DOCSLIB.ORG

Pronghorn Antelope Workshop 20:5-23

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pronghorn Antelope Workshop 20:5-23 SOUTH DAKOTA PRONGHORN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2019 – 2029 SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF GAME, FISH AND PARKS PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA WILDLIFE DIVISION REPORT 2019-05 July 2019 This document is for general, strategic guidance for the Division of Wildlife and serves to identify what we strive to accomplish related to Pronghorn Management. This process will emphasize working cooperatively with interested publics in both the planning process and the regular program activities related to pronghorn management. This plan will be utilized by Department staff on an annual basis and will be formally evaluated at least every 10 years. Plan updates and changes, however, may occur more frequently as needed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This plan is a product of substantial discussion, debate, and input from many wildlife professionals. In addition, those comments and suggestions received from private landowners, hunters, and those who recognized the value of pronghorn and their associated habitats were also considered. Management Plan Coordinator – Andy Lindbloom, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP). SDGFP Pronghorn Management Plan Team that assisted with plan writing, data review and analyses, critical reviews and/or edits to the South Dakota Pronghorn Management Plan, 2019 - 2029 – Nathan Baker, Chalis Bird, Paul Coughlin, Josh Delger, Jacquie Ermer, Steve Griffin, Trenton Haffley, Corey Huxoll, John Kanta, Keith Fisk, Tom Kirschenmann, Chad Lehman, Cindy Longmire, Stan Michals, Mark Norton, Tim Olson, Chad Switzer, and Lauren Wiechmann. Cover art was provided by Adam Oswald. All text and data contained within this document are subject to revision for corrections, updates, and data analyses. Recommended Citation: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 2019. South Dakota Pronghorn Management Plan, 2019 – 2029. Completion Report 2019-05. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, USA. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... II TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ III LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... VI LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. VII LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. IX ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... X EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... XII INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1 SEASON SETTING PROCESS .................................................................................................... 5 SDGFP RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 5 SDGFP COMMISSION ACTION ............................................................................................................ 9 POST-SDGFP COMMISSION ACTION ................................................................................................. 10 PRONGHORN HUNTING ....................................................................................................... 12 HISTORICAL HARVEST ...................................................................................................................... 12 HUNTING SEASONS ......................................................................................................................... 12 LANDOWNER LICENSES AND PREFERENCE SYSTEM ................................................................................ 13 Landowner-own-land License ............................................................................................................................. 13 Landowner Preference ....................................................................................................................................... 14 PRONGHORN HUNTER PROFILE ......................................................................................................... 17 HUNTER ACCESS .................................................................................................................. 17 ECONOMICS ........................................................................................................................ 19 CONSUMPTIVE USE ........................................................................................................................ 19 NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE ................................................................................................................ 21 PRONGHORN POPULATION SURVEYS................................................................................... 22 DATA ANALYSIS UNITS .................................................................................................................... 22 HARVEST SURVEYS ......................................................................................................................... 24 Firearm Pronghorn ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Custer State Park Pronghorn .............................................................................................................................. 26 Archery Pronghorn ............................................................................................................................................. 26 Mentored Youth Pronghorn ............................................................................................................................... 29 AERIAL SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................ 29 HERD COMPOSITION SURVEYS .......................................................................................................... 32 SURVIVAL MONITORING .................................................................................................................. 34 POPULATION MODELING ................................................................................................................. 35 iii PRONGHORN RESEARCH IN SOUTH DAKOTA ........................................................................ 37 MOVEMENTS AND HOME RANGE ...................................................................................................... 37 SEASONAL HABITAT & RESOURCE SELECTION ...................................................................................... 38 DIET AND NUTRITION ...................................................................................................................... 39 DISEASE ....................................................................................................................................... 40 SURVIVAL ..................................................................................................................................... 41 PUBLIC LANDS ..................................................................................................................... 42 SDGFP ........................................................................................................................................ 42 Custer State Park ................................................................................................................................................ 43 SDSPL ......................................................................................................................................... 45 BLM ........................................................................................................................................... 46 USFS .......................................................................................................................................... 49 USFS National Grasslands .................................................................................................................................. 49 NPS ............................................................................................................................................ 50 Wind Cave National Park ................................................................................................................................... 50 Badlands National Park ...................................................................................................................................... 51 PRIVATE LANDS ................................................................................................................... 51 SDGFP WILDLIFE PARTNERS PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 52 SDGFP WETLANDS AND GRASSLANDS PROGRAM ................................................................................ 52 USDA FARM BILL PROGRAMS .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 5 of the 2020 Antelope, Deer and Elk Regulations
    WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION Antelope, 2020 Deer and Elk Hunting Regulations Don't forget your conservation stamp Hunters and anglers must purchase a conservation stamp to hunt and fish in Wyoming. (See page 6) See page 18 for more information. wgfd.wyo.gov Wyoming Hunting Regulations | 1 CONTENTS Access on Lands Enrolled in the Department’s Walk-in Areas Elk or Hunter Management Areas .................................................... 4 Hunt area map ............................................................................. 46 Access Yes Program .......................................................................... 4 Hunting seasons .......................................................................... 47 Age Restrictions ................................................................................. 4 Characteristics ............................................................................. 47 Antelope Special archery seasons.............................................................. 57 Hunt area map ..............................................................................12 Disabled hunter season extension.............................................. 57 Hunting seasons ...........................................................................13 Elk Special Management Permit ................................................. 57 Characteristics ..............................................................................13 Youth elk hunters........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Boselaphus Tragocamelus</I>
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2008 Boselaphus tragocamelus (Artiodactyla: Bovidae) David M. Leslie Jr. U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Leslie, David M. Jr., "Boselaphus tragocamelus (Artiodactyla: Bovidae)" (2008). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 723. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/723 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. MAMMALIAN SPECIES 813:1–16 Boselaphus tragocamelus (Artiodactyla: Bovidae) DAVID M. LESLIE,JR. United States Geological Survey, Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-3051, USA; [email protected] Abstract: Boselaphus tragocamelus (Pallas, 1766) is a bovid commonly called the nilgai or blue bull and is Asia’s largest antelope. A sexually dimorphic ungulate of large stature and unique coloration, it is the only species in the genus Boselaphus. It is endemic to peninsular India and small parts of Pakistan and Nepal, has been extirpated from Bangladesh, and has been introduced in the United States (Texas), Mexico, South Africa, and Italy. It prefers open grassland and savannas and locally is a significant agricultural pest in India. It is not of special conservation concern and is well represented in zoos and private collections throughout the world. DOI: 10.1644/813.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Population, Distribution and Conservation Status of Sitatunga (Tragelaphus Spekei) (Sclater) in Selected Wetlands in Uganda
    POPULATION, DISTRIBUTION AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF SITATUNGA (TRAGELAPHUS SPEKEI) (SCLATER) IN SELECTED WETLANDS IN UGANDA Biological -Life history Biological -Ecologicl… Protection -Regulation of… 5 Biological -Dispersal Protection -Effectiveness… 4 Biological -Human tolerance Protection -proportion… 3 Status -National Distribtuion Incentive - habitat… 2 Status -National Abundance Incentive - species… 1 Status -National… Incentive - Effect of harvest 0 Status -National… Monitoring - confidence in… Status -National Major… Monitoring - methods used… Harvest Management -… Control -Confidence in… Harvest Management -… Control - Open access… Harvest Management -… Control of Harvest-in… Harvest Management -Aim… Control of Harvest-in… Harvest Management -… Control of Harvest-in… Tragelaphus spekii (sitatunga) NonSubmitted Detrimental to Findings (NDF) Research and Monitoring Unit Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) Plot 7 Kira Road Kamwokya, P.O. Box 3530 Kampala Uganda Email/Web - [email protected]/ www.ugandawildlife.org Prepared By Dr. Edward Andama (PhD) Lead consultant Busitema University, P. O. Box 236, Tororo Uganda Telephone: 0772464279 or 0704281806 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] Final Report i January 2019 Contents ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GLOSSARY .......................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... viii 1.1Background ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BIGHORN SHEEP Ovis Canadensis Original1 Prepared by R.A
    BIGHORN SHEEP Ovis canadensis Original1 prepared by R.A. Demarchi Species Information Distribution Global Taxonomy The genus Ovis is present in west-central Asia, Until recently, three species of Bighorn Sheep were Siberia, and North America (and widely introduced recognized in North America: California Bighorn in Europe). Approximately 38 000 Rocky Mountain Sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana), Rocky Bighorn Sheep (Wishart 1999) are distributed in Mountain Bighorn Sheep (O. canadensis canadensis), scattered patches along the Rocky Mountains of and Desert Bighorn Sheep (O. canadensis nelsoni). As North America from west of Grand Cache, Alberta, a result of morphometric measurements, and to northern New Mexico. They are more abundant protein and mtDNA analysis, Ramey (1995, 1999) and continuously distributed in the rainshadow of recommended that only Desert Bighorn Sheep and the eastern slopes of the Continental Divide the Sierra Nevada population of California Bighorn throughout their range. Sheep be recognized as separate subspecies. California Bighorn Sheep were extirpated from most Currently, California and Rocky Mountain Bighorn of the United States by epizootic disease contracted sheep are managed as separate ecotypes in British from domestic sheep in the 1800s with a small Columbia. number living in California until 1954 (Buechner Description 1960). Since 1954, Bighorn Sheep have been reintroduced from British Columbia to California, California Bighorn Sheep are slightly smaller than Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and mature Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Washington, resulting in their re-establishment in (McTaggart-Cowan and Guiguet 1965). Like their much of their historic range. By 1998, California Rocky Mountain counterpart, California Bighorn Bighorn Sheep were estimated to number 10 000 Sheep have a dark to medium rich brown head, neck, (Toweill 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Genital Brucella Suis Biovar 2 Infection of Wild Boar (Sus Scrofa) Hunted in Tuscany (Italy)
    microorganisms Article Genital Brucella suis Biovar 2 Infection of Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Hunted in Tuscany (Italy) Giovanni Cilia * , Filippo Fratini , Barbara Turchi, Marta Angelini, Domenico Cerri and Fabrizio Bertelloni Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, Viale delle Piagge 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy; fi[email protected] (F.F.); [email protected] (B.T.); [email protected] (M.A.); [email protected] (D.C.); [email protected] (F.B.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Brucellosis is a zoonosis caused by different Brucella species. Wild boar (Sus scrofa) could be infected by some species and represents an important reservoir, especially for B. suis biovar 2. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of Brucella spp. by serological and molecular assays in wild boar hunted in Tuscany (Italy) during two hunting seasons. From 287 animals, sera, lymph nodes, livers, spleens, and reproductive system organs were collected. Within sera, 16 (5.74%) were positive to both rose bengal test (RBT) and complement fixation test (CFT), with titres ranging from 1:4 to 1:16 (corresponding to 20 and 80 ICFTU/mL, respectively). Brucella spp. DNA was detected in four lymph nodes (1.40%), five epididymides (1.74%), and one fetus pool (2.22%). All positive PCR samples belonged to Brucella suis biovar 2. The results of this investigation confirmed that wild boar represents a host for B. suis biovar. 2 and plays an important role in the epidemiology of brucellosis in central Italy. Additionally, epididymis localization confirms the possible venereal transmission. Citation: Cilia, G.; Fratini, F.; Turchi, B.; Angelini, M.; Cerri, D.; Bertelloni, Keywords: Brucella suis biovar 2; wild boar; surveillance; epidemiology; reproductive system F.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaplasma Phagocytophilum and Babesia Species Of
    pathogens Article Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Babesia Species of Sympatric Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus), Fallow Deer (Dama dama), Sika Deer (Cervus nippon) and Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) in Germany Cornelia Silaghi 1,2,*, Julia Fröhlich 1, Hubert Reindl 3, Dietmar Hamel 4 and Steffen Rehbein 4 1 Institute of Comparative Tropical Medicine and Parasitology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Leopoldstr. 5, 80802 Munich, Germany; [email protected] 2 Institute of Infectology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Südufer 10, 17493 Greifswald Insel Riems, Germany 3 Tierärztliche Fachpraxis für Kleintiere, Schießtrath 12, 92709 Moosbach, Germany; [email protected] 4 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH, Kathrinenhof Research Center, Walchenseestr. 8-12, 83101 Rohrdorf, Germany; [email protected] (D.H.); steff[email protected] (S.R.) * Correspondence: cornelia.silaghi@fli.de; Tel.: +49-0-383-5171-172 Received: 15 October 2020; Accepted: 18 November 2020; Published: 20 November 2020 Abstract: (1) Background: Wild cervids play an important role in transmission cycles of tick-borne pathogens; however, investigations of tick-borne pathogens in sika deer in Germany are lacking. (2) Methods: Spleen tissue of 74 sympatric wild cervids (30 roe deer, 7 fallow deer, 22 sika deer, 15 red deer) and of 27 red deer from a farm from southeastern Germany were analyzed by molecular methods for the presence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Babesia species. (3) Results: Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Babesia DNA was demonstrated in 90.5% and 47.3% of the 74 combined wild cervids and 14.8% and 18.5% of the farmed deer, respectively. Twelve 16S rRNA variants of A. phagocytophilum were delineated.
    [Show full text]
  • SPR-659: Genetic Variation of Pronghorn Across US Route 89 And
    Genetic Variation of Pronghorn across US Route 89 and State Route 64 Final Report 659 March 2012 Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center Genetic Variation of Pronghorn across US Route 89 and State Route 64 Final Report 659 March 2012 Prepared by: Tad Theimer, Scott Sprague, Ellyce Eddy, and Russell Benford Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University Box 5640 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The US government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Cover photos courtesy of Wikipedia Commons. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-AZ-12-659 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date GENETIC VARIATION OF PRONGHORN ACROSS US ROUTE 89 AND March 2012 STATE ROUTE 64 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author 8. Performing Organization Report No. Tad Theimer, Scott Sprague, Ellyce Eddy, Russell Benford 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Northern Arizona University Box 5640, Beaver Street Flagstaff, AZ 86011 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating How Swedish Hunters Determine Which Species Belong in Nature
    European Journal of Wildlife Research (2020) 66: 77 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-020-01418-6 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Evaluating how Swedish hunters determine which species belong in nature M. Nils Peterson1 & Alyssa Chen1 & Erica von Essen1 & Hans Peter Hansen1 Received: 30 January 2020 /Revised: 17 August 2020 /Accepted: 24 August 2020 / Published online: 27 August 2020 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract Understanding whether people view non-native species as belonging in a place will help guide important conservation efforts ranging from eradications of exotics to re-introduction of extirpated species. In this manuscript we describe the degree to which Swedish hunters perceive key wildlife species as belonging in Swedish nature. We surveyed 2014 Swedish hunters randomly selected from a database of all registered hunters with a 47.5% response rate. We measured hunters’ perceptions of the belonging of 10 key species on the Swedish landscape, compared them with confidence intervals for proportions, and predicted them using regression models. Construct validity was assessed through pretesting and focus groups. Our results suggest Swedish hunters consider species introduced wholly by humans as less likely to belong in Sweden compared with species that evolved in situ, species with negative socio-economic impact as less likely to belong in Sweden compared with species with no impact or positive economic impacts, and species with wide distributions to be seen as more likely to belong in Sweden compared with those with narrow distributions. Perceptions of wolves, fallow deer, and European rabbits differed from these broad trends potentially due to unique cultural constructions of belonging for the species and the duration since anthropogenic introductions for the latter species.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Studies on the Etiology of Keratoconjunctivitis in Reindeer (Rangifer Tarandus Tarandus) Calves in Alaska
    Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 44(4), 2008, pp. 1051–1055 # Wildlife Disease Association 2008 Preliminary Studies on the Etiology of Keratoconjunctivitis in Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) Calves in Alaska Alina L. Evans,1,5 Russell F. Bey,1 James V. Schoster,2 James E. Gaarder,3 and Gregory L. Finstad4 1 Department of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, 1971 Commonwealth Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA; 2 Animal Eye Consultants of Minnesota, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, USA; 3 Veterinary Eye Specialists, 1921 W Diamond Blvd., Suite 108, Anchorage, Alaska, 99515, USA; 4 Reindeer Research Program, University of Alaska, PO Box 757200, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99775; 5 Corresponding author (email: [email protected]) ABSTRACT: Keratoconjunctivitis outbreaks oc- and possibly contagious eye disease that cur each summer in reindeer (Rangifer tar- can leave animals blind or with impaired andus tarandus) herds in western Alaska, USA. vision. Keratoconjunctivitis is seen annu- This condition has not been well characterized nor has a definitive primary etiologic agent ally during the summer reindeer handlings been identified. We evaluated the eyes of 660 on the Seward Peninsula (Reindeer Re- calves near Nome, Alaska, between 29 June and search Program, University of Alaska 14 July 2005. Clinical signs of keratoconjuncti- Fairbanks, unpubl. data). vitis were observed in 26/660 calves (3.9%). Infectious keratoconjunctivitis has been Samples were collected from the conjunctival studied in numerous other species. In sac of both affected (n522) and unaffected (n524) animals for bacterial culture, enzyme- cattle, the primary pathogen has been linked immunosorbent assay testing for Chla- identified to be the piliated form of mydophila psittaci, and for polymerase chain Moraxella bovis (Ruehl et al., 1988).
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Relationships Among Duiker Antelope (Bovidae: Cephalophinae)
    University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses Fall 12-17-2011 Evolutionary Relationships Among Duiker Antelope (Bovidae: Cephalophinae) Anne Johnston University of New Orleans, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td Part of the Evolution Commons Recommended Citation Johnston, Anne, "Evolutionary Relationships Among Duiker Antelope (Bovidae: Cephalophinae)" (2011). University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. 1401. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/1401 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by ScholarWorks@UNO with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights- holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Evolutionary Relationships Among Duiker Antelope (Bovidae: Cephalophinae) A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of New Orleans In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences By Anne Roddy Johnston B.S. University of
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan
    UTAH PRONGHORN STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PRONGHORN I. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN A. General This document is the statewide management plan for pronghorn in Utah. This plan will provide overall direction and guidance to Utah’s pronghorn management activities. Included in the plan is an assessment of current life history and management information, identification of issues and concerns relating to pronghorn management in the state, and the establishment of goals, objectives and strategies for future management. The statewide plan will provide direction for establishment of individual pronghorn unit management plans throughout the state. B. Dates Covered This pronghorn plan will be in effect upon approval of the Wildlife Board (expected date of approval November 30, 2017) and subject to review within 10 years. II. SPECIES ASSESSMENT A. Natural History The pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) is the sole member of the family Antilocapridae and is native only to North America. Fossil records indicate that the present-day form may go back at least a million years (Kimball and Johnson 1978). The name pronghorn is descriptive of the adult male’s large, black-colored horns with anterior prongs that are shed each year in late fall or early winter. Females also have horns, but they are shorter and seldom pronged. Mature pronghorn bucks weigh 45–60 kilograms (100–130 pounds) and adult does weigh 35–45 kilograms (75–100 pounds). Pronghorn are North America’s fastest land mammal and can attain speeds of approximately 72 kilometers (45 miles) per hour (O’Gara 2004a).
    [Show full text]