Comparison of Captures Between Sherman Live Traps and Museum Special Kill Traps (Report‪)‬

Choosing the appropriate trapping method to conduct research on small mammals can be difficult. To obtain best results, multiple types of traps should be used to eliminate potential bias in selection of traps by small mammals (Sealander and James, 1958). Traps should facilitate the most efficient collection of data to address questions posed by researchers (Innes and Bendell, 1988). Regardless of which type of trap is used, season (Mengak and Guynn, 1987), sex (Woodman et al., 1996), experience, weather (Rose et al., 1977), interspecific variation among species (Wiener and Smith, 1972), and scent remaining in traps from previous captures (Wolf and Batzli, 2002) can influence captures. Although there is abundant information regarding success of various types of traps in capturing small mammals, information often is contradictory and inconsistent among studies, and few studies have examined the same types of traps for comparative purposes (Lee, 1997). The Museum Special kill trap (Woodstream Corporation, Lititz, Pennsylvania) generally is considered to be more successful than any other type of trap. Two studies reported Museum Specials to be more successful in capturing small mammals than Sherman live traps (H. B. Sherman Traps, Tallahassee, Florida; Pendleton and Davison, 1982; Weiner and Smith, 1972); however, Sealander and James (1958) determined that Sherman traps were more successful than Museum Specials. Smith et al. (1971) noted that Museum Specials were more successful than Victor snap traps (Woodstream Corporation, Lititz, Pennsylvania), but Drickhamer and Mikesic (1993) reported the opposite; Perry et al. (1996) detected no difference between the two types of traps. Such contradictory results make it difficult to decide which type of trap will most effectively sample small mammals.