Validation of the live trap ‘Krefelder Fuchsfalle’ in combination with electronic trap sensors based on AIHTS standards

  • Luisa ZieglerEmail author
  • Dominik Fischer
  • Anne Nesseler
  • Michael Lierz
Short Communication


Live traps are established in pest control, fishing and hunting, but they are discussed to compromise animal welfare due to inadequate construction and control of the trap. To assure animal welfare, the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) demands for legal regulations regarding trapping devices. According to AIHTS, the certification of each trap is based on evaluation in 20 individuals of a specific animal species (target species). To this end, more than 80% of the animals must not show specific alterations of physiology and behaviour or potential injuries.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ‘Krefelder Fuchsfalle’, equipped with an electronic trap system, according to AIHTS standards. The raccoon (Procyon lotor) was chosen as target species, as it is an invasive species in urban regions of Central Europe, a potential vector for zoonotic pathogens, and a skilful animal, which potentially is most difficult to meet the AIHTS requirements. The behaviour of the trapped animal was evaluated, before shooting it and performing radiographical, pathological and histological examination.

In total, 20 raccoons were trapped within 10 months in a hunting district in Hesse, Germany. Mean period of stay within the trap were 6.39 h. Despite of 14 animals, which demonstrated low-grade excoriations (superficial skin layer) at the paws and rhinarium, no other injuries or alterations of physiology and behaviour were detected.

Therefore, this study demonstrates that the ‘Krefelder Fuchsfalle’ fulfilled the AIHTS standards and accomplished trapping according to animal welfare.


Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards Animal welfare Raccoon (Procyon lotorElectronic trap sensor system Invasive species 


  1. Anonymus (1998) Agreement on international humane trapping standards between the European Community, Canada and the Russian Federation. Off J Eur Communities L42:43–57Google Scholar
  2. Fischer ML, Sullivan MJP, Greiser G, Guerrero-Casado J, Heddergott M, Hohmann U, Keuling O, Lang J, Matrin I, Michler F-U, Winter A, Klein R (2016) Assessing and predicting the spread of non-native raccoons in Germany using hunting bag data and dispersal weighted models. Biol Invasions 18:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Harrop SR (1998) The agreements on international humane trapping standards—backround, critique and the texts. J Int Wildl Law & Policy 1:387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hartman LH, Gaston AJ, Eastman DS (1997) Raccoon predation on ancient murrelets on East Limestone Island, British Columbia. J Wildl Manag 61:377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hohmann BU, Gerhard R, Kasper M (2000) Home range size of adult raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Germany. Int J Mamm Biol 65:124–127Google Scholar
  6. Kamioka M et al (2016) Mobility of the forearm in the raccoon (Procyon lotor), raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and red panda (Ailurus fulgens). J Vet Med Sci 79:224–229CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Kappus KD, Bigler WJ, McLean RG, Trevino HA (1970) The raccoon an emerging rabies host. J Wildl Dis 6:507–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Michler F-U, Hohmann U, Stubbe M (2004) Aktionsräume, Tagesschlafplätze und Sozialsysteme des Waschbären (Procyon lotor Linné 1758) im urbanen Lebensraum der Großstadt Kassel (Nordhessen). Beiträge zur Jagd- und Wildtierforschung 29:257–273Google Scholar
  9. Onodera S, Hecks TP (1999) Evolution of the motor system: why the elephant’s trunk works like a human hand. Neuroscientist 5:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Park SY, Glaser C, Murray WJ, Kazacos KR, Rowley HA, Fredick DR, Bass N (2000) Raccoon roundworm (Baylisascaris procyonis) encephalitis: case report and field investigation. Pediatrics 106(4):e56Google Scholar
  11. Proulx G, Onderka DK, Kolenosky AJ, Cole PJ, Drescher RK, Badry MJ (1993) Injuries and behavior of raccoons (Procyon lotor) captured in the soft catch and the egg traps in simulated natural environments. J Wildl Dis 29(3):447–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosatte RC (1998) Management of raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Ontario, Canada: do human intervention and disease have significant impact on raccoon population? Mammalia 64(4):369–390Google Scholar
  13. Rudolph R (1984) Gutachten und Technik in der Veterinärpathologie. Enke Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  14. Santos N, Rio-Maior H, Nakamura M, Roque S, Brandão R, Álvares F (2017) Characterization and minimization of the stress response to trapping in free-ranging wolves (Canis lupus): insights from physiology and behavior. Stress.
  15. Schmidt K (2002) Nest predation and population declines in Illinois songbirds: a case for mesopredator effects. Conserv Biol 17:1141–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schütz KE, Agren E, Amundin M, Röken B, Palme R, Mörner T (2006) Behavioral and physiological responses of trap-induced stress in European badgers. J Wildl Manag 70:884–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sorvillo F, Ash LR, Berlin OGW, Yatabe J, Degiorgio C, Morse SA (2004) Baylisascaris procyonis: an emerging helminthic zoonosis. Emerg Infect Dis 8:355–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. White PJ, Kreeger TJ, Seal US, Tester JR (1991) Pathological responses of red foxes to capture in box traps. J Wild. Manag 55(1):75–80 Google Scholar
  19. Zoellick BW, Ulmschneider HM, Cade BS, Stanley AW (2004) Isolation of Snake River Islands and mammalian predation of waterfowl nests. J Wildl Manag 68:650–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinic for Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians and FishJustus Liebig University and Working Group Wildlife Biology of the Justus Liebig University Giessen (Arbeitskreis Wildbiologie an der Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen e.V.)GiessenGermany
  2. 2.Hessian State Laboratory (LHL)GiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations