DOCSLIB.ORG

Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan 2009−2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 2 Special Report Number 81 3 COLORADO 4 BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT PLAN 5 2009−2019 6 J. L. George, R. Kahn, M. W. Miller, B. Watkins 7 February 2009 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 8 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SPECIAL REPORT NUMBER 81 9 Special Report Cover #81.indd 1 6/24/09 12:21 PM COLORADO BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT PLAN 2009−2019 Editors1 J. L. George, R. Kahn, M. W. Miller, & B. Watkins Contributors1 C. R. Anderson, Jr., J. Apker, J. Broderick, R. Davies, B. Diamond, J. L. George, S. Huwer, R. Kahn, K. Logan, M. W. Miller, S. Wait, B. Watkins, L. L. Wolfe Special Report No. 81 February 2009 Colorado Division of Wildlife 1 Editors and contributors listed alphabetically to denote equivalent contributions to this effort. Thanks to M. Alldredge, B. Andree, E. Bergman, C. Bishop, D. Larkin, J. Mumma, D. Prenzlow, D. Walsh, M. Woolever, the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, the Colorado Woolgrowers Association, the US Forest Service, and many others for comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this management plan. DOW-R-S-81-09 ISSN 0084-8875 STATE OF COLORADO: Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director DIVISION OF WILDLIFE: Thomas E. Remington, Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION: Brad Coors, Chair, Denver; Tim Glenn, Vice Chair, Salida; Dennis Buechler, Secretary, Centennial; Members, Jeffrey A. Crawford; Dorothea Farris; Roy McAnally; John Singletary; Mark Smith; Robert Streeter; Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp Layout & production by Sandy Cochran FOREWORD The Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan is the culmination of months of work by Division of Wildlife biologists, managers and staff personnel. It is designed to provide overall guidance and direction on the conservation and restoration of statewide bighorn resources in the coming decade for Colorado’s wildlife managers, and to be a reference document that summarizes and synthesizes bighorn sheep information from Colorado and elsewhere. This management plan is intended to compliment annual Division of Wildlife work plans, annual budgets, Long Range Plans, and Director and Commission guidance. It is not intended to supersede any specific Statutes, Commission Policies, Regulations, or Administrative Directives regarding bighorn sheep or their management in Colorado. Thomas E. Remington, Director Colorado Division of Wildlife Cover photo credits: Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep near Georgetown (S32). Photo by John Legnard. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 1 1 HISTORICAL TRENDS, STATUS, & LIMITING FACTORS: AN OVERVIEW . 5 2 STATEWIDE OBJECTIVES & PLANNING. 21 3 INVENTORY & POPULATION ESTIMATION. 25 4 POPULATION & HARVEST MANAGEMENT. 29 5 CAPTURE & TRANSLOCATION FOR RESTORATION & AUGMENTATION. 41 6 HABITAT MANAGEMENT. 47 7 HEALTH MONITORING & MANAGEMENT . 57 8 BIGHORN SHEEP−DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK DISEASE INTERACTIONS . 63 9 BIGHORN SHEEP−MOUNTAIN GOAT INTERACTIONS. 67 10 PREDATION . 75 APPENDICES. 84 Rocky Mountain bighorn ewes and lambs in the Rampart herd (S34). Photo by Matthew P. Johnston. iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table Page 1. Colorado bighorn sheep units and population 4. Minimum curl restrictions for bighorn ram hunting in estimates by unit or herd, 2007. 6 Colorado, 1953-2007. 36 2. Recommended ewe removal rates, including both 5. Origin of Colorado bighorn sheep herds in relation to herd hunting and translocation.. 30 size and hunted status in 2007 . 44 3. Curl, horn length, basal horn circumference, and annular growth rings from harvested Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Colorado, 1987-2007. 33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure Page 1. Bighorn sheep game management units and 11. Average horn length versus annular growth rings occupied bighorn sheep range in Colorado 2008. 7 of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep checked in Colorado, 1987-2007. 35 2. Number of bighorn sheep translocated in Colorado by year, 1946-2007 . 8 12. Average basal horn circumference versus annular growth rings of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 3. Number of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep herds checked in Colorado, 1987-2007 . 35 in Colorado with ≥20 sheep, 1990-2007 . 9 13. Number of applications received for Rocky 4. Statewide posthunt population estimates for total, Mountain and desert bighorn sheep hunting hunted, and nonhunted Rocky Mountain and total licenses in Colorado, 1992-2008. 37 desert bighorn sheep populations in Colorado, 1953-2007 . 10 14. The number of hunting licenses issued for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Colorado, 1988–2007. 38 5. Statewide posthunt population estimates for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Colorado, 1990-2007.. 10 15. Pastuerellaceae isolated from pharyngeal swabs of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep from select Colorado herds. 59 6. Statewide, posthunt population estimates for desert bighorn sheep in Colorado, 1990−2007. 11 16. Serum antibody titers to bovine respiratory syncytial virus and parainfluenza 3 virus in Rocky Mountain 7. Number of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep hunting bighorn sheep from select Colorado herds . 60 licenses and harvest in Colorado, 1953-2007. 32 17. Occupied bighorn sheep range in relation to 8. Ram hunter success rate for Rocky Mountain bighorn United States Forest Service and Bureau of sheep in Colorado,1988-2007. 33 Land Management domestic sheep allotments in 9. Average age of harvested ram and ewe bighorn Colorado, 2008.. 64 sheep in Colorado, 1987-2007. 34 18. Population estimates of mountain goats and Rocky 10. Average horn length versus year of harvest of Mountain bighorn sheep in Colorado, 1966 – 2007. 69 Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep checked in Colorado, 19. Mountain goat game management units and occupied 1987-2007. 34 range in relation to occupied bighorn sheep range in Colorado, 2008. 70 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page Appendix Page I Colorado bighorn sheep posthunt population III Bighorn sheep trap and release sites in Colorado, estimates by unit or herd, 1986-2007 . 84 1945-2007 . 87 II Occupied and potential bighorn sheep habitat in Colorado, 2008.. 86 iv COLORADO BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) are likely the most iconic of Colorado’s wildlife species. Bighorn sheep are the Colorado state mammal and are also the symbol of the Division of Wildlife (DOW). Today, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (O. canadensis canadensis) and desert bighorn sheep (O. c. nelsoni or O. c. mexicana) provide hunting recreation for approximately 300 hunters annually and are among the most sought after watchable wildlife species in the state. Given this high level of interest and status it is imperative that the DOW develop policies, guidelines and procedures that are designed to maintain and, to the extent possible, increase Colorado’s bighorn populations. HISTORY It is difficult to estimate how many wild sheep were present in Colorado in pre-settlement times. Journals of explorers indicate great numbers of sheep in both the mountainous areas and along the Front Range. Since the late 1800s the general trend of wild sheep populations in Colorado and throughout the west has been downward. Historical statewide estimates of 7,230 bighorn sheep in 1915, 3,200 in 1958 and 2,200 in 1970 reflect this trend; there were an estimated 6,045 bighorns in Colorado in 1988, and in 2007 there were an estimated 7,040 bighorn sheep statewide. One reason for the apparent increase in Colorado’s bighorn populations is a longstanding effort to trap and translocate wild sheep to establish new populations or supplement existing populations. From 1945–2007, there were 147 releases of bighorn sheep in Colorado resulting in the translocation of 2,424 animals (excluding bighorns moved to research facilities). The majority of these transplants occurred during the 1980s. In 2007, translocated herds accounted for 54% of the total herds in Colorado and 48% of the total statewide bighorn population. Most transplant herds (78%) had less than 100 sheep in 2007 and relatively few of these herds have shown the sustained growth needed for long-term viability. Extant herds that have been supplemented with translocated sheep accounted for 24% of the total herds and 30% of the total statewide bighorn population in 2007. Disease has often been implicated in periodic “all-age” die-offs and sustained bouts of poor lamb survival in Colorado bighorns. In the late 1800s, die-offs were reported in bighorn sheep in the Tarryall Mountains and elsewhere, and in 1933 a die-off extirpated bighorns in what is now Dinosaur National Monument. In 1953, the state’s largest bighorn population residing in the Tarryall and Kenosha Mountains experienced a die-off caused by pneumonia that reduced the population from an estimated 1,000 animals (some observers have said 2,000) to 30 within two years; the Tarryall-Kenosha epidemic likely extended from a 1952 outbreak on Pikes Peak. The causes of these early die-offs are hard to verify retrospectively, but contact with domestic livestock that led to the introduction of exotic diseases and parasites seems the most logical explanation. Agents of disease suspected to be responsible for historical epidemics have included “scabies” (also called “scab” or “mange”, and caused by mite infestations), “nasal bots” (parasitic fly larvae), “hemorrhagic septicemia” (later termed “pasteurellosis”, a bacterial infection), and lungworms (a natural parasite of bighorns). Other problems such as unregulated harvest, overgrazing, competition with other livestock, plant community succession and forestation of native ranges, and increasing human development of winter ranges have been identified as contributing to bighorn sheep declines either historically or presently. In the 1970s, the DOW embarked on a series of research and management programs to reduce lungworm in the state’s bighorn herds to see if this could have a positive effect on populations by increasing lamb survival. About 20% of the state’s herds were treated with various drugs; some herds were treated annually and others more sporadically. In some cases the treatments were just administered as part of trap and transplant operations. Comparisons of treated versus untreated herds from the 1970s and 1980s and found no difference in population 1 trends among herds.
Recommended publications
  • Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Volume 1

    Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Volume 1

    USDA FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Forest Service Southern Rockies United States NationalDepartment Forests of in ColoradoAgriculture & southern Wyoming Lynx Management OctoberForest 2008 Service Rocky Mountain Region Direction Southern RockiesVolume Lynx Amendment 1 Record of Decision October 2008 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Lead Agency: Plan. The SDEIS added information and analysis United States Department of Agriculture for the White River National Forest to the material Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region already provided for the other six national forest units. Cooperating Agency: Colorado Department of Natural Resources The No Action alternative (Alternative A) was developed as a baseline for comparing the effects States Affected: of Alternatives B, C and D. The purpose and need Colorado and southern Wyoming for action is to establish direction that conserves Responsible Official: and promotes recovery of Canada lynx, and Rick D.
  • Incidental Captures of Wildlife and Domestic Dogs in Montana, 2012-2017

    Incidental Captures of Wildlife and Domestic Dogs in Montana, 2012-2017

    Incidental Captures of Wildlife and Domestic Dogs in Montana, 2012-2017 June 2018 Prepared by Robert Inman Carnivore-Furbearer Coordinator Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks This report summarizes all incidental trapping data that FWP has from the 2012-2017 license years. Additional data are available for 2008-2011 but have not been entered into the MRRE database or used in this report. Note that the events that are required to be reported are 1) any lynx capture, 2) any dog capture, and 3) capture of any “Protected Animal” that cannot be released unharmed. Protected Animals are those defined in Montana statute as ‘Game Animals,’ ‘Furbearers,’ or ‘Migratory Birds.’ Game animals are: deer, elk, antelope, moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, bison, bears, mountain lions, wolf, waterfowl, turkey, upland birds, sandhill crane, mourning dove, and snipe. There are 10 Furbearers: wolverine, fisher, marten, otter, mink, lynx, bobcat, swift fox, beaver, and muskrat. There are many Migratory Birds that are protected species; all birds except house sparrows, crows, starlings, pigeons, and magpies. Unprotected animals that do not require reporting are ‘Predators’ and ‘Non-Game.’ There are 6 Predators: coyote, striped skunk, spotted skunk, long-tailed weasel, short-tailed weasel, and least weasel. There are many Non-Game species such as raccoon, badger, fox, ground squirrels and rabbits. Incidentally Captured Species Over the 6-year period that was the 2012-2017 FWP license years, a total of 349 incidental captures were reported (Table 1). Fifty-five percent of the incidental captures resulted in the release of the animal, and 45% of the animals died as a result of the capture (Table 1).
  • Geologic Map of the Central San Juan Caldera Cluster, Southwestern Colorado by Peter W

    Geologic Map of the Central San Juan Caldera Cluster, Southwestern Colorado by Peter W

    Geologic Map of the Central San Juan Caldera Cluster, Southwestern Colorado By Peter W. Lipman Pamphlet to accompany Geologic Investigations Series I–2799 dacite Ceobolla Creek Tuff Nelson Mountain Tuff, rhyolite Rat Creek Tuff, dacite Cebolla Creek Tuff Rat Creek Tuff, rhyolite Wheeler Geologic Monument (Half Moon Pass quadrangle) provides exceptional exposures of three outflow tuff sheets erupted from the San Luis caldera complex. Lowest sheet is Rat Creek Tuff, which is nonwelded throughout but grades upward from light-tan rhyolite (~74% SiO2) into pale brown dacite (~66% SiO2) that contains sparse dark-brown andesitic scoria. Distinctive hornblende-rich middle Cebolla Creek Tuff contains basal surge beds, overlain by vitrophyre of uniform mafic dacite that becomes less welded upward. Uppermost Nelson Mountain Tuff consists of nonwelded to weakly welded, crystal-poor rhyolite, which grades upward to a densely welded caprock of crystal-rich dacite (~68% SiO2). White arrows show contacts between outflow units. 2006 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey CONTENTS Geologic setting . 1 Volcanism . 1 Structure . 2 Methods of study . 3 Description of map units . 4 Surficial deposits . 4 Glacial deposits . 4 Postcaldera volcanic rocks . 4 Hinsdale Formation . 4 Los Pinos Formation . 5 Oligocene volcanic rocks . 5 Rocks of the Creede Caldera cycle . 5 Creede Formation . 5 Fisher Dacite . 5 Snowshoe Mountain Tuff . 6 Rocks of the San Luis caldera complex . 7 Rocks of the Nelson Mountain caldera cycle . 7 Rocks of the Cebolla Creek caldera cycle . 9 Rocks of the Rat Creek caldera cycle . 10 Lava flows premonitory(?) to San Luis caldera complex . .11 Rocks of the South River caldera cycle .
  • Beaver Wildlife Note

    Beaver Wildlife Note

    Beaver The beaver, Castor canadensis, is North America’s largest pelage consists of dense underfur covered with longer rodent. Before European colonists arrived, the species was guard hairs. The thick pelt and deposits of body fat insulate plentiful from the Mexican border to the Arctic. Beaver fur the animal and allow it to remain in the water many hours is thick and considered valuable. Raw pelts brought $4 each at a time. in the early 1800s. Adjusting for inflation, beaver pelts back A beaver’s tail is trowel-shaped, 8 to 12 inches long and five then would be about $80 each in today’s dollars. The fur or six inches wide. It has a scaly, leathery covering. When was used to make top hats and to trim clothes. Tremendous this furbearer swims, it uses its tail as a propeller and a demand for beaver fur sent trapping expeditions rudder. The tail also supports a beaver when it sits erect or throughout the unexplored West, stimulating expansion of gnaws a tree on dry land. A sharp slap of the tail on water the new American nation. is a signal warning other beavers of danger. Tail slapping is By the end of the nineteenth century, uncontrolled trapping also a diving aid that gives a beaver extra propulsion to tip and habitat loss eliminated beavers in Pennsylvania and its body down for descent and may not always be intended most eastern states. But, today this aquatic furbearer is to be a danger signal. back. Aided by modern wildlife management, the beaver A beaver’s front feet are remarkably dexterous.
  • Do Wolves Ambush Beavers? Video Evidence for Higher-Order Hunting Strategies 1, 2 3 1 THOMAS D

    Do Wolves Ambush Beavers? Video Evidence for Higher-Order Hunting Strategies 1, 2 3 1 THOMAS D

    Do wolves ambush beavers? Video evidence for higher-order hunting strategies 1, 2 3 1 THOMAS D. GABLE , TRENT STANGER, STEVE K. WINDELS, AND JOSEPH K. BUMP 1University of Minnesota, 2003 Buford Circle, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 USA 2Remigny, Quebec J0Z 3H0 Canada 3Voyageurs National Park, 360 Highway 11 E, International Falls, Minnesota 56649 USA Citation: Gable, T. D., T. Stanger, S. K. Windels, and J. K. Bump. 2018. Do wolves ambush beavers? Video evidence for higher-order hunting strategies. Ecosphere 9(3):e02159. 10.1002/ecs2.2159 Abstract. Over the past decade, there has been much debating about whether wolves possess high-order cognitive abilities that facilitate deliberate or cooperative hunting strategies such as ambush to capture prey. Beavers can be important alternate or primary prey for wolves in North America and Europe, but no observations of wolves hunting and killing beavers exist. We describe the first documented observation of a gray wolf killing a beaver, an observation that has provided valuable insight into how beavers defend themselves when attacked by wolves, how wolves hunt beavers, and the predatory strategies and cogni- tive abilities of wolves. Our observation confirms that wolves do hunt and kill beavers by surprising and ambushing them, which demonstrates that wolves have a unique ability to switch between cursorial and ambush hunting strategies depending on the prey. We suggest that wolves learn how to hunt beavers using high-order mental abilities combined with information learned from prior interactions with beavers. Key words: alternate prey; cognition; hunting behavior; kill site; predation behavior; predation risk; predator–prey; wolf predation.
  • Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist

    Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist

    STATE OF NEVADA Steve Sisolak, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Tony Wasley, Director GAME DIVISION Brian F. Wakeling, Chief Mike Cox, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Staff Specialist Pat Jackson, Predator Management Staff Specialist Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist Western Region Southern Region Eastern Region Regional Supervisors Mike Scott Steve Kimble Tom Donham Big Game Biologists Chris Hampson Joe Bennett Travis Allen Carl Lackey Pat Cummings Clint Garrett Kyle Neill Cooper Munson Sarah Hale Ed Partee Kari Huebner Jason Salisbury Matt Jeffress Kody Menghini Tyler Nall Scott Roberts This publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Federal Laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against in any NDOW program, activity, or facility, please write to the following: Diversity Program Manager or Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop: 7072-43 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Arlington, VA 22203 Reno, Nevada 8911-2237 Individuals with hearing impairments may contact the Department via telecommunications device at our Headquarters at 775-688-1500 via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada Relay Operator at 1-800-326-6868. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 2018-2019 BIG GAME STATUS This program is supported by Federal financial assistance titled “Statewide Game Management” submitted to the U.S.
  • Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless Areas Map 2

    Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless Areas Map 2

    MAP 2 Inventoried Roadless Areas MAP 2 IRA acres 114 Porphyry Peak 3,400 233 Treasure Mountain 20,900 194 115 Puma 8,500 234 Turkey Creek 22,300 193 Platte River Inventoried Roadless Area rounded 116 Purgatoire 13,200 235 West Needle 2,500 Wilderness Names to nearest 207 117 Rampart West 23,700 236 West Needle Wilderness 5,900 4 100 acres ** Map Key ** 24 118 Romley 6,900 237 Williams Creek White Fir Natural Area 500 209 Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest 119 Sangre de Cristo 32,600 White River National Forest 187 204 193 Mount 1 Bard Creek 25,400 120 Scraggy Peaks 8,200 238 Adam Mountain 8,200 195 197 21 Major Roads Zirkel 2 Byers Peak 10,100 121 Sheep Rock 2,200 239 Ashcroft 900 Wilderness 210 205 24 76 208 Rawah 10 25 3 Cache La Poudre Adjacent Areas 3,200 122 Silverheels 6,600 240 Assignation Ridge 13,300 Wilderness 9 11 4 Cherokee Park 7,800 123 Spanish Peaks 5,700 241 Baldy Mountain 6,000 Inventoried Roadless Areas 5 3 5 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas 46,000 124 Spanish Peaks- proposed 1,300 242 Basalt Mountain A 14,000 196 5 3 3 5 5 Cache La Poudre 6 Copper Mountain 13,500 125 Square Top Mountain 5,900 243 Basalt Mountain B 7,400 5 3 3 3 214 Wilderness 7 Crosier Mountain 7,200 126 St. Charles Peak 11,600 244 Berry Creek 8,600 National Forest System Wilderness & Comanche Peak 28 200 24 8 Gold Run 6,500 245 Big Ridge To South Fork A 35,300 191 Wilderness 127 Starvation Creek 8,200 19 5 9 Green Ridge - East 26,700 128 Tanner Peak 17,800 246 Big Ridge To South Fork B 6,000 Other Congressionally Designated Lands 24 Fort 19 5 10 Green Ridge
  • ROCKY MOUNTAIN National Park CO LO 1^^.00

    ROCKY MOUNTAIN National Park CO LO 1^^.00

    ROCKY MOUNTAIN National Park CO LO 1^^.00 UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL PARK. SERIES Copyright by WiswaU The Village of Estes Park nestles in a quiet little valley, surrounded by mountains Page two An Appreciation of Rocky Mountain National Park By ENOS A. MILLS, Author of "Wild Life on the Rockies," "The Rocky Mountain Wonderland," etc. Written Especially fer the United States Railroad Administration j]HE Rocky Mountain National Park is a marvelous grouping of gentle­ ness and grandeur; an eloquent, wordless hymn, sung in silent, poetic pictures; a wilderness mountain world of groves and grass plots, crags and canyons, rounded lakes with shadow-matted shores that rest in peace within the purple forest. There are wild flowers of every color, and many a silken meadow edged with ferns. Brokenness and beauty, terrace upon terrace, a magnificent hanging wild garden. Over these terraces waters rush and pour. From ice-sculptured, snow-piled peaks, young and eager streams leap in white cascades between crowding cliffs and pines. Through this wildness winds the trail, with its secrets of the centuries, where adventures come and go and where the magic camp fire blossoms in the night. In these primeval scenes the grizzly bear gives to the wilderness its master spell; the mountain ram poses on the cliff; the laughing, varied voice of the coyote echoes when the afterglow falls; the home-loving beaver builds his willow-fringed hut; the birds sing; the cheerful chipmunk frolics and never grows up; and here the world stays young. The Rocky Mountain National Park holds adventure for every visitor.
  • Science Newsletter

    Science Newsletter

    Mojave National Preserve National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Sweeney Granite Mountains Desert Research Center Science Newsletter Updates on respiratory disease affecting desert bighorn sheep in and near Mojave National Preserve 1 1 Clinton W. Epps , Daniella Dekelaita , and Brian Dugovich2 Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) are an iconic mammal of the desert southwest and are found in small mountain ranges scattered across Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) and nearby desert habitats in southeastern California. In many areas, they are the only large native herbivore that can persist, inhabiting places that are too hot, dry, and sparsely vegetated for deer. California is thought to be home to ~3000-5000 desert bighorn in total (1); desert bighorn sheep are uniquely adapted for the harsh environment of the southwest deserts and populations appear to be resilient in spite of threats from poaching, climate change, drought, and habitat fragmentation (2, 3). In the Mojave Desert, bighorn sheep populations are strongly fragmented by expanses of flat desert between Figure 1. Map of Mojave National Preserve and nearby areas in southeastern California, mountain ranges, and in some cases, by showing mountain ranges (white polygons) where respiratory disease of bighorn sheep is being studied using GPS collars, remote cameras, disease screening of captured animals, behavioral and physical barriers such as fecal DNA, immunological and genetic measures, and other methods. The respiratory interstate highways (4). Yet, southeastern pathogen Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae was first reported at Old Dad Peak in spring of 2013 (large red star); current infection or past exposure has been confirmed at other red-starred California, including the Preserve, represents the ranges.
  • Spanish Peaks Wilderness

    Spanish Peaks Wilderness

    Mt. Bierstadt Field Trip Trip date: 6/17/2006 Ralph Swain, USFS R2 Wilderness Program Manager Observations: 1). The parking lot was nearly full (approximately 35 + vehicles) at 8:00 am on a Saturday morning. I observed better-than-average compliance with the dog on leash regulation. Perhaps this was due to my Forest Service truck being at the entrance to the parking lot and the two green Forest Service trucks (Dan and Tom) in the lot! 2). District Ranger Dan Lovato informed us of the District’s intent to only allow 40 vehicles in the lower parking lot. Additional vehicles will have to drive to the upper parking lot. This was new information for me and I’m currently checking in with Steve Priest of the South Platte Ranger District to learn more about the parking situation at Mt. Bierstadt. 3). I observed users of all types and abilities hiking the 14er. Some runners, 14 parties with dogs (of which 10 were in compliance with the dog-leash regulation), and a new- born baby being carried to the top by mom and dad (that’s a first for me)! Management Issues: 1). Capacity issue: I counted 107 people on the hike, including our group of 14 people. The main issue for Mt. Bierstadt, being a 14er hike in a congressionally designated wilderness, is a social issue of how many people are appropriate? Thinking back to Dr. Cordell’s opening Forum discuss on demographic trends and the growth coming to the west, including front-range Denver, the use on Mt.
  • Antelope, Deer, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats: a Guide to the Carpals

    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.
  • Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of Contagious Ecthyma Infection

    Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of Contagious Ecthyma Infection

    FI.NAL REP.ORT (R.ESEARCH) State: Alaska Cooperators: Randall L. Zarnke and Kenneth A. Neiland Project No.: W-21-1 Project Title: Big Game Investigations Job No.: l8.1R Job Title: Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of contag1ous Ecthyma Infection Period Covered: July 1, 1979 to J~~? ~0, 1~80 SUMMARY Contagious ecthyma (C. E. ) antibody prevalence in domestic sheep and goats in Interior Alaska du~ing 1978 was quite low (7-10%). This suggested a low level of transmission of the virus among these species during this time period. C. E. antibody prevalence in Dall sheep increased .from 30 percent in 1971 to 100 percent in 1978. This suggested an increased level of transmission to, and/or among, these animals during this period. Following a C.E. epizootic in a band of captive Dall sheep in 1977, antibody prevalence was 80 percent in this group of sheep. Less than l year later, prevalence had dropped to 10 percent in the ·same band. Thus it appeared that antibody produced in response to this . strain of C.E. is short-lived. Antibody was also detected in 10 of 22 free­ ranging muskoxen taken by sport hunters on Nunivak Island in 1978. Detectable antibody levels were not found in any of 19 muskoxen captured on the island in 1979. No antibody was found in a small number of captive muskoxen from Unalakleet. Several of the captive muskoxen were ·known to have been infected with C.E. within 1 to 2 years prior to the time of sampling. This further substantiates the belief that anti­ body produced in response to infection by the Alaskan strain of C.E.