Tools and Technology Article Traditional and New Cable Restraint Systems to Capture Fox in Central Spain JAIME MUN ˜ OZ-IGUALADA, Tragsega, A ´ rea de Vida Silvestre, c/ Julia ´ n Camarillo 6 a Planta 4a, E-28037 Madrid, Spain JOHN A. SHIVIK, 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, 163 BNR Building, Logan, UT 84322-5295, USA FRANCISCO G. DOMI ´ NGUEZ, Servicio de Especies Amenazadas, Direccio ´n General de Medio Natural y Polı ´tica Forestal, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, c/ Rı ´os Rosas 24, E-28003 Madrid, Spain LUIS MARIANO GONZA ´ LEZ, Servicio de Especies Amenazadas, Direccio ´n General de Medio Natural y Polı ´tica Forestal, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, c/ Rı ´os Rosas 24, E-28003 Madrid, Spain ANTONIO ARANDA MORENO, Consejerı ´a de Industria, Energı ´a y Medio Ambiente, Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha, Avda de Francia, 2, E-45071 Toledo, Spain MARIANA FERNA ´ NDEZ OLALLA, Escuela Technica Superior Ingenieros de Montes, Universidad Polite ´cnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria S/N, E-28040 Madrid, Spain CELINA ALVES GARCI ´ A, Centro de Recuperacio ´n de Fauna silvestre El Chaparrillo, Carretera de Porzuna km 7.5, E-13071 Ciudad Real, Spain ABSTRACT Capturing animals is an essential tool of wildlife management, but the use of capture devices is being affected by public pressures on an international scale. In Europe, and particularly Spain, foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are often captured using traditional methods such as nonlocking Spanish Snares (SS) set in an ad hoc fence line known as an alar, but these traditional European methods are rarely compared to modernly described restraints such as the Wisconsin Cable Restraint (WR). We evaluated rates of efficiency, selectivity, injury, and impacts to foxes and nontarget species when using SS (as traditionally set in an alar) or WR within alars or on trails in Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. During 40,372 trap-nights from summer to winter of 2007, we captured 64 foxes, and 8 of 23 potential nontarget species. Our results indicated that WR set in trails were more efficient (0.28 capture rate) for capturing red foxes than SS set in an alar (0.11 capture rate). Relative to injury, foxes captured with the WR in the alar (95.4%), and WR in trails (90.5%), and the SS (90.9%) showed no indicators of poor welfare, and injury score analysis indicated that injuries were of similar magnitude for all capture devices. Overall, the WR set in trails may have performed the best, but all 3 methods are likely sufficient for capturing foxes with minimal injury, acceptable efficiency, and acceptable impact to foxes and sympatric nontarget species. Thus, wildlife managers in Spain and elsewhere can apply our findings to optimize capture and management of foxes. KEY WORDS alar, cable restraint, fox, nontarget, snare, trap, Vulpes vulpes. In most European countries, terrestrial carnivores are trapped to decrease the impact of predation on other valuable species, especially game and livestock (Harris et al. 2006). European laws, however, require competent author- ities to limit authorized techniques to selective trapping methods (Council of Europe 1979, Council of the European Communities 1991, Consejo de las Comunidades Europeas 1992). Additionally, international agreements regarding trapping have been created (European Union–Canada– Russian Federation 1998, United States of America– European Community 1998). The agreements require examination of traps relative to animal-welfare standards with the goal of limiting injuries to captured animals (International Organization for Standardization [ISO] 1999). The reliance on capture techniques for management, combined with public interest in improving methods, means that scientific evaluation is needed to determine if devices meet accepted standards (Harris et al. 2006). In Europe, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is the species most often live-trapped because it most often comes into conflict with humans (Ruette et al. 2003, Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2004). Snares and cage-traps are usually authorized for fox capture (Federation of Fieldsports Associations of the European Union 1998). In spite of the widespread use of snares, there is a limited amount of scientific data about their effects on the welfare of target species or additional impacts on nontarget species (Shivik and Gruver 2002, Independent Working Group on Snares 2005); most published informa- tion is from captures for radiotagging studies and is not specifically for testing capture devices (Frey et al. 2007). In Spain, previous studies have evaluated several types of capture methods (Duarte and Vargas 2001; Ferreras et al. 2003, 2007; Herranz et al. 2007). One study examined the selectivity of neck-snares as set according to traditional procedures (Herranz 1999). The methods in these previous studies were not always thoroughly evaluated according to accepted international procedures as with other traps and species (Phillips et al. 1996; Shivik et al. 2000, 2005; Mun ˜oz-Igualada et al. 2008). It is thought that devices such as cage-traps generally have very low selectivity, and snares are associated with a high mortality rate when foxes become entangled on or in fences or shrubs (Herranz 1999, Mun ˜oz- Igualada et al. 2008). Our objective was to provide scientific information about the use of old and modern capture devices for Spain (and presumably elsewhere in the European Union and the world). Specifically, we evaluated traditional and recently developed capture methods from Spain and the United States. STUDY AREA We conducted trials in the province of Ciudad-Real, Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. 1 E-mail: john.shivik@aphis.usda.gov Journal of Wildlife Management 74(1):181–187; 2010; DOI: 10.2193/2008-603 Mun ˜oz-Igualada et al. N Fox Restraint Device Evaluation in Spain 181