DOCSLIB.ORG

Great White Shark (Carcharodon Carcharias) UNDER the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Great White Shark (Carcharodon Carcharias) UNDER the U.S PETITION TO LIST THE NORTHEASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT OF Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Photo: Terry Goss Petition Submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service Petitioner: WildEarth Guardians 1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 301 Denver, Colorado 80202 303.573.4898 June 20, 2012 INTRODUCTION WildEarth Guardians (“Guardians”) requests that the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),1 an agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), list the northeastern Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Great White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544). WildEarth Guardians also requests that NMFS designate critical habitat for the species in U. S. waters. Despite its reputation, the Great White Shark needs our protection more than our fear. Over 100 million sharks, of all species, are killed annually by humans. In contrast, sharks of any type only claim approximately 10 human lives per year (NOAA 2012 at 2). A human is 15 times more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than by a shark (Id.). The Great White Shark’s imperilment is part of a concerning pattern of shark endangerment globally (for example see Baum et al. 2003; Dulvy et al. 2008). Sharks are both intentionally targeted by fisheries and are killed when caught as bycatch. Sometimes they are simply “finned” – a cruel technique wherein a shark’s fin is cut off but the living shark is discarded to die a lingering death from drowning or starvation at the bottom of the ocean. Whether finned or otherwise killed, the Great White Shark is very vulnerable to fishing and bycatch, given its low reproductive rate and the depletion of its populations in the northeastern Pacific and elsewhere. In light of the Great White Shark’s imperilment, Guardians requests listing of the northeastern Pacific DPS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NOAA has acknowledged the importance of preserving dwindling populations of Great White Sharks (NOAA 2012 at 2) and recognizes that shark biology “makes them highly susceptible to the threats of fishing and other human activities” (Id.), citing statistics on shark and skate imperilment from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which lists the global population of Great White Shark as “vulnerable” (IUCN 2009 at 1). WildEarth Guardians requests that NOAA do its part to protect the global population by listing the petitioned DPS as “endangered.” PETITIONER WildEarth Guardians is a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization that works to protect endangered species and biodiversity, in part, by attempting to obtain Endangered Species Act listing for all deserving species. The organization has more than 4,500 members and 10,000 supporters located throughout the United States and in several foreign countries. WildEarth Guardians has an active endangered species program that works to protect imperiled marine and terrestrial species and their habitat throughout the United States and beyond. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects plants and animals that are listed by the federal government as “endangered” or “threatened” (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). Any interested person may submit a written petition to the Secretary of Commerce requesting him or her to list a 1 NOAA Fisheries. Petition to List the Northeastern Pacific Ocean DPS of Great White Shark under the ESA 2 species as “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA (50 C.F.R. § 424.14(a)). An “endangered species” is “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C. § 1532(6)). A “threatened species” is defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16 U.S.C § 1532(20)). “Species” includes subspecies and distinct population segments of vertebrate taxa (16 U.S.C § 1532(16)). The ESA sets forth listing factors under which a species can qualify for protection (16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1)): A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; C. Disease or predation; D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. A taxon need only meet one of the listing criteria outlined in the ESA to qualify for federal listing. If the Secretary determines that a species warrants a listing as “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA, and the species lives within the United States or its waters, he or she is obligated to designate critical habitat for that species based on the best scientific data available (16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2)). The National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service2 have jointly published a policy document defining the statutory term “distinct population segment” (61 Fed. Reg. 4722). This joint policy employs a three-part analysis to determine the status of a possible distinct population segment as endangered or threatened under the ESA: (1) the “discreteness” of the population segment; (2) the “significance” of the population segment; and (3) its conservation status (61 Fed. Reg. at 4725). The joint policy provides that in a decision to list a distinct population segment under the ESA the responsible agency will evaluate: (1) the discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment’s conservation status in relation to the ESA’s standards for listing (i.e. does the population segment, when treated as if it were a species, meet the ESA’s definition of endangered or threatened?) (Id.). 2 The ESA delegates listing decisions to two cabinet-level Secretaries, Interior and Commerce (16 U.S.C. § 1532(15)). The Secretary of Interior has sub-delegated authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Secretary of Commerce has sub-delegated authority to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In general, the Secretary of Interior has responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater species and the Secretary of Commerce has responsibility for marine and anadromous species. Petition to List the Northeastern Pacific Ocean DPS of Great White Shark under the ESA 3 As to discreteness, the joint policy provides a population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: 1. It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or 2. It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)3 of the Act. As to significance, the joint policy provides that if a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance will then be considered in light of Congressional guidance (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) that the authority to list distinct population segments be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In carrying out this examination, the agencies will consider the available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment’s importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; 2. Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; 3. Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or 4. Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. (61 Fed. Reg. at 4725) Although these guidelines are not regulations and serve only as policy guidance for the agencies (Id. at 4723), they have been upheld as a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language (Maine v. Norton, 257 F. Supp. 2d 357 (D. Maine 2003)). Accordingly, if the responsible agency determines a potential distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or wildlife is both discrete and significant, it will then evaluate the population segments’ conservation status under the ESA as though the distinct population segment were in fact a species and it is eligible for listing. CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE Common Name. Carcharodon carcharias is commonly known as the “great white shark,” “white pointer,” or “white shark” (CCSA undated at 1). This petition refers to the species as Great White Shark or White Shark. 3 Section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act, 16 U.S.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Usefulness of Taped Spotless Crake Calls As a Census Technique
    682 THE WILSON BULLETIN l Vol. 100, No. 4, December1988 motory systems suggeststhat subtle differences among species ’ center of gravity may explain the adaptive significance of interspecific differences in head-scratching method. Acknowledgments.-We thank C. Blem and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. LITERATURE CITED AMEIUCAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th ed. A.O.U., Washington, D.C. BURTT, E. H., JR. 1977. Some factors in the timing of parent-chick recognition in swallows. Anim. Behav. 25:231-239. -. 1980. Overwing and underwing head-scratching by a male Black and White War- bler Mniotilta varia. Ibis 122:54 1. -. 1983. Head-scratching method of Galapagos finches unaffected by variation in cranial morphology. Wilson Bull. 95: 158-160. -AND J. P. HAILMAN. 1978. Head-scratching among North American Wood-Warblers (Parulidae). Ibis 120:153-170. DUNHAM, D. W. 1963. Head-scratching in the Hairy Woodpecker, Dendrocoposvillosus. Auk 80~375. HEINROTH, 0. 19 17. Reflektorische Bewegungsweisen (Kratzen, Schutteln, Baden u.s.w.) im Lichte der stammesverwandschaft. J. Omithol. 66:ll l-l 14. -. 1930. Uber bestimmte Bewegungsweisen von Wirbeltierren. Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf Freunde Berlin:333-342. LORENZ, K. Z. 1950. The comparative method in studying innate behaviour patterns. Symp. Sot. Exp. Biol. 4:221-268. MAYFIELD, H. 1960. The Kirtlands’ Warbler. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. MEYER DE SCHAUENSEE,R. 1970. A guide to the birds of South America. Livingston Publishing Co., Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. SIMMONS, K. E. L. 1961. Problems of head-scratching in birds. Ibis 103:37-49.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Restoration Handbook Chapter 11 Pests
    CHAPTER 11 PESTS CORINNE WATTS AND MONICA PETERS CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 RESTORING YOUR WETLAND 1.1 Developing a Wetland Restoration Plan 1.1.1 Mapping 1.2 Determining wetland type 1.3 Understanding the site 1.4 Setting realistic goals and objectives 1.4.1 Keeping it legal 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WETLAND PESTS 2.1 Control or eradication? 3 PEST ANIMALS 3.1 Selecting appropriate control methods 3.1.1 Poisoning, trapping or shooting? 3.1.2 Repellents 4 PEST FISH 4.1 Control 4.2 Eradication 5 MONITORING 5.1 5-minute bird counts 5.2 Wax tags 5.3 Tracking tunnels 5.4 Foliar browse 5.5 Fish trapping 6 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING 6.1 Useful websites SECTION TWO: ACTION ON THE GROUND CHAPTER 11 PESTS 185 PESTS WETLAND RESTORATION: A HANDBOOK FOR NZ FRESHWATER SYSTEMS PESTS CORINNE WATTS AND MONICA PETERS Since the human colonization of New Zealand all eat invertebrates, birds’ eggs, chicks and even began, many new animals have arrived. Some adult birds. Introduced browsing animals, e.g., species have been intentionally introduced – the possums, goats, rabbits, hares and cattle eat Australian brushtail possum for the fur trade, and native vegetation and will target recent plantings stoats to kill previously introduced rabbits that of nursery-grown plants as they provide rich had begun to reach plague proportions. Others sources of nutrients. In addition, rats will devour have arrived unintentionally, often as stowaways seeds that are so important for seedbanks. To a on boats. Irrespective of the method of arrival, the lesser extent, dogs may harass wetland birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Population Structure of the Pacific Angel Shark (Squatina Californica) Along the Northwestern Coast of Mexico Based on T
    Ciencias Marinas ISSN: 0185-3880 [email protected] Universidad Autónoma de Baja California México Ramírez-Amaro, Sergio; Ramírez-Macías, Dení; Vázquez-Juárez, Ricardo; Flores- Ramírez, Sergio; Galván-Magaña, Felipe; Gutiérrez-Rivera, Jesús N. Population structure of the Pacific angel shark (Squatina californica) along the northwestern coast of Mexico based on the mitochondrial DNA control region Ciencias Marinas, vol. 43, núm. 1, 2017, pp. 69-80 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Ensenada, México Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=48050568004 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Ciencias Marinas (2017), 43(1): 69–80 http://dx.doi.org/10.7773/cm.v43i1.2692 Population structure of the Pacific angel shark (Squatina californica) along the northwestern coast of Mexico based on the mitochondrial DNA control region Estructura poblacional del tiburón ángel del Pacífico (Squatina californica) a lo largo de la costa noroccidental de México con base en la regíon control del ADN mitocondrial Sergio Ramírez-Amaro1, Dení Ramírez-Macías2, Ricardo Vázquez-Juárez3*, Sergio Flores-Ramírez4, Felipe Galván-Magaña5, Jesús N Gutiérrez-Rivera3 1 Universitat de les Illes Balears, Laboratori de Genètica, Carretera de Valldemossa km 7.5, 07122, Palma de Mallorca, Spain. 2 Tiburón Ballena México de ConCIENCIA México, Manatí 4, no. 802, colonia Esperanza III, CP 23090, La Paz, Baja California Sur, México. 3 Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, Mar Bermejo 195, colonia Playa Palo de Santa Rita Sur, CP 23096, La Paz, Baja California Sur, México.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention
    Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention: the role of the Convention on Wetlands in the Conservation and Wise Use of Biodiversity edited by A. J. Hails Ramsar Convention Bureau Ministry of Environment and Forest, India 1996 [1997] Published by the Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland, with the support of: • the General Directorate of Natural Resources and Environment, Ministry of the Walloon Region, Belgium • the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark • the National Forest and Nature Agency, Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Denmark • the Ministry of Environment and Forests, India • the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden Copyright © Ramsar Convention Bureau, 1997. Reproduction of this publication for educational and other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior perinission from the copyright holder, providing that full acknowledgement is given. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The views of the authors expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect those of the Ramsar Convention Bureau or of the Ministry of the Environment of India. Note: the designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Ranasar Convention Bureau concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Citation: Halls, A.J. (ed.), 1997. Wetlands, Biodiversity and the Ramsar Convention: The Role of the Convention on Wetlands in the Conservation and Wise Use of Biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal for Inclusion of the Angelshark
    CMS Distribution: General CONVENTION ON UNEP/CMS/COP12/Doc.25.1.23 MIGRATORY 6 June 2017 SPECIES Original: English 12th MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES Manila, Philippines, 23 - 28 October 2017 Agenda Item 25.1. PROPOSAL FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE ANGELSHARK (Squatina squatina) ON APPENDIX I AND II OF THE CONVENTION Summary: The Government of Monaco has submitted the attached proposal* for the inclusion of the Angelshark (Squatina squatina) on Appendix I and II of CMS. *The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CMS Secretariat (or the United Nations Environment Programme) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The responsibility for the contents of the document rests exclusively with its author. UNEP/CMS/COP12/Doc.25.1.23 PROPOSAL FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE ANGELSHARK (Squatina squatina) ON THE APPENDICES OF THE CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS A. PROPOSAL: Inclusion of the species Squatina squatina, Angelshark, in Appendix I and II. B. PROPONENT: Government of the Principality of Monaco C. SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Taxonomy 1.1 Class: Chondrichthyes, subclass Elasmobranchii 1.2 Order: Squatiniformes 1.3 Family: S quatinidae 1.4 Genus, species: Squatina squatina Linnaeus, 1758 1.5 Scientific synonyms 1.6 Common Name: English: Angelshark, common or European Angelshark, angel ray, shark ray, monkfish French: Ange de mer commun, L'angelot, Spanish: Angelote, Peje angel, tiburón angel German: Meerengel, Engelhai, Gemeiner Meerengel Italian: Angelu, Pesce angelo, Squatru cefalu, Terrezzino Portuguese: Anjo, Peixe anjo, Viola 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Length at Maturity of the Pacific Angel Shark (Squatina Californica) in the Artisanal Elasmobranch Fishery in the Gulf Of
    359 National Marine Fisheries Service Fishery Bulletin First U.S. Commissioner established in 1881 of Fisheries and founder NOAA of Fishery Bulletin Abstract—Median length at maturity Length at maturity of the Pacific angel was determined for Pacific angel sharks (Squatina californica) captured inciden- shark (Squatina californica) in the artisanal tally in the artisanal elasmobranch fish- ery in the Gulf of California in Mexico. elasmobranch fishery in the Gulf A total of 306 Pacific angel sharks (192 of California in Mexico females and 114 males) were analyzed. The size of the females ranged between 23 and 100 cm total length (TL), J. Fernando Márquez-Farías whereas males ranged between 25 and 99 cm TL. The maturity stages of both Email address for contact author: [email protected] females and males were determined by using the development of internal and Facultad de Ciencias del Mar external organs. The results of analysis Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa of covariance reveal a significant effect Paseo Claussen s/n of sex (P<0.001) on length at maturity. A Col. Los Pinos binary logistic regression was applied for 82000 Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Mexico each sex to estimate the length at which half of the individuals were consid- ered mature (L50). For females, L50 was 74.41 cm TL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72.81–76.00 cm TL), and the steep- ness coefficient (Φ) was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.84–2.42). For males, L50 was 77.82 cm The Pacific angel shark (Squatina Peninsula (BCP) in Mexico . Biological TL (95% CI: 75.66–79.97 cm TL), and californica) belongs to the family Squa- information about the Pacific angel the Φ was 3.08 (95% CI: 1.98–4.77).
    [Show full text]
  • Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997
    The IUCN Species Survival Commission Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997 Edited by Sarah L. Fowler, Tim M. Reed and Frances A. Dipper Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 25 IUCN The World Conservation Union Donors to the SSC Conservation Communications Programme and Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management: Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997 The IUCN/Species Survival Commission is committed to communicate important species conservation information to natural resource managers, decision-makers and others whose actions affect the conservation of biodiversity. The SSC's Action Plans, Occasional Papers, newsletter Species and other publications are supported by a wide variety of generous donors including: The Sultanate of Oman established the Peter Scott IUCN/SSC Action Plan Fund in 1990. The Fund supports Action Plan development and implementation. To date, more than 80 grants have been made from the Fund to SSC Specialist Groups. The SSC is grateful to the Sultanate of Oman for its confidence in and support for species conservation worldwide. The Council of Agriculture (COA), Taiwan has awarded major grants to the SSC's Wildlife Trade Programme and Conservation Communications Programme. This support has enabled SSC to continue its valuable technical advisory service to the Parties to CITES as well as to the larger global conservation community. Among other responsibilities, the COA is in charge of matters concerning the designation and management of nature reserves, conservation of wildlife and their habitats, conservation of natural landscapes, coordination of law enforcement efforts as well as promotion of conservation education, research and international cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue #251 Journal of the Murrumbidgee Field Naturalists Inc
    The Murrumbidgee Naturalist August 2017 - Issue #251 Journal of the Murrumbidgee Field Naturalists Inc. PO Box 541, LEETON 2705 ISSN-1327-1172 Website: www.mfn.org.au Email: [email protected] Objectives To facilitate and promote the knowledge of natural history, and to encourage the preservation and protection of the Australian natural environment, especially that of the Murrumbidgee River Valley Community tree planting at Fivebough Wetlands by Penny Williams CONTRIBUTIONS IN THIS ISSUE For the September issue by Monday 4 September Office Bearers and Subscriptions ................................ 2 To Rowena Whiting Tree Planting at Fivebough Wetlands ........................ 3 Email: [email protected]. Spiders ........................................................................ 4 Phone: 6953 2612 Greenhood orchids found in the local area ............... 6 Birds of the Month – Spotted and Spotless Crake ...... 8 What are those Monkeys in the Gum Trees ? ............ 9 Outings this month to Papua New Guinea trip ............................................... 9 Taleeban Mining Reserve Members’ Sightings ................................................... 11 and Coming Events Calendar ........................................... 12 Cocoparra National Park Murrumbidgee Field Naturalists Inc. Office Bearers and Annual Subscriptions President: Graham Russell 0419 350 673 Editor: Rowena Whiting 6953 2612 Vice President: Nella Smith 6959 1210 Committee: Johanna Botman 6963 4855 Vice President: Eric Whiting 6953 2612 Phillip Williams 6953 3524 Vice President: Virginia Tarr 6962 5614 Betty Bradney 6959 2901 Secretary: Penny Williams 6953 3524 Treasurer: Phil Tenison 6953 4869 Website Co-ordinator: Phillip Williams 6953 3524 MEETINGS ARE HELD ON THE SECOND THURSDAY EACH MONTH, EXCEPT JANUARY, AT THE Yellow Room, Leeton Library, Sycamore Street at 7.30 PM FIELD TRIPS NORMALLY TAKE PLACE ON THE FOLLOWING WEEKEND. INTENDING NEW MEMBERS, GUESTS AND VISITORS WELCOME.
    [Show full text]
  • SHORT NOTE Evidence of Late Breeding of Spotless Crakes (Porzana Tabuensis) at Two North Island Peat Bog Lakes
    213 Notornis, 2019, Vol. 66: 213-216 0029-4470 © The Ornithological Society of New Zealand Inc. SHORT NOTE Evidence of late breeding of spotless crakes (Porzana tabuensis) at two North Island peat bog lakes EMMA M. WILLIAMS Matuku Ecology, 7 Kowhai Terrace, St Martins, Christchurch 8022, New Zealand Present address: Terrestrial Science Unit, Biodiversity Group, Department of Conservation, PO Box 4715, Christchurch 8410, New Zealand Knowledge of breeding ecology and behaviours 2018). Ecological knowledge of the species and its has important management implications for the behaviours is limited, with few published reports conservation of any species. In particular, accurate on the timing of breeding in spotless crakes in New knowledge of the timing and duration of the Zealand. Hadden (1970) suggested that egg laying breeding season for native, threatened species is occurs between late-August and late-September, important as it often defines when and for how while Buddle (1941) proposed that egg laying long conservation interventions should occur, and occurs from October until early-December. The what those interventions should be. For example, latter is supported by observations of spotless crake predator control is often prioritised to occur when a eggs being laid between mid-October and mid- native species is nesting and at its most vulnerable, December on Raoul Island (cited by Oliver 1955). particularly if that species nests on the ground or Yet, Fraser (1972) reported ‘newly hatched young’ fledglings are known to be particularly vulnerable in early-September, and as late as late-January. The to predators. In contrast, habitat modifications that current study provides evidence that spotless crake are often necessary but known to be intrusive (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Database of Bibliography of Living/Fossil
    www.shark-references.com Version 16.01.2018 Bibliography database of living/fossil sharks, rays and chimaeras (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii, Holocephali) Papers of the year 2017 published by Jürgen Pollerspöck, Benediktinerring 34, 94569 Stephansposching, Germany and Nicolas Straube, Munich, Germany ISSN: 2195-6499 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32409.72801 copyright by the authors 1 please inform us about missing papers: [email protected] www.shark-references.com Version 16.01.2018 Abstract: This paper contains a collection of 817 citations (no conference abstracts) on topics related to extant and extinct Chondrichthyes (sharks, rays, and chimaeras) as well as a list of Chondrichthyan species and hosted parasites newly described in 2017. The list is the result of regular queries in numerous journals, books and online publications. It provides a complete list of publication citations as well as a database report containing rearranged subsets of the list sorted by the keyword statistics, extant and extinct genera and species descriptions from the years 2000 to 2017, list of descriptions of extinct and extant species from 2017, parasitology, reproduction, distribution, diet, conservation, and taxonomy. The paper is intended to be consulted for information. In addition, we provide data information on the geographic and depth distribution of newly described species, i.e. the type specimens from the years 1990 to 2017 in a hot spot analysis. New in this year's POTY is the subheader "biodiversity" comprising a complete list of all valid chimaeriform, selachian and batoid species, as well as a list of the top 20 most researched chondrichthyan species. Please note that the content of this paper has been compiled to the best of our abilities based on current knowledge and practice, however, possible errors cannot entirely be excluded.
    [Show full text]
  • SHARKS an Inquiry Into Biology, Behavior, Fisheries, and Use DATE
    $10.00 SHARKS An Inquiry into Biology, Behavior, Fisheries, and Use DATE. Proceedings of the Conference Portland, Oregon USA / October 13-15,1985 OF OUT IS information: PUBLICATIONcurrent most THIS For EM 8330http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog / March 1987 . OREGON STATG UNIVERSITY ^^ GXTENSION S€RVIC€ SHARKS An Inquiry into Biology, Behavior, Fisheries, and Use Proceedings of a Conference Portland, Oregon USA / October 13-15,1985 DATE. Edited by Sid Cook OF Scientist, Argus-Mariner Consulting Scientists OUT Conference Sponsors University of Alaska Sea Grant MarineIS Advisory Program University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension Service Oregon State University Extension/Sea Grant Program University of Southern California Sea Grant Program University of Washington Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program West Coast Fisheries Development Foundation Argus-Mariner Consulting Scientistsinformation: PUBLICATIONcurrent EM 8330 / March 1987 most THISOregon State University Extension Service For http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction, Howard Horton 1 Why, Are We Talking About Sharks? Bob Schoning 3 Shark Biology The Importance of Sharks in Marine Biological Communities Jose Castro.. 11 Estimating Growth and Age in Sharks Gregor Cailliet 19 Telemetering Techniques for Determining Movement Patterns in SharksDATE. abstract Donald Nelson 29 Human Impacts on Shark Populations Thomas Thorson OF 31 Shark Behavior Understanding Shark Behavior Arthur MyrbergOUT 41 The Significance of Sharks in Human Psychology Jon Magnuson 85 Pacific Coast Shark Attacks: What is theIS Danger? abstract Robert Lea... 95 The Forensic Study of Shark Attacks Sid Cook 97 Sharks and the Media Steve Boyer 119 Recent Advances in Protecting People from Dangerous Sharks abstract Bernard Zahuranec information: 127 Shark Fisheries and Utilization U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Article
    NOTORNIS QUARTERLY JOURNAL of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand (Incorporatedl Volume Seventeen, Number Three, September, 1970 NOTORNIS In continuation of New Zealand Bird Notes Volume XVII, No. 3 SEPTEMBER, 1970 JOURNAL OF THE ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND (Incorporated) Registered with the G.P.O., Wellington, as a Magazine Edited by R. B. SIBSON, 26 Entrican Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 5 Annual Subscription: Ordinary Member, $2; Endowment Member, $3 Life Membership, $40 (for members over thirty years of age) Subscriptions are a minimum of $2 a year, payable at the time of application and the first of each year thereafter. Applications for Membership, Changes of address and Letters of Resignation should be forwarded to the Hon. Treasurer. OFFICERS 1970 - 71 President - Dr. G. R. WILLIAMS, Wildlife Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs, Private Bag, Wellington Vice-president -- Mr. F. C. KINSKY, Dominion Museum, Wellington Editor - Mr. R. B. SIBSON, 26 Entrican Avenue, Auckland, 5 Assistant Editor - Mr. A. BLACKBURN, 10 Score Road, Gisborne Treasurer - Mr. J. P. C. WATT, P.O. Box 1168, Dunedin Secretary - Mr. B. A. ELLIS, 44 Braithwaite Street, Wellington, 5 Members of Council: Mr. B. D. BELL, Wildlife Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs, Wellington Mr. A. BLACKBURN, 10 Score Road, Gisborne Dr. P. C. BULL, 131 Waterloo Road, Lower Hutt Dr. R. A. FALLA, 41 Kotari Road, Days Bay, Wellington Mrs. J. B. HAMEL, 42 Ann Street, Roslyn, Dunedin Mr. N. B. MACKENZIE, Pakowai, Napier R.D. 3 Mr. R. R. SUTTON, Lorneville Post Office, Invercargill Convenors and Organisers: Nest Records: Mr. D. E. CROCKETT, 90 Jellicoe Street, Wanganui Beach Patrol: Mr.
    [Show full text]