Context: It is widely recognised that red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are abundant within urban areas; however, it is difficult to apply lethal control measures using poison baits in cities because of concerns about the safety of domestic pets, particularly dogs (Canis familiaris).

Aims: We tested canid pest ejectors (CPEs) as a potential method of fox control by measuring visitation and activation behaviour of foxes and other wildlife while assessing non-target risk to domestic dogs.

Methods: We compared eight urban and eight peri-urban sites in Sydney, with half of the sites having restricted access for domestic dogs. We allocated five camera traps and ejectors per site. Through generalised linear mixed models, we compared the probability of ejector activation between foxes and dogs. We also assessed the relationship between dog visitation and distance to habitation and dog restrictions as measures of dog safety.

Key results: Both species of canids were equally likely to pull the ejector (P = 0.26). As expected, dog visitation was significantly lower in sites with dog restrictions (P < 0.001). However, it was not related to distance from habitation. Only two non-canid species were recorded pulling the ejector, suggesting high target-specificity for canids.

Conclusions: In sites with dog restrictions, the risk of dog casualties from CPEs is minimal. However, distance from habitation does not increase dog safety, at least within 250 m. The ejector is highly specific for canids.

Implications: We provide specific recommendations for the design of a potential fox control program using CPEs in urban and peri-urban areas. The ejector may be a safe method for fox control in cities when deployed at places without domestic dogs.

背景：人们普遍认识到城市地区的狐狸数量众多。但是，它是很难申请使用毒饵中因为对家养宠物的安全问题城市致死控制措施，尤其是狗（家犬）。

目的：我们通过测量狐狸和其他野生动物的探访和激活行为，同时评估对家犬的非目标风险，测试了犬科动物驱虫器（CPE）作为狐狸控制的潜在方法。

方法：我们比较了悉尼的8个城市地点和8个城市近郊地点，其中一半地点限制了家犬的出入。我们为每个站点分配了五个摄像头陷阱和弹出器。通过广义线性混合模型，我们比较了狐狸和狗之间喷射器激活的可能性。我们还评估了探访狗的次数与到栖息地的距离以及狗的限制之间的关系，以此作为对狗安全的衡量标准。

关键结果：两种犬科动物同样有可能拉动喷射器（P  = 0.26）。正如预期的那样，在有狗限制的地方，狗的探访率要低得多（P  <0.001）。但是，它与居住环境的距离无关。仅记录了两个非犬科动物拉动喷射器，这表明犬科动物具有很高的靶标特异性。

结论：在有狗只限制的地方，CPE造成狗只伤亡的风险很小。但是，与居住地点的距离至少在250 m以内不会增加狗的安全性。弹出器是针对犬科动物的。

启示：我们为在城市和城市周边地区使用CPE设计潜在的狐狸控制程序提供了具体的建议。当部署在没有家犬的地方时，弹出器可能是在城市中控制狐狸的安全方法。