DOCSLIB.ORG

Commercial Collection of Reptiles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commercial Collection of Reptiles COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES For Review and Possible Commission Action Nevada Jennifer Newmark Board of Wildlife Administrator Commissioners Wildlife Diversity Division August 11, 2017 PERTINENT LEGAL AUTHORITIES NRS 503.380 . The Department may permit the commercial taking of unprotected wildlife in any manner approved by the Commission . The Commission may fix a price to be paid for wildlife so taken . Wildlife taken under this authorization may be sold NAC 503.095 . The Department will issue a permit authorizing a natural person to collect unprotected wildlife for commercial purposes… if, after an investigation is conducted, it is proved to the Department that the collecting will not be detrimental to the wildlife . Such a permit may be cancelled by the Department for a violation of its conditions or if operation of the permit is found to be detrimental to wildlife HISTORY OF COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES AND COMMISSION ACTIONS 1986 – commercial collection of reptiles is legalized by changing NAC 503.095 1989 . Department expresses concern to the Board of Wildlife Commissioners that reptile populations are being harmed by over-collection . Commissioners agree and draft temporary CGR173 . “Possession or collection of reptiles for commercial purposes is prohibited” . Collectors initiate legal action against the Commission resulting in an Eighth District Court injunction preventing the enforcement of CGR173. Commission appeals to the Supreme Court HISTORY OF COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES AND COMMISSION ACTIONS 1990 – Supreme Court rules in favor of the Commission and reverses the lower court’s decision . “Commission did not have a duty to conduct an investigation which proved that the selling of reptiles would not harm the State’s wildlife” . Under NAC 503.095 “the burden is on the collectors not the Commission” to show no harm to wildlife . The regulation “did not confer protected status on unprotected reptiles” . “the trial court erred in failing to consider that there are economic benefits in preserving, protecting, and managing wildlife for aesthetic, recreational, and scientific reasons.” During this legal process, temporary CGR 173 expired and the Commission directed the Department to again issue permits for commercial reptile collections. HISTORY OF COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES AND COMMISSION ACTIONS 1998 – Commission considered regulation or prohibition of commercial collecting of reptiles . Two workshops were held . Commission decided to allow the continuation of unlimited commercial collection during all seasons COMMERCIAL COLLECTION PERMIT Permitted activity Annual, $250 fee Must be a Nevada resident 90% of reptile species can be collected in unlimited numbers COMMERCIAL COLLECTION PERMIT Permit Stipulations . Methods of collections authorized are hand, noose, snake-hook, tongs or nets . Pit, can, or fall type traps or containers are prohibited . The use of crowbars, jackhammers or other methods to break apart rocks and ledges in collecting reptiles is prohibited . Only the permittee named on the permit is authorized to collect COMMERCIAL COLLECTION PERMIT Permit Stipulations continued . Must log daily catch (species, number, sex, age, day, time, and UTM) and submit reports monthly to NDOW . Transaction logs of sales, trades and barters must be maintained for one year after a valid permit . The permit can be canceled if the Department determines that conditions of the permit have been violated or if operation of the permit if found to be detrimental to wildlife . The Commission may revoke a permit and may refuse to issue another such permit COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES 35000 >450,000 reptiles self-reported to 30000 have been removed from landscape 25000 20000 15000 10000 Commission Review 5000 Select Spp. Commission & Courts 0 COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES Only Western State Allowing Commercial Collection Commercial (Regs) Greatest Mod-High Moderate Low COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES Hotspots for Collecting Chuckwalla: 15,945 (92 in 1 day) Desert horned lizard: 105,093 (>600 in 1 day) Great Basin collared lizard: 96,665 Long-nosed leopard lizard: 60,410 Western fence lizard: 40,594 Commonly Collected Species (1986-2016) COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES 1 Collector 40+ page monthly log 2,000 reptiles/month 24 days/month 83 reptiles/day ~20 reptiles/km (5-6 months of the year) COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES Amargosa Valley Ivanpah-Pahrump Valleys COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES 1994 2001 2009 2016 35000 31,830 30000 25000 21,262 20000 14.998 15000 7,102 10000 5000 0 COMMERCIAL COLLECTION OF REPTILES 15,945 Collected 92 in 1day • Herbivore • Annual recruitment 20% • 15y Life Span • 8.2y Generation • 2-3y Maturity Chuckwalla (Sauromalus ater) REPTILE BIOLOGY 53 native species of reptiles in Nevada 26 are Species of Conservation Priority in the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan Great Basin Mojave REPTILE BIOLOGY Habitat specialists with patchy distribution Home range sizes are relatively small Ectothermic animals (“cold-blooded”) Low reproductive rates and long life span Distribution and abundance of most reptile species is poorly understood . Cryptic . Only seasonally active . Long-lived . Large diversity of species within the state IMPACTS OF COMMERCIAL COLLECTION Collections are allowed during the breeding season, thereby reducing reproductive and recovery potential Commercial collection is an additive source of mortality . Habitat loss and degradation . Urbanization and development . Invasive species . Disease . Drought and climate changes . Pitfall traps Market demand for certain species drives collections rather than population or management objectives DATA LIMITATIONS Reported data are limited: . Specifics of age class structure is not well defined (adult/juvenile only) . Data are primarily reported along linear features such as roads . No independent verification of data . Data has errors limiting the usefulness of the data DATA LIMITATIONS 2 Collectors 56 animals: Strictly nocturnal species 47 banded geckos Only 2 days in July (6 hours) 8 shovel-nosed snakes 5:20 AM – 10:15 AM 1 long nosed snake (3.25 animals per meter) DATA LIMITATIONS . Highly territorial and density dependent species being collected from same site. Species being reported from out of range ¯ 05010025 Miles Western Banded Gecko (Coleonyx variegatus) collection locations Western Banded Gecko distribution in NV PITFALL TRAPS Illegal Collection Method 700 + exist in So. Nevada PITFALL TRAPS 368 (307) Traps Checked 2016-17 197 Reptiles observed - 64% traps contained reptiles 96 mammals observed - 31% contained mammals 99 Scorpions observed - *69% contained scorpions PITFALL TRAPS Applicable history: Dead “Live” 3% 47%* 27% * 53% 96% 74% Reptiles Mammals Scorpions POSSIBLE ACTIONS FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION Direct the Department to take no further action and continue to allow unlimited commercial reptile collecting Direct the Department to draft a permanent regulation prohibiting commercial reptile collecting Direct the Department to cease permitting commercial reptile collecting Direct the Department to develop recommendations that limit commercial collection based on species, season, year, and/or collection area in the state Actions could be taken independently or in combination.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Xenosaurus Tzacualtipantecus. the Zacualtipán Knob-Scaled Lizard Is Endemic to the Sierra Madre Oriental of Eastern Mexico
    Xenosaurus tzacualtipantecus. The Zacualtipán knob-scaled lizard is endemic to the Sierra Madre Oriental of eastern Mexico. This medium-large lizard (female holotype measures 188 mm in total length) is known only from the vicinity of the type locality in eastern Hidalgo, at an elevation of 1,900 m in pine-oak forest, and a nearby locality at 2,000 m in northern Veracruz (Woolrich- Piña and Smith 2012). Xenosaurus tzacualtipantecus is thought to belong to the northern clade of the genus, which also contains X. newmanorum and X. platyceps (Bhullar 2011). As with its congeners, X. tzacualtipantecus is an inhabitant of crevices in limestone rocks. This species consumes beetles and lepidopteran larvae and gives birth to living young. The habitat of this lizard in the vicinity of the type locality is being deforested, and people in nearby towns have created an open garbage dump in this area. We determined its EVS as 17, in the middle of the high vulnerability category (see text for explanation), and its status by the IUCN and SEMAR- NAT presently are undetermined. This newly described endemic species is one of nine known species in the monogeneric family Xenosauridae, which is endemic to northern Mesoamerica (Mexico from Tamaulipas to Chiapas and into the montane portions of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala). All but one of these nine species is endemic to Mexico. Photo by Christian Berriozabal-Islas. amphibian-reptile-conservation.org 01 June 2013 | Volume 7 | Number 1 | e61 Copyright: © 2013 Wilson et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Com- mons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License, which permits unrestricted use for non-com- Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1): 1–47.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring at Night! in Honor of National Pollinator Week, Over 100 People Visited Ash Meadows for a Nocturnal Adventure This June
    Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge CurrentsSummer 2012 Editors: Alyson Mack [email protected] 702-515-5496 Cyndi Souza [email protected] 775-372-5435 Exploring at Night! In honor of National Pollinator Week, over 100 people visited Ash Meadows for a nocturnal adventure this June. Everyone enjoyed some “bat fruit salad” while they waited for the event to begin. The salad is made with fruits pollinated and seed dispersed by bats: peaches, mangoes, dates, figs, and cashews. Upcoming Events: To start things off, Refuge biologist Cristi Baldino gave a fun and informative presentation on Art-in-Nature Day! bat basics. Kids learned about what bats are, how they hunt using echolocation, what to do if you Sunday, October 14, encounter a bat – and a myriad of other cool facts about bats! The group then hiked down the 10am-3pm boardwalk to search for some bats in the wild! Calling all artists! Join other local artists and display Participants learned how to use ANABAT detectors to pick up the sounds that bats make. Just your Ash Meadows inspired like birds, each bat makes a unique “call” that scientists can use to tell them apart. Using a special artwork. Ash Meadows is lush and computer program, GBI Resource Specialist Sam Skalak showed everyone how to analyze the green right now - early morning and evening bat sound waves, or sonograms, to determine their species and behavior. are great times to capture that perfect photo! Multi-Media displays are welcome, including Cristi Baldino and Death Valley N.P. biologist Linda Manning set up a bat mist netting station..
    [Show full text]
  • 13 Index of Common Names
    Index of Common Names BITING/STINGING/VENOMOUS PESTS Bees ………………………………………………………… 6 Honey bee…………………………………………………6 Africanized bees……………………………………….. 7 Bumblebee…………………………………………………….9 Carpenter bee……………………………………………….9 Digger bee………………………………………………………11 Leaf cutter bee………………………………………………….12 Sweat bee………………………………………………………..13 Wasps…………………………………………………………….14 Tarantula hawk…………………………………………………14 Yellowjacket……………………………………………………….15 Aerial yellowjacket ……………………………………………….15,16 Common yellowjacket ……………………………………………….15 German yellowjacket……………………………………………….15 Western yellowjacket……………………………………………….15 Paper wasp………………………………………………. 18 Brown paper wasp……………………………………………….18 Common paper wasp ……………………………………………….18 European paper wasp……………………………………………….18 Navajo paper wasp……………………………………………….18,19 Yellow paper wasp……………………………………………….18,19 Western paper wasp……………………………………………….18 Mud dauber………………………………………………. 20 Black and blue mud dauber……………………………..………………….20 Black and yellow mud dauber……………………………………………….20 Organ pipe mud dauber……………………………………………….20,21 Velvet ant……………………………………………………21 Scorpions………………………………………………………23 Arizona bark scorpion……………………………………………….23 Giant hairy scorpion ……………………………………………….24 Striped-tail scorpion……………………………………………….25 Yellow ground scorpion……………………………………………….25 Spiders…………………………………………………………..26 Cellar spider……………………………………………….2 6 Recluse spider……………………………………………….27 Tarantula…………………………………………………. 28 Widow spider……………………………………………….29 Scorpion/spider look-alikes……………………………………………….30 Pseudoscorpion……………………………………………….30 Solifugid/wind
    [Show full text]
  • Species Selection Process
    FINAL Appendix J to S Volume 3, Book 2 JULY 2008 COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINAL VOLUME 3 Coyote Springs Investment Planned Development Project Appendix J to S July 2008 Prepared EIS for: LEAD AGENCY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Reno, NV COOPERATING AGENCIES U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. George, UT U.S. Bureau of Land Management Ely, NV Prepared MSHCP for: Coyote Springs Investment LLC 6600 North Wingfield Parkway Sparks, NV 89496 Prepared by: ENTRIX, Inc. 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 200 Concord, CA 94520 Huffman-Broadway Group 828 Mission Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Resource Concepts, Inc. 340 North Minnesota Street Carson City, NV 89703 PROJECT NO. 3132201 COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Appendix J to S ENTRIX, Inc. Huffman-Broadway Group Resource Concepts, Inc. 2300 Clayton Road, Suite 200 828 Mission Avenue 340 North Minnesota Street Concord, CA 94520 San Rafael, CA 94901 Carson City, NV 89703 Phone 925.935.9920 Fax 925.935.5368 Phone 415.925.2000 Fax 415.925.2006 Phone 775.883.1600 Fax 775.883.1656 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix J Mitigation Plan, The Coyote Springs Development Project, Lincoln County, Nevada Appendix K Summary of Nevada Water Law and its Administration Appendix L Alternate Sites and Scenarios Appendix M Section 106 and Tribal Consultation Documents Appendix N Fiscal Impact Analysis Appendix O Executive Summary of Master Traffic Study for Clark County Development Appendix P Applicant for Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Application, Coyote Springs Project, Lincoln County, Nevada Appendix Q Response to Comments on the Draft EIS Appendix R Agreement for Settlement of all Claims to Groundwater in the Coyote Spring Basin Appendix S Species Selection Process JULY 2008 FINAL i APPENDIX S Species Selection Process Table of Contents Appendix S: Species Selection Process ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Arm Autotomy in the Octopus, Abdopus Aculeatus (D’Orbigny, 1834)
    Characterization of Arm Autotomy in the Octopus, Abdopus aculeatus (d’Orbigny, 1834) By Jean Sagman Alupay A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Roy L. Caldwell, Chair Professor David Lindberg Professor Damian Elias Fall 2013 ABSTRACT Characterization of Arm Autotomy in the Octopus, Abdopus aculeatus (d’Orbigny, 1834) By Jean Sagman Alupay Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology University of California, Berkeley Professor Roy L. Caldwell, Chair Autotomy is the shedding of a body part as a means of secondary defense against a predator that has already made contact with the organism. This defense mechanism has been widely studied in a few model taxa, specifically lizards, a few groups of arthropods, and some echinoderms. All of these model organisms have a hard endo- or exo-skeleton surrounding the autotomized body part. There are several animals that are capable of autotomizing a limb but do not exhibit the same biological trends that these model organisms have in common. As a result, the mechanisms that underlie autotomy in the hard-bodied animals may not apply for soft bodied organisms. A behavioral ecology approach was used to study arm autotomy in the octopus, Abdopus aculeatus. Investigations concentrated on understanding the mechanistic underpinnings and adaptive value of autotomy in this soft-bodied animal. A. aculeatus was observed in the field on Mactan Island, Philippines in the dry and wet seasons, and compared with populations previously studied in Indonesia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Test with Sympatric Lizard Species
    Heredity (2016) 116, 92–98 & 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited All rights reserved 0018-067X/16 www.nature.com/hdy ORIGINAL ARTICLE Does population size affect genetic diversity? A test with sympatric lizard species MTJ Hague1,2 and EJ Routman1 Genetic diversity is a fundamental requirement for evolution and adaptation. Nonetheless, the forces that maintain patterns of genetic variation in wild populations are not completely understood. Neutral theory posits that genetic diversity will increase with a larger effective population size and the decreasing effects of drift. However, the lack of compelling evidence for a relationship between genetic diversity and population size in comparative studies has generated some skepticism over the degree that neutral sequence evolution drives overall patterns of diversity. The goal of this study was to measure genetic diversity among sympatric populations of related lizard species that differ in population size and other ecological factors. By sampling related species from a single geographic location, we aimed to reduce nuisance variance in genetic diversity owing to species differences, for example, in mutation rates or historical biogeography. We compared populations of zebra-tailed lizards and western banded geckos, which are abundant and short-lived, to chuckwallas and desert iguanas, which are less common and long-lived. We assessed population genetic diversity at three protein-coding loci for each species. Our results were consistent with the predictions of neutral theory, as the abundant species almost always had higher levels of haplotype diversity than the less common species. Higher population genetic diversity in the abundant species is likely due to a combination of demographic factors, including larger local population sizes (and presumably effective population sizes), faster generation times and high rates of gene flow with other populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Class: Amphibia Amphibians Order
    CLASS: AMPHIBIA AMPHIBIANS ANNIELLIDAE (Legless Lizards & Allies) CLASS: AMPHIBIA AMPHIBIANS Anniella (Legless Lizards) ORDER: ANURA FROGS AND TOADS ___Silvery Legless Lizard .......................... DS,RI,UR – uD ORDER: ANURA FROGS AND TOADS BUFONIDAE (True Toad Family) BUFONIDAE (True Toad Family) ___Southern Alligator Lizard ............................ RI,DE – fD Bufo (True Toads) Suborder: SERPENTES SNAKES Bufo (True Toads) ___California (Western) Toad.............. AQ,DS,RI,UR – cN ___California (Western) Toad ............. AQ,DS,RI,UR – cN ANNIELLIDAE (Legless Lizards & Allies) Anniella ___Red-spotted Toad ...................................... AQ,DS - cN BOIDAE (Boas & Pythons) ___Red-spotted Toad ...................................... AQ,DS - cN (Legless Lizards) Charina (Rosy & Rubber Boas) ___Silvery Legless Lizard .......................... DS,RI,UR – uD HYLIDAE (Chorus Frog and Treefrog Family) ___Rosy Boa ............................................ DS,CH,RO – fN HYLIDAE (Chorus Frog and Treefrog Family) Pseudacris (Chorus Frogs) Pseudacris (Chorus Frogs) Suborder: SERPENTES SNAKES ___California Chorus Frog ............ AQ,DS,RI,DE,RO – cN COLUBRIDAE (Colubrid Snakes) ___California Chorus Frog ............ AQ,DS,RI,DE,RO – cN ___Pacific Chorus Frog ....................... AQ,DS,RI,DE – cN Arizona (Glossy Snakes) ___Pacific Chorus Frog ........................AQ,DS,RI,DE – cN BOIDAE (Boas & Pythons) ___Glossy Snake ........................................... DS,SA – cN Charina (Rosy & Rubber Boas) RANIDAE (True Frog Family)
    [Show full text]
  • The San Pedro River in Southeastern Arizona
    Lowland Riparian Herpetofaunas: The San Pedro River in Southeastern Arizona Philip C. Rosen School of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Abstract—Previous work has shown that southeastern Arizona has a characteristic, high diversity lowland riparian herpetofauna with 62-68 or more species along major stream corridors, and 46-54 species in shorter reaches within single biomes, based on intensive fieldwork and museum record surveys. The San Pedro River supports this characteristic herpetofauna, at least some of which still occurs in the lower basin within the Sonoran Desert. It has about 64 species (55 vouchered to date), with 48-53 species within each of three somewhat ecologically homogeneous portions of the basin. This assemblage is more similar to other lowland herpetofaunas than to an example of a canyon riparian herpetofauna. Most of the characteristic riparian species are not known to be abundant along the San Pedro, and some expected species are apparently absent, suggesting that the herpetofauna may have not yet recovered from the history of grassland, cienega, and bottomland degradation. effort has been most focused in the upper basin, and it is dif- Introduction ficult to entirely separate riparian and non-riparian records, so Remarkably, the riparian herpetofauna of southeastern I have summarized the latter for the upper basin; in the lower Arizona has not been accurately described between Ruthven’s reaches, so little collecting has been done away from the river (1907) and Van Denburgh and Slevin’s (1913) annotations that this was not possible. Museum records were excluded if and records for the Santa Cruz River riparian at Tucson and localities could not be located to an adequate precision, but I the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Banded Geckos Band
    ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2006, 72, 199–207 doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.01.010 Physiological benefits as precursors of sociality: why banded geckos band JENNIFER R. LANCASTER, PAUL WILSON & ROBERT E. ESPINOZA Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge (Received 29 July 2005; initial acceptance 27 September 2005; final acceptance 11 January 2006; published online 6 June 2006; MS. number: A10217R) Aggregating has been widely studied in a variety of animals and found to have important benefits in terms of sociality, courtship, predator avoidance and physiology. Several species of nocturnal geckos form diurnal aggregations; however, little is known about the benefits of these groupings. We conducted a series of ex- periments to determine the benefit of aggregation for the desert-dwelling western banded gecko, Coleonyx variegatus. We found that banded geckos benefit from aggregation by a reduction in evaporative water loss (EWL). No social or mating benefits were detected, and geckos did not group to avoid predators. Geckos did not select diurnal retreat sites based solely on the scent of conspecifics, although they aggregated readily when conspecifics were present. Thus, C. variegatus appear to achieve physiological but not social benefits from grouping. Banded geckos belong to an ancestrally tropical lineage whose descendants invaded present-day North American deserts at a time when these regions were more mesic. This may explain their relatively high rate of EWL. Aggregating seems to be a solution to this physiological handicap. Our study also suggests a path for the evolution of social behaviour: as animals aggregate for physiological benefits, the stage is set for the evolution of more complex social interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Evolution of Sex Chromosomes in Eublepharid Geckos, a Lineage with Environmental and Genotypic Sex Determination
    life Article Independent Evolution of Sex Chromosomes in Eublepharid Geckos, A Lineage with Environmental and Genotypic Sex Determination Eleonora Pensabene , Lukáš Kratochvíl and Michail Rovatsos * Department of Ecology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, 12844 Prague, Czech Republic; [email protected] (E.P.); [email protected] (L.K.) * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] Received: 19 November 2020; Accepted: 7 December 2020; Published: 10 December 2020 Abstract: Geckos demonstrate a remarkable variability in sex determination systems, but our limited knowledge prohibits accurate conclusions on the evolution of sex determination in this group. Eyelid geckos (Eublepharidae) are of particular interest, as they encompass species with both environmental and genotypic sex determination. We identified for the first time the X-specific gene content in the Yucatán banded gecko, Coleonyx elegans, possessing X1X1X2X2/X1X2Y multiple sex chromosomes by comparative genome coverage analysis between sexes. The X-specific gene content of Coleonyx elegans was revealed to be partially homologous to genomic regions linked to the chicken autosomes 1, 6 and 11. A qPCR-based test was applied to validate a subset of X-specific genes by comparing the difference in gene copy numbers between sexes, and to explore the homology of sex chromosomes across eleven eublepharid, two phyllodactylid and one sphaerodactylid species. Homologous sex chromosomes are shared between Coleonyx elegans and Coleonyx mitratus, two species diverged approximately 34 million years ago, but not with other tested species. As far as we know, the X-specific gene content of Coleonyx elegans / Coleonyx mitratus was never involved in the sex chromosomes of other gecko lineages, indicating that the sex chromosomes in this clade of eublepharid geckos evolved independently.
    [Show full text]
  • Predation on the Black-Throated Sparrow Amphispiza Bilineata
    Herpetology Notes, volume 13: 401-403 (2020) (published online on 26 May 2020) Predation on the black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata (Cassin, 1850) and scavenging behaviour on the western banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus (Baird, 1858) by the glossy snake Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859 Miguel A. Martínez1 and Manuel de Luna1,* The glossy snake Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859 is Robles et al., 1999a), no specific species have been a nocturnal North American colubrid found from central identified as a prey item until this paper, in which we California to southwestern Nebraska in the United States present evidence of predation on the black-throated and south through Baja California, Aguascalientes, San sparrow Amphispiza bilineata (Cassin, 1850). Luis Potosí and Sinaloa in Mexico (Dixon and Fleet, On 20 September 2017, at around 23:00 h, an 1976). Several species have been identified as prey adult specimen of Arizona elegans was found in the items of this snake (Rodríguez-Robles et al., 1999a) municipality of Hipólito (25.7780 N, -101.4017 W, including the mole Scalopus aquaticus (Linnaeus, 1758) 1195 m a.s.l.), state of Coahuila, Mexico. The snake (Eulipotyphla: Talpidae), the rodents Peromyscus sp. had caught and was in the process of killing and then (Rodentia: Cricetidae), Chaetodipus formosus (Merriam, consuming a small bird (Fig. 1); this act lasted close to 1889), Dipodomys merriami Mearns, 1890, Dipodomys 30 minutes. After completely swallowing its prey, the ordii Woodhouse, 1853, Dipodomys sp., Perognathus snake crawled away to a safe spot under a group of inornatus Merriam, 1889, Perognathus (sensu lato) sp. nearby dead Agave lechuguilla plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Final El Centro 1 Supplemental Environmental Stewardship Plan
    APPENDIX A Biological Survey Report This page intentionally left blank BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT EL CENTRO FENCE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Task Order 27 (Biological Portion) FME Contract: GS10F0070W March 2020 Prepared For: Paul Enriquez Acquisition, Real Estate, and Environmental Director Infrastructure Program Program Management Office Directorate U.S. Customs and Border Protection [email protected] This Page Left Intentionally Blank Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Project Description ............................................................................................................................................. 1 3. Survey Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 1 3.1. Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 4. Site Assessments............................................................................................................................................... 2 5. Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................................ 3 6. Biological Resources.........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]