DOCSLIB.ORG

Feasibility and Strategies for Translocating San Joaquin Kit Foxes to Vacant Or Restored Habitats

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feasibility and Strategies for Translocating San Joaquin Kit Foxes to Vacant Or Restored Habitats FEASIBILITY AND STRATEGIES FOR TRANSLOCATING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES TO VACANT OR RESTORED HABITATS PREPARED FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CONSERVATION PROGRAM U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Prepared by: Samantha Bremner-Harrison and Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program 1900 N. Gateway #101 Fresno, CA 93727 November 2007 FEASIBILITY AND STRATEGIES FOR REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES TO VACANT OR RESTORED HABITATS Samantha Bremner-Harrison and Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................i 1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 2. Literature review of animal reintroductions and translocations ............................. 2 2.1. Introduction and definitions ............................................................................................. 2 2.2. Common issues associated with reintroduction programs............................................. 3 2.2.1. Expense....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2. Available habitat ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.3. Available source animals ............................................................................................................ 4 2.2.4. Organizational problems ............................................................................................................. 4 2.2.5. Impact on local people ................................................................................................................ 5 2.2.6. Lack of Documentation............................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Conservation genetics ........................................................................................................ 7 2.4. Appropriate behavior skills............................................................................................... 9 2.5. Specific considerations essential for relocation planning ............................................. 10 2.5.1. General Translocation Criteria.................................................................................................. 10 2.5.2. Site selection criteria................................................................................................................. 11 2.5.3. Source populations and release animals.................................................................................... 12 2.5.4. Organization and permitting ..................................................................................................... 12 2.5.5. Financial aspects ....................................................................................................................... 12 2.5.6. Release strategies...................................................................................................................... 13 2.5.7. Monitoring Strategies................................................................................................................ 13 2.5.8. Success criteria.......................................................................................................................... 14 2.5.9. Factors influencing success....................................................................................................... 14 2.6. Case studies of previous carnivore reintroduction programs...................................... 15 2.6.1. Black-footed Ferret ................................................................................................................... 15 2.6.2. Mexican wolf ............................................................................................................................ 16 2.6.3. Red wolf.................................................................................................................................... 19 2.6.4. Canada Lynx ............................................................................................................................. 20 2.6.5. Channel Island Fox ................................................................................................................... 21 2.6.6. Swift fox ................................................................................................................................... 27 2.6.7. San Joaquin kit fox.................................................................................................................... 33 3. Technical considerations for kit fox Translocations................................................ 37 3.1. Site selection ..................................................................................................................... 37 3.1.1. Potential sites ............................................................................................................................ 41 3.2. Potential source animals.................................................................................................. 45 3.3. Strategies and Techniques............................................................................................... 46 i 3.3.1. Capture, transportation, and care methods................................................................................46 3.3.2. Release methods........................................................................................................................ 51 3.4. Post-Release monitoring.................................................................................................. 55 3.5. Success criteria ................................................................................................................. 56 3.5.1. Population structure: ................................................................................................................. 57 3.6. Regulatory requirements................................................................................................. 57 3.6.1. Endangered Species Act............................................................................................................ 58 3.6.2. California Endangered Species Act........................................................................................... 58 3.6.3. California Department of Fish and Game Authorizations......................................................... 58 3.6.4. National Environmental Policy Act .......................................................................................... 58 3.6.5. California Environmental Quality Act ...................................................................................... 58 3.6.6. Landowner permissions ............................................................................................................ 58 3.7. Potential funding sources ................................................................................................ 59 3.7.1. Central Valley Project Conservation Program.......................................................................... 59 3.7.2. Bureau of Reclamation South Central California Area Office.................................................. 59 3.7.3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.................................................................................................. 59 3.7.4. California Department of Fish and Game ................................................................................. 59 3.7.5. U.S. Bureau of Land Management............................................................................................ 60 3.7.6. Conservation organizations....................................................................................................... 60 3.7.7. Foundations............................................................................................................................... 60 3.7.8. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation..................................................................................... 60 3.8. Technical group................................................................................................................ 60 4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS......................................................................... 61 4.1. Investigate suitable source populations and individuals .............................................. 61 4.2. Identify and evaluate potential reintroduction sites ..................................................... 61 4.2.1. Phase I....................................................................................................................................... 61 4.2.2. Phase II ..................................................................................................................................... 61 4.3. Assess agency support for a relocation effort................................................................ 62 4.4. Secure funding and cooperators for a relocation effort................................................ 62 4.5. Conduct a relocation effort ............................................................................................. 62 5. LITERATURE CITED.....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pygmy Hog – 1 Southern Ningaul – 16 Kowari – 9 Finlayson's Squirrel
    Pygmy Hog – 1 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Southern Ningaul – 16 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Kowari – 9 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Finlayson’s Squirrel – 8 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Kodkod – 5 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Least Chipmunk – 12 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Tree Hyrax – 4 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Bank Vole – 13 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Island Fox – 6 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Gray-bellied Caenolestid – 11 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Raccoon Dog – 3 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Northern Short-Tailed Shrew – 14 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Southern African Hedgehog - 7 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Collard Pika - 10 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Pudu – 2 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Seba’s Short-tailed Bat – 15 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Pygmy Spotted Skunk - 16 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Grandidier’s “Mongoose” - 16 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Sloth Bear - 1 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Spotted Linsing - 9 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Red Panda - 8 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size European Badger – 5 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Giant Forest Genet – 12 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size African Civet – 4 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Kinkajou – 13 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Fossa – 6 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense:
    [Show full text]
  • Dental and Temporomandibular Joint Pathology of the Kit Fox (Vulpes Macrotis)
    Author's Personal Copy J. Comp. Path. 2019, Vol. 167, 60e72 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/jcpa DISEASE IN WILDLIFE OR EXOTIC SPECIES Dental and Temporomandibular Joint Pathology of the Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis) N. Yanagisawa*, R. E. Wilson*, P. H. Kass† and F. J. M. Verstraete* *Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences and † Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, USA Summary Skull specimens from 836 kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) were examined macroscopically according to predefined criteria; 559 specimens were included in this study. The study group consisted of 248 (44.4%) females, 267 (47.8%) males and 44 (7.9%) specimens of unknown sex; 128 (22.9%) skulls were from young adults and 431 (77.1%) were from adults. Of the 23,478 possible teeth, 21,883 teeth (93.2%) were present for examina- tion, 45 (1.9%) were absent congenitally, 405 (1.7%) were acquired losses and 1,145 (4.9%) were missing ar- tefactually. No persistent deciduous teeth were observed. Eight (0.04%) supernumerary teeth were found in seven (1.3%) specimens and 13 (0.06%) teeth from 12 (2.1%) specimens were malformed. Root number vari- ation was present in 20.3% (403/1,984) of the present maxillary and mandibular first premolar teeth. Eleven (2.0%) foxes had lesions consistent with enamel hypoplasia and 77 (13.8%) had fenestrations in the maxillary alveolar bone. Periodontitis and attrition/abrasion affected the majority of foxes (71.6% and 90.5%, respec- tively).
    [Show full text]
  • Double Allee Effects and Extinction in the Island Fox
    Double Allee Effects and Extinction in the Island Fox ELENA ANGULO,∗†† GARY W. ROEMER,† LUDEKˇ BEREC,‡ JOANNA GASCOIGNE,§ AND FRANCK COURCHAMP∗ ∗Ecologie, Syst´ematique et Evolution, UMR CNRS 8079, University of Paris-Sud, Orsay Cedex 91405, France †Department of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30003, MSC 4901, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003, U.S.A. ‡Department of Theoretical Ecology, Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre ASCR, Braniˇsovsk´a 31, 37005 Cesk´ˇ e Budˇejovice, Czech Republic §School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5AB, United Kingdom Abstract: An Allee effect (AE) occurs in populations when individuals suffer a decrease in fitness at low densities. If a fitness component is reduced (component AE), per capita population growth rates may decline as a consequence (demographic AE) and extinction risk is increased. The island fox (Urocyon littoralis)is endemic to six of the eight California Channel Islands. Population crashes have coincided with an increase in predation by Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). We propose that AEs could render fox populations more sensitive and may be a likely explanation for their sharp decline. We analyzed demographic data collected between 1988 and 2000 to test whether fox density (1) influences survival and reproductive rates; (2) interacts with eagle presence and affects fox fitness parameters; and (3) influences per capita fox population trends. A double component AE simultaneously influenced survival (of adults and pups) and proportion of breeding adult females. The adult survival AE was driven by predation by eagles. These component AEs led to a demographic AE.
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat Use in Urban Bakersfield
    SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX HOME RANGE, HABITAT USE, AND MOVEMENTS IN URBAN BAKERSFIELD by Nancy Frost A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In Natural Resources: Wildlife December 2005 ABSTRACT San Joaquin kit fox home range, habitat use, and movements in urban Bakersfield Nancy Frost Habitat destruction and fragmentation has led to the decline of the federally endangered and state threatened San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Kit foxes in the San Joaquin Valley occur in and adjacent to several urban areas. The urban kit fox population in Bakersfield has the potential to contribute to recovery efforts, however, little is known about habitat use in the urban environment. Habitat use in the urban landscape was examined in 28 radiocollared adult kit foxes between 1 May 1997 and 15 January 1998. The area of the urban environment needed to meet kit foxes’ ecological requirements varied among the sexes and fluctuated throughout the year. Mean home range size was 1.72 km2 (100% minimum convex polygon estimate) and mean concentrated use area (core area; 50% fixed kernel estimate) size was 0.16 km2. Females had a greater median number of core areas than did males, but core area size did not differ between the sexes. Mean home range size was significantly larger during the dispersal season than during the pair formation and breeding seasons. Home range size was greater for males than females during the breeding season. To assess the extent to which kit foxes were concentrated around limited resources, the percentage of overlap between adjacent kit foxes’ home ranges and core areas was determined.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon Littoralis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) Island fox. Daniel Richards, used with permission. Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) (May 2012) Region 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, Region 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect federally listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than our own. They represent our official position only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Notice of Copyrighted Material Permission to use copyrighted illustrations and images in the draft version of this recovery plan has been granted by the copyright holders. These illustrations are not placed in the public domain by their appearance herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Island Fox Subspecies
    PETITION TO LIST FOUR ISLAND FOX SUBSPECIES San Miguel Island fox (U. l. littoralis) Santa Rosa Island fox (U. l. santarosae) Santa Cruz Island fox (U. l. santacruzae) Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l. catalinae) AS ENDANGERED SPECIES Center for Biological Diversity Institute for Wildlife Studies June 1, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notice of Petition ..............................................................1 Executive Summary ...........................................................2 Systematics Species Description ...........................................................4 Taxonomy ..................................................................4 Distribution and Evolution .......................................................4 Significance .................................................................6 Natural History Habitat Use and Home Range ....................................................6 Food Habits .................................................................6 Social Organization ............................................................7 Reproduction ................................................................7 Survival and Mortality ..........................................................8 Competition With Other Species ..................................................9 Population Status and Trend San Miguel Island (U. l. littoralis) .................................................9 Santa Rosa Island (U. l. santarosae) .............................................10 Santa Cruz Island (U. l. santacruzae)
    [Show full text]
  • Reintroducing San Joaquin Kit Fox to Vacant Or Restored Lands: Identifying Optimal Source Populations and Candidate Foxes
    REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX TO VACANT OR RESTORED LANDS: IDENTIFYING OPTIMAL SOURCE POPULATIONS AND CANDIDATE FOXES PREPARED FOR THE U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CONSERVATION PROGRAM 2800 COTTAGE WAY, SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Prepared by: Samantha Bremner-Harrison1 & Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program P.O. Box 9622 Bakersfield, CA 93389 1Current address: School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences Nottingham Trent University, Brackenhurst Campus Southwell NG25 0QF 2011 Kit fox relocation report_ESRP.doc REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX TO VACANT OR RESTORED LANDS: IDENTIFYING OPTIMAL SOURCE POPULATIONS AND CANDIDATE FOXES TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 Behavioral variation and suitability ........................................................................................................... 6 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 9 Study sites .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aza Board & Staff
    The Perfect Package. Quality, Value and Convenience! Order online! Discover what tens of thousands of customers — including commercial reptile breeding facilities, veterinarians, and some of our country’s most respected zoos www.RodentPro.com and aquariums — have already learned: with Rodentpro.com®, you get quality It’s quick, convenient AND value! Guaranteed. and guaranteed! RodentPro.com® offers only the highest quality frozen mice, rats, rabbits, P. O . Box 118 guinea pigs, chickens and quail at prices that are MORE than competitive. Inglefield, IN 47618-9998 We set the industry standards by offering unsurpassed quality, breeder Tel: 812.867.7598 direct pricing and year-round availability. Fax: 812.867.6058 ® With RodentPro.com , you’ll know you’re getting exactly what you order: E-mail: [email protected] clean nutritious feeders with exact sizing and superior quality. And with our exclusive shipping methods, your order arrives frozen, not thawed. We guarantee it. ©2013 Rodentpro.com,llc. PRESORTED STANDARD U.S. POSTAGE American Association of PAID Zoological Parks And Aquariums Rockville, Maryland PERMIT #4297 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 710 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (301) 562-0777 www.aza.org FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED MOVING? SEND OLD LABEL AND NEW ADDRESS DATED MATERIAL MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE 10TH CONNECT This Is Your Last Issue… Renew your AZA membership TODAY (see back panel for details) Connect with these valuable resources for Benefits Professional Associate, Professional Affiliate Available and Professional Fellow
    [Show full text]
  • San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes Macrotus Mutica)
    Mammals San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotus mutica) San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotus mutica) Status State: Threatened Federal: Endangered Population Trend Global: Declining State: Declining Within Inventory Area: Unknown Data Characterization The location database for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotus mutica) within its known range in California includes 22 data records from 1975 to 1999. Of these records, none of the 7 documented within the past 10 years were of sufficient precision to be accurately located within the survey areas. Three of these 7 records are located within the ECCC HCP/NCCP inventory area. These records represent sighting within non-native grassland, grazed, and agricultural habitat. This database includes records of individual sightings and locations of occupied, vacant, and natal dens. A moderate amount of literature is available for the San Joaquin kit fox because of its endangered status. Long-term studies have been conducted on the ecology and population dynamics of this species in core population centers at the Elk Hills and Buena Vista Naval Petroleum Reserves in Kern County and on the Carrizo Plain Natural Area in San Luis Obispo County. Numerous surveys have been conducted in the northern portion of the range, including Contra Costa County. Quantitative data are available on population size, reproductive capacity, mortality, dispersal, home-range movement patterns, and habitat characteristics and requirements. A number of models have been developed to describe the species’ population dynamics. A recovery plan for the San Joaquin kit fox has been published. Range The San Joaquin kit fox is found only in the Central Valley area of California.
    [Show full text]
  • World Wildlife Fund Swift Fox Report
    SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION TEAM Swift Fox in Valley County, Montana. Photo courtesy of Ryan Rauscher REPORT FOR 2009-2010 SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION TEAM: REPORT FOR 2009-2010 COMPILED AND EDITED BY: Kristy Bly World Wildlife Fund May 2011 Preferred Citation: Bly, K., editor. 2011. Swift Fox Conservation Team: Report for 2009-2010. World Wildlife Fund, Bozeman, Montana and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Swift Fox Conservation Team Members ............................................................................................. 6 Swift Fox Conservation Team Participating Cooperators .................................................................... 7 Swift Fox Conservation Team Interested Parties ................................................................................. 8 STATE AGENCIES Colorado Status of Swift Fox Activities in Colorado, 2009-2010 Jerry Apker ............................................................................................................................. 10 Kansas Swift Fox Investigations in Kansas, 2009-2010 Matt Peek ................................................................................................................................ 11 Montana Montana 2009 and 2010 Swift Fox Report Brian Giddings ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Predator
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREDATOR DAMAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE UVALDE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Prepared by: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES in cooperation with: TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE EXTENSION SERVICE OF THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM November 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................................. iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 NEED FOR ACTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 19 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS EA TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS .................................. 22 1.5 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................................... 22 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................................... 24 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 2: ISSUES AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying the Foxes of North America
    Identifying the Foxes of North America fox coyote Species: gray fox island fox red fox kit fox swift fox arctic fox coyote EARS Rounded, no black Rounded, no black Pointy with black Relatively large Smaller rounded Small rounded ears Pointy, leaning tips tips tips ears ears outward MUZZLE Pointy, but shorter Short on a dainty Long and pointy Narrow Narrow Relatively short Long, slender and than red fox face pointy FUR (PELAGE) Cinnamon-rufous Cinnamon-rufous Reddish brown Grizzled to tawny Pale yellowish-red Winter phase - Grayish cinnamon, with white on the with white on the with white chest gray with buff and gray, with pure white; “blue” brown or a face, throat, belly face, throat, belly and upper lip highlights on neck, wide gray stripe phase in spring/ combination and hind legs and hind legs. Can (color can range sides and legs down back summer - dark to be somewhat from pale to black) dull slate gray darker overall TAIL Black tip Black tip White tip (always) Black tip Black tip Entirely one color Coloration varies SIZE 7–13 pounds 3–6 pounds 7–18 pounds 4–7 pounds 4–6 pounds 6–15 pounds 25–45 pounds Identifying Black stripe down Black stripe down Black tips on ears Tail is long and Only small fox on Changes coloring Dog like in Characteristics tail, generally back and tail, and black feet bushy; dens under- no. Great Plains; seasonally; only appearance and stocky with short diminutive size ground year-round dens underground fox found in high stance legs year-round arctic tundra HABITAT Southern Canada Found in the wild Across North Arid regions of CA Formerly the Great Arctic tundra from North America, to Central America; ONLY on six America; in every and US Southwest, Plains, reduced to Alaska across south of the tundra absent from Channel Islands of state, but absent into Mexico and western NB, KS, northern Canada to Central America northern Rockies So.
    [Show full text]