DOCSLIB.ORG

Oregon Administrative Rules Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oregon Administrative Rules Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Attachment 3 1 DIVISION 44 2 HOLDING, PROPAGATING, PROTECTED WILDLIFE 3 4 WILDLIFE REHABILITATION [HOLDING] PERMIT 5 635-044-0200 6 Purpose of the Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit [Required to Rehabilitate Birds, 7 Mammals, Amphibians or Reptiles] 8 Any person desiring to hold any bird[s], mammal[s], amphibian[s] or reptile[s] for the 9 purpose of wildlife rehabilitation shall [purposes must] first obtain a Wildlife 10 Rehabilitation [Holding] Permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The 11 permittee may capture, transport, temporarily possess, rehabilitate, and (with 12 permission from the local Department district wildlife biologist) release such 13 wildlife. The permittee may euthanize wildlife that are injured, ill, orphaned, 14 restricted, or otherwise not authorized, if that wildlife is specified on the permit. The 15 Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit does not allow the possession of wildlife for public 16 display. 17 Stat. Auth.: ORS 496.012, 496.138, 496.146, 497.298, 497.308, 497.312, 497.318, 18 498.022, 498.029, 498.052, 498.222, 498.242 19 Stats. Implemented: ORS 496.012, 496.138, 496.146, 497.298, 497.308, 497.312, 20 497.318, 498.022, 498.029, 498.052, 498. 222, 498.242 21 Hist.: FWC 7-1983, f. & ef. 2-3-83; DFW 31-2004, f. 4-22-04, cert. ef. 5-1-04 22 23 635-044-0205 24 [Rehabilitation Defined] Definition of Terms 25 [For the purpose of this rule, rehabilitation is defined as the restoration of an injured, sick 26 or immature bird, mammal, amphibian, or reptile to a condition whereby: 27 (1) The bird, mammal, amphibian, or reptile is capable of being released into the wild at a 28 location designated by the Department; or 1 1 (2) If incapable of survival if released into the wild, be released to an organization, 2 educational institution, museum, or publicly funded zoo, or as determined by the 3 Department.] 4 (1) “Assistant” means someone who conducts wildlife rehabilitation activities in a 5 wildlife rehabilitation facility under the direct supervision of the permittee. 6 (2) "AZA" means the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 7 (3) "Candidate" means an animal species for which the USFWS has on file 8 sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal 9 to list as endangered or threatened. 10 (4) "Department" means Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 11 (5) "DVM" means Oregon licensed Doctor of Veterinary Medicine. 12 (6) "Endangered species" means those species defined in ORS 496.004(6). 13 (7) "Euthanasia" means to humanely kill an animal as per the 2006 American 14 Association of Zoo Veterinarians Guidelines for Euthanasia of Nondomestic 15 Animals. 16 (8) “Home Care” means the facility used by the subpermittee for the care and 17 feeding of neonate avian species (or other species as approved in writing by the local 18 department district wildlife biologist) under the guidance and at the request of the 19 permittee. 20 (9) "Marine mammals" means seals, sea lions, sea otters, and cetaceans (e.g., whales 21 and porpoises). 22 (10) "Migratory bird" means any bird, whatever its origin and whether or not 23 raised in captivity, which belongs to a species listed in U.S. 50CFR§10.13, including 24 any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. Birds listed under OAR 635-057-0000 are 25 not included. 26 (11) "NMFS" means National Marine Fisheries Service. 27 (12) "Non-releasable" means: 28 (a) Individual wildlife that cannot be rehabilitated and returned to the wild with a 29 reasonable potential for survival; 30 (b) Those species classified as prohibited by OAR 635 Division 056; or 31 (c) Those species classified as controlled by OAR 635 Division 56 under rules that do 2 1 not allow release into the wild (OAR 635-056-0070). 2 (13) “Permittee” means the person who holds a valid Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit 3 issued by the Department. 4 (14) "Public display" means to place or locate wildlife so that it may be viewed by 5 the public. 6 (15) "Rehabilitation" means the attempted or successful restoration of an injured, 7 sick or immature bird, mammal, amphibian or reptile to a condition whereby it can 8 be returned to the wild. 9 (16) "Sensitive species" means those wildlife species, subspecies, or populations that 10 are facing one or more threats to their populations, habitat quantity or habitat 11 quality or that are subject to a decline in number of sufficient magnitude such that 12 they may become eligible for listing on the state Threatened and Endangered 13 Species List. 14 (17) "Subpermittee" means those persons listed on a wildlife rehabilitation permit 15 as authorized to perform wildlife rehabilitation activities under the supervision 16 (direct or indirect) of a licensed wildlife rehabilitator. Subpermittees may include, 17 but are not limited to, veterinarians, falconers, or others assisting the permittee with 18 the rehabilitation of wildlife specifically allowed on the permit. 19 (18) "Threatened species" means those species defined in ORS 496.004(15). 20 (19) "USFWS" means U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 21 (20) For the purpose of these rules, "wildlife" means wild mammals and wild birds, 22 as defined by OAR 635-057-0000, amphibians, reptiles and fish. 23 (21) "Wildlife rehabilitation facility" means the primary location where a licensed 24 wildlife rehabilitator conducts rehabilitation. 25 Stat. Auth.: ORS 496 26 Stats. Implemented: ORS 496 27 Hist.: FWC 7-1983, f. & ef. 2-3-83 3 1 635-044-0210 2 Wildlife [Requirements for] Rehabilitation [Holding] Permit Requirements and 3 Conditions 4 (1) A Wildlife Rehabilitation [Holding] Permit[s for game mammals, furbearer,s or 5 raptors] may only be issued to a person[s] who: 6 [(1) An individual must pass the Wildlife Rehabilitation Examination before a permit will 7 be issued.] 8 [(2) Organizations or institutions must have at least one member of their staff that has 9 passed the Department's Rehabilitation Examination before a permit will be issued. Other 10 members may be issued a permit without taking an examination provided they are 11 supervised by the staff member who has a permit.] 12 (a) Resides in Oregon or whose rehabilitation activities occur or facility (or 13 facilities) exist within the state; 14 (b) Is at least 18 years of age at the time of the examination; 15 (c) Has submitted a completed written application form provided by the 16 Department; 17 (d) Possesses either a valid Oregon DVM license or a letter from an Oregon licensed 18 DVM agreeing to act as a medical supervisor and consultant to the person; 19 (e) Has passed the wildlife rehabilitation examination administered by the 20 Department with a score of 80 percent or higher on the general section of the test 21 and each relevant section of interest. Any applicant who fails to pass an examination 22 may retake the examination no earlier than 14 days from the date of the prior 23 examination; 24 (f) Has been approved by the local Department district wildlife biologist or other 25 local Department representative as meeting a need for rehabilitation services in the 26 area and having a good reputation for care of wildlife; 27 (g) Has a rehabilitation facility, or plan for such facility, approved by the local 28 Department district wildlife biologist or other local Department representative as 29 meeting all requirements of these rules; 30 (h) (Upon permit renewal) documents compliance with the Department’s 31 Rehabilitation Continuing Education Standards. 4 1 (2) Subpermittees may perform wildlife rehabilitation activities under the 2 supervision (direct or indirect) of a licensed wildlife rehabilitator subject to the 3 following conditions: 4 (a) The permittee must inspect the facilities of the subpermittee prior to the sub- 5 permittee receiving wildlife; 6 (b) The permittee must provide the subpermittee any written information, caging, 7 food, veterinary treatment and any other assistance the permittee deems necessary 8 for the care of wildlife in the subpermittee’s possession. The permittee must provide 9 information concerning such assistance to the local Department district biologist 10 upon request; 11 (c) The subpermittee must follow the written protocol, described in paragraph b, 12 provided by the permittee and approved by the Department; 13 (d) The subpermittee must be approved by the local Department district wildlife 14 biologist before receiving wildlife. The name, address, and phone number of the 15 subpermittee must be provided to the Department; 16 (e) All wildlife must be admitted through the permittee’s licensed facility, the 17 subpermittee must not accept any wildlife from any other source; 18 (f) The permittee must accept responsibility for the activities of the subpermittee; 19 (g) The subpermittee must reside and conduct rehabilitation activities within 20 Oregon; 21 (h) The subpermittee shall not perform any rehabilitation activities at their Home 22 Care facility except for the care and feeding of neonate avian species or other 23 wildlife species as approved in writing by the local Department district wildlife 24 biologist. 25 (3) Veterinarians administering immediate medical care for injured wildlife are not 26 required to have a Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit or submit a semi-annual report. 27 Veterinarians that provide care or hold wildlife longer than 48-hours are required 28 to pass the wildlife rehabilitation examination and possess a Wildlife Rehabilitation 29 Permit. 30 (4) The Department reserves the right to deny issuance of a Wildlife Rehabilitation 31 Permit, disapprove a subpermittee(s) and to impose special permit conditions (e.g., 5 1 number of species, types of species, subpermittees, etc.) if the applicant or 2 subpermittee is convicted of, or admits to, a violation of a wildlife law or rule or an 3 order or permit issued under the wildlife laws.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Long-Term Monitoring of the Endemic Rana Latastei: Suggestions for After-LIFE Management
    Long-term monitoring of the endemic Rana latastei: suggestions for after-LIFE management L UCA C ANOVA and A LESSANDRO B ALESTRIERI Abstract We monitored egg clutch numbers of a popula- loss (Houlahan & Findlay, ; Cushman, ), pollution tion of the endemic Italian agile frog Rana latastei in a (Bridges & Semlitsch, ), disease epidemics and climate Site of Community Interest in northern Italy (SCI IT change (Kiesecker et al., ; Ficetola & Maiorano, ). ) during – with the aim of assessing the As for many other taxa (Menzel et al., ; Thackeray long-term variation in its abundance. We walked along et al., ; Chen et al., ), a shift to earlier breeding as the banks of canals and small ponds (n = ) – times per a result of global warming has been reported for several week between early February and mid-April each year to anuran species (Terhivuo, ; Reading, ; Corn, ; detect egg clutches. The relationships between the start of Tryjanovski et al., ). Shifts are stronger for anurans than the breeding season, yearly egg mass counts, rate of yearly those reported for trees, birds and butterflies (Parmesan, change in the number of recorded egg masses and climat- ), but the consequences of earlier breeding for popula- ic and environmental variables were assessed by multiple re- tion dynamics are still unknown. gression. The first deposition of eggs occurred progressively Neither phenological shifts (Blaustein et al., ), nor later in the year throughout the study period and mean air population decline (Blaustein et al., ; Richter et al., temperature during the breeding season decreased over this ; Stuart et al., ) affect all amphibian populations. period. Agile frogs showed high deposition site-fidelity.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Miocene Fossils of Lacerta Cf. Trilineata (Squamata, Lacertidae) with A
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/612572; this version posted April 17, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. The first Miocene fossils of Lacerta cf. trilineata (Squamata, Lacertidae) with a comparative study of the main cranial osteological differences in green lizards and their relatives Andrej Čerňanský1,* and Elena V. Syromyatnikova2, 3 1Department of Ecology, Laboratory of Evolutionary Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina, 84215, Bratislava, Slovakia 2Borissiak Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya 123, 117997 Moscow, Russia 3Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab., 1, St. Petersburg, 199034 Russia * Email: [email protected] Running Head: Green lizard from the Miocene of Russia Abstract We here describe the first fossil remains of a green lizardof the Lacerta group from the late Miocene (MN 13) of the Solnechnodolsk locality in southern European Russia. This region of Europe is crucial for our understanding of the paleobiogeography and evolution of these middle-sized lizards. Although this clade has a broad geographical distribution across the continent today, its presence in the fossil record has only rarely been reported. In contrast to that, the material described here is abundant, consists of a premaxilla, maxillae, frontals, bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/612572; this version posted April 17, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • The South American Plains Vizcacha, Lagostomus Maximus, As a Valuable Animal Model for Reproductive Studies
    Central JSM Anatomy & Physiology Bringing Excellence in Open Access Editorial *Corresponding author Verónica Berta Dorfman, Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y The South American Plains Diagnóstico (CEBBAD), Universidad Maimónides, Hidalgo 775 6to piso, C1405BCK, Ciudad Autónoma Vizcacha, Lagostomus maximus, de Buenos Aires, Argentina, Tel: 54 11 49051100; Email: Submitted: 08 October 2016 as a Valuable Animal Model for Accepted: 11 October 2016 Published: 12 October 2016 Copyright Reproductive Studies © 2016 Dorfman et al. Verónica Berta Dorfman1,2*, Pablo Ignacio Felipe Inserra1,2, OPEN ACCESS Noelia Paola Leopardo1,2, Julia Halperin1,2, and Alfredo Daniel Vitullo1,2 1Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y Diagnóstico, Universidad Maimónides, Argentina 2Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Argentina INTRODUCTION anti-apoptotic BCL-2 over the pro-apoptotic BAX protein which leads to a down-regulation of apoptotic pathways and promotes The vast majority of our understanding of the mammalian a continuous oocyte production [6,7]. Moreover, the inversion reproductive biology comes from investigations mainly in the BAX/BCL-2 balance is expressed in embryonic ovaries performed in mice, rats and humans. However, evidence throughout development, pinpointing this physiological aspect gathered from non-conventional laboratory models, farm and as a constitutive feature of the vizcacha´s ovary, which precludes wild animals strongly suggests that reproductive mechanisms show a plethora of different strategies among species. For massive intra-ovarian germ cell elimination. Massive intra- instance, studies developed in unconventional rodents such ovarian germ cell elimination through apoptosis during fetal life as guinea pigs and hamsters, that share with humans some accounts for 66 to 85% loss at birth as recorded for human, mouse endocrine and reproductive characters, have contributed to a and rat [8].
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships of Brown Frogs from Taiwan and Japan Assessed by Mitochondrial Cytochrome B Gene Sequences (Rana: Ranidae)
    ZOOLOGICAL SCIENCE 15: 283–288 (1998) © 1998 Zoological Society of Japan Phylogenetic Relationships of Brown Frogs from Taiwan and Japan Assessed by Mitochondrial Cytochrome b Gene Sequences (Rana: Ranidae) Tomoko Tanaka-Ueno1*, Masafumi Matsui1, Szu-Lung Chen2, Osamu Takenaka3 and Hidetoshi Ota4 1Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-01, Japan 2Department of Zoology, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-01, Japan 3Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, Inuyama, Aichi 484, Japan 4Tropical Biosphere Research Center, University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Okinawa 903-01, Japan ABSTRACT—In order to assess phylogenetic relationships of Taiwanese brown frogs (Rana longicrus and the R. sauteri complex), the partial sequences (587 base pairs) of the mitochondrial cytochrome b genes were compared with six brown frogs from Japan (R. pirica, R. ornativentris, R. japonica, R. tagoi tagoi, R. tsushimensis, and R. okinavana). Resultant phylogenetic trees indicated a considerable genetic differentia- tion between R. longicrus and R. japonica in spite of their close morphological and ecological similarities. The R. sauteri complex includes two genetically distinct groups that are not consistent with current classifica- tion. One group including populations of Alishan (central Taiwan) and Sanyi (western Taiwan) seemed to be closest to R. tagoi and the presumptive common ancestor of these frogs is thought to have diverged very early. Another group including a population from Wulai (northern Taiwan) showed a sister relationship with R. tsushimensis and R. okinavana, both isolated on small islands of Japan. These Taiwanese and Japanese brown frogs as a whole form a monophyletic group, and separation of the R.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology and Pathology of Amphibian Ranaviruses
    Vol. 87: 243–266, 2009 DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS Published December 3 doi: 10.3354/dao02138 Dis Aquat Org OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS REVIEW Ecology and pathology of amphibian ranaviruses Matthew J. Gray1,*, Debra L. Miller1, 2, Jason T. Hoverman1 1274 Ellington Plant Sciences Building, Center for Wildlife Health, Department of Forestry Wildlife and Fisheries, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-4563, USA 2Veterinary Diagnostic and Investigational Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, 43 Brighton Road, Tifton, Georgia 31793, USA ABSTRACT: Mass mortality of amphibians has occurred globally since at least the early 1990s from viral pathogens that are members of the genus Ranavirus, family Iridoviridae. The pathogen infects multiple amphibian hosts, larval and adult cohorts, and may persist in herpetofaunal and oste- ichthyan reservoirs. Environmental persistence of ranavirus virions outside a host may be several weeks or longer in aquatic systems. Transmission occurs by indirect and direct routes, and includes exposure to contaminated water or soil, casual or direct contact with infected individuals, and inges- tion of infected tissue during predation, cannibalism, or necrophagy. Some gross lesions include swelling of the limbs or body, erythema, swollen friable livers, and hemorrhage. Susceptible amphi- bians usually die from chronic cell death in multiple organs, which can occur within a few days fol- lowing infection or may take several weeks. Amphibian species differ in their susceptibility to rana- viruses, which may be related to their co-evolutionary history with the pathogen. The occurrence of recent widespread amphibian population die-offs from ranaviruses may be an interaction of sup- pressed and naïve host immunity, anthropogenic stressors, and novel strain introduction.
    [Show full text]
  • The IWT National Survey of the Common Lizard (Lacerta Vivipara) in Ireland 2007
    The IWT National Survey of the Common Lizard (Lacerta vivipara) in Ireland 2007 This project was sponsored by the National Parks and Wildlife Service Table of Contents 1.0 Common Lizards – a Description 3 2.0 Introduction to the 2007 Survey 4 2.1 How “common” is the common lizard in Ireland? 4 2.2 History of common lizard surveys in Ireland 4 2.3 National Common Lizard Survey 2007 5 3.0 Methodology 6 4.0 Results 7 4.1 Lizard sightings by county 7 4.2 Time of year of lizard sightings 8 4.3 Habitat type of the common lizard 11 4.4 Weather conditions at time of lizard sighting 12 4.5 Time of day of lizard sighting 13 4.6 Lizard behaviour at time of sighting 14 4.7 How did respondents hear about the National Lizard Survey 2007? 14 5.0 Discussion 15 6.0 Acknowledgements 16 7.0 References 17 8.0 Appendices 18 1 List of Tables Table 1 Lizard Sightings by County 9 Table 2 Time of Year of Lizard Sightings 10 Table 3 Habitat types of the Common Lizard 12 Table 4 Weather conditions at Time of Lizard Sighting 13 Table 5 Time of Day of Lizard Sighting 13 Some of the many photographs submitted to IWT during 2007 2 1.0 Common Lizard, Lacerta vivipara Jacquin – A Description The Common Lizard, Lacerta vivipara is Ireland’s only native reptile species. The slow-worm, Anguis fragilis, is found in the Burren in small numbers. However it is believed to have been deliberately introduced in the 1970’s (McGuire and Marnell, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Variations of Rana Seuterl (Anura: Ranidae) in Taiwan
    Zoological Studies 36(3): 201-221 (1997) Geographical Variations of Rana seuterl (Anura: Ranidae) in Taiwan 2 Wen-Hao ChOU 1,2, * and Jun-Yi Lin IZoology Division, National Museum of Natural Science, Taichung, Taiwan 404, R.O.C. Tel: 886-4-3226940 ext. 506 Fax: 886-4-3230787 E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Biology, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan 407, R.O.C. (Accepted April 14, 1997) Wen-Hao Chou and Jun-Yi Lin (1997) Geographical variations of Rana sauteri (Anura: Ranidae) in Taiwan. Zoological Studies 36(3): 201-221. Rana sauteri is widely distributed in hills and mountains of Taiwan from 100 to 3000 m in elevation, a range including SUbtropical to cool temperate climatic zones. Both the gastro­ myzophorous tadpoles and adults have distinct geographical variations in morphology. Clinal variation in the shape of the upper jaw sheath and the number of labial tooth rows occurs from the foothills of western Taiwan eastward through the Central Mountain Range to the eastern slopes of the Central Mountain Range. This geographical pattern is supported and validated by multivariate analyses of adult morphology. Ac­ cording to the dispersal hypothesis, this geographical pattern may suggest that the dispersal center (= initial range of the ancestral group) was located in the western foothills, and it may indicate that the population expanded radially through the clinally variable transition zone to areas adjacent to the ridge of the Central Mountain Range (= range of the derived group). However, the establishment of the geographical pattern of R. sauteri seems to be better explained by the vicariance hypothesis which supports the occurrence of isolation-based dichotomous divergence within this grossly defined taxon.
    [Show full text]
  • Elevational Variation in Reproductive and Life History Traits of Sauter's
    Zoological Studies 42(1): 193-202 (2003) Elevational Variation in Reproductive and Life History Traits of Sauter’s Frog Rana sauteri Boulenger, 1909 in Taiwan Su-Ju Lai1,2, Yeong-Choy Kam3 and Yao-Sung Lin1,* 1Department of Zoology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan 106, R.O.C. 2Zoology Division, Taiwan Endemic Species Research Institute, Chichi, Nantou, Taiwan 552, R.O.C. 3Department of Biology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan 500, R.O.C. (Accepted October 23, 2002) Su-Ju Lai, Yeong-Choy Kam and Yao-Sung Lin (2003) Elevational variation in reproductive and life history traits of Sauter’s frog Rana sauteri Boulenger, 1909 in Taiwan. Zoological Studies 42(1): 193-202. Sauter’s frog, Rana sauteri Boulenger, 1909 in the west-central part of the Central Mountain Range of Taiwan at eleva- tions of 300 to 2360 m showed obvious elevational clines in reproductive and life cycle traits. With an increase in elevation, the breeding season and the periods of calling, aggregation, and egg deposition of mature frogs shifted from fall and winter (Oct. to Dec.) to spring (May), while the breeding period decreased but the larval period increased. Also, adult females at high elevations were larger and produced smaller clutch sizes but larg- er eggs and tadpoles. The temperature experiment showed that low temperatures in winter at high elevations and high temperatures in summer at low elevations are the primary environmental factors that define the breed- ing success of the species. Rana sauteri has experienced long-term selection by environmental factors (e.g., temperature), resulting in populations at high elevations breeding in spring and populations at low elevations breeding in fall and winter to ensure that their tadpoles can grow and complete metamorphosis.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibians & Reptiles in the Garden
    Amphibians & Reptiles in the Garden Slow-worm by Mike Toms lthough amphibians and reptiles belong to two different taxonomic classes, they are often lumped together. Together they share some ecological similarities and may even look superficially similar. Some are familiar A garden inhabitants, others less so. Being able to identify the different species can help Garden BirdWatchers to accurately record those species using their gardens and may also reassure those who might be worried by the appearance of a snake. Only a small number of native amphibians and reptiles, plus a handful of non-native species, breed in the UK. So, with a few identification tips and a little understanding of their ecology and behaviour, they are fairly easy to identify. This guide sets out to help you improve your identification skills, not only for general Garden BirdWatch recording, but also in the hope that you will help us with a one-off survey of these fascinating creatures. Several of our amphibians thrive in the garden and five of the native Amphibians species, Common Frog, Common Toad and the three newts, can reasonably be expected to be found in the garden for at least part of the year. There are also a few introduced species which have been recorded from gardens, together with our remaining native species, which although rare need to be considered for completeness. Common Frog: (right) Rana temporaria Common Toad: (below) Grows to 6–7 cm. Bufo bufo Predominant colour Has ‘warty’ skin which looks is brown, but often dry when the animal is on variable, including land.
    [Show full text]
  • Modelling Bedriaga's Rock Lizard Distribution in Sardinia
    Amphibia-Reptilia 30 (2009): 413-424 Modelling Bedriaga’s rock lizard distribution in Sardinia: An ensemble approach Pierluigi Bombi*,DanieleSalvi,LeonardoVignoli,MarcoA.Bologna Abstract. Many techniques for predicting species potential distribution were recently developed. Despite the international interest for these procedures, applications of predictive approaches to the study of Italian fauna distribution are exceptionally rare. This paper aimed at: (a) detecting climatic exigencies of A. bedriagae in Sardinia; (b) predicting the Archaeolacerta bedriagae Sardinian potential distribution; (c) identifying the most vulnerable Italian populations of the species. Literature and field data were utilized as presence records. Six modelling procedures (BIOCLIM, DOMAIN, ENFA, GAM, GLM, and MAXENT) were adopted. The species climatic requirements were defined using the WorldClim databank for deriving the environmental predictors. AUC and Kappa values were calculated for models validation. AUC values were compared by using Anova Monte Carlo. The best four models were combined through the weighted average consensus method for producing a univocal output. GAM and MAXENT had the best performances (respectively: AUC 0.93 0.03, Kappa 0.77 0.08; = ± = ± AUC 0.93 0.03, Kappa 0.78 0.07). Good results were also obtained by GLM and DOMAIN (respectively: = ± = ± AUC 0.89 0.04, Kappa 0.72 0.05; AUC 0.88 0.04, Kappa 0.69 0.07). BIOCLIM and ENFA gained = ± = ± = ± = ± relatively low performances (respectively: AUC 0.78 0.07, Kappa 0.57 0.14; AUC 0.75 0.06; Kappa = ± = ± = ± = 0.49 0.10). In Sardinia A. bedriagae is mainly influenced by seasonality, which causes the evidenced range fragmentation. ± Moreover, the general importance of multi-methods approaches and consensus techniques in predicting species distribution was highlighted.
    [Show full text]
  • Action Plan for the Conservation of the Italian Agile Frog (Rana Latastei) in Europe
    Strasbourg, 26 October 2006 T-PVS/Inf (2006) 16 [Inf16e_2006.doc] CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS Standing Committee 26th meeting Strasbourg, 27-30 November 2006 __________ Action Plan for the Conservation of the Italian Agile Frog (Rana latastei) in Europe Document prepared by Paul Edgar* and David R. Bird *c/o The Herpetological Conservation Trust, 655a Christchurch Road, Boscombe Bournemouth, Dorset, BH1 4AP, UK, E-mail: [email protected] This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera plus distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire. T-PVS/Inf (2006) 16 - 2 - CONTENTS A. ITALIAN AGILE FROG - SPECIES ACTION PLAN SUMMARY........................................................3 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................3 2. Rationale............................................................................................................................................3 3. Objectives ..........................................................................................................................................3 4. Recommended Actions....................................................................................................................4 Table 1: Urgent Priority Actions for the Italian Agile Frog Rana latastei ................................................4 B. ITALIAN AGILE FROG – SPECIES
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 to PRIORITISED ACTION FRAMEWORK (PAF) for NATURA 2000 in SLOVENIA 1
    Appendix 1 to PRIORITISED ACTION FRAMEWORK (PAF) FOR NATURA 2000 in SLOVENIA 1. List of species dependent on grassland habitats (E.2.4) for which Agri-environmental measures Sub-measure 10.1 - Payment of agri-environment-climate commitments in the period 2014-2020 were identified depending on the type of measure Special grassland habitats (HAB): Plants: Marsh gladiolus (Gladiolus palustris), Adriatic lizard orchid (Himantoglossum adriaticum), Liparis loeselii, Pulsatilla grandis, Scilla litardierei, Serratula lycopifolia, Butterflies: Marsh Fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia), Large Copper (Lycaena dispar), False Ringlet (Coenonympha oedippus), Scarce Fritillary (Euphydryas maturna) Birds: Sedge Warbler (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus), Lesser Grey Shrike (Lanius minor), Spotted Crake (Porzana porzana), Wood Lark (Lullula arborea), Common Grasshopper-warbler (Locustella naevia), Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago), Little Crake (Zapornia parva), European Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus), Eurasian Skylark (Alauda arvensis), Common Quail (Coturnix coturnix), Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Common Redshank (Tringa tetanus), Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio), Rufous-tailed Rock-thrush (Monticola saxatilis), Common Hoopoe (Upupa epops), European Honey-buzzard (Pernis apivorus), Eurasian Eagle-owl (Bubo bubo), Eurasian Scops-owl (Otus scops), Corn Bunting (Miliaria calandra), Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata), Eurasian Wryneck (Jynx torquilla), Common Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), Ortolan Bunting (Emberiza hortulana) Molluscs: Congeria kusceri,
    [Show full text]