Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:05:43.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Traps for killing stoats (Mustela erminea): improving welfare performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

B Warburton ,
N Poutu ,
D Peters  and
P Waddington
B Warburton*
Affiliation:
Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand
N Poutu
Affiliation:
Department of Conservation, Tongariro Taupo Conservancy, Department of Conservation, Private Bag Turangi, New Zealand
D Peters
Affiliation:
Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, Wellington, New Zealand
P Waddington
Affiliation:
5 Collins Street, Wellington, New Zealand
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [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.

Fenn traps are widely used in New Zealand for control of small predators. Introduced stoats (Mustela erminea) pose a significant risk to many indigenous New Zealand bird species, and the Department of Conservation (DOC) has used Fenn traps to reduce their numbers over the last 20-30 years. Changes to New Zealand animal welfare legislation in 1999 focused attention on whether this trap killed quickly and consistently and, therefore, pen tests were carried out to assess their killing performance. A guideline for testing traps was developed for the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and to meet the guidelines kill traps must render all ten test animals irreversibly unconscious within three minutes. Testing is stopped as soon as three animals fail the criterion. New Mk IV and MkVI and used MkVI Fenn traps were tested. With the exception of one stoat captured in a new MkVI trap, all stoats remained conscious until euthanased at 5 minutes, and consequently only three stoats were used in each test. In response to these results, a new series of traps was developed (DOC 150, 200, and 250). These killed all 10 test animals, with all rendered irreversibly unconscious within 3 minutes and most unconscious in less than 20 seconds. The new DOC traps have also been tested for their efficacy at killing other small mammals including rats, ferrets, and hedgehogs, which are often captured as non-target species. As these new traps replace Fenn traps in Department of Conservation stoat control operations, significant improvements in the welfare of trapped stoats should result.

Keywords

animal welfareFenn trapskill trapsnon-target speciesstoatstrap standards
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , May 2008 , pp. 111 - 116
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Benn, DM 1981 The importance of holding force in humane trap development. Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference 3: 1588–1598Google Scholar
Brown, K 2002 Identifying long-term cost-effective approaches to stoat control. Department of Conservation Internal Series 137. Department of Conservation: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Government of New Zealand 1999 Animal Welfare Act 1999. Available at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0142/latest/dlm49664.htmlGoogle Scholar
ISO 1999 ISO 10990-4 Animal (mammal) traps - Part 4: Methods for testing killing-trap systems used on land or underwater. 15 pp. International Organisation for Standardisation: Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Jotham, N and Phillips, RL 1994 Developing international trap standards - a progress report. In: Halverson, WS and Crabb, AC (eds) Proceedings of the 16th Vertebrate Pest Conference, pp 308–310. 1-3 March 1994, Santa Clara, California: University of California: Davis, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
King, CM 1981 The effects of two types of steel traps upon captured stoats (Mustela erminea). Journal Zoology (London) 195: 553–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLennan, JA, Porter, MA, Robertson, HA, Wake, GC, Colbourne, R, Dew, L, Joyce, L, McCann, AJ, Miles, J, Miller, PJ and Reid, J 1996 Role of predation in the decline of kiwi, Apteryx spp, in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20: 27–35Google Scholar
National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee 2005 NAWAC Guideline 09: Assessing the Welfare Performance of Restraining and Kill Traps. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, CFJ, Dilks, PJ and Elliott, GP 1996 Control of a stoat (Mustela erminea) population irruption to enhance mohua (yellowhead) (Mohoua ochrocephala) breeding success in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 23: 279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowsell, HC, Tircey, J and Cox, F 1981 Assessment of effectiveness of trapping methods in production of a humane death. In: Chapman JA and Pursley D (eds) Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference, pp 1647-1670. 3-11 August, 1980, Frostburg, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
Warburton, B 1995 Setting standards for trapping wildlife. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Australian Vertebrate Pest Conference, pp 283-287. 29 May-2 June, 1995, Hobart, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
Wilson, PR, Karl, BJ, Toft, RJ, Beggs, JR and Taylor, RH 1998 The role of introduced predators and competitors in the decline of kaka (Nestor meridionalis) populations in New Zealand. Biological Conservation 83: 175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar