Dubois, S. et al. International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conserv. Biol. 31(4), 753–760 (2017).
Google Scholar
Frank, B. & Glikman, J. A. Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include coexistence. In Human–Wildlife Interactions (eds Frank, B. et al.) 1–19 (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
Meng, X. J., Lindsay, D. S. & Sriranganathan, N. Wild boars as sources for infectious diseases in livestock and humans. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 2697–2707 (2009).
Google Scholar
Massei, G., Roy, S. & Bunting, R. Too many hogs? A review of methods to mitigate impact by wild boar and feral hogs. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 5, 79–99 (2011).
Carpio, A. J., Apollonio, M. & Acevedo, P. Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: Contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations. Mamm. Rev. 51, 95–108 (2021).
Google Scholar
Stillfried, M. et al. Secrets of success in a landscape of fear: Urban wild boar adjust risk perception and tolerate disturbance. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 157 (2017).
Google Scholar
Castillo-Contreras, R. et al. Urban wild boars prefer fragmented areas with food resources near natural corridors. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 282–288 (2018).
Google Scholar
Keuling, O., Strauß, E. & Siebert, U. Regulating wild boar populations is ‘somebody else’s problem’!—Human dimension in wild boar management. Sci. Total Environ. 554–555, 311–319 (2016).
Google Scholar
Vajas, P. et al. Many, large and early: Hunting pressure on wild boar relates to simple metrics of hunting effort. Sci. Total Environ. 698, 134251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134251 (2020).
Google Scholar
Licoppe, A. et al. Wild boar/feral pig in (peri-)urban areas. Managing wild boar in human-dominated landscapes. in International Union of Game Biologists (IUGB)—Congress IUGB 2013, 1–31 (2013).
Torres-Blas, I. et al. Assessing methods to live-capture wild boars (Sus scrofa) in urban and peri-urban environments. Vet. Rec. 187, e85. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.105766 (2020).
Google Scholar
Adams, C. E. Urban Wildlife Management (CRC Press, 2016).
Conejero, C. et al. Past experiences drive citizen perception of wild boar in urban areas. Mamm. Biol. 96, 68–72 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lewis, J. S., VerCauteren, K. C., Denkhaus, R. M. & Mayer, J. J. Wild pig populations along the urban gradient. In Invasive Wild Pigs in North America (eds VerCauteren, K. C. et al.) 439–463 (CRC Press, 2019).
Google Scholar
Massei, G. et al. Effect of the GnRH vaccine GonaCon on the fertility, physiology and behaviour of wild boar. Wildl. Res. 35, 540–547 (2008).
Google Scholar
Náhlik, A. et al. Wild boar management in Europe: Knowledge and practice. In Ecology, Conservation and Management of Wild Pigs and Peccaries (eds Melletti, M. & Meijaard, E.) 339–353 (Cambridge University Press, 2017).
Google Scholar
Croft, S., Franzetti, B., Gill, R. & Massei, G. Too many wild boar? Modelling fertility control and culling to reduce wild boar numbers in isolated populations. PLoS One 15, e0238429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238429 (2020).
Google Scholar
González-Crespo, C. et al. Stochastic assessment of management strategies for a Mediterranean peri-urban wild boar population. PLoS One 13, e0202289. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202289 (2018).
Google Scholar
Schemnitz, S. D., Batcheller, G. R., Lovallo, M. J., White, H. B. & Fall, M. W. Capturing and handling wild animals. In Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats (ed. Silvy, N. J.) 232–269 (John Hopkins University Press, 2009).
ECGCGRF (European Community, Government of Canada, and Government of the Russian Federation). Agreement on international humane trapping standards. Off. J. Eur. Communities 42, 43–57 (1997).
Anonymous. International agreement in the form of an agreed minute between the European Community and the United States of America on humane trapping standards. Off. J. Eur. Communities L219, 26–37 (1998).
ISO 10990-4. Methods for testing killing trap systems used on land and underwater. in Animal (Mammal) Traps—Part 4 (International Organization for Standardization, 1999).
ISO 10990-5. Methods for testing restraining traps. in Animal (Mammal) Traps—Part 5 (International Organization for Standardization, 1999).
Proulx, G., Cattet, M., Serfass, T. L. & Baker, S. E. Updating the AIHTS trapping standards to improve animal welfare and capture efficiency and selectivity. Animals 10, 1–26 (2020).
Google Scholar
Proulx, G. Mammal Trapping—Wildlife Management, Animal Welfare and International Standards (Alpha Wildlife Publications, 2022).
Iossa, G., Soulsbury, C. & Harris, S. Mammal trapping: A review of animal welfare standards of killing and restraining traps. Anim. Welf. 16, 335–352 (2007).
Google Scholar
Muñoz-Igualada, J., Shivik, J. A., Domínguez, F. G., Lara, J. & González, L. M. Evaluation of cage-traps and cable restraint devices to capture red foxes in Spain. J. Wildl. Manag. 72, 830–836 (2008).
Google Scholar
Trap Research and Development Committee. Best Trapping Practices (Fur Institute of Canada, 2018).
Virgós, E. et al. A poor international standard for trap selectivity threatens global carnivore and biodiversity conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 1409–1419 (2016).
Google Scholar
Barasona, J. A., López-Olvera, J. R., Beltrán-Beck, B., Gortázar, C. & Vicente, J. Trap-effectiveness and response to tiletamine-zolazepam and medetomidine anaesthesia in Eurasian wild boar captured with cage and corral traps. BMC Vet. Res. 9, 107 (2013).
Google Scholar
Shury, T. Physical capture and restraint. In Zoo Animal and Wildlife Immobilization and Anesthesia (eds West, G. et al.) 109–124 (Wiley Blackwell, 2015).
Webb, S. L., Lewis, J. S., Hewitt, D. G., Hellickson, M. W. & Bryant, F. C. Assessing the helicopter and net gun as a capture technique for white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 72, 310–314 (2008).
Google Scholar
López-Olvera, J. R. et al. Comparative evaluation of effort, capture and handling effects of drive nets to capture roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), Southern chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica) and Spanish ibex (Capra pyrenaica). Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 55, 193–202 (2009).
Google Scholar
Breed, D. et al. Conserving wildlife in a changing world: Understanding capture myopathy—A malignant outcome of stress during capture and translocation. Conserv. Physiol. 7, 1–21 (2019).
Google Scholar
Mentaberre, G. et al. Azaperone and sudden death of drive net-captured southern chamois. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 58, 489–493 (2012).
Google Scholar
Gaskamp, J. A., Gee, K. L., Campbell, T. A., Silvy, N. J. & Webb, S. L. Effectiveness and efficiency of corral traps, drop nets and suspended traps for capturing wild pigs (Sus scrofa). Animals 11, 1565 (2021).
Google Scholar
Baker, S. E., Macdonald, D. W. & Ellwood, S. A. Double standards in spring trap welfare. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Urban Pests (eds Daivies, C. & Pfeiffer, W. H.) 139–145 (Pureprint Group, 2017).
López-Olvera, J. R., Castillo-Contreras, R., González-Crespo, C., Conejero, C. & Mentaberre, G. Wild boar is not welcome in the city. Barcelona Metròpolis 103, 22–23 (2017).
Conejero, C. et al. Conflicto o habituación: las dos caras de la percepción social del jabalí urbano. in Proceedings of XIV Congreso de la Sociedad Española para la Conservación y Estudio de los Mamíferos (SECEM, 2019).
Conferencia Sectorial de Medio Ambiente. Directrices Técnicas para la Captura de Especies Cinegéticas Predadoras: Homologación de Métodos y Acreditación de Usuarios (Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico de España, 2011).
Generalitat de Catalunya—Government of Catalonia. Decret 56/2014 relatiu a l’homologació de mètodes de captura en viu d’espècies cinegètiques depredadores i d’espècies exòtiques invasores depredadores i l’acreditació de les persones que en són usuàries. Diari Oficial de la Generalitat de Catalunya 6609 (2014).
Fahlman, Å. et al. Wild boar behaviour during live-trap capture in a corral-style trap: Implications for animal welfare. Acta Vet. Scand. 62, 1–11 (2020).
Google Scholar
Sharp, T. & Saunders, G. A Model for Assessing the Relative Humaneness of Pest Animal Control Methods (Australian Government—Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [New Millennium Print], 2011).
Ziegler, L., Fischer, D., Nesseler, A. & Lierz, M. Validation of the live trap ‘Krefelder Fuchsfalle’ in combination with electronic trap sensors based on AIHTS standards. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 64, 17 (2018).
Google Scholar
Marco, I. et al. Capture myopathy in little bustards after trapping and marking. J. Wildl. Dis. 42, 889–891 (2006).
Google Scholar
Rideout, C. B. Comparison of techniques for capturing mountain goats. J. Wildl. Manag. 38, 573 (1974).
Google Scholar
Jedrzejewski, W. & Kamler, J. F. Modified drop-net for capturing ungulates. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32, 1305–1308 (2004).
Google Scholar
Gaskamp, J. A. Use of drop-nets for wild pig damage and disease abatement. Master’s thesis, available electronically from https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/148198 (Texas A&M University, 2012).
Lavelle, M. J. et al. When pigs fly: Reducing injury and flight response when capturing wild pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 215, 21–25 (2019).
Google Scholar
Masilkova, M. et al. Observation of rescue behaviour in wild boar (Sus scrofa). Sci. Rep. 11, 16217 (2021).
Google Scholar
Podgórski, T. et al. Spatiotemporal behavioral plasticity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) under contrasting conditions of human pressure: Primeval forest and metropolitan area. J. Mammal. 94, 109–119 (2013).
Google Scholar
Manfredo, M., Teel, T. & Bright, A. Why are public values toward wildlife changing?. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 8, 287–306 (2003).
Google Scholar
Cahill, S., Llimona, F., Cabañeros, L. & Calomardo, F. Characteristics of wild boar (Sus scrofa) habituation to urban areas in the Collserola Natural Park (Barcelona) and comparison with other locations. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 35, 221–233 (2012).
Google Scholar
Source: Ecology - nature.com
