DOCSLIB.ORG

Range Expansion and Population Growth of Non-Native Mountain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Range Expansion and Population Growth of Non-Native Mountain Wildlife Society Bulletin; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.636 Original Article Range Expansion and Population Growth of Nonnative Mountain Goats in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Challenges for Management ELIZABETH P. FLESCH,1 Fish and Wildlife Ecology and Management Program, Ecology Department, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA ROBERT A. GARROTT, Fish and Wildlife Ecology and Management Program, Ecology Department, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA P. J. WHITE, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190, USA DOUG BRIMEYER, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 420 N Cache, P.O. Box 67, Jackson, WY 83001, USA ALYSON B. COURTEMANCH, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 420 N Cache, P.O. Box 67, Jackson, WY 83001, USA JULIE A. CUNNINGHAM, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1400 S 19th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA SARAH R. DEWEY, National Park Service, Grand Teton National Park, P.O. Box 170, Moose, WY 83012, USA GARY L. FRALICK, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, P.O. Box 1022, Thayne, WY 83127, USA KAREN LOVELESS, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1354 Highway 10 W, Livingston, MT 59047, USA DOUG E. MCWHIRTER, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2820 State Highway 120, Cody, WY 82414, USA HOLLIE MIYASAKI, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 4279 Commerce Circle, Idaho Falls, ID 83401, USA ANDREW PILS, United States Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest, 203A Yellowstone Avenue, Cody, WY 82414, USA MICHAEL A. SAWAYA, Fish and Wildlife Ecology and Management Program, Ecology Department, Montana State University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA SHAWN T. STEWART, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, P.O. Box 581, Red Lodge, MT 59068, USA ABSTRACT Population growth and range expansion of nonnative species can potentially disrupt ecosystem function or add conservation value to an area, and evaluation of possible impacts can be a challenge for managers. Nonnative populations of mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are present in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) in the U.S. states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming because of historical introduction events, but their population trend and range have not been assessed across the area. We used 6,701 location records from 1947 to 2015 to map mountain goat distribution and evaluate, in a descriptive manner, range overlap with native bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). We analyzed 136 survey counts using the Exponential Growth State–Space model to estimate population trends and abundance. Mountain goats dispersed 50–85 km from introduction sites to occupy all mountain ranges in the northern GYA and 30–40 km to occupy new areas in the southern GYA. Mountain goat numbers increased in nearly all count units, with the strongest growth rates estimated in areas more recently colonized. Using moderate detection probability (0.70), we estimated approximately 2,355 mountain goats in the GYA. Although not tested in our analysis, the gradual range expansion and population growth rates were consistent with density-dependent processes observed in other introduced large herbivores and demonstrate that mountain goats can successfully disperse over unsuitable locales to colonize new areas. Therefore, we expect mountain goat populations will continue to expand into unoccupied mountain ranges that contain significant numbers of bighorn sheep unless specific management actions are implemented to address their population growth. Ó 2016 The Wildlife Society. KEY WORDS alpine, bighorn sheep, invasive species, mountain goats, Oreamnos americanus, Ovis canadensis, population management, ungulate. The spread of nonnative species is a growing and pervasive biota (Mooney and Hobbs 2000, Lodge et al. 2006). Perhaps conservation challenge world-wide. When nonnative species the best-known example of such a phenomenon in the become invasive they can cause disruptions to ecosystem Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) in the U.S. states of Idaho, function and may result in local or global extinction of native Montana, and Wyoming, is the introduction and prolifera- tion of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) in Yellowstone Lake, which has caused a near collapse of the native Received: 13 July 2015; Accepted: 10 January 2016 Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri) population, with subsequent impacts on many other native 1E-mail: elizabeth.fl[email protected] aquatic and terrestrial species (Koel et al. 2005, Gresswell Flesch et al. Mountain Goats in the Greater Yellowstone Area 1 and Tronstad 2013, Middleton et al. 2013). Other nonnative goats may have been part of the fauna in the GYA region species in the GYA causing substantial impacts on ecological during the Pleistocene, reviews of archeological, paleonto- processes or presenting management and policy challenges logical, and historical records suggest that mountain goats for natural resource agencies include the bacteria Brucella were no longer present or were extremely rare in the region abortus that causes the disease brucellosis in wild ungulates 10,000 years prior to European settlement of North America and domestic cattle (Treanor et al. 2013), and the fungal (Laundre 1990, Schullery and Whittlesey 2001). During the pathogen Cronartium ribicola that is contributing to a major 1940s and early 1950s, 158 mountain goats were released at die-off of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) throughout much 7 sites in the mountains of the northern GYA. Twelve of the ecosystem (Olliff et al. 2013). However, not all mountain goats were also introduced into the southern GYA nonnative species disrupt ecological processes and harm at 2 sites in Idaho during the late 1960s and early 1970s. native species (Davis et al. 2011, Vatery et al. 2013); in some These introduced populations of mountain goats expanded situations, nonnative species may augment ecosystem their range, causing concern about potential effects on native services and have conservation value (Schlaepfer et al. species, particularly bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis; Varley 2011, Strong and Leroux 2014). Thus, natural resource and Varley 1996, Lemke 2004). managers need to carefully evaluate the potential and realized From European settlement until the 1930s, the number impacts of nonnative species before establishing manage- and distribution of bighorn sheep substantially declined ment strategies and initiating control actions that are often because of market hunting, habitat loss, and diseases difficult to execute, expensive, and potentially controversial introduced by domestic animals. Protective regulations, (Davis et al. 2011). habitat conservation, and active restoration efforts over the The mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) is native to past 75 years have resulted in a modest recovery of the species northwestern North America, with its natural range primarily (Buechner 1960, Krausman and Bowyer 2003). However, in coastal and inland mountains west of the continental periodic catastrophic die-offs and poor recruitment caused by divide. The species’ range at the time of European settlement the effects of domestic animal pathogens continue to be of North America extended from southern Alaska, USA, and prevalent throughout the species’ contemporary distribution along the Pacific Coast of Canada, including the Northwest (Monello et al. 2001, George et al. 2008, Besser et al. 2012, and Yukon Territories, Alberta, and British Columbia, Cassirer et al. 2013). In addition, many populations tend to Canada, and into the northwestern United States, including be small and isolated, increasing their susceptibility to Oregon, Washington, western Montana, and western Idaho stochastic events and extirpation (Berger 1990). Thus, (Cot^ e and Festa-Bianchet 2003, Matthews and Heath 2008). bighorn sheep are considered a species of great conservation During the early to mid-1900s, state wildlife agencies concern. transplanted mountain goats outside their native range to There is potential for both exploitative and interference increase hunting opportunities. These introductions have competition between mountain goats and bighorn sheep, generally been successful, with nonnative populations now because both species occupy alpine and subalpine habitats established in in the states of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and have similar diets when evaluated at a coarse scale South Dakota, and Nevada, as well as within new areas in (grasses, forbs, browse; Laundre 1994), with some indication Alaska, Alberta, Washington, Idaho, and Montana (Cot^ eand of less dietary overlap at the plant species level for sympatric Festa-Bianchet 2003). populations (Pallister 1974, Stewart 1975). Although records Although establishment and expansion of nonnative of direct interactions between the 2 species are scarce, mountain goat populations have been embraced by most observations of >100 interactions between nonnative state wildlife agencies, there are some concerns that mountain goats and native bighorn sheep in Colorado nonnative mountain goats may degrade fragile native alpine suggest mountain goats are more likely to displace bighorn, and subalpine plant communities. Most notable have been but that most interactions are benign (Reed 1986). There is the studies conducted in Olympic National Park in also the potential that nonnative mountain goats may pose a Washington that demonstrated high densities of nonnative disease threat to bighorn sheep because many species of mountain goats impacted soils, created dust wallows, and helminths are common to both species
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WPLI Resolution
    Matters from Staff Agenda Item # 17 Board of County Commissioners ‐ Staff Report Meeting Date: 11/13/2018 Presenter: Alyssa Watkins Submitting Dept: Administration Subject: Consideration of Approval of WPLI Resolution Statement / Purpose: Consideration of a resolution proclaiming conservation principles for US Forest Service Lands in Teton County as a final recommendation of the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI) process. Background / Description (Pros & Cons): In 2015, the Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA) established the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI) to develop a proposed management recommendation for the Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in Wyoming, and where possible, pursue other public land management issues and opportunities affecting Wyoming’s landscape. In 2016, Teton County elected to participate in the WPLI process and appointed a 21‐person Advisory Committee to consider the Shoal Creek and Palisades WSAs. Committee meetings were facilitated by the Ruckelshaus Institute (a division of the University of Wyoming’s Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources). Ultimately the Committee submitted a number of proposals, at varying times, to the BCC for consideration. Although none of the formal proposals submitted by the Teton County WPLI Committee were advanced by the Board of County Commissioners, the Board did formally move to recognize the common ground established in each of the Committee’s original three proposals as presented on August 20, 2018. The related motion stated that the Board chose to recognize as a resolution or as part of its WPLI recommendation, that all members of the WPLI advisory committee unanimously agree that within the Teton County public lands, protection of wildlife is a priority and that there would be no new roads, no new timber harvest except where necessary to support healthy forest initiatives, no new mineral extraction excepting gravel, no oil and gas exploration or development.
    [Show full text]
  • Educator's Guide
    Educator’s Guide the jill and lewis bernard family Hall of north american mammals inside: • Suggestions to Help You come prepared • essential questions for Student Inquiry • Strategies for teaching in the exhibition • map of the Exhibition • online resources for the Classroom • Correlations to science framework • glossary amnh.org/namammals Essential QUESTIONS Who are — and who were — the North as tundra, winters are cold, long, and dark, the growing season American Mammals? is extremely short, and precipitation is low. In contrast, the abundant precipitation and year-round warmth of tropical All mammals on Earth share a common ancestor and and subtropical forests provide optimal growing conditions represent many millions of years of evolution. Most of those that support the greatest diversity of species worldwide. in this hall arose as distinct species in the relatively recent Florida and Mexico contain some subtropical forest. In the past. Their ancestors reached North America at different boreal forest that covers a huge expanse of the continent’s times. Some entered from the north along the Bering land northern latitudes, winters are dry and severe, summers moist bridge, which was intermittently exposed by low sea levels and short, and temperatures between the two range widely. during the Pleistocene (2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago). Desert and scrublands are dry and generally warm through- These migrants included relatives of New World cats (e.g. out the year, with temperatures that may exceed 100°F and dip sabertooth, jaguar), certain rodents, musk ox, at least two by 30 degrees at night. kinds of elephants (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Teton Range Bighorn Sheep Herd Situation Assessment January 2020
    Teton Range Bighorn Sheep Herd Situation Assessment January 2020 Photo: A. Courtemanch Compiled by: Teton Range Bighorn Sheep Working Group Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2 Introduction and Overview .................................................................................................... 2 Assessment Process ................................................................................................................. 2 Key Findings: Research Summary and Expert Panel ......................................................... 3 Key Findings: Community Outreach Efforts ....................................................................... 4 Action Items .............................................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 6 Purpose of this Assessment .................................................................................................... 6 Background ............................................................................................................................... 6 ASSESSMENT APPROACH....................................................................................................... 6 PART 1: Research Summary and Expert Panel ................................................................... 6 Key Findings: Research Summary
    [Show full text]
  • Horned Animals
    Horned Animals In This Issue In this issue of Wild Wonders you will discover the differences between horns and antlers, learn about the different animals in Alaska who have horns, compare and contrast their adaptations, and discover how humans use horns to make useful and decorative items. Horns and antlers are available from local ADF&G offices or the ARLIS library for teachers to borrow. Learn more online at: alaska.gov/go/HVNC Contents Horns or Antlers! What’s the Difference? 2 Traditional Uses of Horns 3 Bison and Muskoxen 4-5 Dall’s Sheep and Mountain Goats 6-7 Test Your Knowledge 8 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 2018 Issue 8 1 Sometimes people use the terms horns and antlers in the wrong manner. They may say “moose horns” when they mean moose antlers! “What’s the difference?” they may ask. Let’s take a closer look and find out how antlers and horns are different from each other. After you read the information below, try to match the animals with the correct description. Horns Antlers • Made out of bone and covered with a • Made out of bone. keratin layer (the same material as our • Grow and fall off every year. fingernails and hair). • Are grown only by male members of the • Are permanent - they do not fall off every Cervid family (hoofed animals such as year like antlers do. deer), except for female caribou who also • Both male and female members in the grow antlers! Bovid family (cloven-hoofed animals such • Usually branched.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Mountain Goat Management Plan (2019-2024)
    Idaho Mountain Goat Management Plan 2019-2024 Prepared by IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME June 2019 Recommended Citation: Idaho Mountain Goat Management Plan 2019-2024. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA. Team Members: Paul Atwood – Regional Wildlife Biologist Nathan Borg – Regional Wildlife Biologist Clay Hickey – Regional Wildlife Manager Michelle Kemner – Regional Wildlife Biologist Hollie Miyasaki– Wildlife Staff Biologist Morgan Pfander – Regional Wildlife Biologist Jake Powell – Regional Wildlife Biologist Bret Stansberry – Regional Wildlife Biologist Leona Svancara – GIS Analyst Laura Wolf – Team Leader & Regional Wildlife Biologist Contributors: Frances Cassirer – Wildlife Research Biologist Mark Drew – Wildlife Veterinarian Jon Rachael – Wildlife Game Manager Additional copies: Additional copies can be downloaded from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game website at fishandgame.idaho.gov Front Cover Photo: ©Hollie Miyasaki, IDFG Back Cover Photo: ©Laura Wolf, IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) adheres to all applicable state and federal laws and regulations related to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, gender, disability or veteran’s status. If you feel you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility of IDFG, or if you desire further information, please write to: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise, ID 83707 or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Assistance, Mailstop: MBSP-4020, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, Telephone: (703) 358-2156. This publication will be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact IDFG for assistance. Costs associated with this publication are available from IDFG in accordance with Section 60-202, Idaho Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Antelope, Deer, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats: a Guide to the Carpals
    J. Ethnobiol. 10(2):169-181 Winter 1990 ANTELOPE, DEER, BIGHORN SHEEP AND MOUNTAIN GOATS: A GUIDE TO THE CARPALS PAMELA J. FORD Mount San Antonio College 1100 North Grand Avenue Walnut, CA 91739 ABSTRACT.-Remains of antelope, deer, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep appear in archaeological sites in the North American west. Carpal bones of these animals are generally recovered in excellent condition but are rarely identified beyond the classification 1/small-sized artiodactyl." This guide, based on the analysis of over thirty modem specimens, is intended as an aid in the identifi­ cation of these remains for archaeological and biogeographical studies. RESUMEN.-Se han encontrado restos de antilopes, ciervos, cabras de las montanas rocosas, y de carneros cimarrones en sitios arqueol6gicos del oeste de Norte America. Huesos carpianos de estos animales se recuperan, por 10 general, en excelentes condiciones pero raramente son identificados mas alIa de la clasifi­ cacion "artiodactilos pequeno." Esta glia, basada en un anaIisis de mas de treinta especlmenes modemos, tiene el proposito de servir como ayuda en la identifica­ cion de estos restos para estudios arqueologicos y biogeogrMicos. RESUME.-On peut trouver des ossements d'antilopes, de cerfs, de chevres de montagne et de mouflons des Rocheuses, dans des sites archeologiques de la . region ouest de I'Amerique du Nord. Les os carpeins de ces animaux, generale­ ment en excellente condition, sont rarement identifies au dela du classement d' ,I artiodactyles de petite taille." Le but de ce guide base sur 30 specimens recents est d'aider aidentifier ces ossements pour des etudes archeologiques et biogeo­ graphiques.
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats
    Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats Brock Hoenes Ungulate Section Manager, Wildlife Program WACs: 220-412-070 Big game and wild turkey auction, raffle, and special incentive permits. 220-412-080 Special hunting season permits. 220-415-070 Moose seasons, permit quotas, and areas. 220-415-120 2021 Bighorn sheep seasons and permit quotas. 220-415-130 2021 Mountain goat seasons and permit quotas. 1. Special Hunting Season Permits 2. Moose – Status, recommendations, public comment 3. Mountain Goat – Status, recommendations, public comment 4. Bighorn Sheep – Status, recommendations, public comment 5. Questions Content Department of Fish and Wildlife SPECIAL HUNTING SEASON PERMITS White‐Tailed DeerWAC 220-412-080 • Allow successful applicants for all big game special permits to return their permit to the Department for any Agree 77% reason two weeks prior to the Neutral 9% opening day of the season and to have their points restored Disagree 14% 1,553 Respondents • Remove the “once‐in‐a‐lifetime” Public Comment restriction for Mountain Goat Conflict • 223 comments, 1 email/letter Reduction special permit category • General (90 agree, 26 disagree) • Reissue permit (67) • >2 weeks (21) • No change (12) Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE • Primarily occur in White‐Tailed DeerNE and north-central Washington • Most recent estimate in 2016 indicated ~5,000 moose in NE • Annual surveys to estimate age and sex ratios (snow dependent) • Recent studies (2014-2018) in GMUs 117 and 124 indicated populations were declining • Poor body condition (adult female) • Poor calf survival • Wolf predation • Tick infestations • Substantial reduction in antlerless permits in 2018 Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 1967, Al and Frances Randall and Ramona Hammerly
    The Mountaineer I L � I The Mountaineer 1968 Cover photo: Mt. Baker from Table Mt. Bob and Ira Spring Entered as second-class matter, April 8, 1922, at Post Office, Seattle, Wash., under the Act of March 3, 1879. Published monthly and semi-monthly during March and April by The Mountaineers, P.O. Box 122, Seattle, Washington, 98111. Clubroom is at 719Y2 Pike Street, Seattle. Subscription price monthly Bulletin and Annual, $5.00 per year. The Mountaineers To explore and study the mountains, forests, and watercourses of the Northwest; To gather into permanent form the history and traditions of this region; To preserve by the encouragement of protective legislation or otherwise the natural beauty of North­ west America; To make expeditions into these regions m fulfill­ ment of the above purposes; To encourage a spirit of good fellowship among all lovers of outdoor life. EDITORIAL STAFF Betty Manning, Editor, Geraldine Chybinski, Margaret Fickeisen, Kay Oelhizer, Alice Thorn Material and photographs should be submitted to The Mountaineers, P.O. Box 122, Seattle, Washington 98111, before November 1, 1968, for consideration. Photographs must be 5x7 glossy prints, bearing caption and photographer's name on back. The Mountaineer Climbing Code A climbing party of three is the minimum, unless adequate support is available who have knowledge that the climb is in progress. On crevassed glaciers, two rope teams are recommended. Carry at all times the clothing, food and equipment necessary. Rope up on all exposed places and for all glacier travel. Keep the party together, and obey the leader or majority rule. Never climb beyond your ability and knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • The George Wright Forum
    The George Wright Forum The GWS Journal of Parks, Protected Areas & Cultural Sites volume 27 number 1 • 2010 Origins Founded in 1980, the George Wright Society is organized for the pur­ poses of promoting the application of knowledge, fostering communica­ tion, improving resource management, and providing information to improve public understanding and appreciation of the basic purposes of natural and cultural parks and equivalent reserves. The Society is dedicat­ ed to the protection, preservation, and management of cultural and natural parks and reserves through research and education. Mission The George Wright Society advances the scientific and heritage values of parks and protected areas. The Society promotes professional research and resource stewardship across natural and cultural disciplines, provides avenues of communication, and encourages public policies that embrace these values. Our Goal The Society strives to he the premier organization connecting people, places, knowledge, and ideas to foster excellence in natural and cultural resource management, research, protection, and interpretation in parks and equivalent reserves. Board of Directors ROLF DIA.MANT, President • Woodstock, Vermont STEPHANIE T(K)"1'1IMAN, Vice President • Seattle, Washington DAVID GKXW.R, Secretary * Three Rivers, California JOHN WAITHAKA, Treasurer * Ottawa, Ontario BRAD BARR • Woods Hole, Massachusetts MELIA LANE-KAMAHELE • Honolulu, Hawaii SUZANNE LEWIS • Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming BRENT A. MITCHELL • Ipswich, Massachusetts FRANK J. PRIZNAR • Gaithershnrg, Maryland JAN W. VAN WAGTENDONK • El Portal, California ROBERT A. WINFREE • Anchorage, Alaska Graduate Student Representative to the Board REBECCA E. STANFIELD MCCOWN • Burlington, Vermont Executive Office DAVID HARMON,Executive Director EMILY DEKKER-FIALA, Conference Coordinator P. O. Box 65 • Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA 1-906-487-9722 • infoldgeorgewright.org • www.georgewright.org Tfie George Wright Forum REBECCA CONARD & DAVID HARMON, Editors © 2010 The George Wright Society, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest
    Sensitive and Rare Plant Species Inventory in the Salt River and Wyoming Ranges, Bridger-Teton National Forest Prepared for Bridger-Teton National Forest P.O. Box 1888 Jackson, WY 83001 by Bonnie Heidel Wyoming Natural Diversity Database University of Wyoming Dept 3381, 1000 E. University Avenue University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 21 February 2012 Cooperative Agreement No. 07-CS-11040300-019 ABSTRACT Three sensitive and two other Wyoming species of concern were inventoried in the Wyoming and Salt River Ranges at over 20 locations. The results provided a significant set of trend data for Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii), expanded the known distribution of Robbin’s milkvetch (Astragalus robbinsii var. minor), and relocated and expanded the local distributions of three calciphilic species at select sites as a springboard for expanded surveys. Results to date are presented with the rest of species’ information for sensitive species program reference. This report is submitted as an interim report representing the format of a final report. Tentative priorities for 2012 work include new Payson’s milkvetch surveys in major recent wildfires, and expanded Rockcress draba (Draba globosa) surveys, both intended to fill key gaps in status information that contribute to maintenance of sensitive plant resources and information on the Forest. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All 2011 field surveys of Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii) were conducted by Klara Varga. These and the rest of 2011 surveys built on the 2010 work of Hollis Marriott and the earlier work of she and Walter Fertig as lead botanists of Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. This project was initially coordinated by Faith Ryan (Bridger-Teton National Forest), with the current coordination and consultation of Gary Hanvey and Tyler Johnson.
    [Show full text]
  • 67Th Legislature HB 318.2
    67th Legislature HB 318.2 1 HOUSE BILL NO. 318 2 INTRODUCED BY K. HOLMLUND, D. SALOMON, D. BARTEL, D. BEDEY, J. DOOLING, K. WHITMAN 3 4 A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT REVISING WILD BUFFALO AND WILD BISON LAWS; 5 CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF "WILD BUFFALO" OR "WILD BISON"; CLARIFYING THAT THE PER 6 CAPITA FEE DOES NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN DOMESTIC BISON; AMENDING SECTIONS 15-24-921, 81-1- 7 101, 87-2-101, AND 87-6-101, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.” 8 9 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA: 10 11 Section 1. Section 15-24-921, MCA, is amended to read: 12 "15-24-921. Per capita fee to pay expenses of enforcing livestock laws. (1) (a) A per capita fee is 13 authorized and directed to be imposed by the department on all poultry and honey bees, all swine 3 months of 14 age or older, and all other livestock 9 months of age or older in each county of this state. The fee is in addition 15 to appropriations and is to help pay the salaries and all expenses connected with the enforcement of the 16 livestock laws of the state and bounties on wild animals as provided in 81-7-104. 17 (b) A per capita fee may not be imposed on bison owned by a tribal member OR TRIBE and located on 18 fee land or tribal land within the boundaries of a reservation. 19 (2) The per capita fee is due on May 31 of each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Region One Mountain Goat Report 2016 Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
    Region One Mountain Goat Report 2016 Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Since this is a progress report only, results herein are not necessarily final and may be subject to change. The information in this report may not be published or used for other purposes without permission of MFWP. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Region One Headquarters 490 Meridian Road Prepared by Jessy Coltrane, PhD Kalispell, Montana 59901 Kalispell Area Wildlife Biologist INTRODUCTION Mountain goats (Oreamos americanus) historically occupied most available montane cliff habitat throughout northwest Montana (Fish Wildlife & Parks, Administrative Region 1); however, since the 1950s, native mountain goat numbers have experienced a dramatic decline. Thus, once occupied habitat is now devoid of goats, and current mountain goat range is significantly reduced from its historic expanse. In the 1940s and 1950s, mountain goats were considered an abundant and not easily depleted resource in northwest Montana. Population estimates for mountain goats in the region described 350 mountain goats in the Swan Mountains, 20 in the North Fork of the Flathead, 315 in the Clark’s Fork, 900 in Glacier Park, 100 near Coram, 450 from Spotted Bear to Schaffer Meadows, and 250 in Big Prairie (Montana Department of Fish and Game 1958). Native herds in the South Fork of the Flathead River and the Swan Mountains were used as source populations to establish new goat herds in mountain ranges throughout Montana and Colorado. From 1948 to 1953, 66 goats were transplanted from the South Fork of the Flathead River and 13 from Van Lookout in the Swan Range (Picton and Lonner 2008). In addition to capture removals, wildlife managers allowed for unlimited harvest of mountain goats.
    [Show full text]