J. Raptor Res.

23(1):10-13
1989 The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.
A FLOATING-FISH SNARE FOR CAPTURING BALD EAGLES
STEVEN L. CAIN AND JOHN I. HODGES
ABSTRACT.--Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) were captured using a system of 4 monofilament
snares fixed on a small (20-24 cm) floating fish attached by monofilament and shock cord to a free-
floating (or anchored) driftwood log. When an eagle strikes the bait and begins to fly away, the snare
loops close around the bird's toes as the line tightens. Resistance of the shock cord and log then slows
the bird's flight until it is forced into the water. Snare sets were placed in view of perched birds and were
effective at capturing specific individuals. Capture success averaged 50% of all birds that struck the bait.
Floating-fish snares are useful where topographical features, eagle foraging habits, or trap fouling by
non-target terrestrial species make open water sets more effective. Non-target aquatic species occasionally
fouled sets.
Common methods of capturing the Bald Eagle
(ttaliaeetus leucocephalus) have included padded leg-
hold traps, perch snares, modified bal-chatris, can-
non nets and floating-fish snares (Southern 1963,
1964; Robards 1966; Frenzel and Anthony 1982;
Young 1983; Harmata 1985; Hodges et al. 1987).
Among techniques, padded leg-hold traps and float-
ing-fish snares have become the most widely used.
Leg-hold traps are useful in areas where water is
frozen or otherwise unavailable and in areas where
shallow water sets can be made before daylight.
Floating-fish snares are often necessary where steep-
gradient beaches, shoreline vegetation, visibility, or
eagle foraging habits make open-water sets more
effective.
Southern (1963, 1964) provided the first pub-
lished accounts of capture attempts using a floating-
fish snare, but his efforts were unsuccessful. The late
Fred C. Robards was, to our knowledge, the first to
use a floating-fish snare to successfully capture Bald
Eagles. In the late 1960s Robards experimented with
and managed to capture several birds using a floating
Herring (Clupea palladO with a single monofilament
snare loop attached and reeled in and out with a
fishing rod from a small boat. The floating-fish snare
technique has since become widely known as the
"Robards method." For years, the Robards method
was spread among Bald Eagle researchers by word
of mouth. More recently, Frenzel and Anthony
(1982) provided a brief description of a 2-noosed
variation of Robard's (unpublished) technique.
We have experimented with many variations of
Robard's technique, variations which, even though
very subtle, can affect capture success significantly.
With any animal capturing technique it is advan-
tageous to 1) minimize trauma and handling time,
and (2) maximize efficiency, ease of use, versatility
and effectiveness. Of all design variations of floating-
fish snares we have used, the one described here best
meets these criteria.
MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION
Attention to detail is critical as poorly crafted baits will
result in a low capture rate. We used fresh or frozen brat
Herring 20-24 cm in length for trapping in marine waters
and similar sized salmonid fishes for inland lakes and
rivers (equivalent sized fish species preferred by local ea-
gles should be used). Larger fish are not recommended
because of difficulty with predicting where the talons will
strike. Fresh fish were more durable and easier to work
with.
To insert the buoyant material into the fish, a transverse
incision just posterior to the pectoral fins on the ventral
side was made. Entrails were removed, and a buoyant
plug, carved to fit into the resulting cavity, was inserted
(Fig. 1D, arrow).
Snare loops were made from 14 kg (30 lb) breaking
strength, cryptic-colored monofilament. For each of the 4
loops, we cut an approximately 80 cm length of monofil-
ament, formed the first knot (Fig. 1A arrow) and tightened
firmly. The resulting loop formed a slip knot which was
tightened to maintain a snare loop dia of 10-12 cm. If the
finished snare loop did not lay smooth and flat, rotating
the slip knot about the shank of the loop to remove twist
in the line usually remedied the problem. New monofil-
ament sold on large dia spools was easier to work with
than old or tightly wound line that was kinky and less
supple.
To affix snares on a fish, we used a small dia nail (4
penny) (or leg band pop-rivet) to punch passageways for
snare loop ends. Two holes 1 cm apart passed through the
center line of the fish, ventral to dorsal, and through the
styrofoam in the gut cavity. On either side a total of 4
holes were made through the body wall (Fig. lB). Each
snare loop end was then threaded through a side hole into
the body cavity and out the center hole ventrally, then back
down through the center hole and styrofoam to exit dor-
sally (Fig. lB, D). Threading in this manner insured that
10
SPRING 1989 BALD EAGLE FISH SNARE 11
Figure 1. Floating-fish snare system for capturing Bald Eagles: (A) snare loop slip knot; (B) top view of fish snare,
(C) log/shock cord unit; and (D) side view of fish snare.
loops would lie in the plane of the water's surface when
the bait fish was floating belly-up (Fig. 1D).
Once loops were in place, the 4 ends exiting dorsally
were tied together and into a loop with an overhand knot.
Ordinary household staples, bent in the middle and slightly
pinched through the skin of the fish, worked well for
holding the snare loops in place (Fig. lB, arrows), or to
close gaps where the plug was inserted into the gut cavity.
Our capture logs measured approximately 80 x 15 cm
and weighed 3.5 kg. Weight was functionally more im-
portant than size. Nails (16 penny) were partially driven
into the log and bent over to form loops that temporarily
held the coiled shock cord in place on the underside (Fig.
1C). We used 1.5 m of 6.5 mm shock cord. Approximately
10 m of 18 kg (40 lb) monofilament connected the log/
shock cord unit to the floating-fish snare. Finally, a short
length of 4.5 kg (10 lb) monofilament was used to tem-
porarily bypass the shock cord, connecting the fish snare
line directly to the log (Fig. 1C, arrow). After a strike, an
abrupt tightening of line and closing of snare loops resulted
as the eagle attempted to fly away with the fish. The bypass
would then break, and the shock cord and movement of
the log on the surface would smooth the eagle's descent
into the water. Without the bypass, eagles appeared to
feel the resistance of the shock cord and sometimes dropped
the fish before the snare loops had closed.
A word of caution regarding the use of buoyant plugs
in floating fish snares is warranted. We used styrofoam
for plugs, which was buoyant and easily worked. But since
some baits are taken by birds that strike and are not caught,
the possibility of adults and nestlings ingesting plugs may
be of concern. When baits are so taken, the styrofoam plug
is generally left behind, still attached to the snare lines,
which emphasizes an important reason for running lines
through the plug when preparing baits. However, on a
few occasions the snare loops closed and pulled through
the plug allowing the eagle to fly away with the plugged
fish. In one instance we observed the bird dropping the
plug as it consumed the fish. Other observations of feeding
captive and wild eagles indicate that non-food items are
usually discarded or, if ingested, are immediately regur-
gitated (A. R. Harmata, pers. comm.). Nevertheless, po-
tential for birds ingesting the styrofoam exists, and pre-
cautions should be taken to avoid possible deleterious effects
If plugs are made from styrofoam, only good quality, high-
density material should be used. Plugs should always con-
sist of a single piece of material to increase the likelihood
of a plug being regurgitated if ingested. Baits used for
chumming purposes should not contain styrofoam.
Another, more desirable alternative that we have not
yet investigated would be to carve plugs from a lightweight
but durable, buoyant wood. Passageways for the snare
loop ends could then be drilled to a dia that would stop
the slip knots from pulling through the plug. This would
effectively fix the plug to the snares and eliminate potential
for birds to fly away with a plugged bait.
USE
Eagles selected for capture were usually perched
along the shoreline in a hunting or lookout position.
The snare was placed 75-150 m (or further for
eagles with greater flushing distances) offshore, at
an angle that would allow wind, river, or tidal cur-
rents to move the bait toward a target bird. Moni-
toring took place at a distance of 0.5 to 1.0 km. If
the first set failed or drifted out of the area, replacing
the snare progressively closer to the bird usually
resulted in a strike.
12 STEVEN L. CAIN AND JOHN I. HODGE$ VOL. 23, NO. 1
Once caught, eagles floated with their wings out-
stretched and heads well above the water, occasion-
ally swimming toward shore or flying short distances
before being pulled back into the water by the shock
cord and weight of the log. Snares should be set far
enough from shore and continuously monitored to
ensure that snared birds can be retrieved before they
reach the shore. To retrieve a snared eagle we first
approached the log, then grabbed the connecting line
and slowly reeled in the bird with the log remaining
afloat. If the bird attempted to fly, we could simply
release the line and let the log and shock cord force
the eagle back into the water. Because snared birds
are relatively free of constraint and capable of in-
flicting serious injury, only individuals with consid-
erable experience in handling large raptors should
attempt to retrieve eagles from the water.
In areas where water depth and current are not
prohibitive the log/shock cord unit can be fixed in
place with an anchor and additional shock cord.
Additional shock cord between anchor and log is
needed because the log will no longer be free to skim
across the water. Too little give in the system will
result in broken lines and, possibly, injured eagles.
The anchor effectively eliminates drift of the system
out of the area and can be used to place snares in
favorite hunting areas before daylight. Such may be
advantageous in areas where eagles are not habit-
uated to boats and flush at distances that preclude
placing a snare in full view of a perched bird.
During our studies, capture rate was influenced
by several factors, including experience, skill and
persistence of the trapper and quality of bait prep-
aration. Trapping success was best away from food
concentrations during winter and spring when eagles
were food stressed. Unfortunately, we kept no rec-
ords of the proportion of all eagles that actually
struck the bait. However, if alternative food sources
were not abundant, most birds readily took the bait.
Providing fish of equivalent size and species without
snares attached, sometimes over a period of several
days, increased chances of capturing eagles that were
reluctant to strike. Occasionally, non-target species,
primarily gulls (Larus spp.), fouled sets, but more
often their interest in the bait elicited strikes from
eagles. Others have experienced greater interference
from gulls (B. R. McClelland, pers. comm.) as well
as inadvertent captures of Ospreys (Pandion hal-
zaeetus) (Frenzel and Anthony 1982) while using
floating-fish snares.
Capture success (percentage of strikes that re-
suited in successful capture) was 50% (N = 15)
during one study (Cain 1985) and was estimated to
be from 30-50% (N = 60) during another on-going
study where sets without breakaway line were used
(P. F. Schempf pets. comm.). J. Crenshaw (pets.
comm.) also reported a capture success of 50% (N
= 15) using a similar 2-noosed variation. Others
have estimated success rates of from 25% (Bloom
1987, citing pets. comm. from W. G. Hunt, L. Young,
and R. Jackman) to nearly 100% ("if nooses and
lines are set in proper positions" [Frenzel and An-
thony 1982]) for floating-fish snares. We found that
incidences of birds striking the bait and not getting
caught were due to a number of factors, including
the bird dropping the bait before snare loops had
closed, snare loops sliding off the foot or toes, or the
bird breaking the snare line with its beak after being
forced into the water. Only 1 injury occurred during
the capture of 90 eagles in 3 separate studies: a small
cut on the phalanx of a bird caused by the mono-
filament snare line (Cain 1985; J. Crenshaw pets.
comm.; P. F. Schempf pets. comm.).
The primary advantage of floating-fish snares over
other Bald Eagle capture techniques is the ability
to use open water as a trapping medium. In most
areas, especially during the nesting season, Bald Ea-
gles forage over open water, and thus floating fish
snares appear more natural than terrestrial based
systems. Open water sets also eliminate problems
with non-target terrestrial species fouling traps.
However, problems with non-target aquatic species
persist. Where eagles are habituated to boat traffic,
fish snares offer an effective means of selecting for
specific, individual birds. Snares can be quickly and
easily placed while making a slow pass by a target
bird, greatly reducing the chance of non-target cap-
ture. The first author captured target birds from
each of 6 pre-selected nest territories using our meth-
od. Finally, where eagles feed on spawning salmo-
nids, floating-fish snares may select for adult birds,
since subadults are more likely to forage on beached
fish (Young 1983).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The late Fred C. Robards introduced us to this inno-
vative capture scheme. We thank A. Anderson for design
suggestions and assistance, S. McPhearson for technical
assistance, and B. R. McClelland, P. F. Schempf, G. R
Bortolotti and A. R. Harmata for reviewing earlier drafts
LITERATURE CITED
BLOOM, P. H. 1987. Capturing and handling raptors.
Ir B. A. Pendleton, B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, and
SPRING 1989 BALD EAGLE FISH SNARE 13
D. M. Bird, EDS. Raptor management techniques
manual. Nat. Wildl. Fed. Scientific and Tech. Series
No. 10.
CAIN, S. L. 1985. Nesting activity time budgets of Bald
Eagles in southeast Alaska. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Mon-
tana, Missoula. 47 pp.
FRENZEL, R. W. AND R. G. ANTHONY. 1982. Method
for live-capturing Bald Eagles and Osprey over open
water. U.S. Dept. of Inter. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Res.
Infor. Bull. 82-13.
HARMATA, A.R. 1985. Capture of wintering and nesting
Bald Eagles. Pages 139-159. In J. M. Gerrard and T.
M. Ingram, EDS. The Bald Eagle in Canada. Proc. of
Bald Eagle Days, 1983. White Horse Publis., Mani-
toba.
HODGES, J. I., E. L. BOEKER AND A. J. HANSEN. 1987.
Movements of radio-tagged Bald Eagles, ttaliaeetus
leucocephalus, in and from southeastern Alaska. Can.
Field Nat. 101:136-140.
ROBARDS, F. C. 1966. Capture, handling and banding
of Bald Eagles. U.S. Dept. of Inter., Fish and Wildlife
Serv. unpublished Report. Juneau, Alaska. 25 pp.
SOUTHERN, W.E. 1963. Populations, behavior, and sea-
sonal dispersal of Bald Eagles wintering in north-
western Illinois. Wilson Bull. 75:42-55.
1964. Additional observations on winter Bald
Eagle populations: including remarks on biotelemetry
techniques and immature plumages. Wilson Bull. 76(2)
121-137.
YOUNG, L. 1963. Movements of Bald Eagles associated
with an autumn concentration in Glacier National Park
M. S. thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 102 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 021287, Ju-
neau, AK 99802. Present address of first author:
U.S. National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Den-
ver, CO 80225.
Received 20 September 1988; accepted 22 December 1988