LIVE-TRAPPING NORTH AMERICAN UPLAND GAME BIRDS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 106 United Slates Department of the Interior. Nleuart I,. Udall, Secretan Stanley A. Cain, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Fish and Wildlife Service, Clarence F. Pautzke, Commissioner Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, John S. Gottschalk, Director Live-Trapping North American Upland Game Birds By Sanford R. Wilbur, Wildlife Biologist Division of Wildlife Refuges Portland, Oregon Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 106 Washington, D.C. June 1967 CONTENTS Page Introduction General considerations 1 Methods of trapping 2 Family Tetraonidae Blue grouse 3 Spruce grouse 4 Ruffed grouse 4 Ptarmigans 10 Prairie chickens 10 Sharp-tailed grouse 11 Sage grouse 15 Family Phasianidae Bobwhite 17 Scaled quail 19 California quail 20 Gambel's quail Mountain quail Harlequin quail 23 Ring-necked pheasant 23 Chukar 25 Gray partridge 25 Family Meleagrididae Wild turkey 26 Family Rallidae Clapper rail 29 Virginia and sora rails 30 Family Scolopacidae Woodcock 30 Common snipe 32 Family Columbidae Band-tailed pigeon. «. 33 White-winged dove 34 Mourning dove 34 Index to traps 37 ii Live-Trapping North American Upland Game Birds Live-trapping has become an important tool in the study and management of North Amer- ican upland game birds. Uses of live-trapping include (1) transplanting birds to areas where there are no natural populations or where natural populations have been reduced or eradicated, (2) removing offending species from depredation areas, (3) obtaining brood stock for game farms, and (4) studying spe- cies behavior, movements, survival, etc. The object of this paper is to bring together materials on the various methods used to trap upland species. Emphasis has been placed on compiling a comprehensive list of pertinent literature rather than on treating each tech- nique in detail; more extensive treatment is given data not readily available elsewhere. In this paper, the term "upland game" covers North American gallinaceous birds of the families Tetraonidae, Phasianidae, and Meleagridadae, and members of the Rallidae (except coots and gallinules), Scolopacidae, and Columbidae that are classified as game species. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS unfeasible, and vegetation will limit the use of others. Ease of access to the trap site and degree of trap portability must also be con- sidered. 3. The time of year will affect the number of birds in an area, their food preferences, flocking habits, and wariness. Seasonal weather conditions affect the mechanics of some traps, making them unusable. 4. Traps differ in the number of birds they can capture at one time. If many birds are needed, a trap that takes 50 at a time will be better suited to the project than one working equally well but taking only one bird at a time. 5. The time allotted for the trapping proj- ect will determine the speed with which the birds must be caught, as well as determine the general trap construction. If the trapping period is to be short, a trap capable of taking large numbers of birds will probably be de- sired; under these conditions one would not usually construct a highly complex or perma- nent trap. Any trapping program, to be successful, must be planned to fit existing conditions. In general, the following points should be con- sidered. 1. The method must take into account the species to be trapped, its habits, food pref- erences, population size, wariness, etc. Each species varies greatly in its "catchability" with different traps and different baits. Best results are usually obtained by building the trap for the. birds rather than trying to mold the birds to fit the trap. 2. The terrain at the trap site is often limiting. Topography will make some methods 6. In a few cases, the number of workers available may be limiting. For example, some drive- trapping techniques require a large crew. 7. The funds available will limit the mate- rials used, the number of trappers employed, the length of the operation, etc. 8. Both Federal and State regulations apply to trapping and marking game species. Special permits are required, and certain techniques may be prohibited. Anyone anticipating a trapping program should have full knowledge of the regulations involved. METHODS OF TRAPPING Procedures for trapping upland game birds can be conveniently placed in four categories: 1. Bait traps: The birds are enticed into a trap by food or other bait (a captive bird, water, etc.). 2. Accidental traps: The birds enter the trap accidentally in the course of their travels, as in mist-netting flying birds. 3. Drive traps; The birds are driven to- ward and into a trap, a method used for sage grouse, others. quail, white-winged doves, and 4. Miscellaneous methods; The birds are caught by any of a number of methods, some suited only to particular species. Examples are spotlighting, handnetting, and immobiliz- ing with drugs. In this report, the four categories are con- sidered as they apply to each game bird. Where methods are useful for more than one species, a description will appear under one heading only. Family TETRAONIDAE BLUE GROUSE Dendragapus obscurus BAIT TRAPS The blue grouse feeds on fir needles, tender leaves, insects, fruits, and berries (Leopold, 1956) and is generally very difficult to bait- trap. Ligon (1946) states that blue grouse can sometimes be caught in traps set around or near watering places, using the water as bait. The procedure is to set long leads of chicken wire or netting that gradually taper to a nar- row "V" at the trap entrance. The birds fol- low their usual route to water, come upon the lead, and follow it into the trap. This tech- nique has been used in many other instances and will be referred to frequently. See figure 1 for a generalized lead trap setup. Another "bait" trap used successfully for blue grouse cocks on territory is the mirror trap (Mussehl, 1960). In this instance, the cock is enticed into catching himself when he attempts to battle another cock (a mirror) that has invaded his territory. This method will be described further in the ruffed grouse section. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS Mussehl (1960) had some luck with a lead trap similar to that described above. The traps were set in a brushy area where birds travelled frequently. As this is simply a mat- ter of putting a trap where there are birds and hoping they walk into it, this method is prob- ably best suited to areas where there are sub- stantial grouse populations. or nattlag Figure l.—Generalized lead trap: Bait, ."accidental," or drive trap. DRIVE TRAPS Ligon (1946) states that blue grouse can be "drive- netted", probably with a lead trap (see above). Tomlinson (1963) used a lead trap to capture hens with broods, in late summer. His trap consisted of two 75-foot chicken-wire leads joined to a 20-foot funnel. The funnel was made of netting attached to aluminum wickets, with a wooden holding pen at the end. He had difficulty with the initial discovery of broods, but success was excellent after birds were located. When a brood was found, one or two observers kept the birds in sight while others set up the trap across the birds' prob- ably escape route. When the trap was set (a 10- to 20- minute operation), all personnel joined to drive the grouse toward the trap. The birds entered the trap readily, if allowed to move slowly without excess pressure. Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. Mussehl, T. W. 1960. Blue grouse production, movements, and pop- ulations in the Bridger Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 24(l):60-67. Tomlinson, R. E. 1963. A method of drive-trapping dusky grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 27(4):563-566. SPRUCE GROUSE Canichites canadensis Ligon (1946) states that spruce grouse can be caught in daylight with long-handled nets; also, that they can be drive netted, if there is an ample population that has not been overly disturbed by hunting. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Nooses.— Bendell (1955) reports that grouse can be captured with a sliding noose of plastic line on a 10- or 11-foot bamboo cane. The noose is dropped around an unsuspecting bird's neck, then pulled tight. Hand nets. — In Montana, Mussehl (1960) captured broods with a hand net. He used nets ranging from 30 to 36 inches in diameter, with 9- to 10- foot handles. Cannon- net trap. — This trap (see sharp- tailed grouse) was tried by Mussehl (1960) but was unsuccessful because of the roughness of the terrain in which he was working. It might be useful if grouse are congregated in an area of minor slope and fairly open cover. REFERENCES Bendell, J. F. 1955. Age, breeding behavior and migration of sooty grouse, Dendragapus obscurus fullginosus (Ridgway). North American Wildlife Conference, Transactions 20:367-381. Leopold, A. S. 1956. Game birds and mammals of California: a laboratory syllabus. California Book Co., Berkeley. 128 p. While there is little published on this spe- cies, it is probable that most blue grouse trapping methods are applicable to the spruce grouse. REFERENCE Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. RUFFED GROUSE Bcnasa umbellus BAIT TRAPS Methods of bait-trapping ruffed grouse can be conveniently classified by the seasons in which they are operative. Winter trapping. — Dorney and Mattison (1956) found it possible to bait Wisconsin ruffed grouse into their wooden bob cage (fig. 2). The trap worked best on snow-covered ground. A shelter of leafy oak boughs (3 feet square and 2 feet high) was prebaited with dogwood berries (Cornus sp.) and mountain ash berries (Sorbus sp.) until the grouse were using the area regularly. Then the bob trap letting top Figure 2.— Wooden bob cage (after Dorney and Mattlson, 1956). Bobs are placed to open Inward when pushed against; bottom stop rod prevents them from being pushed outward for escape. was set up under the shelter, and trapping began. Bump et al. (1947) winter- trapped ruffed grouse in a wire trap (design not described) baited with apples and grain. They found that this bait would not work after the birds had changed to a winter diet of buds. Dr. S. W. Harris (personal communication) states that some luck has been had in Minne- sota with a tip- top trap approached by wire leads (see sharp-tailed grouse). Gullion (1965) describes a modified clover- leaf trap (see "fail trapping" below) baited with dyed corn. He found this trap to be suc- cessful from mid-August thru mid-May. When the ground was bare in fall and spring, traps established in brushy areas were successful irrespective of overhead cover. Once snow was on the ground, only traps placed under low-hanging coniferous boughs proved ac- ceptable. When temperatures dropped below 0° F.,the skin of captured grouse often froze to the metal of the trap. Spring trapping.— During the spring months, the male ruffed grouse spends almost all his time on or near his drumming log. During this time he is particularly aggressive to other birds that come into his territory (Ed- minster, 1954). This behavior has been taken advantage of with the mirror trap. The "bait" in this case is the cock's own image in a mirror placed in the trap. Tanner and Bowers (1948) were among the first to use the mirror trap. They built a rectangular box of 1- by 2- inch welded wire, 28 inches long by 14 inches wide and 18 inches high. One end had a sliding door that was released by the bird when he stepped on a treadle inside the trap. The op- posite end of the trap held an 8- by 10-inch mirror. The whole trap was sprayed with brown paint to blend with the surroundings. Bendell and Fowle (1950) used essentially the same method, but substituted half-inch poultry netting for welded wire. They also devised a mousetrap triggering mechanism which they felt was more effective than the treadle trigger. A light thread was strung inside the trap in such a way that the grouse would break it when trying to reach the mirror. The breaking thread triggered the mousetrap and released the door. The Bendell-Fowle trap is shown in figure 3. Dorney and Mattison (1956) used a trap similar to the early models, but reduced the dimensions to 12 by 10 by 23 inches. They also replaced the wire on the sides and top with fish netting, making the trap lighter and helping reduce injuries to trapped birds. The mirror trap was again revised by Chambers and English (1958) during their grouse study in Pennsylvania. They kept the cloth netting use* by Dorney and Mattison (1956) but reverted to the treadle door trigger used by earlier workers. Their trap was 30 by 16 by 12 inches and had hinges at the base of the trap and removable dowels for the upper braces. These modifications make the trap collapsible and much easier to handle than other models. The Chambers-English trap is shown in figure 4. Some general recommendations for mirror- trapping have been made by Dorney and Matti- son (1956): 1. A high-quality mirror should always be used, as success appears directly related to the clarity of the image. Thread to trapdoor Figure 3.— Bendell-Fowle (1950) mirror trap. Hinge -Door block Figure 4. — Chambers-English (1958) mirror trap. 2. The trap should be set on the drumming log 3 to 6 feet from the drumming spot. Plac- ing the trap closer usually frightens the bird. The drumming spot can be located by observ- ing the bird or by finding large accumulations of droppings. 3. The trap should be placed at an angle that will give a good mirror image when the bird is on its drumming spot. 4. Camouflaging the trap with branches helps stop possible hawk predation, and also appears to keep the birds from shying away from the trap. Gullion (1965) found that about 6 percent of his mirror- trapping time was wasted on un- wanted catches — rabbits, chipmunks, skunks, small birds, etc. When he sprayed traps with a commercial dog repellant, he reduced the number of "unwelcome visitors" considerably without affecting grouse- trapping success. The mirror trap can also be used when grouse are on territory in the fall. However, Gullion (1956) found that fall- trapped grouse were very difficult to retrap the following spring. Summer trapping. — A method for capturing hens with their broods has recently been de- veloped by Edwards (1961). The "bait" is one or two chicks previously caught by hand or with hand nets. The trap consists of two hard- ware-cloth cages, the smaller 1 foot square and 6 inches high and the larger one 4 by 4 by 2 feet. The captured chicks are placed in the small cage, and this is set in an open area near where the chicks were obtained. The larger cage, which has short funnel entrances in two sides, is placed over the smaller cage, then is covered with plastic to keep the birds dry in case of showers. The crying of the chicks in the trap attracts the hen and the rest of the brood. They enter through the funnels and cannot return. The hen usually does not enter the trap until just before dark. Fall trapping. — In Wisconsin, Dorney and Mattison (1956) found that a good time to trap ruffed grouse was in August and September when they flock together in groups brood- size or larger. Their trap was a modification of the three— leaf-clover trap described by Lin- coln and Baldwin (1929). This consists of wire or netting leads that the grouse follow to a cage that is entered through a narrow V- shaped entrance. Chambers and English (1958) modified this trap by adding cages at the end of the leads, forming a 3-trap group along each set of leads. This system increased the catch, as birds wandering either way along the leads would walk into a trap. Gullion (1961) added a swinging wire gate to the front of each entrance when he found that some birds were escaping out the open en- trances. Results were better after this addi- tion, for birds would readily push their way through the swinging bobs but could not push their way out again. Later, Gullion (1965) sub- stituted a wire-netting funnel for the swinging wire gates. He considered this innovation better because grouse were less reluctant to enter it. Figure 5 shows the various modifications of the cloverleaf trap. Dorney and Mattison (1956) baited their traps with dogwood and mountain ash berries. Gullion (1961) obtained good results with shelled corn which had been swollen and dyed to resemble wild fruit. Among the dyes used were rhodamine B (red) and methyl violet. Entry Entry B. EutrjT/*V Entry Entry C. 30' lead Figure 5,—Cloverleaf trap variations: a, Lincoln and Baldwin, 1929; b, Dorney and Mattison, 1956; c, Chambers and English, 1958. These and the other dyes used appear to be nontoxic to grouse. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS The cloverleaf trap can be used without bait for trapping wandering broods (Liscinsky and Bailey 1955). DRIVE TRAPS Ligon (1946) states that ruffed grouse can be drive- netted if the population is ample and if the birds have not been made wary by hunting. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Bump et al. (1947) caught female grouse on the nest by placing a hand-operated drop-door trap over the nest while the hen was away. The trap was a simple inverted "U" con- structed of chicken wire, with hinged doors at each end. A string attached to the propped- open doors was pulled by the operator when the hen returned to the nest. Bendell and Fowle (1950) suggest the fol- lowing methods for capturing nesting hens: a. A 1-inch gill net placed around the nest when the bird is away. When the bird returns, the net is pulled up and over both nest and bird with drawstrings held by an operator. b. A throw net 2 1/2 feet in diameter dropped over a bird on its nest. Harris (1952) used a similar net for capturing female water- fowl and found it could be thrown accurately from 35 feet. c. A spotlight and butterfly net used to cap- ture nesting birds at night. This is essentially the spotlighting method found very successful for capturing roosting pheasants. REFERENCES Bendell, J. F. S„ and C. D. Fowle. 1950. Some methods for trapping and marking ruffed grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 14(4): 480-482. Bump, G„ R. W. Darrow, F. C. Edminster, and W. F. Crissey. 1947. The ruffed grouse— life history, propaga- tion, management. New York Conservation Department, Albany. 915 p. Chambers, R. E„ and P. F. English. 1958. Modifications of ruffed grouse traps. Journal of Wildlife Management 22(2):200-202. Dorney, R. S„ and H. M. Mattison. 1956. Trapping techniques for ruffed grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 20(l):47-50. Edminster, F. C. 1954. American game birds of field and forest. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 490 p. Edwards, M. G. 1961. New use of funnel trap for ruffed grouse broods. Journal of Wildlife Management 25(1):89. Gullion, G. W. 1961. A technique for winter trapping of ruffed grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 25(4): 428-430. 1965. Improvements in methods for trapping and marking ruffed grouse. Journal of Wildlife Man- agement 29(1):109-116. Harris, S. W. 1952. A throw net for capturing female waterfowl on the nest. Journal of Wildlife Management 16(4):515. Ligon. J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. Lincoln, F. C„ and S. P. Baldwin. 1929. Manual for bird banders. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication 58. 116 p. Liscinsky, S. A., and W. J. Bailey Jr. 1955. A modified shorebird trap for capturing wood- cock and grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 19(3):405-408. Tanner, W. D„ and G. L. Bowers. 1948. A method for trapping male ruffed grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 12(3):330-331. PTARMIGANS Logopus sp. Ligon (1946) states that ptarmigan "may be drive- netted while ranging on ridges and south slopes before the coming of new snow in the fall". He also mentions capture with long-handled nets, which are dropped over the unsuspecting birds. Choate (1963) followed this latter method, using a net with an 8-foot handle. REFERENCES Choate, T. S. 1963. Habitat and population dynamics of white- tailed ptarmigans in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 27(4):684-699. Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. PRAIRIE CHICKENS Tymponuchus sp. BAIT TRAPS Hammerstrom and Truax (1938) devised a funnel bait trap which they used successfully for trapping prairie chickens. This trap was a crate 48 by 24 by 18 Inches. It was covered with chicken wire, and a funnel just large enough for a bird to enter was placed in one or both ends. Baited tip-top traps (see sharp-tailed grouse) have been used by Jacobs (1959); he does not consider them very satisfactory. His suggestion for best trapping success is a net suspended over a baited area and released to drop over the feeding birds (Jacobs 1958, 1959). Best results were obtained when an area regularly used by chickens was prebaited for some time before the net was set up. Two- inch mesh cotton netting was used for the drop nets. Both 29- and 44- square- foot nets were found satisfactory. The net was sus- pended 4 feet 8 inches above the ground on steel fenceposts, the big net requiring four posts on each of two sides and the smaller net three posts. The net is released by an operator in a nearby blind. Figure 6 shows details of the triggering mechanism. Etheredge (1943) used a 40- by 50-foot net and captured 104*lesser prairie chickens in 3 days. All of the bait traps described were most successful during fall and winter when food was scarce or unavailable because of snow. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS Ligon (1946) suggests the use of lead traps (fig. 1) for capturing prairie chickens as they move along accustomed routes, to feeding areas. DRIVE TRAPS Both Jacobs (1959) and Ligon (1946) state that prairie chickens do not drive well. How- ever, Ligon (1946) found that it was possible to drive lesser prairie chicken broods during the late summer months when the broods were seeking the shade of brush and trees. The trap was set up in the shady area, and driving was used to supplement the birds* natural desire to head for the shade. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Males have been successfully trapped with a cannon-net trap when they were concen- trated on the dancing grounds (Amman, 1957). This technique is discussed under the sharp- tailed grouse section of this paper. Spotlighting has been used by Jacobs (1959), but results were not particularly encouraging (see ring-necked pheasant). Immobilizing drugs were used by Jacobs (1959), but success was not great and he does not recommend their use. REFERENCES Amman, G. A. 1957. The prairie grouse of Michigan, Michigan Department of Conservation, Technical Bulletin 1. 200 p. Etheredge, O. F. 1943. Lesser prairie chicken experimental manage- ment in the Texas Panhandle, Texas Game, Fish and Oyster Commission. P-R Report, Project 1-R, Unit E. Typescript, Hammerstrom, F. N„ Jr„ and M. Truax. 1938. Traps for pinnated and sharp-tailed grouse. Bird-Banding 9(4):177-183. 10 Trigger ■•chanlam Figure 6. — Prairie chicken net trap (from Jacobs, 1959). Jacobs, K. F. 1958, A drop-net trapping technique for greater prairie chicken, Oklahoma Academy of Science, Proceedings 38:154-157. 1959, Restoration of the greater prairie chicken, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conserva- tion, Federal Aid Project W-65-R. 42 p. Llgon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. SHARP-TAILED GROUSE Pedioecetes phasianellus BAIT TRAPS Tip- top trap. — This has been one of the best traps for capturing sharptails in winter. Aldous (1943) found that it worked well when- ever snow covered the birds' main food supply. In Manitoba, Newman (1951) also used the tip- top successfully. Peterle (1956) 11 trapped Michigan sharptails with a single- treadle type that was elevated well above the snow. Farmes (1955) used a tip-top with four treadles which he considered to have much faster action than the single- treadle type. He buried his trap so that the top was at snow level. All tip-tops work in essentially the same way: a box is constructed that has a door in the upper surface; the door is balanced with a light spring, so that the weight of the bird will cause it to open; when the bird drops into the trap the door closes again (Mosby, 1963). Peterle (1956) used the buds and catkins of white birch (Betula alba) for bait. Figure 7 shows details of the single-treadle and four-treadle tip-tops. Peterle (1956) lists the following good and bad features of his single- treadle, above- ground tip- top: Good. — Trapped birds are protected from adverse weather and from possible predation; bait is placed above the ground and stays free of snow; drifting snow generally will not upset the simple trap mechanism. Bad — Periods of alternate freezing and thawing weather sometimes froze wooden door to side of trap; traps are heavy and bulky to carry around. Bob-entrance trap. — A box trap with a bob wire entrance has been used by Newman (1951) and by Peterle (1956). The grouse pushes its way through the one-way swinging bobs in search of the bait and cannot push its Door opens Inward, spring returned . A. Top view Long treadles 17*X6 ' iA" space between treadlei y\. Short treadles 8 1/* X6 3A 19 i/e" Spring releases on treadles to reclose doors 17" *1 IA" Figure 7.~Tip-top traps: a, Single-treadle, above ground (after Petrides, 1956); b, Four-treadle, underground (Farmes, 1955) 12 way out again. Peterle (1956) does not recom- mend this type of trap in snow country be- cause it becomes clogged with snow easily. It also leaves the birds exposed to weather and predation. When Newman (1951) used this type of trap he found that fewer grouse es- caped when he added a second bob entrance inside the first. 0^3/V steel rings o 1/8" * K Retainer attached to ring vlth ■nmp fastener* k£ " doubled rubber res trainers* let of fit cotton twine treated vlth Cu lapthalene l/V galvanised thimble* Cannon projectile 75' Figure 8.— Dill cannon-net assembly (from Fish and Wildlife Service, 1955) Heavily baited area or main activity area Blind Squib vires Figure 9.—Diagram Of cannon-net trap operation (from Steenis, in Addy, 1956). Similar arrangements have been used on sharptail dancing grounds, at mineral seeps for pigeons, and baited with corn or other grain for pheasants and others. 13 Funnel-entrance traps. — Traps with small funnel entrances have been used by Klett (1957) and by Peterle (1956). While this type of trap may be useful in some circumstances, Peterle (1956) does not recommend it for snow country. Drifting snow quickly clogs the funnels and the birds cannot use the traps. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS Ligon (1946) states that lead nets can some- times be placed so that grouse will follow them into a trap while on their way to feeding grounds. DRIVE TRAPS Ligon (1946) states that sharptails do not drive well and that this method is not gen- erally useful. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Cannon- net trap. — While originally devel- oped as a waterfowl trapping technique, the cannon- net trap is useful for any species which habitually flocks together (Dill and Thornsberry, 1950). It has been used for sharptails in Michigan (Peterle, 1956) and in South Dakota (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1955). Grouse trapping has so far been limited to the dancing grounds in the spring. The cannon-net trap consists of a large, light net which is carried over the concen- trated birds by mortar projectiles (Mosby, 1963). The nets, of cotton or nylon, vary in size from 25 by 75 feet (Addy, 1956) to 100 by 60 feet (Peterle, 1956). One projectile is usually required for each 50 feet of net (Mosby, 1963). A net assembly used by Dill (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1955) is shown in figure 8, while figure 9 depicts a typical trapping setup. The net propellant originally used by Dill and Thornsberry (1950) was a mixture of potassium chlorate and cane sugar. This was effective and relatively quiet but is unstable and sometimes hazardous to use. Some workers still prefer this mixture, but Kirsch (in Addy, 1956) recommends a black powder charge. Many modifications of the cannon-net trap have been developed since Dill and Thorns- berry (1950) built their first trap. Plans of various designs and details of their use may be found in Blaek and Evans (1953), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1955), and Addy (1956). Recently Thornsberry (1963) developed a new cannon which many feel is far superior to other designs. This new cannon features (1) an inverted barrel to eliminate condensa- tion, (2) a neoprene ring to form a tight seal between barrel and projectile (thus alleviating the need for precise machining), and (3) 12- gauge black-powder cartridges used as the charge. The new cannon is also considerably cheaper to construct than others, '$25 com- pared with $45 for the next cheapest model. REFERENCES Addy, C. E. (compiler) 1956. Guide to waterfowl banding. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Md. 164 p. Aldous, S. E. 1943. Sharp-tailed grouse in the sand dune country of north-central North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 7(1):23-31. Black, K. E„ and C. D. Evans. 1953. A modification of the cannon-projected net banding trap. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minneapolis, Minn. 9 p. Dill, H. H., and W. H. Thornsberry. 1950. A cannon-projected net trap for capturing waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management 14(2):132-137. Farmes, R, E. 1955. A new tip-top trap for taking prairie grouse. Flicker 27(3): 123-1 25. Klett, A. T. 1957. Banding and marking methods in studying sea- sonal movements of the sharp-tailed grouse in Morton County, North Dakota. M.S. thesis, Utah State Agricultural College. 53 p. Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe, 77 p. Mosby, H. S. (editor) 1963. Wildlife investigational techniques, 2d edition. Wildlife Society, Ann Arbor, Mich. 300 p. Newman, W. L. 1951. Notes on trapping sharp-tailed grouse In Manitoba. Journal of Wildlife Management 15(2): 223-224. Peterle, T. J. 1956. Trapping techniques and banding returns for Michigan sharp-tailed grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 20(1): 50-55. Thornsberry, W. H. 1963. A composite cannon for net traps. Swan Lake Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4 p. 14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1955. Improvements to the cannon net trap. Branch of Wildlife Refuges, Wildlife Management Series, No. 12. 26 p. SAGE GROUSE Centrocercus urophasianus Ligon (1946) called the sage grouse the "most temperamental and unpredictable of all our upland game birds." Despite this description, several very efficient methods have been worked out for trapping this species. BAIT TRAPS Small-sized funnel traps have been used for sage grouse trapping, but the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission does not advocate their use. Their report (1961) indicates that these traps are too small and too low to hold many birds and that they frighten the birds more than other methods. Patternson et al. (1950) used a large-sized, winged bait trap measuring 28 by 14 feet by 42 inches high. The frame was made of steel fenceposts (6 needed) to which roof supports of iron pipe were attached. This frame was then covered with 2-inch cotton netting. An entrance "V" was made which narrowed to a 10-inch width about 6 feet inside the front arch. Best results were obtained with tnis trap dur- ing the late summer when the young are almost grown and flocks are beginning to form. Traps were set after the grouse completed their morning feeding, and were ready for use when they returned to feed in the afternoon. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS Patterson (1952) used the trap described above to capture cocks as they moved off the strutting grounds. The trap was placed across the route usually followed by departing birds. They encountered the wire leads and followed them into the trap. This same technique was tried with birds approaching the strutting ground, but it was found to be unsatisfactory. The grouse were too wary to enter the trap in most cases, and the few that did enter fought so hard to get to their strutting ground that the practice was abandoned. DRIVE TRAPS Several workers (Batterson and Morse, 1948; Allred, 1946; Patterson et al., 1950; Ligon, 1946) have used drive traps for cap- turing sage grouse. A setup similar to the Patterson bait trap is generally used, but with two chambers put together with an outer and inner entrance. This 2-chamber trap cuts escape loss considerably. Slow- moving vehicles herd the birds be- tween the wire leads and into the trap. Allred (1946) found that the flock would stay on the ground and drive easily before vehicles, but that the whole flock often flushed when ap- proached on foot. Batterson and Morse (1948) found that juve- nile grouse were easiest to drive-trap. Adult hens were caught frequently, but adult cocks were very difficult to drive. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Nest trap. — Patterson (1952) trapped nest- ing females with a large cotton mesh net. The net was thrown over the nest site, surround- ing brush and all. Cannon- net trap. — Dalke et al. (1963) used this type of trap on strutting grounds in east- ern Idaho. It was found that continuous use made some males (especially subadults) wary of the strutting ground area. John and Dorothy Lacher (1964) mounted a cannon-net on the front of a jeep and caught a few sage grouse. They feel this method would be useful for cap- turing a small number of birds in a limited amount of time. The cannon net is covered in more detail under the discussion of sharp- tailed grouse trapping. Clap net. — Christensen (1962) describes a clap net used for capturing Indian sand grouse. He feels this trap has potential for several North American game species, in- cluding the sage grouse. Figure 10 shows de- tails of the trap. The clap net is set at a location known to be used by the desired species. It is camouflaged, then pulled up and over the birds when they congregate at the trap site. Notable features 15 Figure 10.— Clap net (from Chrlstensen, 1962). In firing position, the net Is flat on ground; when birds enter the trap, a pull wire (operated from a nearby blind) brings the two sides up and over the birds. of the trap are (1) instant action, (2) complete concealment, (3) usefulness both on land and over shallow water, (4) swiftness of resetting, and (5) lightness and portability. Spotlighting.— The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (1961) reports a variation of the standard pheasant catching technique. A two- man team, consisting of a driver and a netter, is required. The netter locates a roosting grouse with a spotlight mounted in the back of a truck. The driver finds the bird with a second spotlight. The netter turns his light off, sneaks up hehind the birds and captures it with a long-handled net. REFERENCES Allred, W. 1946. Sage grouse trapping and transplanting. West- ern Association of State Game and Fish Commis- sioners, Proceedings 26:143-146. Batterson, W. M„ and W. B. Morse. 1948. Oregon sage grouse. Oregon State Game Commission. Oregon Fauna Series, No. 1. 29 p. Chrlstensen, G. C. 1962. Use of the clap net for capturing Indian sand grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 26(4): 399-402. 16 Dalke, P. D„ D. B. Pyrah. D. C. Stanton, J. E. Craw- ford, and E. F. Schlatter. 1963. Ecology, productivity and management of the sage grouse in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Manage- ment 27(4):81 1-841. Lacher, J. R„ and Dorothy D. 1964. A mobile cannon net trap. Journal of Wildlife Management 28(3):595-597. Ligon. J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. Patterson, R. L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. Sage Books Inc., Denver. 341 p. E. F. Putnam, and H. B. Sanderson. 1950. Trapping sage grouse in Wyoming. Wildlife 14(3):4-13. Wyoming Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. 1961. Game bird survey completion reports. Wyo- ming Federal Aid Project W-50-R-10. 300 p. Family PHASIANIDAE BOBWHITE Colinus virginianus BAIT TRAPS The Standard (or Stoddard) quail trap (Stod- dard, 1931) has provided the basic design for most of the bait traps used for the bobwhite and other species of North American quail. The original trap was a simple screen box with a funnel entrance. Quail were enticed into the cage with grain or weed seeds and, once inside, had difficulty finding their way out. Various modification of this basic trap have since been used. Reeves (1952) reduced the size from Stoddard's original 36 by 36 inches to 30 by 36 inches, thus lessening the cost and affording easier handling. Half-inch mesh was substituted for the 1-inch mesh of the original, resulting in less injury to trapped birds and a longer life for the traps. A third modification was the substitution of a large, semiconical entrance for the original small tunnellike entry. This seemed to make the trap less frightening to the quail, and they entered more readily. Best results were ob- tained with a funnel 15 inches wide and 9 inches high, extending into the trap 1 foot and narrowing to an opening 3 by 4 inches. Gooden (1953) used the Standard quail trap of hardware cloth, but modified the dimensions to 30 by 30 by 10 inches. He also made the sides in two pieces so that the trap could be collapsed for easier handling. Schultz (1950) found the hardware-cloth trap too cumbersome and expensive, so he devised a similar trap made entirely of 1-inch poultry netting laced together with copper wire. The trap was 2 by 2 by 1 feet. A 2-foot square piece was used for the top, and an 8 by 1-foot piece bent to make all four sides. A funnel was inserted in one end. Advantages of this trap are easy construction, low cost, collapsibility, and portability. Kabat and Thompson (1963) found that Wis- consin bobwhite entered Stoddard traps readily. They used corn and other grains for bait, and conducted all their trapping while snow was on the ground. Murphy and Baskett (1952) captured bob- white in the "Government sparrow trap" (Lin- coln and Baldwin, 1929). This consists of a wire bait trap with a double funnel system. A half-funnel admits the bird to an antechamber where a complete funnel opens into a second chamber. The bird goes in through the second funnel, drops to the floor of the inner chamber and cannot retreat. Guard wires projecting from the funnel outlet helps discourage at- tempts to hop back out through the funnel. Two methods have been listed by Petrides (1946) as "unverified by author." The first utilizes shallow ditches which are no wider than a quail and which have a dead end. Quail reportedly follow bait into the ditch, then re- fuse to fly or back out. The second "unveri- fied" technique entails threading grains of corn on lengths of horsehair. Quail and other birds reportedly refuse to fly after eating this bait! 17 The cock-and-hen trap Is a much-used de- sign for the capture of breeding males. Murphy and Baskett (1952) had good luck with it all year long in Missouri. The trap has an inner chamber that houses a live quail, the "bait" to attract other quail. Birds enter an outer chamber through a funnel (Genelly, 1955), a bob entrance, or a self-triggering drop - door (Reeves, 1952). Once inside, they can neither reach the "bait" nor leave the trap. The Reeves (1952) trap is shown in figure 11. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS None reported. DRIVE TRAPS Ligon (1946) states that bobwhite are readily taken with drive trap if birds are numerous and not too wild or wary. Stoddard (1931) found that drive-trapping worked well in the more open agricultural areas but was almost impossible in brushy areas where the birds were hard to find and even harder to move to a trap. Murphy and Baskett (1952) found drive- trapping unsatisfactory on their Missouri area because of rough terrain and dense cover. In contrast, Lehmann (1946) believed that drive- trapping was the only suitable method of cap- ture in the open Texas country he studied. Stoddard (1931) used huge, hand-held clap- nets to catch bobwhites flushed by dogs. Some success was obtained, but these nets are heavy, awkward, hard to operate, and not gen- erally recommended. Details are found in Lincoln (1947). 8V ■■try ■ r 1 Treadle i_ .. . . ' Ben compartment Treadle Open . door../ 36" Entry^ Trip vires. Treadle Door End vlev of trap section ahowlng trigger device (Bird stopping on treadle loosens trip vires and door closes.) Figure ll.—Keeve's (1952) cock-and-hen trap. 18 MISCELLANEOUS METHODS SCALED QUAIL Ligon (1946) states that bobwhite have been spotlighted and caught in nets while roosting on the ground at night. REFERENCES Genelly, R. E. 1955. Annual cycle In a population of California quail. Condor 57(5):263-285. Gooden, S. K. 1953. A collapsible quail trap. Journal of Wildlife Management 17(3):3 89-391. Kabat, C„ and D. R. Thompson. 1963. Wisconsin quail 1834-1962: population dynam- ics and habitat management. Wisconsin Conserva- tion Department, Technical Bulletin 30. 136 p. Lehmann, V. W. 1946. Mobility of bobwhite quail in southwestern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 10(2): 124-136. Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. Lincoln, F. C. 1947. Manual for bird banders, life Service. 1 16 p. U.S. Fish and Wild- and S. P. Baldwin. 1929. Manual for bird banders. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication 58. 116 p. Murphy, D. A., and T. S. Baskett. 1952. Bobwhite mobility in central Missouri. Journal of Wildlife Management 16(4):498-510. Petrides, G. A. 1946. Snares and deadfalls. Journal of Wildlife Management 10(3):234-238. Reeves, M. C. 1952. Mechanical aids useful in studying bobwhite quail. Journal of Wildlife Management 16(3):316- 319. Schultz, V. 1950. A modified Stoddard quail trap. Journal of Wildlife Management 14(2):243. Stoddard, H. L. 1931. The bobwhite quail. Its habits, preservation, and increase. Charles Scrlbner's Sons, New York. 559 p. Callipepla squamato BAIT TRAPS Schemnitz (1961) successfully trapped Okla- homa scaled quail in Stoddard traps (see bob- white) and in ladder traps. Sowls and Greenwalt (1956) conducted an experiment in Arizona comparing the effec- tiveness of Stoddard traps and larger funnel traps. The larger traps were of two sizes 3 by 3 by 6 feet and 3 by 8 by 12 feet, and were constructed of chicken wire stretched over iron frames. They found that (a) the smaller, Stoddard traps averaged only 4.7 birds per catch while the larger traps averaged 9, and the smaller traps had a capacity of about 20 birds while the larger could hold more than 40; (b) the larger traps seemed to cut down the amount of "scalping" and other injuries; but (c) the larger traps were less portable than the Stoddard design, bulkier to store, and more expensive to construct. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS None reported. DRIVE TRAPS Schemnitz (1961) had best success when he drove the quail into lead traps (fig. 1) located near resting and dusting areas. Fence rows, junk piles, farm implement storage areas, and shelterbelts were other successful drive- trapping sites. He found that birds could not be forced to run very far or they would scatter and flush before entering the trap. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Ligon (1946) states that it should be possible to spotlight scaled quail, as they tend to roost on the ground in fairly open areas. No refer- ences to use of this method were found. Christensen's (1962) clap net could possibly be adapted to this species (see sage grouse). 19 REFERENCES Christensen, G. C. 1962. Use of the clap net for capturing Indian sand grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 26(4): 399-402. Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Sante Fe. 77 p. Schemnitz, S. D. 1961. The ecology of the scaled quail in the Oklahoma panhandle. Wildlife Society, Wildlife Monographs. No. 8. 47 p. Sowls, L. K„ and L. A. Greenwalt. 1956. Large traps for catching quail. Journal of Wildlife Management 20(2):215-216. CALIFORNIA QUAIL Lophortyx californica BAIT TRAPS Primarily through work of the California Department of Fish and Game, a variety of bait trap techniques have been developed for this species. Stoddard trap (see bobwhite). — Used by Genelly (1955), but seemed to be avoided by California quail. Government sparrow trap (see bobwhite). — Used by Enderlin (1946), but found not very satisfactory. Cloverleaf trap (see ruffed grouse). — Men- tioned as having been used by Enderlin (1946). California Department of Fish and Game collapsible steel trap (Tarshis, 1956; Ender- lin, 1946). — This simple box-type funnel trap has been used with great success in open field and waterhole locations. It is lightweight and easy to transport and handle, but will hold only a small number of birds. Figure 12 shows trap construction. Large wood-framed quail trap. — This is similar to the steel trap but is bigger and can accommodate more birds. Tarshis (1956) re- ports as many as 120 quail caught at one time. It has been used profitably over water- holes and in open fields but is too bulky to carry around and thus is feasible only for long-term or close-to-the-road projects. An Svingl Corwred with 1" transportation. Jiglngj: ■h chltsknn wire, ao ttat trap ■tooraga and Figure 12. — Collapsible steel quail trap (after Tarshis, 1956). The trap is covered with 1-inch-mesh chicken wire, with sides wired together so that the trap can be collapsed for storage and transportation. 20 innovation of this trap is a large curved throat rather than the usual small funnel. This entrance is more readily entered by quail, but is also readily found on exit so the trap must be watched closely. Figure 13 shows details of this trap. Canoe quail trap. — Used by Enderlin (1946) and Tarshis (1956), this chicken-wire funnel trap works well over "gallinaceous guzzlers" and in irregular terrain where a flat-bottomed trap would not be usable. It consists of a piece of chicken wire folded into an open-bottomed bag, supported by several stakes and equipped with several chicken-wire funnels. The trap is simple and inexpensive to construct, easy to transport, and very inconspicuous, but is also very light and easily damaged by live- stock (Tarshis 1956). Cock-and-hen trap. — Used successfully by Enderlin (1946J~and Genelly (1955). See bob- white section. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS None reported. DRIVE TRAP True (1934) obtained quail for Baja Cali- fornia by driving the birds into long, brush- covered wire tunnels. Enderlin (1946) states that this method is used quite a bit in Mexico but is not popular in California. Ligon (1946) states that California quail enter nets when not hunted, but are extremely difficult to drive if frequently upset. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Christensen's (1962) clap net may be usable with this species (see sage grouse). REFERENCES Christensen, G. C. 1962. Use of the clap net for capturing Indian sand grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 26(4):399- 402. Enderlin, R. W. 1946. Quail trapping techniques. Western Associa- tion of Fish and Game Commissioners, Proceed- ings 26:138-142. Genelly. R. E. 1955. Annual cycle in a population of California quail. Condor 57(5):263-285. Figure 13.— Wood-frame quail trap (after Tarshis. 1956). 21 Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. Tarshis. I. B. 1956. Traps and techniques for trapping California quail. Bird-Banding 27(1): 1-9. True. G. H. Jr. 1934. An experiment in quail importation. California Fish and Game 20(4):365-370. GAMBEL'S QUAIL Lophortyx gambelii BAIT TRAPS Enderlin (1946) mentions the following as usable with Gambel's quail: government sparrow trap, collapsible steel trap, canoe quail trap, cloverleaf trap, and cock-and-hen trap. Sowls (1960) used large funnel traps for winter trapping in Arizona. Milo maize was a good bait, as was scratch feed. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS Non reported. DRIVE TRAPS Ligon (1946) states that this species has been taken by driving into a winged lead trap (figure 1). MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Christensen's (1962) clap net could pos- sibly be adapted to this species (see sage grouse). Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trap- ping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Sante Fe. 77 p. Sowls, L. K. 1960. Results of a banding study of Gambel's quail in southern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Manage- ment 24(2):1 85-190. MOUNTAIN QUAIL Oreortyx picta BAIT TRAPS Enderlin (1946) states that the Stoddard quail trap (see bobwhite) is unusable with this species because the birds refuse to calm down after capture and continue to beat against the wire until they kill themselves. When the trap is modified by lining it with fish netting, injuries are reduced. This lining also makes the trap darker, thereby helping to calm the birds. Trapping is most success- ful during the summer months, using water as bait. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS Enderlin (1946) describes lead traps (fig. 1) set across the usual migration routes of mountain quail. Netting is strung across travel routes so that migrating birds will be funneled into a central wire trap. It is sometimes nec- essary to net a whole canyon in order to stop the birds. Even then, the quail are so un- predictable they may walk into the trap or fly over the first lead wire they encounter. Traps have been set for up to a week without results, then again may capture birds the first day. DRIVE TRAPS REFERENCES Christensen. G. C. 1962. Use of the clap net for capturing Indian sand grouse. Journal Wildlife Management 26(4):399- 402. Enderlin, R. W. 1946. Quail trapping techniques. Western Associa- tion of Fish and Game Commissioners, Proceed- ings 26:138-142. None reported. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Enderlin (1946) describes one combination bait-drive trap operated "successfully by a person just on the outer fringes of the law." He dug a trough 5 feet long, 8 inches wide, and 8 inches deep, then covered it with brush. He flared the mouth of the trough to form 22 somewhat of a funnel and placed a collecting bag at the far end. When quail began to use his grain bait, the trapper would release his dog. The quail ran for the brush, went down the trough, and soon found themselves in the collecting bag.' REFERENCE Enderlln, R. W. 1946. Quail trapping techniques. Western Associa- tion of fish and Game Commissioners, Proceed- ings 26:138-142. HARLEQUIN QUAIL Cyrtonyx montezumae Ligon (1946) states that these quail can be drive-trapped if ample time is taken and if they are not pushed excessively. They flush easily if pressed. Ligon also mentions spot- lighting as a possible technique. with the rough chicken wire. He also added a "predator skirt" to his trap, a sloping outside wall of chicken wire. This baffle prevented predators from getting at trapped birds that stuck their heads through the inside wire. Thompson (1946) has converted permanent log lean-to feeding stations by equipping them with wire doors and funnel entrances. This type of trap was found to work well during heavy winter snows. Leopold et al. (1938) state that most bait traps are selective for hens and juvenile birds, the cocks being less prone to enter a confin- ing space. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS None reported. DRIVE TRAPS REFERENCE Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. RING-NECKED PHEASANT Phasianus colchicus BAIT TRAPS Ligon (1946) states that bait trapping is only possible when food is scare or difficult to procure. This usually limits operations to the winter months; however, summer trapping has been successful in California, using water and shade as bait (Allen 1956). One bait trap used occasionally (Leopold et al., 1938; Leopold et al., 1943) is the prairie chicken trap of Hammerstrom and Truax (1938). Corn is the preferred bait. Hicks and Leedy (1939) caught pheasants in a cloverleaf trap (fig. 5) placed at the margin of woody cover in an area devoid of natural food. Kutz (1945) modified the cloverleaf by replacing the chicken-wire sides with welded wire and covering the top with fish netting. This reduced scalping and other bird injuries associated Buss (1946) has driven juvenile pheasants along wire leads placed in cornfields. He found that best success was usually in windy weather with as many drivers as possible. Ligon (1946) states that, while pheasants can sometimes be driven, they have a tendency to fight the leads rather than following them. He also states that juvenile birds drive more readily than do adults. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Immobilizing drugs. — Peterle (1956) states that drugs have been used for capturing pheas- ants, but offers no further information. Cannon-net trap (see sharp-tailed grouse). — The cannon-net trap has been used in South Dakota (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1955), with best results obtained in stormy weather. It was found that some birds, especially cocks, could outrun the net. This was compensated for by increasing the projectile charge, caus- ing the net to be cast more rapidly. It was dif- ficult to get a worthwhile number of birds in the net at once, and the trap is believed selec- tive for females. Spotlighting. — Spotlighting and handnetting is by far the most successful and most frequently used method of capturing pheasants. It was 23 first used in the 1920s1 in South Dakota (Cali- fornia Department of Fish and Game, 1959). A more representative population can be ob- tained than with a bait trap, as the latter is usually selective for hens and juveniles (Hart, 1955). Leopold (1933) still feels, however, that cocks have a greater tendency to flush before the spotlight than do hens and are still not quite as "catchable". Standard procedure in California (California Department of Fish and Game, 1959) is to drive trucks through fields where pheasants are roosting, locate and blind the birds with spotlights, then capture them with long- handled nets. The most efficient crew consists of a driver, two spotlighters, and two netters. The operation can be done with fewer men if necessary (see sage grouse). Best results have been obtained on still nights during the dark of the moon. The birds have a tendency to flush on moonlit nights, and often move to heavy cover during windy weather. As it is possible to be more selective of the birds caught in this operation than in most others, spotlighting has been used extensively in trapping and marking studies where a good cross section of a population is desired (Mallette and Bechtel, 1959; Hart 1955). For more detailed coverage, see Labisky (1959), Hart (undated), and Smith (1954). Clap net.— Christens en (1962) suggests his clap net as a possibility for trapping pheas- ants (see sage grouse). REFERENCES Allen, D. L. (editor) 1956. Pheasants in North America. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa. 490 pv Buss, I. O. 1946. Wisconsin pheasant populations. Wisconsin Conservation Department, Publication 326. 148 p. California Department of Fish and Game. 1959. Pheasant management handbook. 42 p. Christensen, G. C. 1962. Use of the clap net for capturing Indian sand grouse. Journal of Wildlife Mangement 26(4):399- 402. Hammerstrom, F. N„ Jr., and M. Truax. 1938. Traps for pinnated and sharp-tailed grouse. Bird-Banding 9(4):177-183. Hart, C. M. Undated. Methods and equipment used to live trap pheasants in California by the spotlighting system. California Department of Fish and Game. 6 p. 1955. Pheasant survival studies in California. Western Association of State Game and Fish Com- missioners, Proceedings. 35:246-256. Hicks, L. E., and D. L. Leedy. 1939. Techniques of pheasant trapping and popula- tion control. North Americal Wildlife Conference, Transactions 4:449-461. Kutz, H. L. 1945. An improved game bird trap. Journal of Wildlife Management 9(l):35-38. Labisky, R. F. 1959. Nightlighting: a technique for capturing birds and mammals. Illinois Natural History Survey, Biological Notes, No. 40. 11 p. Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. New York. 481 p. Charles Scribner's Sons, O. S. Lee, and H. G. Anderson. 1938. Wisconsin pheasant movement study, 1936-37. Journal of Wildlife Management 2(1):3-12. T. M. Sperry, W. S. Feeney, and J. A. Caten- husen. 1943. Population turnover on a Wisconsin pheasant refuge. Journal of Wildlife Management 7(4):383- 394. Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. Mallette, R. D., and J. C. Bechtel. 1959. Movement of the ring-necked pheasant In the Sutter Basin of California. California Fish and Game 45(3): 189-202. Peterle, T. J. 1956. Trapping techniques and banding returns for Michigan sharp-tailed grouse. Journal Wildlife Management 20(l):50-55. Smith, E. H. 1954. Spotlighting for better pheasant management. South Dakota Conservation Digest 21(4):2-4. 24 Thompson, W. K. 1946. Live-trapping and transplanting ring-necked pheasants and sage grouse. Western Association State Game and Fish Commissioners, Proceedings 26:133-137. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1955. Improvements to the cannon net trap. Branch of Wildlife Refuges, Wildlife Management Series, No. 12. 26 p. CHUKAR Alectoris graeca Bait trapping has so far been the prevalent method of trapping chukar. Christensen (1954) reports the use of funnel quail traps and modi- fied pheasant traps, such as used by Hicks and Leedy (1939). Harper et al. (1958) used quail traps, modified cloverleafs, and circular traps. They found the latter to be most suc- cessful, least expensive, and easiest to con- struct. It is a two-entrance funnel trap con- structed of 1- by 2-inch welded wire and shaped in a circle 33 feet in circumference and 3 feet high. The wire circle is topped with fish netting. Nevada has been using wheat as bait, but it is good only when natural food is scarce (Christensen 1954). The following "baits" have been used in California (Harper et al., 1958): (1) usual water source surrounded by a trap; (2) usual water source closed off and a con- tainer of water inside the trap; (3) both water and grain provided as bait; and (4) baited grain traps used near waterholes but with the water serving only as an attraction to the area. Nevada has been considering the cannon- net trap as a waterhole trap (Christensen, 1954). Christensen (1962) also suggests his sand grouse clap net as a chukar trap (see sage grouse). REFERENCES Christensen. G. C. 1954. The chukar partridge in Nevada. Nevada Fish and Game Commission, Biological Bulletin 1. 77 p. 1962. Use of the clap net for capturing Indian sand grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 26(4): 399-402. Harper, H. T., B. H. Harry, and W. D. Baily. 1958. The chukar partridge In California. California Fish and Game 44(l):5-50. Hicks, L. E„ and D. L. Leedy. 1939. Techniques of pheasant trapping and population control. North American Wildlife Conference, Transactions 4:449-461. GRAY PARTRIDGE Perdix perdix Bait trapping during the winter appears to be the most satisfactory way to capture the elusive "hun" (Ligon, 1946; Grange, in Leopold, 1933). E.S. Dziedzic of the Washing- ton Department of Game states (personal com- munication) that hun trapping in his State has proved quite fruitless unless the weather is severe and about a foot of snow is present. Under these conditions, he recommends the following procedure. 1. A feeding site is swept clean of snow and baited for a week or 10 days before trap- ping begins. Good baits are grain chaff, straw, alfalfa leaves, and cracked grains of the type grown commonly in the trapping area. The trap may be set up during this time, but both ends should be left open so the birds can travel in and out at will. 2. The trap is constructed entirely of 1 1/2- inch poultry netting and should be approxi- mately 2 feet high and 6 feet long, with a funnel in each end. Recommended funnel size is 18 inches wide, tapering to 6 inches at its end. The trap, left bottomless, is staked to the ground with steel rods and is camouflaged with plant materials. A. S. Hawkins reports (personal communi- cation) using two types of funnel traps for Wisconsin huns. The small trap was about 3 25 by 5 feet and 18 inches high. The sides were made of 1-inch wire mesh, the top was of fish netting, and there was a funnel in each end. This trap was portable and occasionally caught entire coveys. Shelled corn was used for bait. Snow sometimes drifted over the corn, and then the trap was ineffective. Hawkins' larger trap was a chicken-wire cloverleaf approximately 6 by 12 by 4 feet. Ear corn was spiked to the trap framework and was always visible above the snow. This type of trap can be used successfully as part of a winter feeding station. Hawkins also tried tip- top and bob entrance traps, but these were unsuccessful. Dr. S. W. Harris (personal communication) reports some luck capturing nuns by spot- lighting when the birds are roosted on the ground. REFERENCES Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. Charles Scrlbner's Sons, New York, 481 p. Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. Family MELEAGRIDIDAE WILD TURKEY Meleagris gallopavo BAIT TRAPS Both automatic and manual traps have been used with bait for capturing turkeys. Sylvester and Lane (1946) perfer the manual traps. They list the following disadvantages of automatic traps; (a) automatic traps must be checked regularly, usually several times a day; (b) turkeys left very long in a trap will panic and injure themselves; (c) predators may find a trap full of turkeys before the trapper returns; and (d) usually only a few birds are caught at one time. Automatic traps Automatic traps are either confusion- entrance types or traps with automatic trig- gering devices. Funnel trap. — The design used by Sylvester and Lane (1946) and by Baldwin (1947) is at least 12 feet square and has one wire funnel leading into it. The funnel is 12 inches wide and 22 inches high at its innermost point. When funnels were placed in both ends of the trap, turkeys could not be captured. The turkey follows a trail of grain through the funnel, finds himself trapped, and panics. In his efforts to escape he runs around the enclosure looking for an exit. He hits the funnel (which is unsupported) and causes it to collapse, thereby sealing the trap. Pole trap. — Early American hunters usually caught turkeys in a box trap made of wooden poles (Mosby and Handley, 1943). Later workers (Baldwin, 1947; Sylvester and Lane, 1946; Wheeler 1948; MacDonald, 1963) used the same basic idea but added many of their own innovations. One of the most widely used is the trench trap, in which the essential feature is a slop- ing trench ending in the middle of an enclo- sure (Sylvester and Lane, 1946; Baldwin, 1947; Wheeler, 1948). The turkeys follow a trail of bait into this trench and up into the pole trap. When trying to escape, the birds will generally run around the edges of the trap and will not venture into the center where the opening is located. Sylvester and Lane (1946) suggest a trench 2 feet wide and 10 feet long. Wheeler's (1948) original trenches extended about 4 feet inside the trap, but he later modified them so that they extended only 22 inches inside. This shorter entrance was far less confining than pre- vious ones, and the turkeys entered more readily. 26 In one of their pole-type traps, Sylvester and Lane (1946) substituted netting for poles. This resulted in a trap that was not as dark and suspicious-looking as the wooden pole models. Automatic drop-door trap. — The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has successfully used a drop-door trap with an automatic triggering device (MacDonald, 1963, and personal communication). The trap was 5 feet square and 2 feet 9 inches high and was covered with weathered slab mate- rial obtained from sawmill sites. This mate- rial was inexpensive and gave a "rustic" look to the setup. The triggering mechanism was a modified No. 3 steel trap, with one jaw removed so that the turkey's leg would not be caught when the trap snapped "shut." When a turkey steps of this trigger, the trap door is released. Manual traps Drop-door trap (Sylvester and Lane, 1946; Baldwin, 1947; Crump, 1950).— Figure 14 shows details of this trap. It consists of an open-ended box with doors that can be closed when turkeys enter. The trap should be 10 to 16 feet wide, 6 feet high, and 2 to 6 feet longer than wide. Traps smaller than this were seldom used. Rush traps.— Sylvester and Lane (1946) and Baldwin 1947) both used an open-sided bait trap to capture turkeys. When the birds entered to feed, the operators rushed to the trap and cornered the birds inside. Turkeys Staall tr—t u*ed V poata for trap. Figure 14.— Drop-door turkey trap (after Sylvester and Lane, 1946). 27 were captured by this method, but it is not recommended. Some birds were injured trying to escape (Sylvester and Lane, 1946), and most retained a long- lasting trap wariness (Baldwin, 1947). Drop trap. — Baldwin (1947) found this to be the most successful turkey trap. Other workers (Glazener, 1946; Sylvester and Lane, 1946; Glazener et al., 1964) have also used it successfully. Netting is used for the drop trap, as it is lighter than wire and will not injure the birds. It is also less conspicuous than wire when the trap is in place (Sylvester and Lane, 1946). The trap is suspended from poles or trees above a baited spot. When turkeys congregate under the trap, an operator in a nearby blind releases it, and it quickly drops over the feeding birds. The height at which the net is suspended seems to be very important (Glazener et al., 1964). Where the vegetative canopy was low, turkeys could be taken with a net set as low as 5 feet above ground; however, an 8-foot setting proved most successful in areas where turkeys were accustomed to greater overhead clearance. Glazener et al. (1964) report capturing as many as 150 birds at one time, but this large a catch is usually undesirable because the turkeys are subjected to much stress and possible injury. Losses usually increase with larger trap loads. Cannon- net trap (see sharp-tailed grouse). — This trap has been used success- fully in South Carolina and South Dakota (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1955), and by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (D. MacDonald, personal communication). The trap usually has to be well camouflaged before hens will approach it. Clap net (see sage grouse). — Christensen (1962) feels his trap may prove adaptable for turkey trapping. Turkey traps seem to be most effective when set at the edges of clearings or in woods near a road (Wheeler, 1948; Glazener et al., 1964). The best bait in the Southern States appears to be wheat (Sylvester and Lane, 1946; Baldwin, 1947). However, Wheeler (1948) found shelled corn to be the best in his Alabama studies. It lasted well in wet weather and was conspicuous in the trap. Corn was also preferred in Wyoming (Crump, 1950). Glazener et al. (1964) list white and yellow corn and grain sorghum as commonly used baits in Texas. They also had luck in some localities with oats, barley, wheat, and cottonseed cake. The best trapping is when turkeys are flocking together. Sylvester and Lane (1946) did best from mid-September through mid- December, while Wheeler (1948) recom- mended mid-August to March. Sylvester and Lane (1946) found poults easier to bait than adults, while gobblers were much easier to catch than were hens. Wheeler (1948), on the other hand, had about equal success with adults and poults, but caught many more hens than gobblers. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS None reported. DRIVE TRAPS Ligon (1946) states that because of turkeys' habits and psychological makeup it is virtually impossible to drive them. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Mosby and Cantner (1956) have used an immobilizing drug (Avertin) which is admin- istered as a liquid coating on grain. They recommend the following procedure: a. Prebait an area and determine the number of birds using the bait. b. Use about twice the amount of grain prebaited, and coat it with undiluted drug. Allow about 0.06 to 0.09 grams per pound of bird. 28 c. Allow 5 to 10 minutes for the drug to take effect, approach the birds quietly, and place each one in a separate crate. d. Irrigate the crops to remove excess drug. REFERENCES Baldwin, W. P. 1947. Trapping wild turkeys in South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management ll(l):24-36. Christensen, G. C. 1962. Use of the clap net for capturing Indian sand grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 26(4): 399-402. Crump, W. I. 1950. Turkeys on the move. Wyoming Wildlife 14{10):10-13. Glazener, W. C. 1946. Techniques for restoring the wild turkey. Western Association of State Gam? and Fish Commissioners, Proceedings 26:131-132. ■ ■in i A. S. Jackson, and M. L. Cox. 1964. The Texas drop-net turkey trap. Journal of Wildlife Management 28(2):280-287. Ligon, J. S. 1946. Upland game bird restoration through trapping and transplanting. New Mexico Game and Fish Commission, Santa Fe. 77 p. MacDonald, D. 1963. Trapping and marking Merriam's wild turkeys. Western Association State Game and Fish Com- missioners, 43d Annual Conference, Proceedings. Mosby, H. S., and C. O. Handley. 1943. The wild turkey in Virginia: its status, life history and management. Virginia Game and In- land Fish Commission, Richmond. 281 p. ----- and D. E. Cantner. 1956. The use of avertin in capturing wild turkeys and as an oral-basal anaesthetic for other wild animals. Southwest Veterinarian 9(2):132-136. Sylvester, W. R., and P. W. Lane. 1946. Trapping wild turkeys on the Kentucky Wood- lands Refuge. Journal of Wildlife Management 10(4):333-342. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1955. Improvements to the cannon net trap. Branch of Wildlife Refuges, Wildlife Management Series, No. 12. 26 p. Wheeler, R. J., Jr. 1948. The wild turkey in Alabama. Alabama Depart- ment of Conservation. 99 p. Family RALLIDAE CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris BAIT TRAPS Oney (1954) tried a funnel entrance trap baited with corn and fish, but fluctuations in tide level washed the bait away and the traps were unused. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS Stewart (1951) and Adams and Quay (1958) used unbaited funnel traps with wire leads crossing the rail feeding grounds. Best suc- cess was obtained just as the period of maxi- mum high tides was approaching and the birds were most active. Stewart (1951) found the best trap site to be about 1 5 feet from the edge of a tidal creek, with one funnel facing the creek and another facing away. During the first part of August he averaged five rails per day, while in late August the average dropped to two per day. DRIVE TRAPS Oney (1954) caught only one bird when drive-trapping, but he felt this was due the sparse rail population in his area. It could be a useful method if rails were plentiful. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Stewart (1951), Oney (1954), and Adams and Quay (1958) all caught rails with nets or by hand during periods of extremely high tides. The major fault of this method is that there are too few extremely high tides. Stewart (1951) used a drop-net nest trap for capturing female rails. It is a time- consuming method and not adaptable to cap- turing a large number of birds, but is feasible. Low (1957) mentions that rails have been caught in mist nets, but this is probably a reference to some of the smaller species. 29 REFERENCES Adams, D. A., and T. L. Quay. 1958. Ecology of the clapper rail in southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 22(2):149-156. Low, S. H, 1957. Banding with mist nets. Bird-Banding 28(3): 115-128. Oney, J. 1954. Final report: Clapper rail survey and inves- igation study. Georgia Game and Fish Commis- sion, Federal Aid Project W-9-R, 50 p. Stewart, R. E. 1951. Clapper rail populations of the middle Atlantic states. North American Wildlife Conference, Transactions 16:421-430. VIRGINIA RAIL Rallus limicolo and SORA RAIL Porzana Carolina ing a 2-year study, 78 out of 103 rails were taken as a result of drive trapping. Driving seems to be highly selective of adult birds, with no juveniles being taken during any drive. The traps used were funnel entrance types with an added bob entrance guard. The best trap had a single funnel with a counter- balanced sheet-metal door in the floor just inside the funnel. This trap door completely eliminated escapes. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Labisky (1959) states that both soras and Virginia rails are highly susceptible to cap- ture with nets after being spotlighted. Cummings and Hewitt (1964) also captured several soras with spotlighting equipment. Low (1957) mentions capturing rails with mist nets but offers no further information. REFERENCES BAIT TRAPS None reported. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS Pospichal and Marshall (1954) used lead traps with funnels (fig. 1) to capture rails during the summer months. This method yielded almost all juvenile birds (21 out of 25 rails caught). DRIVE TRAPS Pospichal and Marshall (1954) found driving to be their most satisfactory technique. Dur- Cummings, G. E„ and O. H. Hewitt. 1964. Capturing waterfowl and marsh birds at night with light and sound. Journal of Wildlife Manage- ment 28(1): 120- 126. Labisky, R. F. 1959. Nightlighting: a technique for capturing birds and mammals. Illinois Natural History Survey, Biological Notes, No. 40. 11 p. Low, S, H. 1957. Banding with mist nets. Bird-Banding 28(3): 115-128. Pospichal, L. B., and W. H. Marshall. 1954. A field study of sora rail and Virginia rail in central Minnesota. Flicker 26:2-32. Family SCOLOPACIDAE WOODCOCK Philohela minor BAIT TRAPS None reported. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS Cloverleaf traps (fig. 5) have been used during the summer and fall (Liscinsky and Bailey, 1955; Sheldon, 1955; Blankenship, 1957). Liscinsky and Bailey (1955) obtained best results when traps were placed in moist depressions or gullies shaded by low trees and shrubs. This is the type area in which woodcocks congregate to feed during the heat of the day. Their trap was 1 foot high and 18 feet in circumference, but they suggest a larger trap if the area has a substantial population. 30 Another type of accidental trap that has received much use is the mist net, used to capture woodcock on the singing grounds during the breeding season (Sheldon, 1955, 1960; Blankenship, 1957; Martin and Clark, 1964). The mist net is a large, fine, silk or nylon net erected on poles in such a way that a bird striking either side will be engulfed by the loose netting. It has long been used in Asia and the Mediterranean regions to obtain birds for market (Mosby, 1963). Sheldon (1960) used a high-quality 1 1/4- inch mesh net which he placed in the center of the singing ground. He joined several nets together to form a single large net 20 feet high. The nets were arranged on aluminum poles in such a way that they could be raised and lowered with pulleys. Martin and Clark (1964) found mist nets to be the most dependable means of capturing large numbers of woodcocks, but they often had to set 20 or more nets to effectively intercept birds entering the trapping area. A third type of accidental trap is the "blind" butterfly trap (see below). The bird accident- ally walks onto, or lands on, the hidden trap and is caught. DRIVE TRAPS None reported. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Butterfly trap.— The type of "bait" most frequently used to capture woodcock is a decoy set on the "butterfly trap" (Norris et al„ 1940; Studholme and Norris, 1942; Sheldon, 1955). A dummy woodcock is set on a steel trap and surrounded by a closing net (fig. 15). Norris et al. (1940) used a No. 3 steel trap, but Norris and Studholme (1942) report that a No. 4 trap has faster action. This trap is used to capture singing males on the breeding ground, and the procedure is as follows: the trap is set at the spot where a male woodcock usually sings; the bird sees the dummy and attempts to copulate with it; the trap operator pulls a cord which releases the trap and closes the net over bird and decoy. 1/8" wlr« Cord »tt»oh«d to pag unter trap pan to operator. Figure 15.— Woodcock butterfly trap (after Norris et al„ 1940). 31 Sheldon (1955) developed an automatic butterfly-trap with which the bird catches himself. This automatic trap has also been used as a blind set without a decoy, in this way serving also as a trap for female wood- cock. Some experiment has been done in the use of sound recordings to lure woodcocks to traps (Sheldon, 1955). Spotlighting. — Spotlighting has proved suc- cessful on the southern wintering areas (Glasgow, 1953) and some use has been made of the technique on the breeding grounds (Blankenship, 1957; Martin and Clark, 1964). It appears to be less useful in the breeding season owing to the excitability of the birds at that time (Norris et al., 1940; Blankenship, 1957). Glasgow (1953) tried sealed-beam lanterns and carbide lamps, and also was successful with a 6 volt headlamp. Martin and Clark (1964) preferred the last instrument because it left their hands free to net the blinded woodcocks. They captured the birds with dip nets mounted on a 10-foot pole. Both Glasgow (1953) and Martin and Clark (1964) achieved best results on very dark nights. This was because woodcocks tended to flush readily on moonlit nights. Glasgow (1953) had poor results during dry periods, presumably because woodcocks go elsewhere when earthworms are not readily available. Hand netting.— Mendall (1938) and Blankenship (1957) both used dogs to locate woodcock broods, then captured the young in handnets-. REFERENCES Blankenship, L. H. 1957. Investigations of the American woodcock in Michigan. Michigan Department of Conservation Game Division Report 2123. 217 p. Glasgow, L. L. 1953. The American woodcock (Philohela minor) in Louisiana. Presented at 7th Annual Conference, Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Com- missioners, Chattanooga, Tenn. 16 p. Liscinsky, S. A., and W. J. Bailey Jr. 1955. A modified shorebird trap for capturing wood- cock and grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 19(3):405-408. Martin, F. W., and E. R. Clark. 1964. Summer banding of woodcock, 1962-1963. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Migratory Bird Populations Station, Laurel, Md. Administra- tive Report 43. 9 p. Mendall, H. L. 1938. A technique for banding woodcock. Bird- Banding 9(3): 153-1 55. Mosby, H. S. (editor). 1963. Wildlife investigational techniques. 2d edition. Wildlife Society, Ann Arbor, Mich. 300 p. Norris, R. T„ J. D. Beule, and A. T. Studholme. 1940. Banding woodcocks on Pennsylvania singing grounds. Journal of Wildlife Management 4(1):8-14. Sheldon, W. G. 1955. Methods of trapping woodcocks on their breeding grounds. Journal of Wildlife Management 19(1):109-155. 1960. A method of mist netting woodcocks in sum- mer. Bird-Banding 31(3):130-135. Studholme, A. T„ and R. T. Norris. 1942. Breeding woodcock populations. Auk 59: 229-233. COMMON SNIPE Copella gallinago The mist net is the trap most commonly used for capturing snipe. Robbins (1953) and Aldrich (1957) both mention mistnetting on the southeastern wintering grounds, Aldrich having used tape recordings of territorial calls to lure the birds to the net. Tuck (1957) used mist nets in two ways, one to flush birds from their nests into the net, and the other to lure them into the nets with record- ings of territorial calls. Murphy (1955) gives a description of spot- lighting and netting shorebirds in the Philippines, and this method is suggested as a technique to capture snipe. Also used for shorebirds is a hand-operated thrownet which is tossed over congregated birds (McClure 1956). This throw net. or possibly the cannon- net trap, could be used where many snipe are together. 32 Ronald Somerville and Cliff Judkins (personal communication) has some luck in northwestern California with an accidental- type lead trap (figure 1). REFERENCES Aldrich, J. W. 1957. Perspective of woodcock, snipe and rail inves- tigations - 1956, m Investigations of woodcock, snipe, and rails in 1956. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report—Wildlife No. 34, P. 1-7. McClure, H. E. 1956. Methods of bird netting in Japan applicable to wildlife management problems. Bird-Banding 27(2):67-73. Murphy, R. C. 1955. Bird-netting as a technique for banding shore- birds. Bird-Banding 26(4):159-161. Robbins, C. S. 1954. Wilson's snipe wintering ground studies, 1951-52. in Investigations of woodcock, snipe, and rails in 1953. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report— Wildlife No. 24:51-56. Tuck, L. M. 1957. On the breeding of the Wilson's snipe in New- foundland, in Investigations of woodcock, snipe , and rails in 1956. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Special Scientific Report—Wildlife No. 34. Family COLUMBIDAE BAND-TAILED PIGEON Columbo fasciata All methods described below rely upon the pigeons1 taking bait at the trap. Success is likely to vary greatly, because bandtails have a tendency to feed on only one item at a time and will ignore any other food placed for them (California Department of Fish and Game, undated). Funnel bait trap. — Neff and Culbreath (1947) used a funnel trap ID by 6 by 2 feet. This trap was effective for small numbers of birds, but they found that the first pigeon to enter would sit in the funnel's mouth until all grain within reach had been eaten. This often blocked the funnel for long periods, and the operation was slowed considerably. Ladder-top trap.— Also used by Neff and Culbreath (1947), the top of this trap was constructed of bars placed 4 inches apart. The pigeons could easily drop between these bars to obtain the bait inside but, presumably, an exit would be harder. It was soon learned, however, that the pigeons could escape from this trap by taking a short hop, flapping once, and then closing their wings again to pass through the bars. These workers felt that a very tall trap of this same type would allevi- ate this escape problem. Drop trap. — Wooten (1955) used a 16-foot- square, net-covered frame which was sup- ported at one end with a 7-foot pole. A wire was attached to the upper edge of the trap, and this was operated from a nearby blind. A pull of the wire caused support to disengage and the net fell over the birds. Wooten dyed his net green or brown to match the surroundings; D. B. Houston (per- sonal communication) used a white net and natural wood frame with very good results. Drop-door trap.— A setup similar to the drop-door turkey trap (fig. 14) has been used by Neff and Culbreath (1947). As many as 60 birds have been trapped at one time. Cannon-net trap. — This trap has been used in California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1955; California Department of Fish and Game, undated) and is considered the most successful pigeon trap by the Washington Department of Game (E.S. Dziedzlc, personal communication). The best time for trapping is during spring migration. Most of the Colorado pigeon trapping (Neff and Culbreath, 1947) has incorporated as bait whatever grains were being grown in the vicinity (J. A. Neff, personal communi- cation). Yellow corn, barley, wheat, and oats were all commonly used. 33 REFERENCES MISCELLANEOUS METHODS California Department of Fish and Game. Undated. Band-tailed pigeons. 2 p. Neff, J. A„ and J. C. Culbreath. 1947. Band-tailed pigeon natural history and its value for a management plan. Western Associa- tion of State Game and Fish Commissioner, Proceedings 27:154-164. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1955. Improvements to the cannon net trap. Branch of Wildlife Refuges, Wildlife Management Series, No. 12. 26 p. Wooten, W. A. 1955. A trapping technique for band-tailed pigeons. Journal of Wildlife Management 19(3):411-412. WHITE-WINGED DOVE Zenaida asiatica BAIT TRAPS Stair (1956) used Stoddard quail traps (see bobwhite) baited with waste grain and weed seeds. Both funnel and bob-wire entrances were effective. Texas workers used funnel- entrance traps baited with whole yellow corn (W. H. Kiel, Jr., personal communication). Stair (1956) also used a drop- door trap built over a windmill watering trough. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS None reported. DRIVE TRAPS Stair (1956) effectively combined drive- trapping techniques with the cannon- net trap. An open field was located where whitewings were feeding. At least 5 drivers walked abreast slowly and evenly down the field. The birds would take flight as the men approached, but would normally alight a few hundred feet ahead and continue feeding. The procedure continued until the birds were within range of the cannon net. The cannons were then detonated and the net was hurled over the birds. Breeding adults have been captured with Swank-type nest traps (W.H. Kiel, Jr., per- sonal communication). REFERENCE Stair, J. 1956. Dove investigations. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Federal Aid Project W-53-R-6. 11 p. MOURNING DOVE Zenaidura macroura BAIT TRAPS A 2-celled modification of the clover-leaf trap (fig 5) has been used by Keeler and Winston (1951). Stoddard quail traps have been used by several workers (Thompson, 1951; Keeler, 1953; Winston, 1954; Stair, 1956) and have been found to be one of tlie most effective traps. Several trigger traps have been used. One is the resetting type used by Keeler and Winston (1951). The bird enters the trap in search of food, steps on a trap door in the floor, and drops into a receiving pen below. The door is counterbalanced so that it returns to the "set" position. Another bait trap used widely (Keeler and Winston, 1951; Thompson, 1951; Keeler, 1953; Winston, 1954) is the Potter trap. This trap has a drop door which the bird releases by stepping on a treadle on the floor of the trap. Because only one bird can normally be caught at one time, this trap is useful only for small-scale programs. Keeler (1953) found that wind, rain, hail, and small birds set this trap off very easily. Stair (1951) used a drop-door trap over a windmill trough. The cannon- net trap was used by Thompson (1951). 34 Large, semipermanent house traps have been used by Austin (1951) and Winston (1954). These funnel-entrance traps are usually about 6 feet high and are only practical for long-term projects in which portability and cost are not of major concern. ACCIDENTAL TRAPS None reported. DRIVE TRAPS Harris and Morse (1958) used mist nets to capture nesting doves. Their procedure re- quired three men. A nest was located and the route determined by which the adult dove usually approached the nest. Two men holding a mist net approached the nest from this side, while a third "panic man" circled in from the back and scared the bird into the net. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS Mirror trap. — Grizzell (1952) caught one dove in this type trap (see ruffed grouse) but it was probably an accident. Nest traps. — Two nest traps have been devised, a manual one (Swank, 1952) and an B. Pulled by operator Figure 16.— Dove nest traps: a, Stewart's (1954) automatic trap with nesting base; b, Swank's (1952) manual trap. Stewart trap has treadle door arrangement which dove releases when entering nest; Swank trap is built around active nest and is triggered by operator when bird returns. 35 automatic one (Stewart, 1954). Both traps work on the drop- door principle, that is, the bird enters the open trap and the doors close behind it. The Stewart trap is a combination nest base and trap. If the doves use the base for their nest, the trap doors are added to it. Figure 16 shows the two types. Nestling banding. — Pigeons and doves differ from other North American upland game birds in that their young are altricial and stay in the nest for some time after hatching. This makes it feasible to band nestings before they reach flying stage. Dove nests are often easily accessible in trees and it is just a matter of climbing or reaching into the nest and picking out the young to band. Kossack (1955) describes a "Snooper," a mirror on a long pole, that facilitates looking into high nests without disturbing the young. Kossack (1955) used No. 3 A bands for nestling doves. He affixed them with elastic adhesive tape to the legs of birds 3 to 8 days old. Kazynski and Kiel (1963) made studies that indicated some relation between the use of adhesive tape and predator loss. They therefore recommended that the adhesive not be used and that banders should wait until nestlings were at least 6 days old before banding them. They used size No. 3 bands for doves 6 or 7 days old, and No. 3A bands for larger birds. While band retention seemed to increase with the age of the bird at banding, the doves could fly too well after 1 1 days to wait any longer than that. REFERENCES Austin, O. L. Jr. 1951. The mourning dove on Cape Cod. Bird-Banding 22(4):149--174. Grizzell, R. A. Jr. 1952. Selectivity of mirror traps. Journal of Wild- life Management 16(1):114-115. Harris, S. W„ and M. A. Morse. 1958. The use of mist nets for capturing nesting mourning doves. Journal of Wildlife Management 22(3):306-309. Kaczynski, C. F„ and W. H. Kiel Jr. 1963. Band loss by nestling mourning doves. Journal of Wildlife Management 27(2):271-279. Keeler, J. E. 1953. The mourning dove story. Alabama Depart- ment of Conservation. 66 p. — and F. A. Winston. 1951. Mourning dove trapping in the southeast: a cooperative dove study. Bird-Banding 22(4): 174-179. Kossack, C. W. 1955. Mourning dove banding project. Inland Bird Banding News 27(l):l-8. Stair, J. 1956. Dove investigations. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Federal Aid Project W-53-R-6. 11 p. Stewart, P. A. 1954. Combination substratum and automatic trap for nesting mourning doves. Bird-Banding 25(1): 6-8. Swank, W. G. 1952. Trapping and marking of adult nesting doves. Journal of Wildlife Management 16(l):87-90. Thompson, S. 1951. The southeastern cooperative dove study. North American Wildlife Conference, Transac- tions 16:296-306. Vinston, F. A. 1954. Status, movement and management of the mourning dove in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Technical Bulletin 2, 86 p. 36 INDEX TO TRAPS bob entrance traps, 4, 8, 12, 26, 30, 34. Fig. 2, p. 5. butterfly traps, 31, 32. Fig. 15, p. 31. cannon-net traps, 4, 10, 14, 15, 23, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34. Figs. 8 and 9, p. 13. canoe quail trap, 21, 22. clap nets, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28. Fig. 10, p. 16. cloverleaf traps, 5, 8, 9, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 34. Fig. 5, p. 8. cock-and-hen traps, 18, 21, 22. Fig. 11, p. 18. drop-door traps, 9, 27, 33, 34, 36. Fig. 14, p. 27; fig. 16, p. 35. drop nets, 10, 28, 29, 33. Fig. 6, p. 11. funnel traps, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35. Fig. 12, p. 20; fig. 13, p. 21. government sparrow trap, 17, 20, 22. hand, capture by, 29, 36. hand nets, 4, 9, 10, 24, 29, 32. immobilizing drugs, 10, 23, 28. ladder-top trap, 33. lead traps, 3, 4, 10, 14, 15, 19, 22, 23, 29, 30, 33. Fig. 1, p. 3. mirror traps, 3, 5, 6, 7, 35. Fig. 3, p. 6; fig. 4, p. 7. mist nets, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35. nooses, 4. pole traps, 26. Potter trap, 34. rush traps, 27. spot lighting, 9, 10, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26, 30, 32. Stewart trap, 35, 36. Stoddard trap, 17, 19, 20, 22, 34. Swank trap, 35. tip-top traps, 5, 10, 11, 12, 26. Fig. 7, p. 12. throw nets, 9, 15, 32. trench trap, 26. 37 The Department of the Interior, created in 1849, is a Department of Conservation, concerned with management, conservation, and develop- ment of the Nation's water, wildlife, fish, mineral, forest, and park and recreational resources. It has major responsibilities also for Indian and Territorial affairs. As America's principal conservation agency, the Department works to assure that nonrenewable resources are developed and used wisely, that park and recreational resources are conserved for the future, and that renewable resources make their full contribution to the progress, pros- perity, and security of the United States, now and in the future. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240