Trapping Mortality in Free Range Rhesus Monkeys in Shivalik Hills of Western Himalayas in Northern India
The aim of the present study was to find the incidences of the trapping mortality in free range rhesus macaques in Shivalik hills of western Himalayas of Northern India. During this investigation a total of 2642 rhesus monkeys were captured by trapping cages, out of which 12 rhesus monkeys were found trapped in different traps. Of the twelve rhesus monkeys 4 monkeys were rescued from the trapped site while others 8 monkeys were found with lacerated injuries with wire traps. Out of twelve monkeys 7 (58.33 %) were males while 5 (41.66 %) were females. 4 (33.33%) monkeys were trapped in body gripper traps while 6 (50 % ) in hand snare traps while 2 (16.66 %) were trapped in feet traps. There were mortality of 4 ( 33.33%) monkeys while 8 (66.66 %) were recovered well and set free at their respective site of rescue or capture. Out of 12 rhesus monkeys 3 (25 %) were commensal while 5 (41.66 % ) were semicommensal while 4 (33.33%) others were noncommensal. The maximum of the trapping 50% (6) were in the winter season followed by rainy (33.33%) (4) and summer (3) (25 %) seasons.
Trapping, Rhesus Monkey, Snare Traps, Free Range
Berchielli, LT., Tullar, BF. 1980. A comparison of a leg snare with a standard leg-gripping trap. New York Fish and Game Journal, 27 ; 63-71.
Bjorge, RR., Gunson, JR. 1989. Wolf, Canis lupus, population characteristics and prey relationships near Simonette River, Alberta. Can Field-Naturalist, 103 ; 327–334.
Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., Fischer, J., Beehner, J., Bergman, T., Johnson, S., Kitchen, D., Palombit, R., Rendall, D., and Silk J. 2006. Reproduction, mortality, and female reproductive success in chacma baboons of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Pp. 147–176 in L. Swedell and S. Leigh, eds. Reproduction and fitness in baboons: behavioral, ecological, and life history perspectives. Springer, New York.
Ekwal, I., Anees, A. 2013. Population status of Rhesus monkey (MACACA MULATTA) and their menace: A threat for future conservation. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3(4) ; 1279-1289.
Englund., J. 1982. A comparison of injuries to leg-hold trapped and foot snared red foxes. Journal of Wildlife Management, 46 ; 1113-1117.
Goo-drich, JM,, Kerley, LL., Schleyer,BO., Miquelle, DG., Quigley, KS., Smirnov, YN., Nikolaev, IG., Quigley, HB., Hornocker, MH. 2001. Capture and chemical anesthesia of Amur (Siberian) tig-ers. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29 ; 533–542.
Gurnell, J. 1982. Trap deaths in woodland rodents. Acta Theriol, 27; 139-147.
Imam, E., Yahya, HS., Malik, I. 2002. A successful mass translocation of commensal rhesus monkeys Macaca mulatta in Vrindaban , India . Oryx 36(1) ; 87-93.
Irwin, M., Raharison, JL., Wright, P. 2009. Spatial and temporal variabilityin predation on rainforest primates: do forest fragmentation and predation act synergistically? Animal Conservation, 12 ; 220–230.
Karpanty, SM., Wright, PC. 2007. Predation on lemurs in the rainforest of Madagascar by multiple predator species: observations and experiments. Pp. 7799 in S. Gursky and K. A. I. Nekaris, eds. Primateanti-predator strategies. Springer, New York.
Kuhl, HS., Elzner, C., Moebius, Y., Boesch, C., Walsh, PD. 2008. The price of play: self-organized infant mortality cycles in chimpanzees. PLoS ONE, 3, 2440.
Logan, KA., Sweanor, LL., Smith, JF., Hornocker, MG. (1999) Capturing pumas with foot-hold snares. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27; 201–208.
Lucherini, M., Lovari, S. 1996. Habitat richness affects home range size in the red fox Vulpes vulpes. Behavioural Processes, 36 ; 103.
Lovari, S., Valier, P., Lucchi, MR. 1994. Ranging behaviour and activity of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes, Mammalia) in relation to environmental variables, in a Mediterranean mixed pi-newood. Journal of Zoology, 232 ; 323-339.
McKinstry, MC., Anderson, SH. 1998. Using snares to live-capture beaver, Castor canadensis. Canadian Field-Naturalis, 112 ; 469–473.
Nellis, CH. 1968. Some methods for capturing coyotes. Journal of Wild Life Management, 32 ; 402–405.
Novak, M. 1979. The new foot-snare live trap and the leg-hold trap – a comparison. Ontario Fish & Wildlife Review 18 ; 11-22.
Novak, M. 1981. The foot-snare and leg-hold traps: a comparison. Proceedings of the Worldwide Furbearer Confe-rence 1 ; 1671-1685.
Noonan, B. 2002. Collaring coyotes. Wildlife Control Technology 9 ; 24–25, 44.
Onderka, DK., Skinner, DL., Todd AW. 1990. Injuries to coyotes and other spe-cies caught by four models of footholding devices. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18 ; 175–182.
Perrin, M R. 1975. Trap deaths. Acta Theriol, 20 ; 167-174.
Phillips, R L. 1996. Evaluation of 3 types of snares for capturing coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24 ; 107-110.
Rao, AJ. 2003. Use of nonhuman primates in biomedical research in India : cur-rent status and future prospects. In: Vaupel S, editor. International perspectives: the future of nonhuman primate resources; 17-19 April 2002; Washington , DC . Washington DC : Natl Aca-demic Pr. p 21-8.
Sala, L., Sola, C., Spampanato, A., Tongiorgi, P., Magnanini, M. 1993. Capture and identification techniques of marmot on Mount Cimone (Northen Appenines). IBEX Journal of Mountain Ecology, 1;14-16.
Skinner, D L. & Todd, A. W. 1990. Evaluating effi-ciency of footholding devices for coyote capture. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18 ; 166-175.
Teelen, S. 2008. Influence of chimpanzee predation on the red colobus popula-tion at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Primates,49 ; 41–49.
Van, Schaik., CP, Jan-son CH. 2000. Infanticide by males and its implications. Cambridge Univ. Press, Lon-don.
Walsh, PD., Biek, R., Real, LA. 2005. Wave-like spread of Ebola Zaire. PLoS Biology, 3 ;1946–1953.
Williams, J M., Lonsdorf, EV., Wilson, ML., Schumacher-Stankey, J., Goodall, J., Pusey, AE. 2008. Causes of death in the Kasekela chimpanzees of Gombe National Park, Tanza-nia. American Journal of primatology, 70 ; 766– 777.
Wolfe, LD. 2002. Rhesus macaques: a comparative study of two sites, Jaipur , India , and Silver Springs , Florida . In: Fuentes A, Wolfe LD, editors. Primates face to face: conservation implications of human-nonhuman primate inter-connections. Cambridge ( UK): Cambridge Univ Pr. p 310-30.