The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trapping and Marking Terrestrial Mammals for Research: Integrating Ethics, Performance Criteria, Techniques, and Common Sense
Open accessAbstract
We propose that researchers integrate ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense when developing research trapping programs and in which members of institutional animal care and use committees address these topics when evaluating research protocols. To ask questions about ethics is in the best tradition of science, and researchers must be familiar with codes of ethics and guidelines for research published by professional societies. Researchers should always work to improve research methods and to decrease the effects on research animals, if for no other reason than to minimize the chances that the methods influence the animals' behavior in ways that affect research results. Traps used in research should meet performance criteria that address state-of-the-art trapping technology and that optimize animal welfare conditions within the context of the research. The proposal includes the following criteria for traps used in research: As Criterion I, killing-traps should render >/= 70% of animals caught irreversibly unconscious in </= 3 min (calculated with 95% confidence). As Criterion II, live-traps should trap >/= 70% of animals with </= 50 points scored for physical injury (calculated with 95% confidence). The types of traps described include killing-traps (snap traps, rotating jaw traps, snares, pitfalls, and drowning sets), common sets, and the common types of live-traps (box and cage traps, pitfalls, foothold traps. snares, corrals and nets, and dart collars). Also described are trapping methods for specific mammals, according to which traps fulfill Criteria I and II for which species, and techniques for short-term, long-term, and permanent marking of mammals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments
Hurlbert, S. H. (1984) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1942661 · Cited by 8,377
Recolonizing Carnivores and Naïve Prey: Conservation Lessons from Pleistocene Extinctions
Berger, J., Swenson, J. E., & Persson, I.-L. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1056466 · Cited by 482
Cited by
Sikes, R. S., & the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists (2016) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyw078 · Cited by 3,218
Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research
Sikes, R. S., & Gannon, W. L. (2011) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1644/10-mamm-f-355.1 · Cited by 2,378
The potential for acoustic individual identification in mammals
Linhart, P., Mahamoud-Issa, M., Stowell, D., & Blumstein, D. T. (2022) · Mammalian Biology · doi:10.1007/s42991-021-00222-2 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Powell, R. A., & Proulx, G.
- Venue
- ILAR Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-01-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 259-276
- ISSN
- 1084-2020 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115388023
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trapping and Marking Terrestrial Mammals for Research: Integrating Ethics, Performance Criteria, Techniques, and Common Sense. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ilar.44.4.259
- The paper
- Powell, R. A., & Proulx, G. (2003). Trapping and Marking Terrestrial Mammals for Research: Integrating Ethics, Performance Criteria, Techniques, and Common Sense. ILAR Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.44.4.259
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.