DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon Littoralis)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon Littoralis) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) Island fox. Daniel Richards, used with permission. Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis) (May 2012) Region 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, Region 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect federally listed species. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, publish recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than our own. They represent our official position only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Notice of Copyrighted Material Permission to use copyrighted illustrations and images in the draft version of this recovery plan has been granted by the copyright holders. These illustrations are not placed in the public domain by their appearance herein. They cannot be copied or otherwise reproduced, except in their printed context within this document, without the written consent of the copyright holder. Literature citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 106 pp. + appendices An electronic copy of this draft recovery plan will be made available at http://www.pacific.fws.gov/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/plans.html and http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html#plans i Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There were many contributors to the development of this recovery plan. We would like to acknowledge the staff of the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, the Island Fox Recovery Coordination Group, the technical experts to the recovery team, and the researchers and field biologists for their contributions to this draft recovery plan. We appreciate the long-term commitment of the recovery team and their assistance in preparing this recovery plan over the period of development. Affiliations of the following individuals can be found in Appendix 1 of this document. Primary Authors This draft recovery plan was developed by the Island Fox Recovery Coordination Group: Brian Cypher, Carlos de la Rosa, David Graber, Devra Kleiman, Eric Morrissette, Peter Schuyler, Rebecca Shaw, Dale Steele, and Rosie Woodroffe. Peter Schuyler served as the Chair of the Recovery Team, and Eric Morrissette served as the Recovery Team Coordinator. Additional Contributors The following people provided valuable assistance in the development of this recovery plan: Vickie Bakker, Paul Collins, Tim Coonan, Dan Doak, Julie King, Colleen Lynch, Linda Munson, Kathy Ralls, Esther Rubin, Winston Vickers, Kirk Waln, and Rachel Wolstenholme. We thank the land management agencies/organizations and members of their staff for their continued support of island fox recovery efforts: the National Park Service - Channel Islands National Park, The Nature Conservancy, and the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy. We also recognize the contributions from the Integrated Island Fox Recovery Team and the Institute for Wildlife Studies in their efforts to aid in the development of this plan and promote island fox conservation and recovery. We further recognize the Friends of the Island Fox, Inc. for their efforts to promote island fox conservation and recovery through public outreach and education. ii Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox DEDICATION This recovery plan is dedicated to the memory of Devra Kleiman and Linda Munson, who passed away in 2010. They were both instrumental in developing this plan and in constructing effective recovery actions for island foxes. Devra served on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Island Fox Recovery Coordination Group, and as such was an author of this document. She was truly a giant in conservation biology and generously lent her considerable talents to island fox recovery. She was a passionate advocate of implementing recovery actions in a scientific manner, and of appropriate environmental education, and she successfully integrated the mainland zoo community into the island fox conservation effort. Her forthright, direct style of communication enlivened many recovery team meetings. Linda Munson was one of the world’s leading carnivore pathologists, and led studies of island fox disease and pathology since 1999. She conducted hundreds of island fox necropsies, and it is not hyperbole to say that all of our current insight into island fox health issues is due to her tireless work. Linda led the Island Fox Health Group since 1999, and under her guidance they were always the most disciplined, effective and productive of the island fox recovery team working groups. Among the issues she discovered or brought to the forefront were the unique, island-specific parasite fauna of island foxes, the nature of the canine distemper strain on Santa Catalina Island and the endemic distemper-like virus found naturally in island fox populations, chronic amyloidosis, ear tumors on Santa Catalina, and neonatal deaths from maternal neglect. iii Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox iv Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed four of the six subspecies of island fox endemic to the California Channel Islands as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) following catastrophic population declines (69 FR 10335). The San Miguel Island fox (Urocyon littoralis littoralis) went from an estimated 450 individuals to 15; the Santa Rosa Island fox (U. l. santarosae) declined from over 1,750 individuals to 14; the number of Santa Cruz Island foxes (U. l. santacruzae) went from approximately 1,450 individuals to approximately 55; and the Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l. catalinae) declined from over 1,300 to 103. The San Clemente Island fox (U. l. clementae) and the San Nicolas Island fox (U. l. dickeyi) were not federally listed, as their population numbers had not experienced similar declines. However, both non-federally listed subspecies could experience the same type of population decline as those subspecies that are federally listed. Additionally, all six subspecies are listed as threatened by the State of California. Therefore, the San Clemente and San Nicolas Island fox subspecies are included for discussion in this plan where appropriate. The Channel Islands inhabited by island foxes are owned by four major landowners: the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Navy (Navy), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the Santa Catalina Island Conservancy (CIC). Although San Miguel Island is owned by the Navy, the NPS manages the island. The NPS, TNC, and CIC manage the islands where the listed subspecies occur. The FWS guides the recovery planning process for the four listed island fox subspecies under the Act. In addition, the State of California has regulatory authority over the island fox on non-Federal lands because the species is listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. The two primary known threats resulting in the listing of the four subspecies of island fox as federally endangered were: 1) predation by golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) (San Miguel Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, and Santa Cruz Island fox) and 2) the transmission of canine distemper virus (Santa Catalina Island fox). Additionally, because the size of each island fox population is small, they are highly vulnerable to stochastic events and the effects of low genetic diversity. Other threats that have either contributed to the decline of island foxes or continue to affect the island fox subspecies and/or their habitat include mortality from vehicle strikes; other diseases and parasites; competition v Draft Recovery Plan for Four Subspecies of Island Fox with feral cats, deer, and pigs; habitat degradation from grazing; fire; and exposure to toxins. The current knowledge regarding the evolution, ecology, behavior, and population biology of island foxes has been amassed by numerous researchers from around the country. Collaboration with researchers has been, and will continue to be, critically important in understanding island fox natural history and recovery challenges. Recovery of each subspecies of island fox will be achieved by removing, or substantially reducing, known threats and increasing populations to viable levels for long-term survival of each subspecies. The strategy of this recovery plan is to continue the current recovery efforts and to improve and expand recovery actions as necessary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pygmy Hog – 1 Southern Ningaul – 16 Kowari – 9 Finlayson's Squirrel
    Pygmy Hog – 1 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Southern Ningaul – 16 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Kowari – 9 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Finlayson’s Squirrel – 8 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Kodkod – 5 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Least Chipmunk – 12 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Tree Hyrax – 4 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Bank Vole – 13 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Island Fox – 6 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Gray-bellied Caenolestid – 11 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Raccoon Dog – 3 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Northern Short-Tailed Shrew – 14 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Southern African Hedgehog - 7 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Collard Pika - 10 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Pudu – 2 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Seba’s Short-tailed Bat – 15 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Pygmy Spotted Skunk - 16 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Grandidier’s “Mongoose” - 16 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Sloth Bear - 1 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Spotted Linsing - 9 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Red Panda - 8 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size European Badger – 5 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Giant Forest Genet – 12 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size African Civet – 4 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Kinkajou – 13 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense: Size Fossa – 6 Habitat: Diurnal/Nocturnal Defense:
    [Show full text]
  • Double Allee Effects and Extinction in the Island Fox
    Double Allee Effects and Extinction in the Island Fox ELENA ANGULO,∗†† GARY W. ROEMER,† LUDEKˇ BEREC,‡ JOANNA GASCOIGNE,§ AND FRANCK COURCHAMP∗ ∗Ecologie, Syst´ematique et Evolution, UMR CNRS 8079, University of Paris-Sud, Orsay Cedex 91405, France †Department of Fishery and Wildlife Sciences, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30003, MSC 4901, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003, U.S.A. ‡Department of Theoretical Ecology, Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre ASCR, Braniˇsovsk´a 31, 37005 Cesk´ˇ e Budˇejovice, Czech Republic §School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5AB, United Kingdom Abstract: An Allee effect (AE) occurs in populations when individuals suffer a decrease in fitness at low densities. If a fitness component is reduced (component AE), per capita population growth rates may decline as a consequence (demographic AE) and extinction risk is increased. The island fox (Urocyon littoralis)is endemic to six of the eight California Channel Islands. Population crashes have coincided with an increase in predation by Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). We propose that AEs could render fox populations more sensitive and may be a likely explanation for their sharp decline. We analyzed demographic data collected between 1988 and 2000 to test whether fox density (1) influences survival and reproductive rates; (2) interacts with eagle presence and affects fox fitness parameters; and (3) influences per capita fox population trends. A double component AE simultaneously influenced survival (of adults and pups) and proportion of breeding adult females. The adult survival AE was driven by predation by eagles. These component AEs led to a demographic AE.
    [Show full text]
  • Island Fox Subspecies
    PETITION TO LIST FOUR ISLAND FOX SUBSPECIES San Miguel Island fox (U. l. littoralis) Santa Rosa Island fox (U. l. santarosae) Santa Cruz Island fox (U. l. santacruzae) Santa Catalina Island fox (U. l. catalinae) AS ENDANGERED SPECIES Center for Biological Diversity Institute for Wildlife Studies June 1, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notice of Petition ..............................................................1 Executive Summary ...........................................................2 Systematics Species Description ...........................................................4 Taxonomy ..................................................................4 Distribution and Evolution .......................................................4 Significance .................................................................6 Natural History Habitat Use and Home Range ....................................................6 Food Habits .................................................................6 Social Organization ............................................................7 Reproduction ................................................................7 Survival and Mortality ..........................................................8 Competition With Other Species ..................................................9 Population Status and Trend San Miguel Island (U. l. littoralis) .................................................9 Santa Rosa Island (U. l. santarosae) .............................................10 Santa Cruz Island (U. l. santacruzae)
    [Show full text]
  • Aza Board & Staff
    The Perfect Package. Quality, Value and Convenience! Order online! Discover what tens of thousands of customers — including commercial reptile breeding facilities, veterinarians, and some of our country’s most respected zoos www.RodentPro.com and aquariums — have already learned: with Rodentpro.com®, you get quality It’s quick, convenient AND value! Guaranteed. and guaranteed! RodentPro.com® offers only the highest quality frozen mice, rats, rabbits, P. O . Box 118 guinea pigs, chickens and quail at prices that are MORE than competitive. Inglefield, IN 47618-9998 We set the industry standards by offering unsurpassed quality, breeder Tel: 812.867.7598 direct pricing and year-round availability. Fax: 812.867.6058 ® With RodentPro.com , you’ll know you’re getting exactly what you order: E-mail: [email protected] clean nutritious feeders with exact sizing and superior quality. And with our exclusive shipping methods, your order arrives frozen, not thawed. We guarantee it. ©2013 Rodentpro.com,llc. PRESORTED STANDARD U.S. POSTAGE American Association of PAID Zoological Parks And Aquariums Rockville, Maryland PERMIT #4297 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 710 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (301) 562-0777 www.aza.org FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED MOVING? SEND OLD LABEL AND NEW ADDRESS DATED MATERIAL MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE 10TH CONNECT This Is Your Last Issue… Renew your AZA membership TODAY (see back panel for details) Connect with these valuable resources for Benefits Professional Associate, Professional Affiliate Available and Professional Fellow
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Predator
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREDATOR DAMAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE UVALDE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Prepared by: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES in cooperation with: TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE EXTENSION SERVICE OF THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM November 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................................. iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 NEED FOR ACTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 19 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS EA TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS .................................. 22 1.5 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................................... 22 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................................... 24 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 2: ISSUES AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying the Foxes of North America
    Identifying the Foxes of North America fox coyote Species: gray fox island fox red fox kit fox swift fox arctic fox coyote EARS Rounded, no black Rounded, no black Pointy with black Relatively large Smaller rounded Small rounded ears Pointy, leaning tips tips tips ears ears outward MUZZLE Pointy, but shorter Short on a dainty Long and pointy Narrow Narrow Relatively short Long, slender and than red fox face pointy FUR (PELAGE) Cinnamon-rufous Cinnamon-rufous Reddish brown Grizzled to tawny Pale yellowish-red Winter phase - Grayish cinnamon, with white on the with white on the with white chest gray with buff and gray, with pure white; “blue” brown or a face, throat, belly face, throat, belly and upper lip highlights on neck, wide gray stripe phase in spring/ combination and hind legs and hind legs. Can (color can range sides and legs down back summer - dark to be somewhat from pale to black) dull slate gray darker overall TAIL Black tip Black tip White tip (always) Black tip Black tip Entirely one color Coloration varies SIZE 7–13 pounds 3–6 pounds 7–18 pounds 4–7 pounds 4–6 pounds 6–15 pounds 25–45 pounds Identifying Black stripe down Black stripe down Black tips on ears Tail is long and Only small fox on Changes coloring Dog like in Characteristics tail, generally back and tail, and black feet bushy; dens under- no. Great Plains; seasonally; only appearance and stocky with short diminutive size ground year-round dens underground fox found in high stance legs year-round arctic tundra HABITAT Southern Canada Found in the wild Across North Arid regions of CA Formerly the Great Arctic tundra from North America, to Central America; ONLY on six America; in every and US Southwest, Plains, reduced to Alaska across south of the tundra absent from Channel Islands of state, but absent into Mexico and western NB, KS, northern Canada to Central America northern Rockies So.
    [Show full text]
  • Reptile and Amphibian Enforcement Applicable Law Sections
    Reptile and Amphibian Enforcement Applicable Law Sections Environmental Conservation Law 11-0103. Definitions. As used in the Fish and Wildlife Law: 1. a. "Fish" means all varieties of the super-class Pisces. b. "Food fish" means all species of edible fish and squid (cephalopoda). c. "Migratory fish of the sea" means both catadromous and anadromous species of fish which live a part of their life span in salt water streams and oceans. d. "Fish protected by law" means fish protected, by law or by regulations of the department, by restrictions on open seasons or on size of fish that may be taken. e. Unless otherwise indicated, "Trout" includes brook trout, brown trout, red-throat trout, rainbow trout and splake. "Trout", "landlocked salmon", "black bass", "pickerel", "pike", and "walleye" mean respectively, the fish or groups of fish identified by those names, with or without one or more other common names of fish belonging to the group. "Pacific salmon" means coho salmon, chinook salmon and pink salmon. 2. "Game" is classified as (a) game birds; (b) big game; (c) small game. a. "Game birds" are classified as (1) migratory game birds and (2) upland game birds. (1) "Migratory game birds" means the Anatidae or waterfowl, commonly known as geese, brant, swans and river and sea ducks; the Rallidae, commonly known as rails, American coots, mud hens and gallinules; the Limicolae or shorebirds, commonly known as woodcock, snipe, plover, surfbirds, sandpipers, tattlers and curlews; the Corvidae, commonly known as jays, crows and magpies. (2) "Upland game birds" (Gallinae) means wild turkeys, grouse, pheasant, Hungarian or European gray-legged partridge and quail.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility and Strategies for Translocating San Joaquin Kit Foxes to Vacant Or Restored Habitats
    FEASIBILITY AND STRATEGIES FOR TRANSLOCATING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES TO VACANT OR RESTORED HABITATS PREPARED FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CONSERVATION PROGRAM U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Prepared by: Samantha Bremner-Harrison and Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program 1900 N. Gateway #101 Fresno, CA 93727 November 2007 FEASIBILITY AND STRATEGIES FOR REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES TO VACANT OR RESTORED HABITATS Samantha Bremner-Harrison and Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................i 1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 2. Literature review of animal reintroductions and translocations ............................. 2 2.1. Introduction and definitions ............................................................................................. 2 2.2. Common issues associated with reintroduction programs............................................. 3 2.2.1. Expense....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2. Available habitat ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pathogen Exposure in Endangered Island Fox (Urocyon Littoralis) Populations: Implications for Conservation Management
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 131 (2006) 230– 243 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Pathogen exposure in endangered island fox (Urocyon littoralis) populations: Implications for conservation management Deana L. Clifforda,*, Jonna A.K. Mazeta, Edward J. Dubovib, David K. Garcelonc, Timothy J. Coonand, Patricia A. Conrada, Linda Munsona aWildlife Health Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA bDiagnostic Laboratory, New York State College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, PO Box 786, Ithaca, NY 14851, USA cInstitute for Wildlife Studies, PO Box 1104, Arcata, CA 95518, USA dNational Park Service, Channel Islands National Park, 1901 Spinnaker Drive, Ventura, CA 93001, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Island fox (Urocyon littoralis) populations on four California Channel Islands have declined Island fox severely since 1994. Canine distemper (CDV) was suspected to be responsible for the decline Urocyon littoralis of the Santa Catalina Island fox, so knowledge of infectious disease exposure in the remain- Canine diseases ing island fox populations was urgently needed. This study reviewed previous pathogen Canine distemper virus exposure in island foxes and investigated the current threat by conducting a serologic survey Serosurvey of foxes on all islands and sympatric feral cats on three islands from 2001 to 2003 for antibod- Feral cats ies against canid pathogens. Before the decline, foxes had evidence of exposure to CDV, canine adenovirus (CAV), canine parvovirus (CPV), and Toxoplasma, with exposure to these five pathogens differing greatly by island. Exposure to canine coronavirus (CCV), canine her- pesvirus (CHV), and Leptospira was rare. In 2001–2003, wild-born foxes had evidence of expo- sure to CDV (5.2–32.8%) on 5 of 6 islands, CPV (28–100%) and CAV (4.7–100%) on five islands, and Toxoplasma gondii (2.3–15.4%) on four islands.
    [Show full text]
  • List of 28 Orders, 129 Families, 598 Genera and 1121 Species in Mammal Images Library 31 December 2013
    What the American Society of Mammalogists has in the images library LIST OF 28 ORDERS, 129 FAMILIES, 598 GENERA AND 1121 SPECIES IN MAMMAL IMAGES LIBRARY 31 DECEMBER 2013 AFROSORICIDA (5 genera, 5 species) – golden moles and tenrecs CHRYSOCHLORIDAE - golden moles Chrysospalax villosus - Rough-haired Golden Mole TENRECIDAE - tenrecs 1. Echinops telfairi - Lesser Hedgehog Tenrec 2. Hemicentetes semispinosus – Lowland Streaked Tenrec 3. Microgale dobsoni - Dobson’s Shrew Tenrec 4. Tenrec ecaudatus – Tailless Tenrec ARTIODACTYLA (83 genera, 142 species) – paraxonic (mostly even-toed) ungulates ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BOVIDAE (46 genera) - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Addax nasomaculatus - Addax 2. Aepyceros melampus - Impala 3. Alcelaphus buselaphus - Hartebeest 4. Alcelaphus caama – Red Hartebeest 5. Ammotragus lervia - Barbary Sheep 6. Antidorcas marsupialis - Springbok 7. Antilope cervicapra – Blackbuck 8. Beatragus hunter – Hunter’s Hartebeest 9. Bison bison - American Bison 10. Bison bonasus - European Bison 11. Bos frontalis - Gaur 12. Bos javanicus - Banteng 13. Bos taurus -Auroch 14. Boselaphus tragocamelus - Nilgai 15. Bubalus bubalis - Water Buffalo 16. Bubalus depressicornis - Anoa 17. Bubalus quarlesi - Mountain Anoa 18. Budorcas taxicolor - Takin 19. Capra caucasica - Tur 20. Capra falconeri - Markhor 21. Capra hircus - Goat 22. Capra nubiana – Nubian Ibex 23. Capra pyrenaica – Spanish Ibex 24. Capricornis crispus – Japanese Serow 25. Cephalophus jentinki - Jentink's Duiker 26. Cephalophus natalensis – Red Duiker 1 What the American Society of Mammalogists has in the images library 27. Cephalophus niger – Black Duiker 28. Cephalophus rufilatus – Red-flanked Duiker 29. Cephalophus silvicultor - Yellow-backed Duiker 30. Cephalophus zebra - Zebra Duiker 31. Connochaetes gnou - Black Wildebeest 32. Connochaetes taurinus - Blue Wildebeest 33. Damaliscus korrigum – Topi 34.
    [Show full text]
  • January 11, 2017 Honorable David E. Ryu Los Angeles City Council
    January 11, 2017 Honorable David E. Ryu Los Angeles City Council Room 1010, City Hall 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Councilmember Ryu: With more than sixty accredited members, the Zoological Association of America (ZAA) is the second largest trade association in the zoological sector; counting among its members some of the finest facilities in the United States. As part of its core mission, ZAA accredits professional zoological facilities. ZAA accreditation is predicated on promoting the highest standards of animal welfare, as well as public and animal safety. Our accreditation standards meet or exceed all accepted industry standards and federal requirements. Our safety record is the best of any of the major zoological trade associations. (As a trusted source of industry information, a ZAA spokesperson was quoted extensively following the tragic incident at the Cincinnati Zoo this last summer.) We believe that any proposed ordinance banning public showings of animals for the benefit of audiences strikes at the heart of the most effective educational programs about the natural world that have yet been devised, and is poor public policy. It is clearly the agenda of animal rights activists and not that of parents who long for wholesome programs for their children. The people dedicating their livelihoods to display and education of animals are concerned that many endangered species are nearing extinction from poaching and destruction of habitats; and their only salvation is to inspire the citizenry to protect them. “Jungle Jack” Hanna, clearly one of ZAA’s best-known professional members, has been on television in major cities hundreds of times on the Today show, the Tonight show and many others, demonstrating the wide variety of animal life, and mostly with exotic animals.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Conservation Impact Report
    2009 Conservation Impact Report Introduction AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums serve as conservation centers that are concerned about ecosystem health, take responsibility for species survival, contribute to research, conservation, and education, and provide society the opportunity to develop personal connections with the animals in their care. Whether breeding and re-introducing endangered species, rescuing and rehabilitating sick and injured animals, maintaining far-reaching educational and outreach programs or supporting and conducting in-situ and ex-situ research and field conservation projects, zoos and aquariums play a vital role in maintaining our planet’s diverse wildlife and natural habitats while engaging the public to appreciate and participate in conservation. In 2009, 127 of AZA’s 238 accredited institutions and certified-related facilities contributed data for the 2009 Conservation Impact Report. A summary of the 1,762 conservation efforts these institutions participated in within ~60 countries is provided. In addition, a list of individual projects is broken out by state and zoological institution. This report was compiled by Shelly Grow (AZA Conservation Biologist) as well as Jamie Shockley and Katherine Zdilla (AZA Volunteer Interns). This report, along with those from previous years, is available on the AZA Web site at: http://www.aza.org/annual-report-on-conservation-and-science/. 2009 AZA Conservation Projects Grevy's Zebra Trust ARGENTINA National/International Conservation Support CANADA Temaiken Foundation Health
    [Show full text]