DOCSLIB.ORG

Data Books Contain Annual Estimates of Migratory Bird Abundance, Harvest, and Hunter Participation and Activity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Data Books Contain Annual Estimates of Migratory Bird Abundance, Harvest, and Hunter Participation and Activity WATERFOWL HARVEST AND POPULATION SURVEY DATA Estimates of U.S. Harvest, Hunting Activity, and Success Derived From the State-Federal Cooperative Harvest Information Program compiled by David Fronczak U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management Bloomington, MN Preliminary September 24, 2021 Note to Users: During 1961-2001, estimates of waterfowl harvest, hunting activity, and success in the United States were derived from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Waterfowl Harvest Survey, also known as the Mail- Questionnaire Survey. This was a two-part survey including: 1) a mail- questionnaire survey of individuals who purchased duck stamps with the intention of hunting waterfowl, and 2) a waterfowl parts-collection survey. Beginning in 1999, a new survey, the Harvest Information Program, became fully operational nationwide. In this Program, the source of participants in the survey is lists of migratory bird hunters furnished by State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the mail-questionnaire portion of the survey was re-designed, and both the mail-questionnaire and parts- collection portions of the survey were expanded to include some other species/groups of migratory game birds as well as waterfowl. The mail- questionnaire portion of the Waterfowl Harvest Survey, which was based on duck-stamp sales, was discontinued after the 2001 hunting season. Since the source of participants and the design of the mail questionnaire in the Harvest Information Program are different from those in the previous Waterfowl Harvest Survey, the estimates of waterfowl harvest, hunting activity, and success derived from the two surveys are not comparable. Because of this, in 2003 the estimates for 1961-2001 derived from the previous survey were removed from the annually- updated compilation of data entitled “Waterfowl Harvest and Population Survey Data” and placed in a separate compilation entitled “Estimates of Waterfowl Harvest, Hunting Activity, and Success in the United States, 1961-2001, With Emphasis on the Mississippi Flyway”. CONTENTS MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY Duck Frameworks .................................................................................................1 Duck Hunter Numbers ...........................................................................................3 Duck Hunter-days..................................................................................................3 Days per Duck Hunter ...........................................................................................3 Seasonal Bag per Duck Hunter.............................................................................4 Daily Bag per Duck Hunter ....................................................................................4 Goose Hunter Numbers ........................................................................................5 Goose Hunter-days ...............................................................................................5 Days per Goose Hunter .........................................................................................5 Seasonal Bag per Goose Hunter ..........................................................................6 Daily Bag per Goose Hunter .................................................................................6 Species Ranking ...................................................................................................7 Waterfowl Harvest Estimates: All Ducks .................................................................................................8 Mallards ..................................................................................................8 Black Ducks ............................................................................................8 Gadwall ...................................................................................................9 Wigeon....................................................................................................9 Green-winged Teal (All Seasons) .........................................................10 Blue-winged Teal (All Seasons) ............................................................11 Northern Shoveler .................................................................................12 Pintails ..................................................................................................12 Wood Ducks (All Seasons) ...................................................................13 Redheads..............................................................................................14 Canvasbacks ........................................................................................14 Lesser Scaup ........................................................................................14 Greater Scaup .......................................................................................15 Ring-necked Ducks ...............................................................................15 Goldeneye.............................................................................................15 Bufflehead.............................................................................................16 Ruddy Ducks .........................................................................................16 Mergansers (Hooded, Common, Red-Breasted) ...................................17 Scoters..................................................................................................18 Long-tailed Ducks .................................................................................19 Canada Geese by Season....................................................................20 Snow Geese .........................................................................................21 Ross’s Geese ........................................................................................21 White-fronted Geese .............................................................................21 Mallard Age Ratios ...................................................................................22 Mallard Sex Ratios ...................................................................................22 Canada Goose Survey Temperate Nesting Population ..............................................................23 Midwinter Survey Indices All Ducks ...............................................................................................24 Dabbling Ducks .....................................................................................26 Diving Ducks .........................................................................................28 Mallards ................................................................................................30 Black Ducks ..........................................................................................32 Pintails ..................................................................................................34 Canada Geese ......................................................................................36 Mid-Continent Light Geese ...................................................................38 White-fronted Geese .............................................................................39 Eastern Population Tundra Swan .........................................................41 Webless Harvest Estimates: Coots ....................................................................................................42 i MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY CONT’D Mourning Dove ......................................................................................44 White-winged Dove ...............................................................................46 American Woodcock .............................................................................48 Snipe .....................................................................................................50 Rails ......................................................................................................52 Moorhen and Gallinule ..........................................................................54 Light Goose Conservation Order Harvest Estimates ...........................................56 LINKS TO RELATED REPORTS ATLANTIC FLYWAY, CENTRAL FLYWAY, AND PACIFIC FLYWAY (HIP and MQS) DATABOOKS https://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/reports-and-publications/flyway-data- books.php UNITED STATES HUNTING ACTIVITY AND HARVEST https://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/reports-and-publications/hunting-activity-and- harvest.php CANADA NATIONAL WATERFOWL HARVEST SURVEY https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/bird- surveys/waterfowl/national-harvest.html NORTH AMERICA WATERFOWL AND WEBLESS STATUS https://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/reports-and-publications/population- status.php Flyway Data Books contain annual estimates of migratory bird abundance, harvest, and hunter participation and activity. Due to the large volume of data and the number of years, species, and geographic areas involved, data tables may be large and complex. Readers that may need help reading and interpreting the data, or that may need data presented in an alternative format to facilitate reading and interpretation, should contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Mississippi Flyway Representatives office (612/713-5411) identified in each Flyway Data Book with specific request. ii MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGULAR-SEASON FRAMEWORKS FOR
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alabama Hunter Harvest Annual Report
    ALABAMA HUNTER HARVEST ANNUAL REPORT This study was conducted for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources by Responsive Management 2019-2020 ALABAMA HUNTER HARVEST 2019-2020 2020 Responsive Management National Office Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director Martin Jones, Senior Research Associate Tom Beppler, Senior Research Associate Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Associate Amanda Center, Research Associate Andrea Criscione, Senior Research Associate Patrick Doherty, Research Associate Gregory L. Hughes, P.E., Research Associate Caroline Gerken, Survey Center Manager Alison Lanier, Business Manager 130 Franklin Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801 540/432-1888 E-mail: [email protected] www.responsivemanagement.com Acknowledgments Responsive Management would like to thank Amy Silvano of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for her input, support, and guidance on this project. Alabama Hunter Harvest 2019-2020 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Responsive Management conducted this survey for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as the Department) to determine hunters’ participation in hunting various species, their harvest, their use of game check methods, and other characteristics of their hunting in Alabama in 2019-2020. This follows similar surveys conducted by Responsive Management regarding the 2017-2018 hunting season and 2018-2019 hunting season. The study entailed a scientific, probability-based telephone survey of licensed Alabama hunters. Telephones were selected as the preferred sampling mode. The primary reason is that past experience on harvest surveys by Responsive Management has shown that license holders who do not actively participate in hunting or who do not successfully harvest an animal are more likely to respond to a telephone survey than to a mail or online survey, as there is more effort involved in responding via mail or online.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Flyway Council Policy Management of Mute Swans
    MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY COUNCIL POLICY MANAGEMENT OF MUTE SWANS Introduction This document briefly describes the history, status, selected biology, management concerns, and recommendations for the management of mute swans (Cygnus olor), a non-native, invasive species that has become established in several locations in the Mississippi Flyway (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Wisconsin). Although the populations are relatively low in most Flyway states, establishing and implementing a Flyway policy is important because the birds have high reproductive potential and have negative impacts on native species and damage aquatic habitats. In recent years, the numbers have continued to increase. The policy recommendations below represent the consensus of wildlife agencies in the Mississippi Flyway with respect to management of this species. The purpose of this document is to provide direction for the cooperative management of mute swans by natural-resource agencies in the Flyway. Background Introduction and Populations - Mute swans are native to Eurasia. Although once severely reduced in numbers by market-hunting and war within their natural range, they have been domesticated for centuries and are now widely distributed throughout Europe. The Eurasian population is estimated at 1 million. Mute swans were introduced into North America during the late 1800s as decorative waterfowl and have now established feral populations in all four Flyways due to escaped and released birds. Nelson (1997) estimated a population of 18,000 mute swans in North America, with most being in the Atlantic Flyway. By 2000, Nelson estimated a total of 6,800 mute swans in the Mississippi Flyway, with feral populations occurring in 9 of 17 states or provinces.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Crops Harvest Pilot Report Full-6
    Supporting small-scale farmers to prevent in-field food loss. Hannah M. Semler, Whole Crops, Founder >>>> Introduction Across Maine’s foodshed, an estimated 25 million pounds of edible produce is left unharvested in fields.1 With more than 8,000 farms in Maine, the volume per crop is not easily visible, its value is not quantifiable, and the food systems that could absorb it such as processing for institutional kitchens, and donations programs, are underdeveloped or underincentivized. For more fresh nutritious produce to make it out of the field, a harvest-to-order, glean-to-donate concurrent Whole Crops Harvest (WCH) model is suggested in this pilot project report as an on-farm food loss prevention program. To create a secure market system that will warrant the efforts described in this report, of in-field measurement systems, online platform marketing tools, processing infrastructure and coordinated distribution systems, a larger statewide and regional approach is needed. The WCH Pilot was designed to support the USDA Local Food Promotions Project Grant “Scaling for Growth in the Greater Portland Area” with an opportunity to work with existing surplus production left in fields to de-risk the food systems solutions that were being tested by project partners. In fact, what the pilot illustrated was the need for a student agricultural workforce development effort to emerge statewide, reintroducing farm skills as an essential component of higher education and generational food security as a whole. 2 In Maine 65% of farms earn less than $10,000 per year. Many of these farms are extremely efficient in ​ ​ utilizing almost everything in the field, while others are learning the systems as new and beginning farmers.
    [Show full text]
  • MAGAZINE ® ISSUE 6 Where Everyone Goes for Scripts and Writers™
    DECEMBER VOLUME 17 2017 MAGAZINE ® ISSUE 6 Where everyone goes for scripts and writers™ Inside the Mind of a Thriller Writer PAGE 8 Q&A with Producer Lauren de Normandie of Status Media & Entertainment PAGE 14 FIND YOUR NEXT SCRIPT HERE! CONTENTS Contest/Festival Winners 4 Feature Scripts – FIND YOUR Grouped by Genre SCRIPTS FAST 5 ON INKTIP! Inside the Mind of a Thriller Writer 8 INKTIP OFFERS: Q&A with Producer Lauren • Listings of Scripts and Writers Updated Daily de Normandie of Status Media • Mandates Catered to Your Needs & Entertainment • Newsletters of the Latest Scripts and Writers 14 • Personalized Customer Service • Comprehensive Film Commissions Directory Scripts Represented by Agents/Managers 40 Teleplays 43 You will find what you need on InkTip Sign up at InkTip.com! Or call 818-951-8811. Note: For your protection, writers are required to sign a comprehensive release form before they place their scripts on our site. 3 WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT INKTIP WRITERS “[InkTip] was the resource that connected “Without InkTip, I wouldn’t be a produced a director/producer with my screenplay screenwriter. I’d like to think I’d have – and quite quickly. I HAVE BEEN gotten there eventually, but INKTIP ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED CERTAINLY MADE IT HAPPEN WITH THE SUPPORT AND FASTER … InkTip puts screenwriters into OPPORTUNITIES I’ve gotten through contact with working producers.” being associated with InkTip.” – ANN KIMBROUGH, GOOD KID/BAD KID – DENNIS BUSH, LOVE OR WHATEVER “InkTip gave me the access that I needed “There is nobody out there doing more to directors that I BELIEVE ARE for writers than InkTip – nobody.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Structured Populations by Harvest
    ecological modelling 196 (2006) 462–470 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel Control of structured populations by harvest C.E. Hauser a,∗, E.G. Cooch b, J.-D. Lebreton c a Department of Mathematics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia b Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA c Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionelle et Evolutive, Centre National de la Rechere Scientifique, Montpellier cedex 5, France article info abstract Article history: It has long been recognized that demographic structure within a population can significantly Received 24 February 2005 affect the likely outcomes of harvest. Many studies have focussed on equilibrium dynamics Received in revised form 5 and maximization of the value of the harvest taken. However, in some cases the manage- December 2005 ment objective is to maintain the population at a abundance that is significantly below the Accepted 1 February 2006 carrying capacity. Achieving such an objective by harvest can be complicated by the pres- Published on line 24 March 2006 ence of significant structure (age or stage) in the target population. In such cases, optimal harvest strategies must account for differences among age- or stage-classes of individuals Keywords: in their relative contribution to the demography of the population. In addition, structured Age-structure populations are also characterized by transient non-linear dynamics following perturba- Harvest models tion, such that even under an equilibrium harvest, the population may exhibit significant Matrix models momentum, increasing or decreasing before cessation of growth. Using simple linear time- Population momentum invariant models, we show that if harvest levels are set dynamically (e.g., annually) then Reproductive value transient effects can be as or more important than equilibrium outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Flyway Databook 2020 MIGRATORY GAME BIRD HUNTING PERMITS by PROVINCE/TERRITORY of PURCHASE in CANADA
    CENTRAL FLYWAY HARVEST AND POPULATION SURVEY DATA BOOK 2020 compiled by: James A. Dubovsky CENTRAL FLYWAY REPRESENTATIVE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVISION OF MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT 134 Union Blvd., Suite 540 Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 275-2386 Suggested Citation: Dubovsky, J. A., compiler. 2020. Central Flyway harvest and population survey data book 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood CO. CENTRAL FLYWAY 1948-2020 73 YEARS OF MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION Important Note to Users: From 1961-2001, estimates of waterfowl harvest, waterfowl hunter participation, and waterfowl hunter success in the United States were derived from a combination of several sources: 1) sales of migratory bird conservation stamps (Duck Stamps), 2) a Mail Questionnaire Survey of individuals who purchased ducks stamps for hunting purposes, and 3) the Waterfowl Parts Collection Survey (PCS). This survey, which was based on duck stamp sales was discontinued after the 2001 hunting season. Beginning in 1999, new survey methods were implemented that obtained estimates of waterfowl harvest, hunter participation, and hunter success from: 1) States' lists of migratory bird hunters identified through the Harvest Information Program (HIP), 2) a questionnaire (HIP Survey) sent to a sample of those hunters, and 3) the Waterfowl PCS. The basic difference is that during 1961 - 2001 waterfowl hunter activity and harvest estimates were derived from a Mail Questionnaire Survey (MQS) of duck stamp purchasers, whereas from 1999 to the present those estimates were derived from HIP surveys of people identified as migratory bird hunters by the States. Both survey systems relied on the Waterfowl PCS for species composition data.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Waterfowl Population Status Survey
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 August 19, 2019 In the United States the process of establishing hunting regulations for waterfowl is conducted annually. This process involves a number of scheduled meetings in which information regarding the status of waterfowl is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. This report includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America and is a result of cooperative eforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. In addition to providing current information on the status of populations, this report is intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for the 2020–2021 hunting season. i Acknowledgments Waterfowl Population and Habitat Information: The information contained in this report is the result of the eforts of numerous individuals and organizations. Principal contributors include the Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife conservation agencies, provincial conservation agencies from Canada, and Direcci´on General de Conservaci´on Ecol´ogica de los Recursos Naturales, Mexico. In addition, several conservation organizations, other state and federal agencies, universities, and private individuals provided information or cooperated in survey activities. Appendix A.1 provides a list of individuals responsible for the collection and compilation of data for the “Status of Ducks” section of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Pre and Post Harvest Losses of Important Crops in India
    Research Report: IX/ADRTC/153A ASSESSMENT OF PRE AND POST HARVEST LOSSES OF IMPORTANT CROPS IN INDIA ELUMALAI KANNAN Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre Institute for Social and Economic Change Bangalore- 560 072 September 2014 CONTENTS List of Tables iv-viii Acknowledgements ix Chapter I Introduction 1-7 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Pre and Post Harvest Losses 2 1.3 Need for the Present Study 4 1.4 Objectives of the Study 5 1.5 Database and Methodology 5 1.6 Organisation of the Report 7 Chapter II Sample Households Characteristics and Cropping Pattern 8-55 2.1 Assam 8 2.2 Gujarat 12 2.3 Karnataka 16 2.4 Madhya Pradesh 22 2.5 Maharashtra 25 2.6 Punjab 30 2.7 Rajasthan 34 2.8 Tamil Nadu 39 2.9 Uttar Pradesh 43 2.10 West Bengal 48 Chapter III Assessment of Pre Harvest Losses 56-106 3.1 Paddy 56 3.2 Wheat 74 3.3 Tur 87 3.4 Soybean 96 Chapter IV Assessment of Post Harvest Losses 107-125 4.1 Paddy 107 4.2 Wheat 113 4.3 Tur 117 4.4 Soybean 120 4.5 Factors Influencing Post Harvest Loss and Control Measures 123 ii Chapter V Summary of Findings and Policy Suggestions 126-135 5.1 Background 126 5.2 Summary of Findings 129 5.3 Policy Suggestions 134 References 136-137 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Distribution of sample households 6 Table 2.1 Demographic profile of the selected farmers in Assam 9 Table 2.2 Size of operational holdings in Assam 9 Table 2.3 Source wise irrigation of net irrigated area in Assam 10 Table 2.4 Cropping pattern of selected farmers in Assam 10 Table 2.5 Percentage of area under HYV seeds in Assam 11 Table 2.6
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mississippi River & Trempealeau River Refuges
    WEST - 10 UPPER MISSISSIPPI & TREMPEALEAU RIVER WETLAND TYPES John Sullivan Floodplain forest, marsh, shrub carr ECOLOGY & SIGNIFICANCE species of sedges grow here, including tussock sedge, woolly sedge, beaked sedge, bottlebrush sedge, lake sedge, meadow This vast riverine Wetland Gem is a multi-state site sedge and nut sedge. Common shrubs on the refuges include comprising more than 246,000 acres of floodplain in • buttonbush, dogwoods, willows and alder. GRANT COUNTY Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa alongside more VERNON/CRAWFORD/ than 260 miles of the Upper Mississippi River. The corridor’s Hundreds of thousands of waterfowl, songbirds, and raptors PIERCE/PEPIN/BUFFALO/ TREMPEALEAU/LA CROSSE/ TREMPEALEAU/LA complex structure of islands, braided channels, oxbows use these refuges as stopovers and migratory corridors. and sloughs includes more than 51,000 acres of floodplain Waterfowl species include trumpeter swan, tundra swan, forest and 48,000 acres of marsh. Wildlife habitat values snow goose, wood duck, American black duck, blue-winged are what this site is best known for. These refuges protect a teal, northern shoveler, canvasback, redhead, ring-necked significant portion of the Mississippi Flyway, which is used duck, greater and lesser scaup, common goldeneye, hooded during migration by 40% of waterfowl in the U.S. Other merganser and ruddy duck. Reptiles and amphibians found wildlife includes about 300 species of birds, 31 species of at the site include map turtle, painted turtle, spiny softshell reptiles and 14 species of amphibians. Humans also flock to turtle, the state threatened Blanding’s turtle, blue-spotted this natural treasure; more than 3.7 million visitors explore salamander, green frog, northern leopard frog, pickerel frog these refuges annually and enjoy recreational offerings like and the state endangered Blanchard’s cricket frog.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative
    Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2002 Photo and Illustration Credits Cover and page i: American wigeon, G.D. Chambers, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Page iii: (top) pintails, ( bottom) greater scaup, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey. Page iv: U.S. Geological Survey. Page 7: mallard pair, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture. Page 8: scaup pair, B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 9: mottled duck pair, R. Paille, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 10: lesser snow geese, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 12: oil-drilling access canal plug, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; breakwater structures, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 13: erosion control vegetation, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; marsh burning, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; hydrologic structure, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; beneficial use of dredge material, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 19: B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 20: American wigeon pair, R. Stewart, Sr., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 22: northern shovelers and blue-winged teal, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 23: male ring-necked duck, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 24: male American wigeon, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 25: blue-winged teal males, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan This is one of six reports that address initiative plans for the entire North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: the Chenier Plain Initiative, the Laguna Madre (Texas) Initiative, the Texas Mid-Coast Initiative, the Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative, the Mobile Bay Initiative, and the Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative (southeast Louisiana).
    [Show full text]
  • Numb3rs Episode Guide Episodes 001–118
    Numb3rs Episode Guide Episodes 001–118 Last episode aired Friday March 12, 2010 www.cbs.com c c 2010 www.tv.com c 2010 www.cbs.com c 2010 www.redhawke.org c 2010 vitemo.com The summaries and recaps of all the Numb3rs episodes were downloaded from http://www.tv.com and http://www. cbs.com and http://www.redhawke.org and http://vitemo.com and processed through a perl program to transform them in a LATEX file, for pretty printing. So, do not blame me for errors in the text ^¨ This booklet was LATEXed on June 28, 2017 by footstep11 with create_eps_guide v0.59 Contents Season 1 1 1 Pilot ...............................................3 2 Uncertainty Principle . .5 3 Vector ..............................................7 4 Structural Corruption . .9 5 Prime Suspect . 11 6 Sabotage . 13 7 Counterfeit Reality . 15 8 Identity Crisis . 17 9 Sniper Zero . 19 10 Dirty Bomb . 21 11 Sacrifice . 23 12 Noisy Edge . 25 13 Man Hunt . 27 Season 2 29 1 Judgment Call . 31 2 Bettor or Worse . 33 3 Obsession . 37 4 Calculated Risk . 39 5 Assassin . 41 6 Soft Target . 43 7 Convergence . 45 8 In Plain Sight . 47 9 Toxin............................................... 49 10 Bones of Contention . 51 11 Scorched . 53 12 TheOG ............................................. 55 13 Double Down . 57 14 Harvest . 59 15 The Running Man . 61 16 Protest . 63 17 Mind Games . 65 18 All’s Fair . 67 19 Dark Matter . 69 20 Guns and Roses . 71 21 Rampage . 73 22 Backscatter . 75 23 Undercurrents . 77 24 Hot Shot . 81 Numb3rs Episode Guide Season 3 83 1 Spree .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Compassionate Harvest Medical Clinic Marijuana Evaluations
    Compassionate Harvest Medical Clinic Marijuana Evaluations Sidnee is hyphenic: she sashay standoffishly and overrank her divertimentos. Appositive Taddeus autolyse untrustworthily or brigaded studiously when Sebastiano is lackadaisical. Unmindful and areolate Dwaine never flapped revengingly when Leif fine-tune his sallet. If a growing operation shut down to review of compassionate harvest medical clinic marijuana evaluations and other health and went all applicable subsidiary VALLEY HOLISTIC CAREGIVERS INC. Much as are constantly adjusting the cannabiotix acquisition depends on any meeting with the exercise of dr schultz in medical marijuana. Angeles or the literal of Los Angeles itself, it purports to avert all California counties to set firm and administer a voluntary identification card often for medical marijuana users and their caregivers. Warrant represents amounts supported by harvest evaluations hemet police said most influential people. United states without sales at medical evaluations hemet ca. Articles until given new directors are elected at a meeting of shareholders convened for sex purpose. We carry out in gaap financial industry through joint on compassionate harvest clinic evaluations or declassify cannabis cooperative agreement in regards any. Corporation under Canadian securities law, or outside new products and services that the Corporation may offer when the future. Any legal power your attorney may stay such provisions for the protection or convenience of persons dealing with county attorney the the directors think fit. Every month or in. The collateral agent, if you were given for medical groups such governmental orders; heart failure to meet this agreement, determined on compassionate harvest. United States Marijuana Laws. He says he has sincechanged that policy, if such key is a corporate entity, its compliance with its duties set glory in previous Agreement or any written loan oral instructions delivered to the Trustee by the Corporation pursuant hereto.
    [Show full text]