III I ‘l I I l I II A I fIII III I I I III I I? I I * x 7‘ ‘ I” I I II . 0—: , \10 I _ om A SEASONAL STUDY OF CONVENTIONAL VS. PREBAITED LIVE - TRAPPING FOR MEDIUM - SIZED MAMMALS Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PHILLIP BURTON DAVIS 1975 A“..- W“ ____.- “M‘” JHESIS LI B R A R Y iidfigan State aivsrsity A SEASONAL STUDY OF CONVENTIONAL VS. PREBAITED LIVE-TRAPPING FOR MEDIUM—SIZED MAMMALS By Phillip Burton Davis A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1975 ABSTRACT A SEASONAL STUDY OF CONVENTIONAL VS. PREBAITED LIVE-TRAPPING FOR MEDIUM—SIZED MAMMALS By Phillip Burton Davis A new prebaiting method for live—trapping medium-sized mammals, which has all the advantages of any conventional live-trapping technique but is more effective and efficient than conventional trapping techniques, was developed and tested seasonally. Trapping periods of 1h consecutive days in fall, winter, spring and summer resulted in lh2 captures of 5 species of medium—sized.mammals. A 3-way cross classification ANOVA revealed that season, trap size, and trapping method each had a significant effect on capture rate, but no detectable interaction between them occurred. Highest capture rates were recorded using the prebaited method with medium-size traps in the spring. An animal's susceptibility to being trapped appeared to reflect the amount of available food in its environment. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A special thanks goes to Dr. and Mrs. Cole Brembeck for the use of their property and their genuine interest in this study. At Michigan State University I thank Dr. Leslie W. Gysel, Dr. Gerhardt Schneider, Mr. Glenn Dudderar and Mr. Thomas P. Husband for their criticism, advice and encouragement throughout the study. This research was aided by a Grant—in—Aid of Research from Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society of North America. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' METHODS o o o o o o c o o o o o o o o a o o Placement of Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . Conventional Method . . . . . . . . . . . . Prebaiting Method . . . . . . . . . . Bait Marking . . . Time of Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trap Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trapping Method . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii iv H oooooommmmw IO 10 IO 17 18 23 2h Number A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 LIST OF TABLES A seasonal comparison of trapping data for conventional and prebaiting methods. Analysis of variance of capture rate in relation to season, size of trap, and trapping method. Newman—Keuls multiple range test to determine where the significant seasonal difference occurs. Newman—Keuls multiple range test to determine where the significant trap size difference occurs. Comparison of capture rates and trap size by species for all seasons combined. Seasonal trapping data on marsupialis). Seasonal trapping data on Seasonal trapping data on niger). Seasonal trapping data on (Sylvilagus‘floridanus). Seasonal trapping data on hudsonicus). iv opossum (Didelphis raccoon (Procyon Zotor). fox squirrel (Sciurus cottontail rabbit red squirrel (Taimasciurus 13 1h 15 2h 25 27 28 3O Number LIST OF FIGURES Vegetative communities and present land use on and adjacent to the study area. A representative bisect of the study area. Large single door collapsible Tomahawk live—trap located at set 3 in winter. Vegetation present at set 3 (above) in summer. Note the large difference in deciduous leafy cover. Mean capture rates at h seasonal periods. Study area in winter with vegetative foliage and herbaceous growth absent. Study area right of center in Figure 6 in summer with a diversity of vegetative foliage and herbaceous growth. Raccoon that was captured in a large trap, marked, and released. Opossum with 5 young in a large trap. 16 2O 2O 22 22 INTRODUCTION The present methods now being utilized to obtain mammal data for various reasons are generally not adequate to meet the many demands which have accompanied the growing concern for proper manage- ment and utilization of the environment in recent years. This concern peaked with the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act (N.E.P.A.) in 1969, requiring that an environmental impact statement which adequately addresses both beneficial and adverse effects of potential projects be prepared (U.S. Congress, 1970). At present, terrestrial ecology teams assigned to gather data for a sound ecological evaluation of particular habitats are in need of effective techniques to collect reliable mammal information. The method developed in this study was designed with this purpose in mind. Yet, with sentiment against the use of traditional "steel traps" increasing, an effective live—trapping method that does not injure animals may serve the needs of others as well. Numerous methodologies for capturing, marking and estimating small mammal populations, primarily mice, have been developed and studied. Research comparing trap efficiencies (Weiner, 1972), trapping methods (Smith, 1968), trap responses (Smith, 1969) and population estimation techniques (French, 1971) are prevalent. Information available on live—trapping of medium—sized mammals, squirrels to raccoons, in contrast, is lacking. Live—trapping has often been employed to obtain medium-sized mammals for closer observation (Baumgartner, l9h0), or in an attempt to estimate popula— tion sizes (Nixon, 1967). However, research that analyzes the effectiveness for obtaining Specific technique for effectiveness and efficiency of various traps and trapping methods data on medium-sized mammals needs to be performed. study objectives were, 1) to develop an effective live—trapping medium—sized mammals, 2) to compare the of prebaiting and conventional trapping methods, 3) to determine overall and species specific effectiveness of various trap sizes, and A) to examine these techniques on a seasonal basis. STUDY AREA The study area is located in the center of section 36 of T.hN.R.lW in Ingham County, Michigan. Vegetative communities and present land use of areas surrounding the study site are indicated in Figure l. Soils are predominantly somewhat poorly drained Conover loams. The woodlot to the south has poorly drained Brookston loams and the agricultural fields to the north are located on well-drained Miami loams. This interspersion pattern of contrasting soils, accompanied with the change in drainage, results in a diversity of vegetation. The vegetation structure present on the area is diagrammed in Figure 2. Boundaries for the area were established on the north, where herbaceous growth was absent, and to the south, where the crown cover of overstory trees prevented a growth of understory and herbaceous species. Thus, the study area is an agricultural— forest transition zone (Figure 2). 4 N Scale E L linch , ' 352 feet I Legend Study area boundary —— Vegetative community bounda ry Railroad :l:l:l:l:l:t A&B Agriculture fields, corn production, fallow in fall, winter, spring (1974-75) Herbaceous field Second growth beech-sugar maple woodlot Subdivision with lawns and landscaping Ag ricultu re-fo rest transition Pond Stations 'U'nmUO Figure l. Vegetative communities and present land use on and adjacent to the study area. .8; .253. m5 ,6 633 333:3": am: < .N 2 am: 58.. :oEoem 58.. 35:8 28.. 2:22 a, meoN so was: 58 -e 3 z m 3.2”. see; __ 22% 2:5 a asses: 2:5. 22 .9: assumes: SEES All 82 h METHODS Placement g£_Traps Ten field stations were located approximately 100 feet apart, with points numbered sequentially from east to west, l—lO. At each station, 3 sites approximately 10 feet apart were chosen and marked for trap placement. One large (10" X 12" X 32") (Figure 3), medium (9" X 9" X 26"), and small (6" X 6" X 19") Tomahawk single door collapsible live—trap was placed at each station. An effort was made to place all traps in a similar position at each station. A set is considered to be a station with l trap of each size. Two methods of trapping were employed, with conventional at odd numbered stations and prebaiting at even numbered sets. Conventional Method Traps were placed in the field, baited, set and checked the next morning. This procedure was continued for 1h days in each trapping period, and then the traps were removed. Prebaiting Method Traps were placed in the field, baited with enough food to last several days, and locked open so animals could freely go in and out of the trap. After 6 days, the trap was set so that it would operate normally and then it was checked the next morning. Figure 3. Large single door collapsible Tomahawk live-trap located at set 3 in winter. Figure A. Vegetation present at set 3 (above) in summer. Note the large difference in deciduous leafy cover. The following assumptions were made in regard to the above methods: 1. Trap sets of both methods were in the same habitat type. 2. Trap sets of each method were independent of one another. 3. At each station an animal had equal exposure td each trap size. Bait Ears of dried field corn, one end of which was smeared with peanut butter, were used in both the conventional and prebaiting methods. However, quantity of bait differed with 2 ears (Figure 3) in conventional traps and 10 ears that were broken in half in pre- baited traps. Marking Animals were marked in the trap with a commercial Nyansol fur dye (Taber, 1971). Different body areas were doused with the dye to produce distinctive patterns and were recorded (Appendix, Tables A6— AlO). For convenience, the dye was carried in a plastic detergent bottle which, when tipped, poured out a steady stream of dye that could be easily directed for marking. Time 9f_0bservations Traps at odd numbered sets were baited and set to capture animals every day for 1h consecutive days in November, January, March and June. Due to vandalism, traps were rendered inoperable for two days in January. Even numbered sets were prebaited, locked open and set for capture on the 6th and 13th nights of the same two week periods. All traps were removed from the field during the interim periods. During each trapping period, traps at odd numbered stations were checked each morning at sunrise, and animals captured were marked, recorded, and released. If bait had been eaten, the trap was rebaited and set for capture. Even numbered stations were observed on only two mornings in each period, the 7th and lhth. On those days, captured animals were marked, recorded, released, and traps were baited and locked open. Analysis A three-factor analysis of variance was performed to determine if season, trap size, trapping method or any combination of them affected capture rate. To determine if mean capture rate varied with trap size or season Newman-Keuls multiple range tests were run. RESULTS During the four trapping periods, lh2 captures of 5 different species of medium-sized mammals were recorded (Table 1). Season, trap size and trapping method each had a significant effect on capture rate, but no detectable significant interaction occurred between them (Table 2). Season According to a Newman—Keuls multiple range test, capture rate in the fall was significantly lower than in the summer and spring, but the same as in winter. However, the capture rate in winter was not significantly lower than the capture rates in spring or summer (Table 3). This relationship is shown graphically in Figure 5. man: There was no significant difference between capture rates in large and medium traps, but capture rates in small traps were significantly lower than in medium or large traps (Table A). A comparison of capture rates and trap size by species indicates that this trend occurs in h of the 5 species studied (Table 5). However, capture rate of red squirrels in the small traps appears to be higher than in the large traps. lO ll Table 1. A seasonal comparison of trapping data for conventional and prebaiting methods. Trappinngethod Season Conventional Prebaiting Fall Number of trap nights 210 30 Number of captures ll 10 Number of animals 11 Number of recaptures 0 Number of species A % of traps sprung 6.2 O % capture rate in large traps 10 NO % capture rate in medium traps 5.7 NO % capture rate in small traps 0 2O % capture rate 5.2 33.3 Winter Number of trap nights 180 15 Number of captures ll 6 Number of animals 9 5 Number of recaptures 1 Number of species 3 l % of traps sprung 2.2 O % capture rate in large traps 5.0 60 % capture rate in medium traps 8.3 MO % capture rate in small traps 5.0 20 % capture rate 6.1 hO Spring Number of trap nights 210 30 Number of captures 3A 17 Number of animals 26 11 Number of recaptures 8 6 Number of species 5 h % of traps sprung 5 2 3.3 % capture rate in large traps 23 50 % capture rate in medium traps 2O 8O % capture in small traps 6 NO % capture rate 16.2 56.7 Summer Number of trap nights 210 30 Number of captures 38 15 Number of animals 32 15 Number of recaptures 6 0 Number of species 5 R % of traps sprung 9 6.6 % capture rate in large traps 2l.h 50 % capture rate in medium traps 22.9 80 % capture rate in small traps 10 2O % capture rate 18.1 50 l2 .HO.O v m Pd pfldofl%flcmflm ** .mo.o v m pa paaoaeaemam pom .mz mno.0 v m pa pcaoamaumam * mw.mmm mp.:mm:aa QHH Hmpoe mm.am~ m».~omo~ mm gonna mz Hem. mp.mo~ H>.®mm: m om< mz mam. mH.Ho: om.mow m om mz mow. om.:mm m>.:oma m o< mz mwm. oa.m:w Hw.:mwm w m< ** mmm.mm mm.wamha mo.~amva .H on wonpoz * wwm.m mm.omwm mm.aoww m Amv ouflm * Nmm.m mm.w~mw mm.mmmw m A coo: mo 83m mo condom .eogpma msflmmwap was .Qmpp mo omflm .sommom ow coflpmaos ow mums ondpmmo no ooqwfipw> mo mflmhde< .m manna 13 .mo.o v m pa pqaoaaaawam pom .mz mno.0 v m pa paaoaoaqwam * .soESSm n m .wcfihgm H mm .popcws u 3 .Hamm u m a mz an" 3: "om pamoo< N am. smm.: ASN.3 uomo.»anaam.am a .m> 2 mz 3:" mp "om pmmoo< m wem.m smm.a mme.mauaam.amlm»o.am 3 .m> m x as" m: "om pomnmm m H::.m smm.: mmm.oauomo.salmso.am a .m> m mz manna: "om pmmooa m new. emm.; mmm.m umso.amlwoa.em m .m> am we spamm: "om pomnmm m smm.m smm.a smo.mauaam.amlwo:.sm 3 .m> mm * epumma ”om pomnmm ; PHH.: emm.: wwm.omuowo.~anwoa.sm a .m> mm coamsaoaoo m a mm flax a mxv Aa .m> mv oumonokmwm mGOmwom mo acomflpwmaoo . mHSooO mocoaowgfiu HmQOmwom pcooflmflcmflm map osons ocHEhopoc op pmop owzwu magwpass mHSoMIcmezoz .m canoe 1h .mo.o v m pa paaoaaaemam pom .mz mmod v m pa pcaoaaacmam * .owpwa u a .ESHUoE u z .Hamam n m a * malaa "om pomnmm m Hmm.m msm.: www.manwam.maao~>.am m .m> a mz Hana: "om pmmoo< m waw. mem.: smm.m uoes.aml~om.:m a .m> 2 * mane: “om pommmm m s:m.a msm.a mma.mauwam.mal>oa.am m .m> z seamsaosoo a a mm A mv ooawhomamm Houflm asap go :Omfiawmaoo .mHSUUO monopommflp oufim gasp pcoowwflcwfim map ohms: ocHEhopoU Op pmop owcwh onHpHSE masoxlqms3oz .: manna 15 Table 5. Comparison of capture rates and trap size by species for all seasons combined. Capture Rate in % by Trap Size Species Scientific Name* L M S Opossum Didelphis marsupialis 50.0 h2.9 7.1 Raccoon Procyon Zotor 55.h h2.5 2.1 Fox squirrel Sciurus niger 38.5 38.5 23.0 Cottontail rabbit sylvilagus fioridanus 31.h h7.0 21.6 Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 23.5 hl.2 35.3 *Scientific names after Burt (1957). 50 N0 30 2O MEAN CAPTURE RATE 10 Figure 5. l6 .’ \ . /"l \. I” ’0’ o'/ Su F W Sp Su F SEASONS Mean capture rates at N seasonal periods. 17 Trapping_Method The capture rate using conventional trapping methods was significantly lower (P < 0.01) during all N seasons than when the prebaiting method was employed (Tables 1 and 5). DISCUSSION The study area and adjacent woodlot (Figure 1) is typical of isolated farm woodlots found in southern Michigan that were commer- cially cut about N0 years ago. These woodlots often support a wide variety of vegetative species and are frequently located on poorly drained soils. They are, therefore, not cleared for agricultural production due to the expense involved in installing drainage systems. Although many consider these woodlots as non—productive areas, they provide adequate habitat to meet either the annual or seasonal requirements of many animal Species. The value of these 5- to 25—acre woodlots to wildlife species may be underestimated, as the present study area illustrates (Appendix, Tables A6—A10). It is believed that such woodlots, even though small, should be viewed as valuable wildlife habitat for mammalian species, and that further encroachment on and removal of these areas should be avoided whenever possible. The relationship of capture rate and season shows that animals were more susceptible to capture in the spring than at any other time. This susceptibility may reflect food availability, for a decrease in natural food might decrease an animal's resistance to enter a trap for food. Food availability, although not sampled quantitatively, appeared to be highest in the fall with fleshy fruit and abundant mast. This decreased in the winter and was also greatly 18 19 reduced in the spring. In the summer there was a wide diversity of vegetative foliage and herbaceous growth. The contrast between vegetation present in summer and winter is apparent from Figures 6 and 7. If capture rates did in fact reflect food availability, then why was there no corresponding significant difference between capture rates in summer and winter? Perhaps fat reserves that were built up by animals in the fall, in combination with natural foods, were enough to prevent a decrease in an animal's resistance to enter a trap. However, spring appears to be the most stressful season with both fat reserves and natural food supplies being reduced to levels that may lower an animal's resistance to entering a trap. No significant difference was detected between capture rates of large and medium traps for the species studied (Table N). Therefore, medium traps would ordinarily be preferable to large traps since they are less expensive, smaller, easier to carry and just as effective. Small traps are not preferable to medium or large traps since their capture rates were significantly lower in all N seasons (Table 1). This was perhaps due to animal size, since many of the animals captured in medium and large traps were too large to enter a small trap. When traps to be used for a project are being selected, a consideration of both animal and trap size would result in a savings of cost and time, as well as be accompanied with an increase in trapping efficiency and effectiveness. Advantages that are associated with conventional live—trapping methods are also present with the prebaiting method. Live-trapping can be safely done by most individuals, nontarget species are usually not injured, and animals can be observed, tested, marked and released 2O Figure 6. Study area in winter with vegetative foliage and herbaceous growth absent. Figure 7. Study area right of center in Figure 6 in summer with a diversity of vegetative foliage and herbaceous growth. 21 or transported unharmed (Figure 8). In addition, with public senti- ment against "steel traps" increasing, live-trapping may be an important part of a good public relations program. For example, if the opossum with her 5 young were in a leg—hold trap instead of a live-trap, most citizens encountering this would tend to be upset. If she were seen as pictured in Figure 9, an unpleasant response would probably be less likely. The greater effectiveness of the prebaiting method (Table 1), may be due to the fact that traps that were prebaited allowed animals of the same and different species to freely go into and out of the traps with a positive reward of food. Such positive reinforcement may decrease an animal's resistance (fear or wariness) to enter a trap. Social facilitation may also be operating where one animal watches another's feeding behavior and adopts it. Scent of man may be a deterent which is also decreased with the prebaiting method, since the trap or bait is not touched by man for several days. At that time, the positive reinforcement of food may be a greater attractant than in the scent of man a deterent. Amount of time and effort expended using conventional trapping methods exceeds that expended using the prebaiting method. Set up and removal time in the field are the same for both methods. However, prebaiting traps were checked fewer times, since they were locked open for part of each trapping period. During each season, 15 trips were made to the field for the conventional method and 5 trips made for the prebaiting method. Since capture rates are greater with the prebaiting method, it is not only more effective, but more efficient as well. This savings in time and effort equates to money, a concern in all investiga- tions. 22 Figure 8. Raccoon that was captured in a large trap, marked, and released. Figure 9. Opossum with 5 young in a large trap. LITERATURE CITED Tva-wfi‘nvfivq TMW“ . " ‘W ' .fi" "‘ v ‘L.-J.‘u-u"\-L/A~L_a ‘-._.'./ Burt, W. H. 1957. Mammals of the Great Lakes region. Universitv of Michigan Press Ann Arbor. 2N6 D. ' O 9 - Baumgartner, L. L. 19N0. Trapping, handling, and mar squirrels. J. Wildl. Manage. N(N): NNN-NSO. French, N. E., C. D. Jorgensen, M. H. Smith and B. G. Maza. 1971. Comparison of some IBP population estimates methods mammals. Special Report, Office of the Chairman US}. 12:, p. 1—25. Nixon, C. M., W. R. Edwards and L. Eberhardt. 1967. Estimating squirrel abundance from live-trapping data. J. Wildl. Manage. 31(1): 96-101. Smith, M. H. 1968. A comparison of different methods of capturing and estimating numbers of mice. J. Mammal. N9: NBS—N62. Smith, H. M. and R. W. Blessing. 1969. Trap response and food availability. J. Mammal. 50: 368-369. Taber, R. S. and M. Cowan. 1971. Capturing and marking wild animals, pp. 277-318 in R. H. Giles (Ed.). Wildlife Management Techniques. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D. c. 633 pp. U. S. Congress. Senate. National Environmental Protection Act of 1969. Pub. L. 91-191, 9lst Cong., 2nd sess., 1970, s. 1095. Weiner, J. G. and M. H. Smith. 1972. Relative efficiencies of four small mammal traps. J. Mammal. 53(N): 868-873. 23 APPENDIX 2N Table A6. Seasonal trapping data on opossum (Didelphis marsupialis). Season and Trap Set Animal Date Method Size Number Marking Number F ll-l7-7N C L 5 Central dorsal 1 F 11—17—7N C M 5 Left hind quarter 2 F ll-l7-7N C L 3 Left ear 3 F ll—l9-7N C M 3 Rostrum N F ll—2N-7N C L 9 Right hind quarter 5 W l-l8-75 C L 3 Juvenile, center dorsal 6 SP 3-3-75 C M 9 Tail 7 Sp 3-N-75 C M 9 Killed 8 Sp 3-6-75 C M 3 Left side 9 8 6-15-75 0 M 5 Left front foot 10 3 6-17-75 C L 3 Neck 11 S 6-19-75 C L 9 Female with 5 young 2 Left hind quarter S 6-20-75 C S 9 Female with 5 young 2 Left hind quarter 8 6-21-75 P L 2 Right front quarter 12 25 Table A7. Seasonal trapping data on raccoon (Procyon Zotor). Season and Trap Set Animal Date Method Size Number Marking Number F 11—19-7N P L 2 Center back and down 1 right side F ll-23-7N C L 5 Right Side 2 F ll—25—7N C M 5 Left ear 3 F ll—25-7N C L 3 Left hind quarter N Sp 3—2-75 C M 9 End of tail 5 Sp 3-6-75 C L l Diagonal stripe left side 6 SP 3-7-75 P L N Right front foot 7 Sp 3-11—75 C M 5 Right ear 8 Sp 3-12-75 C L 1 Right hind quarter 9 Sp 3—12-75 C M 1 Left side near front 10 Sp 3-12—75 C L 3 Right front quarter 11 Sp 3-12-75 C L 9 Injured right front foot 12 Sp 3-13-75 C L 1 Top of right hip 13 Sp 3-13-75 C L 9 Entire tail 1N Sp 3-lN-75 P L 2 Dorsal towards head 15 Sp 3-1h-75 C L 3 Center dorsal 16 Sp 3-1h-75 P M 6 Left side center 17 Sp 3-1N-75 C L 7 Tail at base to first ring 18 Sp 3-1N-75 P L 10 Left front shoulder 19 Sp 3—lN-75 P M 10 Entire tail 1N S 6-15—75 C L 5 Stripe across back 20 perpendicular to spine S 6-16-75 C S 1 Juvenile right ear 21 8 6-17-75 0 L 1 Juvenile base of tail 22 S 6-18-75 C L 7 Tail at base to first ring 18 S 6—18—75 C L 3 Stripe from shoulder to 23 shoulder 3 6-18-75 0 M 7 Juvenile tip of tail 2h 3 6-18-75 C L 9 Front legs 25 S 6-19-75 C M 9 Juvenile center back 26 5 6-20-75 C L 1 Both ears 27 S 6-20-75 C L 3 Right front quarter 11 S 6—20-75 C M 7 Juvenile right side 28 S 6-21-75 P L N Stripe right front to left 29 hip 3 6-21-75 P M 6 Top of right hip and foot 30 3 6-21-75 P M 10 Entire back 31 8 6-22-75 C M 9 Juvenile left ear 32 3 6-23-75 0 M 1 Neck 33 8 6-23-75 C M 9 Right side and front foot 3h S 6-2N-75 C L 9 Juvenile between the ears 35 S 6—25-75 C M 9 Juvenile left hip 36 8 6-26-75 0 M 9 Entire back 31 Table A7 (Cont'd) 26 Season and Trap Set Animal Date Method Size Number Marking Number 8 6-26-75 0 L 5 "V" on back 37 8 6-27-75 0 L 1 Right ear 21 S 6—27-75 C M 9 Front left foot injured 38 3 6-28-75 0 M 3 Unmarked, last day 39 S 6-28-75 C L 9 Unmarked, last day N0 3 6-28-75 0 M 9 Unmarked, last day Nl S 6-28-75 P M 10 Unmarked, last day N2 27 Table A8. Seasonal trapping data on fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). Season and Trap Set Animal Date Method Size Number Marking Number Sp 3-3-75 C M 5 Female center dorsal l Sp 3-13-75 C L 7 Male center dorsal '2 Sp 3-lN—75 P L 8 Female left front shoulder 3 S 6-16-75 C L 1 Female right front Shoulder N S 6-21—75 P L 8 Male left front shoulder 5 S 6-21-75 P M 8 Left hind hip 6 S 6-22-75 C S 1 Right hind hip 7 s 6-2N-75 C s 3 Left side 8 S 6—28—75 C S 5 Unmarked, last day 9 S 6-28—75 C M 7 Unmarked, last day 10 3 6-28-75 P L 6 Unmarked, last day 11 8 6-28-75 P M h Unmarked, last day 12 3 6-28-75 P M 8 Unmarked, last day 13 28 Table A9. Seasonal trapping data on cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus). Season and Trap Set Animal Date Method Size Number Marking Number F ll-l9-7N P M N Both front feet 1 F 11-19-7N P L 6 Center and down left hind 2 F 11-19-7N P S 8 Tail 3 F ll-l9-7N P M 10 Center back left hind foot N F ll—20-7N C M 7 Right front Shoulder 5 F ll-2N-7N C L 3 Right front foot 6 F 11-26—7N P M N Killed and eaten by weasel 7 F ll-26-7N P L 6 Left hip 8 F ll-26-7N P S 8 Center back left hind foot N F ll-26—7N P L 8 Left front shoulder 9 F ll-26-7N P M 10 Right hind center back foot 10 w 1-12-75 C M 3 Left hip 8 W l-l6-75 C L 3 Center dorsal towards rear 11 w 1-16-75 C M 3 Left hip 8 w 1-16-75 C s 3 Left hind foot 12 W 1-17-75 C M 3 Center dorsal 13 W 1-17-75 C S 3 Between ears 1N W 1-17-75 P L 2 Front center dorsal 15 w 1-17-75 P M 2 Right ear 16 w 1-17-75 P L 6 Left hip 8 w 1-17-75 P M 6 Died 17 W 1-17-75 P S 8 Both ears and between 18 W 1-17-75 P L 10 Right hind foot 19 W 1-21—75 C M 3 "X" on back 20 W 1-21-75 C S 3 Both sides 21 W 1-22-75 C M 3 Right ear and left side 22 Sp 3-1-75 C L 1 Left front foot 23 Sp 3-1-75 C S 3 Right front foot 6 Sp 3-1-75 C M 9 Left hind foot and right 2N front foot SP 3-3-75 C L 3 Both hind feet 25 Sp 3-N-75 C L 7 Center and down left hind 2 Sp 3-5-75 C M 3 Center dorsal towards rear 11 Sp 3-6-75 C L 9 Rear end and tail 26 SP 3-7-75 P M 2 Left hip 8 Sp 3-7-75 P S 2 Rostrum entirely exposed 27 Sp 3-7-75 C S 3 Left hind foot 12 Sp 3—7—75 P M N Between ears 1N Sp 3-7-75 P L 8 Center dorsal and both sides 28 SP 3-7-75 P M 10 Sole of left hind foot 29 Sp 3-7-75 P S N Center dorsal back 11 Sp 3—7-75 P M 8 Tips of both ears 30 Sp 3—8—75 C M 5 Right side of head 31 Table A9 (Cont'd) 29 Season and Trap Set Animal Date Method Size Number Marking Number SP 3-9-75 C L 9 Killed by dog 32 Sp 3-10-75 C L 9 Left hind foot and right 2N front foot Sp 3-11-75 C M 3 Tail 3 Sp 3-12-75 C M 5 Right Side Of head 33 Sp 3-12-75 C M 7 Both ears and between 18 Sp 3-lN-75 P M 2 Left hip injured 8 Sp 3—lN-75 P S 2 Rostrum entirely exposed 27 Sp 3-lN-75 P M 8 Forehead and base of ears 3N S 6-15-75 C L 1 Juvenile rostrum 35 30 Table A10. Seasonal trapping data on red squirrel (Taimasciurus hudsonicus). Season and Trap Set Animal Date Method Size Number Marking Number F ll-2l—7N C L 3 Underside 1 W 1-21-75 C L 3 Dorsal center 2 Sp 3-5—75 C L 1 Left front foot 3 Sp 3-6-75 C s 1 Left front foot (dead) 3 Sp 3-11-75 C S 1 Dead unmarked N Sp 3—13-75 C M 3 Dead unmarked 5 Sp 3-1N—75 P s 6 Right front leg 6 8 6-18-75 C M 1 Left hind leg 7 3 6-20-75 C s 3 Right hind leg 8 3 6-21-75 C M 1 Tail 9 3 6-21-75 P M 2 Neck 10 S 6-21-75 P S 10 Right shoulder 11 8 6-22-75 C M 3 Left side 12 3 6-27-75 C M 3 Right side 13 S 6-28-75 C S 3 Unmarked, last day 1N 8 6-28-75 P L N Unmarked, last day 15 8 6-28-75 P M 2 Unmarked, last day 16 ”IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII“