Trapping, Behavior, and Welfare | 563 ate their capture procedures and research results very carefully (Cattet et al., 2008: pp 986–987) Minimizing Impacts of Trapping in Wildlife Research Whether trapping animals for scientific research, relocation, or reintroduction programs, wildlife researchers and managers require state-of-the-art, humane live traps They need to know, for example, if a particular trap type may negatively alter an animal’s behavior after it is released Powell and Proulx (2003) argue that researchers should choose traps that minimize pain, stress, and discomfort, if for no other reason than to minimize the effect on the behavior and survival of animals, which ultimately affects research results Non-target animals trapped in leghold traps and then released may be so severely injured that they are unable to survive in the wild Redig (1981) reported that 21 percent of the bald eagles admitted to the University of Minnesota Raptor Research and Rehabilitation Program over an eight-year period had been caught in leghold traps Of these, 64 percent had sustained injuries that proved fatal Oftentimes, trap-related injuries may be internal and therefore less readily apparent Furthermore, the somatic and psychological stress to wild animals that can result from trapping can suppress their immune systems and significantly compromise their post release recovery (Jordan, 2001) As animal ethologists and ethicists continue to demonstrate the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral similarities between humans and other animals (Fox, 2001), it will become increasingly difficult to justify continued testing and use of traps known to inflict fear, pain, and suffering on wildlife Ideally, in the field of wildlife research, trapping will be replaced with less invasive methods that preclude the need for trapping Track plates, hair traps, remotely triggered cameras, and DNA hair testing offer noninvasive alternatives to trapping When trapping is necessary, researchers should ensure that traps minimize physical injury as well as behavioral and physiological stress Researchers must also be aware that when they conduct what appears to be benign, least-invasive research that involves trapping, there may be postrelease impacts that affect individual animal(s), and ultimately their research results (Powell and Proulx, 2003; Cattet et al., 2008) See also Predator Control and Ethics; Wildlife Abuse; Wildlife Services Further Reading Banci, V and Proulx, G 1999 Resiliency of furbearers to trapping in Canada In G Proulx, ed Mammal trapping, 1–46 Sherwood Park, Alberta: Alpha Wildlife Research and Management Ltd Cattet, M., Boulanger, J., Stenhouse, G., Powell, R A., and Reynolds-Hogland, M J 2008 An evaluation of long-term capture effects in Ursids: Implications for wildlife welfare and research Journal of Mammalogy 89:973–990 Colleran, E., Papouchis, C., Hofve, J., and Fox, C 2004 The use of injury scales in the assessment of trap-related injuries Chapter in C H Fox and C.M Papouchis, eds., Cull of the wild: A contemporary analysis of wildlife trapping in the United States Sacramento, CA: Animal Protection Institute Fox, C H 2004a The status of fur trapping: An historical overview Chapter in C.H Fox, and C.M Papouchis, eds., Cull of the wild: A contemporary analysis of wildlife trapping in the United States Sacramento, CA: Animal Protection Institute Fox, C H 2004b The development of international trapping standards Chapter in C.H Fox, and C.M Papouchis, eds Cull of the