Evaluation of Cage‐Traps and Cable Restraint Devices to Capture Red Foxes in Spain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: A growing international concern for the welfare of animals, combined with the need to capture and handle specific species for conservation, management, or recreational purposes, is increasing the need for scientific evaluation of capture methods. We evaluated the efficiency, selectivity, and injury of cable restraint devices and cage‐traps for capture of red foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ) in 4 sites of Castilla y León (Spain) during spring of 2006. All traps performed similarly at all sites, with no apparent site and trap interactions. Fox capture rates and mechanical efficiencies of the Belisle® (Edouard Belisle, Saint Veronique, PQ, Canada) and Collarum® (Wildlife Control Supplies, East Granby, CT; mention of product names does not infer endorsement) were similar, but both had higher capture rates than the cage‐trap. Similar to previous studies, the Collarum was 100% selective for canids and had a selectivity of 94.4 overall, which was higher than that for the Belisle (63.4); both Collarum and Belisle were much more selective than the cage‐trap (21.4). Fox injuries were statistically indistinguishable using injury scores, but the Collarum and the Belisle surpassed international standards for humane trapping; an insufficient number of animals were captured in cage‐traps to allow evaluation. Both the Collarum and the Belisle may be useful for the capture of foxes in Spain, but training and experience with each may be necessary to ensure the highest efficiency while preventing injuries, especially to nontarget species. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):830–836; 2008)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".