DOCSLIB.ORG

National Rabies Management Program Report 2003

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Rabies Management Program Report 2003 COOPERATIVE RABIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NATIONAL REPORT 2003 United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services 1 COOPERATIVE RABIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NATIONAL REPORT 2003 COMPILED and EDITED BY: Craig D. Kostrzewski Rabies Program Assistant REVIEWED BY: Dennis Slate National Rabies Program Coordinator USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services 59 Chenell Drive, Suite 7 Concord, NH 03301 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................4 COOPERATIVE RABIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ALABAMA ................................................................................................................................................................10 ARIZONA ..................................................................................................................................................................13 CALIFORNIA ...........................................................................................................................................................18 FLORIDA...................................................................................................................................................................20 GEORGIA..................................................................................................................................................................23 KANSAS.....................................................................................................................................................................25 KENTUCKY..............................................................................................................................................................27 LOUISIANA ..............................................................................................................................................................29 MAINE .......................................................................................................................................................................31 MARYLAND .............................................................................................................................................................34 MASSACHUSETTS..................................................................................................................................................37 MISSISSIPPI .............................................................................................................................................................41 NEW HAMPSHIRE..................................................................................................................................................43 NEW JERSEY ...........................................................................................................................................................46 NEW YORK...............................................................................................................................................................48 OHIO ..........................................................................................................................................................................53 PENNSYLVANIA .....................................................................................................................................................58 TENNESSEE..............................................................................................................................................................63 TEXAS........................................................................................................................................................................67 VERMONT ................................................................................................................................................................70 VIRGINIA..................................................................................................................................................................74 WEST VIRGINIA .....................................................................................................................................................78 WYOMING................................................................................................................................................................82 NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER..................................................................................................84 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2003, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) participated in coordinated oral rabies vaccination (ORV) projects targeting raccoon (Procyon lotor) rabies in 15 eastern States (Figure 1). This included implementation of ORV plans for the first time in Georgia, Alabama, and southeastern Tennessee (GAT) where these states’ borders converge. This action was taken in response to increasing levels of rabies activity along the western edge of the current distribution of raccoon rabies in that area. In addition, ORV was conducted in eastern Maine for the first time to complement efforts in neighboring New Brunswick, Canada. Wildlife Services continued its cooperation in ORV projects targeting rabies in coyotes (Canis latrans) and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in Texas (Figure 1). In 2002, WS and cooperators extended the Appalachian Ridge ORV treatment zone, as planned, from southern West Virginia to northeast Tennessee. This ORV zone extends from Lake Erie, in Ohio and Pennsylvania, south through West Virginia and Western Virginia, to northeastern Tennessee, where it articulates with the high mountainous habitats which generally do not support high density raccoon populations (Figure 2). In 2003, this ORV zone was replicated to bolster the immunity in raccoon populations. Also in 2003, this ORV zone was extended approximately 32 km (approximately 20 mi) eastward, in western Pennsylvania, to begin to examine strategies for the reduction of rabies cases in enzootic areas. The ability to create rabies-free zones, within raccoon rabies enzootic areas, is a requisite to achieve elimination of this variant of the rabies virus. In 2003, the Appalachian Ridge ORV zone covered approximately 65,850 km2 (26,500 mi2) and was treated with approximately 4.85 million vaccine-laden baits. Enhanced rabies surveillance continues to be emphasized in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee to complement traditional pubic health surveillance (Figure 3). This complementary information is critical in delineating the leading, western edge of raccoon rabies such that sound ORV decisions can be made to maximize the effective use of resources. Public health surveillance provides for timely testing of suspect animals that had contact with people or their mammalian pets, but does not usually include testing of suspect animals that did not have contact with people or their pets. While extremely effective in protecting the public from rabies, this type of surveillance is less sensitive than required to refine ORV bating plans. In 2003, WS and cooperators began to emphasize enhanced rabies surveillance as an integral component of ORV in all geographic areas (Figure 2). The protocol includes, in decreasing order of priority, collection and testing of suspect animals (i.e., animals exhibiting aberrant behavior suggestive of rabies) that did not result in a potential or actual human or pet exposure, road kill surveys, and focal removal and testing of individual animals at locations where rabies has been confirmed. Density indexing also is used to characterize raccoon populations where information is lacking and to provide samples from under represented rural areas. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Rabies Section, plays a pivotal role in enhanced rabies surveillance through training WS field biologists and technicians in sample collection and submission, timely laboratory diagnosis of enhanced rabies surveillance samples, serological analysis, and expertise on rabies. The Wadsworth Center, New York State Rabies Laboratory and Virginia Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services (Rabies Laboratory) also provides rabies diagnostic support for enhanced rabies surveillance efforts. In the Northeast, WS continued to work closely with Cornell University and cooperating state agencies in ORV along the Quebec, Canada border from the Connecticut River Valley, in northern New Hampshire/northeastern Vermont, through the St. Lawrence Valley in northern New York. Part of this effort includes cooperation with the New York State Health Department led project in the upper Lake Champlain Valley in New York State. Wildlife Services also participated in ORV activities led by Cornell University on the Niagara Frontier and in Chautauqua County, New York, which link vaccination zones along the south shore of Lake Erie from New York to Ohio (Figure 2). These projects required close field coordination with our Canadian counterparts in Ontario and Quebec. Collectively, this ORV area comprises 28,200 km2 (approximately 11,300 mi2) and was treated with approximately 1.75 million baits in 2003. The landscape is interspersed with mountain habitats, large lakes, and rivers. As a result of funds provided to Cornell University by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Integrating Black Bear Behavior, Spatial Ecology, and Population Dynamics in a Human-Dominated Landscape: Implications for Management
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 8-2017 Integrating Black Bear Behavior, Spatial Ecology, and Population Dynamics in a Human-Dominated Landscape: Implications for Management Jarod D. Raithel Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Raithel, Jarod D., "Integrating Black Bear Behavior, Spatial Ecology, and Population Dynamics in a Human- Dominated Landscape: Implications for Management" (2017). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 6633. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6633 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTEGRATING BLACK BEAR BEHAVIOR, SPATIAL ECOLOGY, AND POPULATION DYNAMICS IN A HUMAN-DOMINATED LANDSCAPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT by Jarod D. Raithel A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Ecology Approved: _______________________ _______________________ Lise M. Aubry, Ph.D. Melissa J. Reynolds-Hogland, Ph.D. Major Professor Committee Member _______________________ _______________________ David N. Koons, Ph.D. Eric M. Gese, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member _______________________ _______________________ Joseph M. Wheaton, Ph.D. Mark R. McLellan, Ph.D. Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2017 ii Copyright Jarod Raithel 2017 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Integrating Black Bear Behavior, Spatial Ecology, and Population Dynamics in a Human-Dominated Landscape: Implications for Management by Jarod D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Red and Gray Fox
    The Red and Gray Fox There are five species of foxes found in North America but only two, the red (Vulpes vulpes), And the gray (Urocyon cinereoargentus) live in towns or cities. Fox are canids and close relatives of coyotes, wolves and domestic dogs. Foxes are not large animals, The red fox is the larger of the two typically weighing 7 to 5 pounds, and reaching as much as 3 feet in length (not including the tail, which can be as long as 1 to 1 and a half feet in length). Gray foxes rarely exceed 11 or 12 pounds and are often much smaller. Coloration among fox greatly varies, and it is not always a sure bet that a red colored fox is indeed a “red fox” and a gray colored fox is indeed a “gray fox. The one sure way to tell them apart is the white tip of a red fox’s tail. Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargentus) Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) Regardless of which fox both prefer diverse habitats, including fields, woods, shrubby cover, farmland or other. Both species readily adapt to urban and suburban areas. Foxes are primarily nocturnal in urban areas but this is more an accommodation in avoiding other wildlife and humans. Just because you may see it during the day doesn’t necessarily mean it’s sick. Sometimes red fox will exhibit a brazenness that is so overt as to be disarming. A homeowner hanging laundry may watch a fox walk through the yard, going about its business, seemingly oblivious to the human nearby.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitochondrial Genomes of the United States Distribution
    fevo-09-666800 June 2, 2021 Time: 17:52 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 08 June 2021 doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.666800 Mitochondrial Genomes of the United States Distribution of Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) Reveal a Major Phylogeographic Break at the Great Plains Suture Zone Edited by: Fernando Marques Quintela, Dawn M. Reding1*, Susette Castañeda-Rico2,3,4, Sabrina Shirazi2†, Taxa Mundi Institute, Brazil Courtney A. Hofman2†, Imogene A. Cancellare5, Stacey L. Lance6, Jeff Beringer7, 8 2,3 Reviewed by: William R. Clark and Jesus E. Maldonado Terrence C. Demos, 1 Department of Biology, Luther College, Decorah, IA, United States, 2 Center for Conservation Genomics, Smithsonian Field Museum of Natural History, Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, United States, 3 Department of Biology, George United States Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States, 4 Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation, Front Royal, VA, United States, Ligia Tchaicka, 5 Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States, 6 Savannah River State University of Maranhão, Brazil Ecology Laboratory, University of Georgia, Aiken, SC, United States, 7 Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, MO, *Correspondence: United States, 8 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States Dawn M. Reding [email protected] We examined phylogeographic structure in gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) across † Present address: Sabrina Shirazi, the United States to identify the location of secondary contact zone(s) between eastern Department of Ecology and and western lineages and investigate the possibility of additional cryptic intraspecific Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, divergences.
    [Show full text]
  • FOXES: Captive Rearing Considerations & Natural History
    captive REARING of foxes Elisa Fosco Director of Animal Care Walden’s Puddle, Wildlife Center of Greater Nashville CANIDAE FAMILY Includes wolves, jackals, and dogs ◼ Carnassial teeth 8 genera of fox ◼ 27 species Gray (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) and Red (Vulpes vulpes) found in North America RED FOX (vulpes vulpes) “Cat-like canid” Widespread, naturally occurring in 4 continents Many variations in coat color Adapts well to urban environments Mainly carnivorous, consuming invertebrates and rodents GRAY FOX (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) Among most primitive of canids Found only in North and South America Monogamous 1 of 2 canids capable of tree climbing, also good swimmers Omnivorous, consuming more vegetable matter than red fox HABITAT SELECTION RED GRAY Highly adaptable to Gray foxes are more urban environments seclusive than reds Prefers farmland, and Prefer thicker forested wooded lots with open and partially open fields brush Do NOT prefer rural landscapes BREEDING Dens are used during breeding season ◼ Crevices in rock, groundhog burrows, hollow trees, etc. Gestation: ~53 days Average litter size: 4-5 Related females co-parent NEONATE IDENTIFICATION: RED FOX White tail tip!! ◼ Identifying characteristic Charcoal fur at birth ◼ Stockings not distinguishable in first couple weeks Black elliptical pupils NEONATE IDENTIFICATION: GRAY FOX Russet patches behind ears Black stripe on dorsal surface of tail Black tail tip Fox rehabilitation Reasons for Admission: Mange HBC Gunshot Viral issues 2° Rodenticide toxicity Orphaned ◼ likely due to the above FOX MANGE Sarcoptes scabeii ◼ Mite More common in red foxes Most often treated with Ivermectin, Selemectin or Bravecto™ Standard mange treatment may also includes aggressive fluid therapy for rehydration and wound management as needed Mange is also commonly seen in coyotes, raccoons and squirrels.
    [Show full text]
  • Red & Gray Foxes
    Red & Gray Foxes Valerie Elliott The gray fox and red fox are members of the Canidae biological family, which puts them in the same family as domestic dogs, wolves, jackals and coyotes. The red fox is termed “Vulpes vulpes” in Latin for the genus and species. The gray fox is termed “Urocyon cinereoargenteus”. Gray foxes are sometimes mistaken to be red foxes but red foxes are slimmer, have longer legs and larger feet and have slit-shaped eyes. Gray foxes have oval shaped pupils. The gray fox is somewhat stout and has shorter legs than the red fox. The tail has a distinct black stripe along the top and a black tip. The belly, chest, legs and sides of the face are reddish-brown. Red foxes have a slender body, long legs, a slim muzzle, and upright triangular ears. They vary in color from bright red to rusty or reddish brown. Their lower legs and feet have black fur. The tail is a bushy red and black color with a white tip. The underside of the red fox is white. They are fast runners and can reach speeds of up to 30 miles per hour. They can leap more than 6 feet high. Red and gray foxes primarily eat small rodents, birds, insects, nuts and fruits. Gray foxes typically live in dense forests with some edge habitat for hunting. Their home ranges typically are 2-4 miles. Gray foxes can also be found in suburban areas. Ideal red fox habitat includes a mix of open fields, small woodlots and wetlands – making modern-day Maryland an excellent place for it to live.
    [Show full text]
  • Encounter Competition Between a Cougar, Puma Concolor, and A
    64 thE CanaDian FiElD -n atUraliSt Vol. 127 Encounter Competition between a Cougar, Puma concolor , and a Western Spotted Skunk, Spilogale gracilis MaxiMilian l. a llEn 1,4 , l. M ark ElbroCh 2,3 , and hEiko U. W ittMEr 1,3 1School of biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, P.o. box 600, Wellington 6140, new Zealand 2Panthera, 8 West 40th Street, 18th Floor, new York, new York 10018 USa 3Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation biology, University of California at Davis, 1 Shields avenue, Davis, California 95616 USa 4Corresponding author; email: [email protected] allen, Maximilian l., l. Mark Elbroch, and heiko U. Wittmer. 2013. Encounter competition between a Cougar, Puma concolor , and a Western Spotted Skunk, Spilogale gracilis . Canadian Field-naturalist 127(1): 6 4– 66. Encounter competition occurs frequently over food resources and may include kleptoparasitism, where scavengers usurp prey killed by carnivores. Scavenging may have important adverse effects on carnivores and may result in higher than expected kill rates by predators. Using camera traps placed on a black-tailed Deer ( Odocoileus hemionus columbianus ) carcass killed by a Cougar ( Puma concolor ) in California, we observed a series of encounters in which a Western Spotted Skunk ( Spilogale gracilis ) temporally usurped the carcass from the Cougar. the Western Spotted Skunk also successfully defended the carcass when the Cougar returned and attempted to feed. the Spotted Skunk was about 1% of the mass of the Cougar. our observation is the largest reported size differential of a mammalian species engaging in successful encounter competition. key Words: Cougar, Mountain lion, Puma concolor, Western Spotted Skunk, Spilogale gracilis, encounter competition, k lep - toparasitism, competition, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species
    CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK Threatened and Endangered Species Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Anacapa Santa Cruz Santa Rosa San Miguel Santa Barbara Acipenser medirostris North American green T sturgeon Arctocephalis townsendi Guadalupe fur seal T T M Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale Rorqual E Balaenoptera physalus Finback whale E Charadrius nivosus Western snowy plover T SSC R M Enhydra lutris nereis Southern sea otter T A! C R M B! Eubalaena japonica Right Whale Extirpated; Proposed Eumetopias jubatas Steller (Northern) Sea Lion T M Haliotis sorenseni White abalone E A C R!? M!? B Haliotis cracherodii Black abalone E A C R M B Lepidochelys olivacea Olive Ridley T C? Megaptera novaengliae Humpback whale E Melospiza melodia Santa Barbara song Extinct B! graminea sparrow Physeter catodon Sperm whale E Sibaldus musculus Blue whale E Synthliboramphus scrippsii Scripps’s murrelet Candidate T A C M B Urocyon littoralis cruzae Santa Cruz Island fox E T C Urocyon littoralis Santa Rosa Island fox E T R santarosae Urocyon littoralis littoralis San Miguel Island fox E T M Xantusia riversiana Island night lizard T (Proposed B to delist) ** Plant [Arabis hoffmannii] now: Hoffmann’s rock-cress E A! C R Boechera hoffmannii Arctostaphylos confertiflora Santa Rosa Island E R manzanita Berberis pinnata ssp. Island barberry E E A! C R!? insularis Castilleja mollis Soft-leaved paintbrush E R M! 1 Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Anacapa Santa Cruz Santa Rosa San Miguel Santa Barbara Dudleya nesiotica Santa Cruz Island Live- T C Forever Dudleya traskiae Santa Barbara live-forever E (EE) E B Galium buxifolium Box-leaved bedstraw E C M Gilia tenuiflora ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Scapular Form in Semi-Arboreal and Terrestrial Carnivores: How Climbing Affects the Shape of the Scapula
    Scapular Form in Semi-Arboreal and Terrestrial Carnivores: How Climbing Affects the Shape of the Scapula Ashley Wells The Scapula http://www.exerciseology.me/doug_kelseys_blog/2009/01/d etails-on-thoracic-spine-flexibility.html Introduction Procyon lotor Urocyon cinereoargenteus Vulpes vulpes Introduction Procyon lotor Urocyon cinereoargenteus Vulpes vulpes Introduction Procyon lotor Urocyon cinereoargenteus Vulpes vulpes Introduction Procyon lotor Urocyon cinereoargenteus Vulpes vulpes Order Carnivora Suborder Caniformia http://susasverige.se/Calle/metazoa/laurasiatheria.htm How is this Anthropology? Biological anthropology ◦ Skeletal morphology ◦ Methods Zooarchaeology ◦ Apply to fossil remains http://www.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/ asb/origins/primates/index.html Research Questions Can the same patterns found in primate scapular morphology associated with locomotion be found in these carnivores? A large supraspinous fossa area is found in arboreal species A large infraspinous fossa area is found in terrestrial quadrupeds Methods Collection was from the Illinois State Museum Three-dimensional coordinate data were recorded for 10 landmarks The landmarks were then converted into 18 lengths ◦ size adjusted Differences in lengths were tested for using analysis of variance http://www.emicroscribe.com/products/solutions-for-anthropology-and- paleontology/typical-set-up-for-physical-anthropologist.htm Methods Collection was from the Illinois State Museum Three-dimensional coordinate data were recorded for 10 landmarks The landmarks were then converted into 18 lengths ◦ size adjusted Differences in lengths were tested for using analysis of variance Results Red vs gray Between red and gray fox ◦ Gray fox is significantly larger on the medial supraspinous border (B-C). ◦ Red fox is significantly larger for both the infraspinous vertebral border (A-B) and the lateral supraspinous border (C-D).
    [Show full text]
  • Distemper, Extinction, and Vaccination of the Amur Tiger
    Distemper, extinction, and vaccination of the FROM THE COVER Amur tiger Martin Gilberta,b,c,1, Nadezhda Sulikhand,e, Olga Uphyrkinad, Mikhail Goncharukf,g, Linda Kerleyf,h,i, Enrique Hernandez Castrob, Richard Reeveb, Tracie Seimonc, Denise McAloosec, Ivan V. Seryodkinj,k, Sergey V. Naidenkol, Christopher A. Davism, Gavin S. Wilkiem, Sreenu B. Vattipallym, Walt E. Adamsonb,m, Chris Hindsm, Emma C. Thomsonm, Brian J. Willettm, Margaret J. Hosiem, Nicola Loganm, Michael McDonaldm, Robert J. Ossiboffn, Elena I. Shevtsovae, Stepan Belyakino, Anna A. Yurlovao, Steven A. Osofskya, Dale G. Miquellec, Louise Matthewsb, and Sarah Cleavelandb aCornell Wildlife Health Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; bBoyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute of Biodiversity Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom; cWildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY 10460; dFederal Scientific Center of the East Asia Terrestrial Biodiversity, Far Eastern Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok 690022, Russia; eLand of the Leopard National Park, Vladivostok 690068, Russia; fZoological Society of London, London NW1 4RY, United Kingdom; gPrimorskaya State Agricultural Academy, Ussuriisk 692510, Russia; hUnited Administration of Lazovsky Zapovednik and Zov Tigra National Park, Lazo 692890, Russia; iAutonomous Noncommercial Organization “Amur,” Lazo 692890, Russia; jPacific Geographical Institute, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
    [Show full text]
  • Induced Changes in Island Fox (Urocyon Littoralis) Activity Do Not Mitigate the Extinction Threat Posed by a Novel Predator
    Oecologia DOI 10.1007/s00442-010-1761-7 POPULATION ECOLOGY - ORIGINAL PAPER Induced changes in island fox (Urocyon littoralis) activity do not mitigate the extinction threat posed by a novel predator Brian R. Hudgens · David K. Garcelon Received: 29 June 2009 / Accepted: 16 August 2010 © Springer-Verlag 2010 Abstract Prey response to novel predators inXuences the Introduction impacts on prey populations of introduced predators, bio- control eVorts, and predator range expansion. Predicting the Predicting the consequences of species interactions is a impacts of novel predators on native prey requires an long-standing ecological challenge, one that has become understanding of both predator avoidance strategies and increasingly important as human activities bring together their potential to reduce predation risk. We examine the species with little or no evolutionary history. Introduced response of island foxes (Urocyon littoralis) to invasion by predators pose one of the most persistent, potent, and per- golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). Foxes reduced daytime vasive threats to island populations (Clavero and Garcia- activity and increased night time activity relative to eagle- Berthou 2005). Deliberate introduction of predators as bio- naïve foxes. Individual foxes reverted toward diurnal ten- logical control agents or fur-bearing animals often wreaks dencies following eagle removal eVorts. We quantiWed the havoc on native prey species (Salo et al. 2007; Kauhala potential population impact of reduced diurnality by model- 1996; SimberloV and Stiling 1996). In addition, many prey ing island fox population dynamics. Our model predicted species are faced with novel predators as species ranges an annual population decline similar to what was observed shift due to global climate changes and human impacts on following golden eagle invasion and predicted that the the landscape (Gompper 2002; Roemer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERACTION BETWEEN ISLAND FOXES (Urocyon Littoralis) and NATIVE AMERICANS on ISLANDS OFF the COAST of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: II
    /. Ethnobiol. 11(2):205-229 Winter 1991 INTERACTION BETWEEN ISLAND FOXES (Urocyon littoralis) AND NATIVE AMERICANS ON ISLANDS OFF THE COAST OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: II. ETHNOGRAPHIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE PAUL W. COLLINS Department of Vertebrate Zoology Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History 2559 Puesta Del Sol Santa Barbara, CA 93105 ABSTRACT.-Interactions which existed between Native Americans and island foxes (Urocyon littoralis) were examined using data gathered from archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric sources to ascertain how Native Americans viewed and used foxes and thus why they transported and introduced them to islands off the coast of southern California. Island foxes were harvested for their pelts which were used to make arrow-quivers, capes, blankets, and ceremonial fox dance headdresses. Although foxes were not an important staple in the diet of the inhabitants of the Channel Islands, they were kept as pets or semi­ domesticates and did playa prominent role in religious and ceremonial practices. The Island Chumash conducted an Island Fox Dance ceremony and foxes served as totems, dream-helpers, and characters in Chumash legends. Human-fox burial associations and ceremonial fox burials attest to the religious and ceremonial significance afforded foxes by Native Americans. I conclude, based on this data, that island foxes from the Northern Channel Islands were initially transported as pets and subsequently became feral on the Southern Channel Islands. RESUMEN.-Se examinaron las interacciones que existian entre los indfgenas y los zorros islenos (Urocyon littoralis), empleando informacion recogida de fuentes arqueo16gicas, etnograficas y etnohist6ricas para averiguar como percibian y utilizaban los indlgenas a los zorros y as! entender por que los transportaron e introdujeron a algunas islas frente a la costa del sur de California.
    [Show full text]
  • Dating the Genetic Bottleneck of the African Cheetah (DNA Rmgerprint/Mtdna) MARILYN MENOTTI-RAYMOND* and STEPHEN J
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 90, pp. 3172-3176, April 1993 Genetics Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah (DNA rmgerprint/mtDNA) MARILYN MENOTTI-RAYMOND* AND STEPHEN J. O'BRIENt *Biological Carcinogenesis and Development Program and tLaboratory of Viral Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702 Communicated by Bruce Wallace, October 29, 1992 ABSTRACT The cheetah is unusual among felids in ex- tive to other species (11-15). These measurements included: hibiting near genetic uniformity at a variety of loci previously (i) electrophoretic variation of allozymes and cell proteins screened to measure population genetic diversity. It has been resolved by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis; (ii) immu- hypothesized that a demographic crash or population bottle- nological (surgical skin graft) and molecular [restriction frag- neck in the recent history ofthe species is causal to the observed ment length polymorphism (RFLP)] variation at the feline monomorphic profiles for nuclear coding loci. The timing of a major histocompatibility (MHC) locus, one of the most bottleneck is difficult to assess, but certain aspects of the polymorphic loci in mammals; and (iii) morphological vari- cheetah's natural history suggest it may have occurred near the ation of cranial characteristics (11-15). The results ofeach of end of the last ice age (late Pleistocene, approximately 10,000 these approaches showed that the cheetah had levels of years ago), when a remarkable extinction of large vertebrates variation comparable to that of deliberately inbred strains of occurred on several continents. To further defie the timing of laboratory mice or livestock. These studies lent support to such a bottleneck, the character of genetic diversity for two the hypothesis that the cheetah's ancestors had survived a rapidly evolving DNA sequences, mitochondrial DNA and historic period of extensive inbreeding, the modem conse- hypervariable nminisatellite loci, was examined.
    [Show full text]