Description and Evaluation of a Remote Camera and Triggering System to Monitor

Carnivores
Author(s): Eric C. York, Trina L. Moruzzi, Todd K. Fuller, John F. Organ, Raymond M.
Sauvajot and Richard M. DeGraaf
Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), Vol. 29, No. 4 (Winter, 2001), pp. 1228-1237
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784148
Accessed: 31-05-2020 14:24 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784148?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley, Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006)

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 /I2~ ~~Wildlife Monitoring
1228 REMOTE MONITORING SYSTEM

Description and evaluation of a remote

camera and triggering system to
monitor carnivores

Eric C. York, Trina L. Moruzzi, Todd K. Fuller, John F Or

Raymond M. Sauvajot, and Richard M. DeGraaf
Abstract Remotely triggered cameras have been used in many ecological studies, but
atively inexpensive one-time-only systems or expensive infrared systems. W
the setup and wiring technique for a moderately priced, multiple-photo cam
Two study areas, California and Vermont, were used to assess usefulness of
system. Although some target carnivore species were photographed regularly
rates of other carnivores were low, due either to low population densities or
ness. Cameras generally worked well under all conditions, but the pressure-
gering devices sometimes became inoperable during heavy rains. Other cam
tion systems may reveal additional uses for this remote camera system.

Key words California, camera, carnivores, photographs, Vermont

Remotely triggered cameras (Cutler and infrared

Swann camera systems can be effective but are
1999) have been used to identify presence and dis- require extensive training, and are often
expensive,
tribution of species (e.g.,Jones and Raphael 1993,
unnecessarily complicated for the desired applica-
Sadighi et al. 1995), identify nest predators
tion(e.g.,
(Rice 1995, Brooks 1996). Conversely, low-cost
Major 1991, DeGraaf 1995, Bayne and Hobson 1997,
systems often use elaborate triggering mechanisms,
require
Hernandez et al. 1997), monitor activity and behav-continual maintenance and labor, and may
ior (e.g., Dodge and Snyder 1960, Osterbergbe1962,
too simple to accomplish specific study objec-
Peterson and Thomas 1998), document corridor
tives
use(Zielinski and Kucera 1995).
Danielson et al. (1996) described a low-cost (about
(Foster and Humphrey 1995), and estimate popula-
$105) automatic camera system to photograph
tion densities (Mace et al. 1994, Karanth and Nichols
1998). Current remote 35-mm camera systems wildlife;
vary unfortunately, the camera model (Olympus
AF-10)
in price and technology, ranging from simple described is no longer available. This paper
low-
cost (<$25), one-shot, line-triggered systems (Zielin-
describes a system similar to that of Danielson et al.
(1996), using an available camera that features an
ski and Kucera 1995) to high-cost (>$500) infrared
systems (Kucera and Barrett 1993, Brookselectronic
1996, automatic flash, auto focus, auto film
Hernandez et al. 1997). More advanced and versatile advance, and built in date-time function. We also

Address for Eric C. York and Raymond M. Sauvajot: Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, United States National Park
Service, 401 Hillcrest Drive, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360, USA; present address for York: United States Geological Survey, Biologi-
cal Resources Division, 1147 East 6th St., Corona, CA 92879, USA. Address for Trina L. Moruzzi: Department of Natural Resources
Conservation and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, University of Massachu-
setts, Amherst, MA 01003-4210, USA; present address: Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Field Headquarters, 1 Rab-
bit Hill Road, Westboro, MA 01581, USA. Address for Todd K. Fuller: Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-4210, USA; e-mail: tkfuller@forwild.umass.edu. Address for John F. Organ: United States
Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589, USA. Address for Richard M. DeGraaf: United
States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Amherst, MA 01003-4210, USA.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(4):1228-1237 Peer refereed

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Remote monitoring system * York et al. 1229

describe 2 variations of a new pressure-pad trigger-

ing system (e.g., Van Schaik and Griffiths 1996,
Mudappa 1998). To assess the utility of our camera
system, we report general results of surveys of medi-
um-sized carnivores conducted in southern Califor-
nia and southern Vermont during 1997-1998. rc

Camera system assembly

Materials
The Canon Owl Sureshot Date, 35-mm automatic
Figre 1. Individual contacts (from left to right: SW1, SW2,
camera (Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan) with auto-flash
and auto-advance is equipped with a date-time
imprinting feature. The following wiring methods Figure 1. Individual contacts (from left to right: SW1,
also apply to the Canon Owl Sureshot (Canon Inc., rewind, and ground) on release circuit board of a Cano
Tokyo, Japan) without the date-time feature. This Sure Shot? 35-mm automatic camera to which only 2 o
wires of the external phone wire (red to SW1/SW2 and bl
camera is available at most camera and department ground) are connected.
stores for <$80.
Cameras were wired with a modular phone plug,
mounted in a weatherproof box, and used with a and ground; only contacts SW1, SW2, and the
ground are needed to wire the camera.
pressure-plate triggering system. To wire the cam-
era to a modular phone connection system, the fol-
Wiring the camera
lowing supplies are needed: at least 20 cm of 26-
Connect the external phone wire to the camera by:
gauge, 4-strand flat modular telephone wire and a
crimp-on modular telephone plug. Needed tools 1) fusing SW1 and SW2 contacts with a small sol-
include: small wire stripper-cutter, small Phillips der connection;
screwdriver, electric or hand drill with 6-mm drill 2) stripping approximately 10 mm of outer insu-
bit, epoxy, soldering iron with small tip, and resin lation from the telephone wire (note: if the wire
core solder. To wire the camera directly to the will be connected directly to a switch, then phone
remote switch, only 2 small (<20-gauge) wires (the wire can be replaced with the 2 small, single wires);
length will vary with application) and the tools 3) cutting the green and yellow phone wires to
noted above are needed. the level of the insulation, leaving only the red and
black wires;
Accessing the camera body 4) stripping about 4 mm of insulation from the
Remove the 8 screws (of different sizes; see ends of the red and black wires;
5) soldering the red wire to the joined SW1 and
below) that hold camera cover front, battery cover,
and battery cover hinge plate in place. The screwsSW2 contacts on top of the release board;
are located on the bottom (n = 4), on the sides (n 6) =
soldering the black wire to the ground contact
3), and deep inside the film uptake compartmenton(ntop of the release board, being careful not to
= 1) of the camera. It is not necessary to remove make a connection with the rewind contact. Avoid
the 2 screws on the back of the camera to left of heating up the contacts for too long because the
the viewfinder or inside the film compartment can become detached from the circuit boards;
below and left of the lens. The removed screws are 7) drilling a 6-mm hole in the camera cover (from
of 3 different sizes, so note their placement the back
for of the cover) just below the top of the
proper reattachment of the camera cover compo- cover and about 20 mm to the right of the view
nents. Once screws are removed, gently pull the (Figure 2);
window
front off the body of the camera. A small 8) threading the free end of the telephone wire
knife
blade can be inserted under the latch of the camera through the hole in the cover and pressing the
to facilitate removing the front cover. This exposes
cover into place, being careful to lift the cover over
the group of contacts on the release circuit board
the film compartment release latch;
9) replacing the battery cover and battery cover
that are used for wiring (Figure 1). The contacts are
(from left to right with the front of the camera hinge
fac- plate and replacing at least one screw to hold
them in place;
ing you): switch 1 (SW1), switch 2 (SW2), rewind,

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1230 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001,29(4):1228-1237

to weatherproof the wiring. Camera wiring is now

complete.

Weatherproof camera box

For the system used in California (dry study area),
the camera box consisted of a 750-ml Rubbermaid?
Servin' SaverTM (Rubbermaid Inc., Wooster, Ohio,
USA) sandwich container fitted with a dual in-line
phone coupler. The container was modified by cut-
ting a 100 x 80-mm hole in the bottom of the con-
tainer for the flash and lens window and a 50 x 30-
mm hole in the side of the container to view the
camera counter dial. A 90 x 60-mm hole was cut in
the container lid for a view window to aim the cam-
era. Finally a 20 x 16-mm hole was cut in the side of
the container to accommodate a dual in-line phone
coupler. Plexiglas (slightly larger than the window
holes) was hot-glued to the container and the lid to
weatherproof the unit. During rain-free survey peri-
ods, we removed the Plexiglas over the lens-flash
window to increase photo clarity. The phone cou-
pler also was hot-glued into place. The camera box
was screwed or bolted to a 380 x 140 x 13-mm
piece of wood to attach it to a stake or tree at the
camera station site. We attached most camera boxes
to stakes when survey sites lacked trees. Camera
Figure 2. Front cover (top) and interior of a Canon Owl Sure box and stakes were painted camouflage colors.
Shot? 35-mm automatic camera showing where the free end of
the telephone wire (connected to individual contacts; see Fig- The camera box for the system used in Vermon
ure 1) should be threaded through the 6-mm-diameter drilled (moist study area) consisted of a 50 x 100 x 150-mm
hole, and the subsequently added modular phone plug.
waterproof food storage box (GSI Sports, Spokane
Wash., USA) with a clear front window. We cut a 20
x 16-mm hole in the bottom of the box to accom-
10) testing the wiring by stripping about 10 mm
of outer insulation and >2 mm of insulation from modate a dual in-line phone coupler and then hot
glued
the black and red wires, placing batteries in the the coupler into the hole. Next we screwed
cam-
era, opening the lens cover, and connecting the30 red
x 30 x 200-mm wooden stake to the side of the
and black wires together. If the wiring waswaterproof
done box to enable the box to be attached to
a tree bole for operation. We placed the camera in
correctly, the camera shutter should be activated;
the box such that it rested on a 3 x 3 x 10-mm foam
11) replacing remaining screws in the appropri-
ate holes to completely reattach the front block,
cover,connected the phone plug from the camera to
battery cover, and battery cover hinge plate; the dual in-line phone coupler, stuck 4 0.5 x 1 x 3.5-
12) if the camera is going to be used with a cm pieces of self-adhesive, foam weather-stripping to
modu-
lar phone connector system, cutting the free theendinside
of of the clear window to prevent reflection
offlush;
the telephone wire so all wire and insulation are the flash to the lens, and secured the top of the
13) using a modular telephone wire crimping box into place (Figure 3). The cost of both types of
tool to remove the appropriate amount of outer weatherproof camera box was less than $5 each.
insulation (approximately 3 mm) from the phone
wire, and attaching a modular phone plug to the end Constructing a pressure-plate triggering
of the wire (Figure 2). When attaching the plug to device
this wire and all other modular connections, the We designed, constructed, and tested 2 pressur
plate triggering devices. The California pressur
black wire should be on the right side (with the clip
facing down) when entering the back of the plug; plate triggering device consisted of a 203 x 203 x 13
mm wooden frame, with 2 single-throw, normal
14) placing a small daub of epoxy over the hole

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Remote monitoring system * York et al. 1231

i~~; K
Figure 4. Components of the pressure plate used in Vermont,
including the ribbon switch centered diagonally on the lower
plate and the pieces of wooden half-round molding appropri-
ately placed on the upper plate. The ribbon switch is spliced to
modular telephone wire with an attached phone plug. The
plates will be attached loosely with the 2 machine screws and
double nuts in the pairs of holes drilled in the plates to allow up
and down movement of the top plate when stepped upon. The
edge of the "sandwich" of the upper and lower plates can be
sealed with duct tape.

Figure 3. The waterproof food-storage box with a clear front onto the frame. The screw holes on the top plate
window used in Vermont to house the camera. The wooden
were slightly larger (7 mm) than the screw to allow
stake screwed to the side of the box enables it to more easily
be attached to a tree bole. The dual in-line phone coupler isup and down movement of the plate. The foam bor-
partially protruding from the bottom of the box. The camera der slightly increased tension on the plate and kept
rests on a foam block, and pieces of self-adhesive foam weath-
er-stripping are placed on the inside of the clear window to pre-
soil from getting between the frame and plate. We
vent reflection of the flash to the lens. The outside of the box tightened the screws until the plastic plate con-
can be covered by camouflage duct tape. tacted the top of the switches. To connect the sys-
tem components, we equipped a 3-m phone wire
open, pushbutton switches (# 35-411, GC Brand) with modular plugs and connected it to the cou-
centered on 2 sides of the frame. We fastened a plers in the camera box and pressure plate. The
dual in-line phone coupler to the wooden frame cost oftoall components for this triggering device
connect the pushbutton switches and the was <$15/unit.
phone
wire leading to the camera box. We wired the push- The Vermont pressure-plate system was com-
button switches together and then to the posed red andof 2 203 x 203 x 6-mm plastic plates (King
black wires of a phone wire. We then fitted the King Plastic Corp. Venice, Fla., USA) with
Starboard,
phone wire with a modular phone plug and a 254
con-x 14 x 4-mm controflex ribbon switch
nected it to the coupler on the frame. We (Tapeswitch
secured Corp., Farmingdale, N. Y, USA) cen
a 13 x 13-mm self-adhesive open-cell insulating tered diagonally on the lower plate (Figure 4). W
foam around the frame outside of the switches. We attached 2 51 x 6-mm pieces of wooden half-rou
then loosely attached a 203 x 203 x 6.5-mm plasticmolding approximately 115 mm apart to the upp
plate (King Starboard?, King Plastic Corp.,Venice,plate and perpendicular to the ribbon switch. T
Fla., USA) with 4 45-mm, size 8 galvanized screws diameter and shape of the molding dictated th

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1232 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001,29(4):1228-1237

pressure it would take to set off the pressure

switch. By manually pressing on the finished plate,
and using a domestic cat as a "test species," we iden-
tified what we thought was the right molding for
the target species. We placed duct tape around the
perimeter of the 2 plates to keep out dirt and other
debris. We loosely attached the plates with 2 45-
mm, size 10 machine screws. Like the California
system, the screw holes were slightly larger than
the screw to allow up and down movement of the
top plate when stepped upon. One of the 2 wires
leading off of the pressure switch was soldered to
the green and red wires, and the other to the yellow
and black wires, from 4 m of phone wire. To con-
nect this system, we attached a modular plug to the
opposite end of the phone wire and then connect-
ed it to the coupler in the camera box. The cost of
all components for this triggering device was
<$20/unit.

Use in the field

Study areas
The 50-km2 California study area encompassed
areas of open space adjacent to protected land and
more fragmented areas with large freeways, sec-
A bobcat and a radiocollared gray fox "captured" at a camera
ondary roads, and human-populated sites. Vegeta- trap in southern California.
tion types included mixed chaparral, coastal sage
scrub, annual grassland, oak woodland and savanna,
and riparian areas (Sauvajot et al. 2000). We con- Camera placement
ducted surveys during the nonrainy season to avoid Cameras were used during 6 surveys in California
potential rain and accessibility problems. Target from April-September 1997 (n=119 stations) and
animals for the California study included bobcats 1998 (n = 78 stations). In the first survey, conduct-
(Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and gray ed during April 1997, we placed 44 cameras >1 km
foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). apart on a grid that covered all portions and habitat
We conducted surveys in Vermont in a 1,032-km2 types of the study area. Subsequently, we placed
study area in and immediately surrounding the cameras at greater densities either in the northern
Green Mountain National Forest in the southern
or southern portions of the study area.
At situ-
part of the state. The Vermont study area was each camera station we buried the pressure
ated in 2 ecological regions. The more mountain- plate to ground level and covered it with a thin
ous and forested eastern half encompassed the layer of soil. We placed several ounces of sun-ren-
spruce-fir-northern hardwoods vegetation zone sit- dered fish oil and liquid fatty acid scent in a hole
uated in the Green Mountain National Forest (West- approximately 22 cm from the center of the plate
veld et al. 1956). The western half was classified as similar to a "dirt hole" set used for foothold trap-
the northern hardwoods-hemlock (Tsuga cana- ping. We placed lures in a small plastic container to
densis) -white pine (Pinus strobus) vegetation facilitate removal at the end of each survey. We
zone, which encompassed farmland and a more used vegetation, sticks, and small rocks to guide ani-
dense human population. We conducted surveys mals onto the plate while investigating the lure. We
during summer and fall to avoid heavy snowfall and hung a pipe cleaner dipped in fatty acid scent on
accessibility problems. Our target species in Ver- vegetation above the site to attract animals from a
mont were martens (Martes americana), fishers distance. We placed the camera approximately 2 m
(M. pennanti), and bobcats. from, and perpendicular to, the plate and hole on a

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Remote monitoring system * York et al. 1233

stake about 60 cm from the ground and connected lure at the bottom of the hole and fox urine on a
to the plate with the phone wire. We covered the backing (e.g., rock or stick) behind the hole. We
phone wire with a layer of soil between the stake buried the telephone cord connecting the plat
and pressure plate. We wore rubber boots to the and the camera plate underneath the leaf litter. W
site and wore rubber gloves when handling equip- attached the camera to a tree approximately 3
ment to minimize human scent at the site. We away from the set and approximately 1 m above t
loaded each camera with 10-exposure, 200-ASA ground. We wore rubber boots and gloves at the se
color print film and took an identifying photo ofto minimize human scent. We loaded each camera
the site number at the beginning of each roll of with 24-exposure, 200-ASA color print film a
film. We set stations for 14-21 days and checkedtook an identifying photo of the site number at t
once during the survey to ensure the system was beginning of each roll of film. We set camera
still working properly, and to replace film if neces- tions for 21-day sampling periods (Jones and
sary. Upon completion of a survey, we removed allRaphael 1993). After each 21-day sampling period,
lure and camera system components from the site.we moved cameras to new sites >1 km away. After
We then moved stations >1 km to new sites. all surveys, we assessed all resulting photographs to
In Vermont, half of the cameras and camera determine the species photographed.
boxes we used were those described by Danielson
et al. (1996), but all pressure plates were as Photo station interpretation
described above. We conducted surveys during At each site in both study areas, only one indi-
June-November, 1997 (n =131 stations) and 1998 vidual/species was counted. That is, if a coyote was
(n= 154 stations). We distributed cameras at >1 km
photographed several times at a single camera site,
intervals (Raphael 1994) to sample all portions and
only one coyote occurrence was recorded because
habitats of the study area. individual identification was not always possible.
At each station we placed the pressure plate However, photos of several species at the same site
under a thin layer of soil and leaf litter and created (but at different times) were recorded on several
a cubby (1 m x 0.7 m with a 20-cm-diameter open- occasions and each species was counted at the site.
ing) with vegetation and debris in front of the
buried pressure plate. During 1997 surveys we
Results
placed several ounces of fish oil and liquid catnip
on cotton balls in the back of a cubby-type setup. Camera surveys in California resulted in photos
We placed several drops of skunk essence on a treeof 6 species of wild Carnivora, as well as domestic
limb above the set, and attached a squirrel tail or cats and dogs (Table 1). Bobcats and gray foxes
turkey feather above the set as a visual attractant. were recorded most commonly, but coyote photo
During 1998 surveys, we set up half of the cameras rates seemed relatively low, as on several occasions
as a dirt hole-type set with a 20-cm-diameter hole one or more cameras were set up in known ranges
at a 45( angle behind the plate. We placed a food of radiocollared individuals (Sauvajot et al. 2000),
but failed to produce photos of these animals. In
Vermont, 9 species of wild Carnivora were pho-
tographed, as were domestic cats and dogs (Table
2). Raccoons (Procyon lotor) and fishers were the
most photographed species, and photos of coyotes
and black bears (Ursus americanus) also were
common. In both areas, numerous other mammal
and bird species also were photographed.

Coyote reacts to the camera's flash at a site in southern California.
Discussion
On several occasions both camera systems were
rendered inoperable by visiting wildlife. Often
rodents, and sometimes carnivores, chewed on the
switch wiring or the telephone cord connecting
the plate to the camera. Deeply burying the wires

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1234 Widlife Society Bulletin 2001,29(4):1228-1237

Table 1. Photo rate (proportion of stations where a species was photographed) of various California were conduct-
wildlife species during surveys conducted in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation ed only during rain-free
Area, California. Photo surveys were conducted for 21-day intervals in the northern half,
southern half, or throughout the entire study area. periods, but similar rain-
associated problems were
Location observed during initial
South North testing. Using pressure
Apr 97 Aug 97 plates97
Apr duringJul
these weath-
97 S
No. of stations 13a 25 31 25 25 39 39 er conditions would

Survey area size (km2) 13 6 31 6 6 10 10 require additional main

nance after weather
Bobcat (Lynx rufus) 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03
Domestic cat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 events to ensure the s
Coyote (Canis latrans) 0.08 0.20 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 tem is still operational.
Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) 0.15 0.0 0.07 0.12 0.28 0.10 0.08 The containers we
Domestic dog 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 used were low-price,
Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.0 effective units to house
Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 and weatherproof cam-
Badger (Taxidea taxus) 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 eras. The lightweight plas-
Opossum (Didelphis virginiana) 0.0 0.08 0.07 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.0
tic was easy to cut for
Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) 0.0 0.08 0.03 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.0
necessary windows, and
Rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.) 0.08 0.20 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.13 0.05
units were lightweight
Ground squirrel (Spermophilus spp.) 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.0 and convenient to carry
Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) 0.08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 long distances. However,
Other bird species 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 neither type of camera
Human 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 housing would protect
the camera from abuse by
a Number of stations/survey. aggressive or curious
wildlife. Wooden or even
steel boxes would be

from the camera moreto the

durable and switch,
would have been recommended or
inside pipe, may inreduce areas where bearsthe inciden
are present (Danielson et a
Also, several inquisitive animals,
1996). Also, the plastic of some the containers moused
and opossums (Didelphis in California becamevirginiana,
very dry and cracked afte
photographs), would several yearsdig up
of use. This may be the swit
a result of the long
visible or avoidable periods
by of hot, dry weather to during
animals which these con
Finally, some individuals (especially raccoons) tainers were exposed in southern California.
would expose a whole roll of film by repeatedly All target carnivores were photographed excep
stepping on the plate while searching for the bait.for martens in Vermont, which likely were not pres
While problems are difficult to avoid, repairs can be ent (Moruzzi 2000). Low visitation rates of some
made at camera sites if checked during the sam-carnivores may have been the result of low popula-
pling period and stations will continue to collecttion densities (e.g., bobcats; K. Royar, Vermont Fish
data. and Wildlife Department, personal communication)
Weather conditions also influenced performanceor camera shyness (e.g., coyotes and red foxes
of the pressure-plate systems. Because of the sensi- [Vulpes vulpes]; Hernandez et al 1997). The cubby-
tivity of the system used in Vermont, heavy rain andtype setup and lure choice also may be less attrac-
heavy, wet soil compacted the pressure plate andtive to some carnivores. A dirt-hole set with urine
activated the camera during early summer 1998.and a food lure have traditionally been used by trap-
Additionally, after wet, compacted soils dried, apers for canid species, but we did not identify any
hard-packed covering formed over the pressure differences in photo rates between these and
plate, prohibiting the up and down movement of cubby-type sets (Moruzzi 2000). Both pressure-
the plate. Surveys were not conducted in Vermontplate camera systems appear to have limited use to
during winter because deep snows would have ren-estimate coyote abundance. Coyote visitation rates
dered the pressure plates inoperable. Surveys in were low during all camera surveys in California

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Remote monitoring system * York et al. 1235

Table 2. Photo rate (proportion of stations where a species was photographed) of various these species were appar-
wildlife species during surveys conducted in and immediately adjacent to the Green Mountain ently attracted to the lure,
National Forest, Vermont. Photo surveys were conducted for 21-day intervals in the northern
or the southern half of the study area (each of which was 500 km2 in size). but others probably just
happened upon the pres-
Location sure plates and triggered
North South the cameras as they
Jul 97 Jun 98 Sep 98 Sep 97 Aug 98 stepped on the plate.
No. of stations 64a 42 52 67 60 Both systems used a
Bobcat 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.03 lighter plate tension to
accommodate smaller
Domestic cat 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02

Coyote 0.02 0.0 0.12 0.1 0.05 carnivores present in

Gray fox 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.02 both study areas, increas-
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.02 ing the potential for pho-
Domestic dog 0.06 0.0 0.06 0.09 0.02 tos of lighter nontarget
Raccoon 0.28 0.07 0.21 0.31 0.23
species (e.g., squirrels
Striped skunk 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 and rabbits). Photos of
Fisher (Martes pennanti) 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.15 the lighter nontarget
Long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0
species might be avoided
Black bear (Ursus americanus) 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.03
by using a switch that
Opossum 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.05 0.0
requires a greater tension
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) 0.09 0.17 0.12 0.05 0.13
Snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.07 to close the circuit, or by
Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) 0.05 0.02 0.15 0.06 0.03 increasing the density of
Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) 0.06 0.0 0.15 0.08 0.08 the foam below the plate.
Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) 0.0 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.0 Remote 35-mm cam-
Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.03 eras are an effective tool
Peromyscus spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 for many wildlife applica-
Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 0.02 0.0 0.06 0.08 0.07 tions and provide defini-
Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 tive species identifica-
Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 0.02 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.02
tion; cost, however, is
Human 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.02
often an important factor

a Number of stations/survey.
in limiting their use by
many researchers (cf. Cut-
ler and Swann 1999).
(Table 1), as were fox visitation rates in Vermont. There are several commercial remote camera sy
Care was taken to minimize human scent, but it is tems available to biologists, but all use infrared se
difficult to eliminate all scent and to camouflage sors and some cost more than $300. This initial co
each setup. The exceptional olfactory sense and can make it unfeasible for researchers on limited
inherent shyness of canids may have made them budgets to use these systems. Currently no moder-
hesitant to step on the pressure pad. "Camera shy- ate-cost mechanically triggered cameras are com-
ness" by coyotes and red foxes to infrared camera mercially available; additionally, there are very few
triggering devices was documented by Hernandez low-cost cameras that can be manipulated by
et al. (1997). A bait or lure that is more attractive to researchers to take consistent, reliable, remotely
bobcats or a more visually attractive set (e.g., using triggered photographs. Overall, we found that th
feathers or fur) may increase visitation rate of bob- Canon Sureshot Owl Date's features and moderate
cats. Other studies have found that raccoons and cost made it an appropriate choice to remotely
fishers are easy to photograph using remote cam-
photograph wildlife. The circuit configuration o
eras (Raphael 1994, Zielinski and Kucera 1995, the camera system made it simple to wire and con-
Brooks 1996,York 1996, Danielson et al. 1997, Her-nect to an external switch such as a pressure plate
nandez et al. 1997). While a pressure-plate system may not be appro-
In addition to photos of target species, several priate to monitor all carnivore species (e.g., coy
nontarget carnivores and noncarnivores (e.g., deer, otes), we found it effective to monitor multipl
rabbits, and squirrels) visited the sites. Several of species over long periods without having to reset

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1236 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(4):1228-1237

the trigger mechanism or camera. The number of Trailmaster camera systems for identifying ground-nest pred

multiple-species photos taken at each station is lim-
ited only by the number of prints available on the
selected film. With the simplicity of the Owl Date
wiring, a wide variety of mechanical switches could
be used depending on the desired applications. In
addition to the mechanical switches, these cameras
also can be connected to commercially available
infrared sensors, but this might substantially
increase cost of the camera setup. Continual test-
ing of other available switches, including infrared,
ators. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:848-853
JONES, L. L. C., AND M. G. RAPHAEL. 1993. Inexpensive camera s
tems for detecting martens, fishers, and other mammal
guidelines for use and standardization. United States Depar
ment of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Repo
PNW-GTR-306, Portland, Oregon, USA.
KARANTH, K. U., ANDJ. D. NICHOLS. 1998. Estimation of tiger d
sities in India using photographic captures and recapture
Ecology 79:2852-2862.
KUCERA, T. E., AND R. H. BARRETT. 1993. The Trailmaster camer
system for detecting wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2
505-508.

will be useful in developing additional moderate- MACE, R. D., S. C. MINTA, T. L. MANLEY, AND K. E. AUNE. 19

cost remote 35-mm camera systems. Estimating grizzly bear population size using camera sigh
ings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22:74-83.
MAJOR, R. E. 1991. Identification of nest predators by photo
raphy, dummy eggs, and adhesive tape. Auk 108:190-195.
Acknowledgments. Funding and equipment for MORUZZI, T. 2000. Identifying carnivore distribution in south
this project were provided by Canon U.S.A. through Vermont using remote cameras. Thesis, University of Mas
chusetts, Amherst, USA.
the National Park Foundation's Expedition into the
MUDAPPA, D. 1998. Use of camera-traps to survey small car
Parks program, National Park Service, USDA Forest
vores in the tropical rain forest of Kalakad-Mundanthur
Service, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, Tiger Reserve, India. Small Carnivore Conservation Newsle
Southwest Parks and Monuments Association, and ter 18:9-11.
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. We sin- OSTERBERG, D. M. 1962. Activity of small mammal as recorded by
a photographic device. Journal of Mammalogy 43:219-229.
cerely thank A. Eck, S. Erickson, C. Grove, K. Royar
PETERSON, L. M., AND J. A. THOMAS. 1998. Performance of Trail-
for their advice and logistical support and C.
master infrared sensors in monitoring captive coyotes.
Bernier, F Thompson, and the many volunteers for Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:592-596.
their field assistance and technical support. RAPHAEL, M. G. 1994. Techniques for monitoring populations of
martens and fishers. Pages 224-240 in S. Buskirk, A. S.
Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. Powell, editors. Martens,
sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell Uni-
Literature cited versity, Ithaca, New York, USA.
RICE, C. G. 1995. Trailmaster camera system: the dark side.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:110-111.
BAYNE, E. M. AND K. A. HOBSON. 1997. Comparing effects of land-
scape fragmentation by forestry and agriculture on predation
SADIGHI, K., R. M. DEGRAAF, AND W. R. DANIELSON. 1995. Experi-
of artificial nests. Conservation Biology 11:1418-1429. mental use of remotely-triggered cameras to monitor occur-
BROOKS, R. T. 1996. Assessment of two camera-base systems for
rence of timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus). Herpeto-
monitoring arboreal wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:
logical Review 26:189-190.
298-300. SAUVAJOT, R. M., E. C. YORK, T. K. FULLER, H. S. KIM, D. A. KAMRADT,
AND R. K. WAYNE. 2000. Distribution and status of carnivores
CUTLER, T. L., AND D. E. SWANN. 1999. Using remote photography
in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: in the Santa Monica Mountains, California: preliminary results
571-581. from radio telemetry and remote camera surveys. Pages
DANIELSON, W. R., R. M. DEGRAAF, AND T. K. FULLER. 1996. 113-123 An in J.E. Keeley, M. Baer-Keeley, and C. J. Fothering-
inexpensive and compact automatic camera system for ham, editors. 2nd Interface between ecology and land devel-
wildlife research. Journal of Field Ornithology 67:414-421. opment in California, United States Geological Survey Open-
DANIELSON, W. R., R. M. DEGRAAF, AND T. K. FULLER. 1997. Rural File Report 00-62, Sacramento, California, USA.
and suburban forest edges: effect on egg predators and nest VAN SCHAIK, C. P., AND M. GRIFFITHS. 1996. Activity periods of
predation rates. Landscape and Urban Planning 38:25-36. Indonesian rain forest animals. Biotropica 28:105-112.
DEGRAAF, R. M. 1995. Nest predation rates in managed and WESTVELD, M., ET AL. 1956. Natural forest vegetation zones of
reserved extensive northern hardwood forests. Forest Ecol- New England. Journal of Forestry 54:332-338.
ogy and Management 79:227-234. YORK, E. C. 1996. Fisher population dynamics in north-central
DODGE, W E. AND D. P. SNYDER. 1960. An automatic camera Massachusetts. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
device for recording wildlife activity. Journal of WildlifeUSA.
Man-
agement 24:340-342. ZIELINSKI, W J., AND T. E. KUCERA. 1995. American marten, fisher,
lynx and wolverine: survey methods for their detection.
FOSTER, M. L. AND S. R. HUMPHREY. 1995. Use of highway under-
passes by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Pacific
Soci- Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service
ety Bulletin 23: 95-100. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-157, Albany, California,
HERNANDEZ F., D. ROLLINS AND R. CANTU. 1997. An evaluation
USA. of

This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

&? . .e. :s . B._
Eric York (left) received a B.A. in wildlife management from the
University of Maine and an M.S. in wildlife and fisheries con-
servation from the University of Massachusetts. Eric's interests
are in carnivore research and conservation, and as a wildlife
biologist with the United States Geological Survey's Biological
Resources Division, he currently is involved in projects con-
cerning carnivore use of freeway corridors in southern Califor-
nia. Trina Moruzzi (right, testing camera trap) is a wildlife biol-
ogist with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
She received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Mass-
achusetts-Amherst. Her interests include carnivore ecology,
methods for detecting and surveying wildlife, and public out-
reach concerning wildlife is ues. Todd Fuller is a professor of
wildlife ecology and teaches wildlife identification and sam-
pling, wildlife conservation, carnivore ecology, and communi-
cating science. His research interests include the natural his-
This content downloaded from 186.144.193.197 on Sun, 31 May 2020 14:24:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Remote monitoring system * York et al. 1237
tory and population ecology of medium- and large-sized
mammalian carnivores and herbivores. John Organ is the
wildlife program chief for the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service's Northeast Region Division of Federal Aid and adjunct
assistant professor of wildlife ecology at the University of Mass-
achusetts, Amherst. He is a Certified Wildlife Biologist and is
currently the Northeast Section Representative to TWS Coun-
cil. Ray Sauvajot is chief of planning, science and resources
management for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recre-
ation Area. His research has focused on the effects of urban
encroachment and habitat fragmentation on wildlife in south-
ern California. Ray also provides consultation assistance to
other units of the National Park System. Dick DeGraaf is proj-
ect leader of the Northeastern Research Station's wildlife habi-
tat research unit at Amherst, Massachusetts. His research inter-
ests include forest wildlife ecology and effects of land
management on wildlife.
Associate editor: Chamberlain