies from the Hunting Debate. WildCRU, Oxford University: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Minsky, D 1980 Preventing fox predation at a least tern colony with an electric fence. Journal of Field Ornithology 51: 180–181Google Scholar
Nachman, M and Ashe, J 1973 Learned taste aversions in rats as a function of dosage, concentration, and route of administration of LiCl. Physiology and Behavior 10: 73–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newton 1 1993 Predation and limitation of bird numbers. Current Ornithology II: 143-198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaus, LK and Nellis, DW 1987 The first evaluation of the use of conditioned taste aversion to control predation by mongooses on eggs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 17: 329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaus, LK, Cassel, JF, Carlson, RB and Gustavson, CR 1983 Taste aversion conditioning of crows to control predation on eggs. Science 220: 212–214CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfeifer, WK and Goos, MW 1982 Guard dogs and gas exploders as coyote depredation control tools in North Dakota. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 10: 55–61Google Scholar
Reynolds, J and Nicolaus, L 1993 Learning to hate gamebirds. The Game Conservancy Review 25: 97–99. The Game Conservancy Trust: Fordingbridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, JC 1999 The potential for exploiting conditioned taste aversion (CTA) in wildlife management. In: Cowan, DP and Feare, CJ (eds) Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management pp 267–282. Filander Verlag: Fürth, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, JC and Tapper, SC 1996 Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation. Mammal Review 26 (2/3): 127-156Google Scholar
Reynolds, JC, Angelstam, P and Redpath, S 1988 Predators, their ecology and impact on gamebird populations. In: Hudson, PJ and Rands, MRW (eds) Ecology and Management of Gamebirds pp 72–97. Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, JC, Goddard, HN and Brockless, MH 1993 The impact of local fox (Vulpes vulpes) removal on fox populations at two sites in southern England. Gibier Faune Sauvage 10: 319–334Google Scholar
Riley, AL and Tuck, DL 1985 Conditioned food aversions: a bibliography. In: Braveman NS and Bronstein P (eds) Experimental assessments and clinical applications of conditioned food aversions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol 443 pp 381-437. New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 1994 A letter to the League Against Cruel Sports, 7 June. In: John McFall's Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill: A Briefing for MPs and Journalists. League Against Cruel Sports: London, UKGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc 1988 SAS/STAT™ User's Guide, Release 6.03 Edn. SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Seigel S and Castellan NJ Jr 1988 Non-Parametric Statistics. McGraw-Hill International Editions: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Semel, B and Nicolaus, LK 1992 Estrogen-based aversion to eggs among free-ranging raccoons. Ecological Applications 2: 439–449CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sillero-Zubiri, C and Laurenson, MK 2001 Interactions between carnivores and local communities: conflict or co-existence! In: Gittleman JL, Funk SM, Macdonald D and Wayne RK (eds) Carnivore Conservation 5 pp 282–312. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Stewart, PD, Ellwood, SA and Macdonald, DW 1997 Remote video-surveillance of wildlife — an introduction from experience with the European badger, Meles meles. Mammal Review 27: 185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strange, H 1993 Saved to be shot! Shropshire Star, IS JanuaryGoogle Scholar
Tapper, S 1992 Game Heritage. An Ecological Review from Shooting and Gamekeeping Records. The Game Conservancy Trust: Fordingbridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Tuyttens, FAM and Macdonald, DW 1998 Fertility control: an option for non-lethal control of wild carnivores! Animal Welfare 7: 339–364Google Scholar
Wall, T 1993 Notes from the hill: Red Grouse going back. Snailbeach Newsletter, Shropshire, JanuaryGoogle Scholar