Satellite and telecommunication alert system for foot-hold trapping
Paul D. Meek
A C G , Guy Ballard B C , Heath Milne B , Simon Croft D , Geoff Lawson D and Peter J. S. Fleming B E F
A Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 530, Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australia.
B School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
C Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, c/- University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
D Encounter Solutions Ltd, Leone Terrace, Mt Albert, Auckland, 1025, New Zealand.
E Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, 1447 Forest Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia.
F Institute for Agriculture and the Environment, Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia.
G Corresponding author. Email: paul.meek@dpi.nsw.gov.au
Wildlife Research 48(2) 97-104 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR20043
Submitted: 17 March 2020 Accepted: 21 June 2020 Published: 1 September 2020
Abstract
Context: Improving the welfare outcomes for captured animals is critically important and should underpin ‘best-practice’ trapping. Most Australian States and Territories have regulations and guidelines that form a legal framework for the maximum number of hours an animal can be restrained in a trap. Because servicing all traps within preferred time frames (less than 24 h) can be logistically difficult or is considered undesirable for efficacy reasons, some jurisdictions have adopted relatively long trap-checking intervals (up to 72 h).
Aims: We developed and tested the signal transmission and alert efficacy of a foot hold-trap alert system, based on Celium technology, so as to advise trappers of the activation of individual foot-hold traps, even in remote locations.
Methods: We refined the Celium trap-alert system and designed a below-ground wireless node that transmits a message via satellite or by using the cellular system when a foot-hold trap is sprung. We tested signal transmission and alert efficacy in three locations, with a focus in Australia.
Key results: Transmission of signals from nodes to hubs and to a smart-phone application were used to resolve interference problems and to identify signal limitations and strengths. During the capture of 34 dingoes, 91% of captures resulted in an alert being received. False negatives were attributed to technical issues with nearby transmitters swamping signals, and software problems that have since been resolved. In 40 captures of dogs and foxes, only one trap-alert transmitter (mole) was uncovered by a target animal and no devices were damaged by animals post-capture.
Conclusions: This cable-less trap-alert system successfully uses both cellular and satellite networks to transmit messages from desert and coastal locations to trappers, in Australia. We confirmed that this trap-alert system is not detected by target predators in the areas tested and can be effectively used to alert trappers when traps have been sprung.
Implications: This trap-alert system provides a tool to improve welfare outcomes for trapped target and non-target animals through Australia and New Zealand and wherever trapping occurs. It, furthermore, provides a solution to checking traps daily when the distance to and between traps cannot be covered within an appropriate time frame. Although trap alerts can never replace the value of daily trap checking by the trapper, they provide a solution to a management problem, namely, one of accessibility to sites.
Additional keywords: canids, control, eutherian predator, humaneness, pest management.
References
Ballard, G., Fleming, P. J. S., Meek, P. D., and Doak, S. (2020). Aerial baiting and wild dog mortality in south-eastern Australia. Wildlife Research , .| Aerial baiting and wild dog mortality in south-eastern Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Balser, D. S. (1965). Tranquilizer tabs for capturing wild carnivores. The Journal of Wildlife Management 29, 438–442.
| Tranquilizer tabs for capturing wild carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Croft, S., Leckie, C., and Warburton, B. (2016). Landscape-scale wireless technology for vertebrate pest control. In ‘Proceedings of the 27th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M. Timm and R. A. Baldwin.) pp. 368–372. (University of California: Davis, CA, USA.)
Darrow, P. A., and Shivik, J. A. (2008). A pilot evaluation of trap monitors by the USDA Wildlife Services operational program. In ‘Proceedings of the 23rd Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds R. M. Timm and E. M. B. Madon.) pp. 213–217. (University of California: Davis, CA, USA.)
Doherty, T. S., and Algar, D. (2015). Response of feral cats to a track-based baiting programme using Eradicat® baits. Ecological Management & Restoration 16, 124–130.
| Response of feral cats to a track-based baiting programme using Eradicat® baits.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fleming, P. J. S., Corbett, L. K., Harden, R., and Thomson, P. C. (2001). ‘Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs.’ (Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra, ACT, Australia.)
Johansson, A. T., Örjan, J., and Tom, M. (2011). An automatic VHF transmitter monitoring system for wildlife research. Wildlife Society Bulletin (2011–) 35, 489–493.
| An automatic VHF transmitter monitoring system for wildlife research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jones, C., Warburton, B., Carver, J., and Carver, D. (2015). Potential applications of wireless sensor networks for wildlife trapping and monitoring programs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39, 341–348.
| Potential applications of wireless sensor networks for wildlife trapping and monitoring programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Larkin, R. P., VanDeelen, T. R., Sabick, R. M., Gosselink, T. E., and Warner, R. E. (2003). Electronic signaling for prompt removal of an animal from a trap. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973–2006) 31, 392–398.
Linhart, S. B., Dasch, G. J., and Turkowski, F. J. (1981). The steel leghold trap: techniques for reducing foot injury and increasing selectivity. In ‘Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Conference, Vol. 3’, Frostburg, MD, USA, 3–11 August 1980. (Eds J. A. Chapman and D. Pursley.) pp. 1560–1578.
Marks, C. A. (1996). A radiotelemetry system for monitoring the treadle snare in programmes for control of wild canids. Wildlife Research 23, 381–386.
| A radiotelemetry system for monitoring the treadle snare in programmes for control of wild canids.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Marks, C. A., Allen, L., Gigliotti, F., Busana, F., Gonzalez, T., Lindeman, M., and Fisher, P. M. (2004). Evaluation of the tranquilliser trap device (TTD) for improving the humaneness of dingo trapping. Animal Welfare 13, 393–399.
Meek, P., Jenkins, D., Morris, B., Ardler, A., and Hawksby, R. (1995). Use of two humane leg-hold traps for catching pest species. Wildlife Research 22, 733–739.
| Use of two humane leg-hold traps for catching pest species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G. A., and Fleming, P. J. S. (2019a). Techniques and practices of Australian pest animal trappers. Pacific Conservation Biology 25, 257–265.
| Techniques and practices of Australian pest animal trappers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Brown, S. C., Wishart, J., Milne, H., Aylett, P., Humphrys, S., Ballard, G., and Fleming, P. (2019b). Efficacy of lethal-trap devices to improve the welfare of trapped wild dogs. Wildlife Research 46, 89–95.
| Efficacy of lethal-trap devices to improve the welfare of trapped wild dogs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Shorter, K., and Falzon, G. (2019c). Do lethal trap devices threaten foot-hold trap capture efficacy? International Journal of Pest Management 65, 66–71.
| Do lethal trap devices threaten foot-hold trap capture efficacy?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nolan, J. W., Russell, R. H., and Anderka, F. (1984). Transmitters for monitoring Aldrich snares set for grizzly bears. The Journal of Wildlife Management 48, 942–945.
| Transmitters for monitoring Aldrich snares set for grizzly bears.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Notz, E., Imholt, C., Reil, D., and Jacob, J. (2017). Testing automated sensor traps for mammal field studies. Wildlife Research 44, 72–77.
| Testing automated sensor traps for mammal field studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sharp, T., and Saunders, G. (2008). ‘A model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods.’ (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra, ACT, Australia.)
Short, J., Turner, B., and Risbey, D. (2002). Control of feral cats for nature conservation. III. Trapping. Wildlife Research 29, 475–487.
| Control of feral cats for nature conservation. III. Trapping.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Warburton, B., Jones, C., and Ekanayake, J. (2015). ‘Remote Monitoring of Traps using Wireless-based Systems.’ (Landcare Research: Lincoln, New Zealand.)
Woodford, L., and Robley, A. (2011). ‘Assessing the Effectiveness and Reliability of a Trap Alert System for use in Wild Dog Control.’ (Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment: Melbourne, Vic., Australia.)
