DOCSLIB.ORG

Montana Mountain Lion Monitoring & Management Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Montana Mountain Lion Monitoring & Management Strategy MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION MONITORING & MANAGEMENT STRATEGY — DRAFT, OCT. 2018 — Cover photo: R. Wiesner 2 — DRAFT, OCT. 2018 — TABLE OF CONTENTS MOUNTAIN LION CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ............................................................................4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 MOUNTAIN LIONS IN MONTANA ........................................... 10 CHAPTER 2 MOUNTAIN LION-HUMAN CONFLICT ...................................19 CHAPTER 3 2016 MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION .......................................26 RESOURCE SELECTION FUNCTION ..............................................................26 CHAPTER 4 MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION ECOREGIONS ........................31 CHAPTER 5 MONITORING MOUNTAIN LION ABUNDANCE ...................43 CHAPTER 6 THE MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION INTEGRATED POPULATION MODEL ............................................................ 50 CHAPTER 7 MOUNTAIN LION HARVEST REGULATION ..........................56 CHAPTER 8 ADAPTIVE HARVEST MANAGEMENT ...................................61 CHAPTER 9 REGIONAL MANAGEMENT .....................................................67 CONSIDERATIONS AND OBJECTIVES APPENDIX 1 POPULATION MONITORING, FIELD PROTOCOL ............. 94 AND DATA ANALYSIS APPENDIX 2 MOUNTAIN LION INTEGRATED POPULATION MODEL DEFINITION AND USER INPUTS .................................................... 99 APPENDIX 3 MOUNTAIN LION DEPREDATION AND CONTROL GUIDELINES ...................................................................................103 APPENDIX 4 GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO WILDLIFE ATTACKS THAT RESULT IN HUMAN INJURY OR DEATH: “WHART” GUIDELINES.............................................................106 APPENDIX 5 MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION LICENSE SALES, PRICE, AND REVENUE, 1973 - 2015 ............................................................... 111 APPENDIX 6 APPLICABLE MONTANA STATUTE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES ................................................................................ 113 APPENDIX 7 MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION IPM MODEL CODE ..................................................................................................... 128 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 132 — DRAFT, OCT. 2018 — 3 acknowledge that Montana and other western states have risen relatively recently to the MOUNTAIN LION challenge of actively conserving mountain lions. Many Montanans can still remember the bounty CONSERVATION years when antagonistic public attitudes toward predatory wildlife were common. Since AND then, questions and concerns surrounding the management of mountain lions have increased MANAGEMENT as more people with a stake in mountain lion GUIDELINES management come to the table. One measure of Montana’s commitment to wildlife conservation is the abundance, diversity, and distribution of our large predators. Wolves With the publication of this document, Montana are now biologically and legally recovered, grizzly Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) reaffirms its bear populations exceed restoration milestones, commitment, on behalf of the public, to the and the mountain lion has re-occupied its historic conservation and responsible management of statewide habitat. mountain lion populations in Montana. But with this success comes increased Many FWP wildlife biologists might find it management complexity. Local declines in elk redundant to first state that we are committed abundance and hunting opportunities, concerns to conserving mountain lions. We tend to skip about public safety, sharply responsive mountain instead to describing specific strategies for lion hunting regulations, and uncertainties about mountain lion management, while taking our management’s effects on lion populations have professional dedication to wildlife conservation sometimes strained a consensus about our values for granted. and management direction. But we’ve learned over the years that an intensely And conservation itself, we understand, is in the interested and engaged public does not always eye of the beholder. So, we strive to be clear. The accept FWP’s commitment to mountain lion following are the conservation and management conservation as a given, and may not recognize guidelines that will direct FWP’s decisions, FWP’s management strategies as being consistent and against which more specific management with conservation. Although our society has a objectives will be measured. long and evolving heritage of valuing wildlife, we 4 — DRAFT, OCT. 2018 — FWP will conserve mountain lions as a functional FWP will use an adaptive harvest management and valued part of Montana’s wildland framework to develop and evaluate most ecosystems. mountain lion management decisions. Potential management objectives will be made explicit to FWP will help manage suitable and connected all stakeholders throughout the decision-making habitat at a landscape scale for mountain lions process and the best available information will and their prey. be used to evaluate whether those objectives are being met. FWP will responsibly manage mountain lions as a public trust resource and consistent with FWP will maintain a balance between mountain state law. lion populations, their prey, and humans by directing local harvest of mountain lions, if FWP will maintain and enhance public and as needed, to manage prey survival and acceptance of mountain lions by helping reduce human-lion conflicts. FWP specifically landowners, homeowners, and the recreating recognizes that mountain lion populations are public prevent conflicts with mountain lions. most effectively conserved at the landscape FWP will respond promptly and professionally scale, rather than within smaller individual when conflicts occur. Lion Management Units where prey survival or points of conflict may be concerns worthy of FWP will enhance public appreciation for management. mountain lions by providing information and insight about the role of mountain lions in FWP will develop informed public consent the ecosystem and on practices for living and regarding the conservation status of mountain recreating in lion habitat. lions and the potential consequences of FWP management actions by instituting a credible, FWP recognizes that mountain lion hunting is science-based system for estimating and a highly valued recreational pursuit and that monitoring Montana’s lion populations. hunting plays a critical role in maintaining public advocacy and tolerance for the species. FWP will FWP will consider, monitor, and conserve therefore manage for limited and sustainable mountain lions at a landscape scale, consistent mountain lion hunter-harvest opportunity on with the species’ ecology. Specific management most lands within its jurisdiction. FWP will objectives will encourage sustainable and well- allocate hunting opportunities and experiences connected mountain lion populations within fairly among Montana resident, nonresident, and these landscapes. outfitted mountain lion hunters using simple and consistent regulations. — DRAFT, OCT. 2018 — 5 management decisions are informed by objective data instead of emotion. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unfortunately, many past lion management decisions were controversial. Because it was impossible to precisely count lions or monitor population trends, Montanans who Despite historic persecution, mountain lions are thriving care deeply about lions and their prey often disagreed once again in Montana. Lions have reoccupied their historic about the effects of lion harvest on both. statewide range and dispersing individuals now contribute to expanding populations across the western and FWP clearly realized the need for better methods to track midwestern U. S. This recovery is a testament to Montana’s lion population changes and for a scientific framework tradition of protecting habitat, conserving native wildlife upon which to base management recommendations. Over populations, and investing in research that provides the the last 25 years FWP made significant investments in scientific basis for sound wildlife management decisions. field research that had improved our understanding of lion ecology and the way lions interact with their prey. FWP The number of lion hunters and hound handlers has also biologists and partners also developed new methods to increased during the last 40 years. These sportsmen and monitor lion populations and built innovative population women became the state’s most effective advocates for models that predict the effect of past and future harvest. lion conservation and they have consistently encouraged FWP’s efforts to improve lion management. Montanans, FWP intends to maintain sustainable lion populations hunters and non-hunters alike, now expect assurances from across all suitable habitats within its jurisdiction. An FWP that lion populations remain healthy and that lion important goal of this Strategy is to provide the public West Fork Bitterroot River FWP Mountain Lion Study Area 6 — DRAFT, OCT. 2018 — and the Department with accurate and timely information so that both populations and harvest are more stable over time. Accurate monitoring and modeling data will enable simpler harvest regulations, improve our ability to reduce conflicts, and allow FWP to better manage local lion densities while protecting regional populations. Research in Montana and other
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young
    By Blane Klemek MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young Naturalists the Slinky,Stinky Weasel family ave you ever heard anyone call somebody a weasel? If you have, then you might think Hthat being called a weasel is bad. But weasels are good hunters, and they are cunning, curious, strong, and fierce. Weasels and their relatives are mammals. They belong to the order Carnivora (meat eaters) and the family Mustelidae, also known as the weasel family or mustelids. Mustela means weasel in Latin. With 65 species, mustelids are the largest family of carnivores in the world. Eight mustelid species currently make their homes in Minnesota: short-tailed weasel, long-tailed weasel, least weasel, mink, American marten, OTTERS BY DANIEL J. COX fisher, river otter, and American badger. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer May–June 2003 n e MARY CLAY, DEMBINSKY t PHOTO ASSOCIATES r mammals a WEASELS flexible m Here are two TOM AND PAT LEESON specialized mustelid feet. b One is for climb- ou can recognize a ing and the other for hort-tailed weasels (Mustela erminea), long- The long-tailed weasel d most mustelids g digging. Can you tell tailed weasels (M. frenata), and least weasels eats the most varied e food of all weasels. It by their tubelike r which is which? (M. nivalis) live throughout Minnesota. In also lives in the widest Ybodies and their short Stheir northern range, including Minnesota, weasels variety of habitats and legs. Some, such as badgers, hunting. Otters and minks turn white in winter. In autumn, white hairs begin climates across North are heavy and chunky. Some, are excellent swimmers that hunt to replace their brown summer coat.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Habits of Black Bears in Suburban Versus Rural Alabama
    Food Habits of Black Bears in Suburban versus Rural Alabama Laura Garland, Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, AL 36849 Connor Ellis, 18832 #1 Gulf Boulevard Indian Shores, FL 33785 Todd Steury, Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, AL 36849 Abstract: Little is known about the food habits of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Alabama. A major concern is the amount of human influence in the diet of these bears as human and bear populations continue to expand in a finite landscape and bear-human interactions are increasing. To better understand dietary habits of bears, 135 scats were collected during late August to late November 2011–2014. Food items were classified into the cat- egories of fruit, nuts/seeds, insects, anthropogenic, animal hairs, fawn bones, and other. Plant items were classified down to the lowest possible taxon via visual and DNA analysis as this category composed the majority of scat volumes. Frequency of occurrence was calculated for each food item. The most commonly occurring foods included: Nyssa spp. (black gum, 25.2%), Poaceae family (grass, 24.5%), Quercus spp. (acorn, 22.4%), and Vitis spp. (muscadine grape, 8.4%). Despite the proximity of these bear populations to suburban locations, during our sampling period we found that their diet primarily comprised vegetation, not anthropogenic food; while 100% of scat samples contained vegetation, only 19.6% of scat samples contained corn and no other anthropogenic food sources were detected. Based on a Fisher’s exact test, dietary composition did not differ between bears living in subur- ban areas compared to bears occupying more rural areas (P = 0.3891).
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Population Characteristics of Mule Deer Along
    Distribution and population characteristics of mule deer along the East Front, northcentral Montana by Wayne Frederick Kasworm A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fish and Wildlife Management Montana State University © Copyright by Wayne Frederick Kasworm (1981) Abstract: This study was conducted from June 1979 to September 1980 on the Rocky Mountain East Front of northcentral Montana. It was the first phase of a 2 part investigation designed to provide quantitative baseline information on mule deer seasonal distribution, movements, population status and trend, and habitat usage on a representative portion of the East Front subject to oil and gas development. Areas used by deer during average and severe winters remained relatively constant during the last 3 years. Deer displayed a high degree of fidelity to seasonal ranges. On this basis, 6 essentially independent populations were delineated by winter range origin. Movement to summer home ranges appeared rapid and direct via distinct migration corridors. Summer distribution indicated that 3 subpopulations could be delineated for each winter range. Mean summer home range size for females was larger in 1979 (7.2 km^2) than 1980 (2.7 km^2). Fall transitional ranges were identified. The pattern of transitional range use appeared to concentrate deer from 1 of the 3 subpopulations during hunting season. Age distribution of a sample of 69 deer indicated an adult population structure of 26% males and 74% females. Poor representation of the 1 1/2, 2 1/2, and 6 1/2-year-old age-classes was noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion
    Land Protection Plan Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion February 2011 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 922 Bootlegger Trail Great Falls, Montana 59404-6133 406 / 727 7400 http://www.fws.gov/bentonlake and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning P. O. Box 25486 DFC Denver, Colorado 80225 303 / 236 4378 303 / 236 4792 fax http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm CITATION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Land Protection Plan, Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. 70p. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, a land protection plan has been prepared to analyze the effects of expanding the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area in western Montana. ■ The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area Expansion Land Protection Plan describes the priorities for acquiring up to an additional 125,000 acres in conservation easements within an expanded project boundary of 918,600 acres. Note: Information contained in the maps within this document is approximate and does not represent a legal survey. Ownership information may not be complete Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................. iii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FISHER Pekania Pennanti
    WILDLIFE IN CONNECTICUT WILDLIFE FACT SHEET FISHER Pekania pennanti Background J. FUSCO © PAUL In the nineteenth century, fishers became scarce due to forest logging, clearing for agriculture, and overexploitation. By the 1900s, fishers were considered extirpated from the state. Reforestation and changes in land-use practices have restored the suitability of the fisher’s habitat in part of its historic range, allowing a population to recolonize the northeastern section of the state. Fishers did not recolonize suitable habitat in northwestern Connecticut, since the region was isolated from a source population. Fishers were rare in western Massachusetts, and the developed and agricultural habitats of the Connecticut River Valley were a barrier to westward expansion by fishers in northeastern Connecticut. A project to reintroduce this native mammal into northwestern Connecticut was initiated by the Wildlife Division in 1988. Funds from reimbursement of trapping wild turkeys in Connecticut for release in Maine were used to purchase fishers caught by cooperating trappers in New Hampshire and Vermont. In what is termed a "soft release," fishers were penned and fed at the release site for a couple of weeks prior to being released. Through radio and snow tracking, biologists later found that the fishers that were released in northwestern Connecticut had high survival rates and successfully reproduced. As a result of this project, a viable, self-sustaining population of this native mammal is now established in western Connecticut. Fishers found throughout eastern Connecticut are a result of natural range expansion. In 2005, Connecticut instituted its first modern day regulated trapping season for fishers. Most northern states have regulated fisher trapping seasons.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Fur Harvester Digest 3 SEASON DATES and BAG LIMITS
    2021 Michigan Fur Harvester Digest RAP (Report All Poaching): Call or Text (800) 292-7800 Michigan.gov/Trapping Table of Contents Furbearer Management ...................................................................3 Season Dates and Bag Limits ..........................................................4 License Types and Fees ....................................................................6 License Types and Fees by Age .......................................................6 Purchasing a License .......................................................................6 Apprentice & Youth Hunting .............................................................9 Fur Harvester License .....................................................................10 Kill Tags, Registration, and Incidental Catch .................................11 When and Where to Hunt/Trap ...................................................... 14 Hunting Hours and Zone Boundaries .............................................14 Hunting and Trapping on Public Land ............................................18 Safety Zones, Right-of-Ways, Waterways .......................................20 Hunting and Trapping on Private Land ...........................................20 Equipment and Fur Harvester Rules ............................................. 21 Use of Bait When Hunting and Trapping ........................................21 Hunting with Dogs ...........................................................................21 Equipment Regulations ...................................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: a Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators
    USDA United States Department of Agriculture Research Natural Areas on Forest Service National Forest System Lands Rocky Mountain Research Station in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, General Technical Report RMRS-CTR-69 Utah, and Western Wyoming: February 2001 A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and E'ducators Angela G. Evenden Melinda Moeur J. Stephen Shelly Shannon F. Kimball Charles A. Wellner Abstract Evenden, Angela G.; Moeur, Melinda; Shelly, J. Stephen; Kimball, Shannon F.; Wellner, Charles A. 2001. Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-69. Ogden, UT: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 84 p. This guidebook is intended to familiarize land resource managers, scientists, educators, and others with Research Natural Areas (RNAs) managed by the USDA Forest Service in the Northern Rocky Mountains and lntermountain West. This guidebook facilitates broader recognitionand use of these valuable natural areas by describing the RNA network, past and current research and monitoring, management, and how to use RNAs. About The Authors Angela G. Evenden is biological inventory and monitoring project leader with the National Park Service -NorthernColorado Plateau Network in Moab, UT. She was formerly the Natural Areas Program Manager for the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Northern Region and lntermountain Region of the USDA Forest Service. Melinda Moeur is Research Forester with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation in Moscow, ID, and one of four Research Natural Areas Coordinators from the Rocky Mountain Research Station. J. Stephen Shelly is Regional Botanist and Research Natural Areas Coordinator with the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Headquarters Office in Missoula, MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska's Predator Control Programs
    Alaska’sAlaska’s PredatorPredator ControlControl ProgramsPrograms Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? In 1995, Alaska Governor Tony Knowles responded to negative publicity over his state’s predator control programs by requesting a National Academy of Sciences review of Alaska’s entire approach to predator control. Following the review Governor Knowles announced that no program should be considered unless it met three criteria: cost-effectiveness, scientific scrutiny and broad public acceptability. The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) released its review, Wolves, Bears, and Their Prey in Alaska, in 1997, drawing conclusions and making recommendations for management of Alaska’s predators and prey. In 1996, prior to the release of the NRC report, the Wolf Management Reform Coalition, a group dedicated to promoting fair-chase hunting and responsible management of wolves in Alaska, published Showdown in Alaska to document the rise of wolf control in Alaska and the efforts undertaken to stop it. This report, Alaska’s Predator Control Programs: Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? picks up where that 1996 report left off. Acknowledgements Authors: Caroline Kennedy, Theresa Fiorino Editor: Kate Davies Designer: Pete Corcoran DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. www.defenders.org Cover photo: © Nick Jans © 2011 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4604 202.682.9400 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302 Anchorage, AK 99501 907.276.9453 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 2. The National Research Council Review ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Denudation History and Internal Structure of the Front Range and Wet Mountains, Colorado, Based on Apatite-Fission-Track Thermoc
    NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL RESOURCES, BULLETIN 160, 2004 41 Denudation history and internal structure of the Front Range and Wet Mountains, Colorado, based on apatite­fission­track thermochronology 1 2 1Department of Earth and Environmental Science, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801Shari A. Kelley and Charles E. Chapin 2New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801 Abstract An apatite fission­track (AFT) partial annealing zone (PAZ) that developed during Late Cretaceous time provides a structural datum for addressing questions concerning the timing and magnitude of denudation, as well as the structural style of Laramide deformation, in the Front Range and Wet Mountains of Colorado. AFT cooling ages are also used to estimate the magnitude and sense of dis­ placement across faults and to differentiate between exhumation and fault­generated topography. AFT ages at low elevationX along the eastern margin of the southern Front Range between Golden and Colorado Springs are from 100 to 270 Ma, and the mean track lengths are short (10–12.5 µm). Old AFT ages (> 100 Ma) are also found along the western margin of the Front Range along the Elkhorn thrust fault. In contrast AFT ages of 45–75 Ma and relatively long mean track lengths (12.5–14 µm) are common in the interior of the range. The AFT ages generally decrease across northwest­trending faults toward the center of the range. The base of a fossil PAZ, which separates AFT cooling ages of 45– 70 Ma at low elevations from AFT ages > 100 Ma at higher elevations, is exposed on the south side of Pikes Peak, on Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Should We Hunt Gray Wolves in Michigan?
    SHOULD WE HUNT GRAY WOLVES IN MICHIGAN? AUGUST 2018 Dean’s Welcome Welcome, SEAS students! Before you know it, you will be boarding a bus with your classmates, headed for the University of Michigan Biological Station (the “Biostation”) in beautiful Northern Michigan—or “Up North” as Michiganders call it. There, during an immersive orientation experience, you will explore, learn, bond—and become an integral part of our community. This is just the beginning of your graduate career at SEAS, throughout which we will work together to solve some of the world’s most complex environmental problems. This is why you chose SEAS, and why we chose you. It is all very exciting, and we cannot wait to get started. So, why wait? The following case study details an active issue in the state of Michigan: whether or not to allow a public wolf hunt. During your time at the Biostation, you will be asked to examine the issue from opposing, nuanced perspectives, challenging your own gut reaction to the problem. Discussions will be guided by the scientific, political, economic, and social analyses included in these pages. You will actively collaborate with your classmates to uncover and synthesize facts, ultimately building a responsible, sustainable policy recommendation on Michigan’s wolf population. To prepare, simply read the case study and let it simmer. There is no need to do additional research. Enjoy your time at orientation. Get to know your classmates. Explore the gorgeous landscape. And then, come September 4th, join us back at the Dana Building ready to launch your graduate education and set out on a path of meaningful work—work that will have an impact on generations to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Sustainable Bycatch Rates for California Sea Lion Populations in the Gulf of California
    Contributed Paper Estimating Sustainable Bycatch Rates for California Sea Lion Populations in the Gulf of California JARED G. UNDERWOOD,∗‡ CLAUDIA J. HERNANDEZ CAMACHO,∗† DAVID AURIOLES-GAMBOA,† AND LEAH R. GERBER∗ ∗Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Science, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, College & University Drive, Tempe, AZ 85287-1501, U.S.A. †Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas-IPN, Av. IPN s/n Col. Playa Palo de Santa Rita, La Paz BCS 23096, Mexico´ Abstract: Commercial and subsistence fisheries pressure is increasing in the Gulf of California, Mexico. One consequence often associated with high levels of fishing pressure is an increase in bycatch of marine mammals and birds. Fisheries bycatch has contributed to declines in several pinniped species and may be affecting the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) population in the Gulf of California. We used data on fisheries and sea lion entanglement in gill nets to estimate current fishing pressure and fishing rates under which viable sea lion populations could be sustained at 11 breeding sites in the Gulf of California. We used 3 models to estimate sustainable bycatch rates: a simple population-growth model, a demographic model, and an estimate of the potential biological removal. All models were based on life history and census data collected for sea lions in the Gulf of California. We estimated the current level of fishing pressure and the acceptable level of fishing required to maintain viable sea lion populations as the number of fishing days (1 fisher/boat setting and retrieving 1 day’s worth of nets) per year. Estimates of current fishing pressure ranged from 101 (0–405) fishing days around the Los Machos breeding site to 1887 (842–3140) around the Los Islotes rookery.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Wolf Hunting Policy on Moose Populations in Northern Minnesota Thomas J Mackey† and Thomas Bryce Kelly*
    Impact of wolf hunting policy on moose populations in northern Minnesota Thomas J Mackey† and Thomas Bryce Kelly* *Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Email: [email protected] 5 † Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA. Email: [email protected] s t n i r P e 10 r P 15 Abstract An ongoing and politically sensitive aspect of proper ecological stewardship revolves around improving the conditions and health of all of the species in the area of 20 concern including both predator and prey species. Human industrial activities have dramatically reduced the land area available to the native species which has placed stresses and fragility into the ecological web. Maintaining proper ecological dynamics has become a critical aspect of policy initiatives designed to safeguard our natural reserves including the establishment of ecological forests and sanctuaries. Herein we 25 outline our proposal to tackle a central issue in wildlife management: improving our knowledge of predator-prey dynamics that vary both temporally and specially in non- linear ways. By leveraging techniques pioneered in other disciplines in addition to the traditional methods, we aim to drastically improve our understanding of the Moose-Grey Wolf interaction and to develop a system with applicability in other regions and other 30 species. PeerJ PrePrints | http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.769v2 | CC-BY 4.0 Open Access | rec: 31 Dec 2014, publ: 31 Dec 2014 2 | Mackey and Kelly Introduction Northern Minnesota exists at the southern boundary of Moose (Alces alces) distributions in central North America. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 5 (Minnesota DNR) conducts annual aerial plot surveys to estimate Moose populations.
    [Show full text]