DOCSLIB.ORG

Characterization of Moose Movement Patterns and Movement of Black Bears in Relation to Anthropogenic Food Sources on Joint Basse

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Characterization of Moose Movement Patterns and Movement of Black Bears in Relation to Anthropogenic Food Sources on Joint Basse Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 074-0188 AD_________________ (Leave blank) Award Number(s): W81XWH-08-2-0179-0002 W912DY-09-2-0011 W9126G-10-2-0042 TITLE: Characterization of moose movement patterns and movement of black bears in relation to anthropogenic food sources on Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson, Alaska PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: (Enter the name and degree of Principal Investigator and any Associates) Sean D. Farley,Ph.D.; Perry Barboza, Ph.D ; Herman Griese, MS; Christopher Garner, BS CONTRACTING ORGANIZATION: 673d Civil Engineering Squadron 724 Quartermaster Drive Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska 99505-8860 REPORT DATE: Sept 2014 TYPE OF REPORT: Final PREPARED FOR: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702-5012 (W81XWH-08-2-0179-0002) Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center Huntsville, Alabama 35816-1822 (W912DY-09-2-0011) Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 (W9126G-10-2-0042) DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: (Check one) X Approved for public release; distribution unlimited Distribution limited to U.S. Government agencies only; report contains proprietary information The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision unless so designated by other documentation. 1 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 2014 FINAL REPORT, 14 Aug 2008-1 April 2014 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Characterization of moose movement patterns and movement of W81XWH-08-2-0179-0002 black bears in relation to anthropogenic food sources on W912DY-09-2-0011 Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson W9126G-10-2-0042 6. AUTHOR(S) Sean D. Farley,Ph.D.; Perry Barboza, Ph.D ; Herman Griese, MS; Christopher Garner, BS 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER WashinAlaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Institute of Arctic Biology 311 Irving, Fairbanks, Ak 99775 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (W81XWH-08-2-0179-0002) Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702-5012 Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center (W912DY-09-2-0011) Huntsville, Alabama 35816-1822 Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center (W9126G-10-2-0042) Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) Beginning in 2010 through 2012 JBER adult cow moose were outfitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) collars and a variety of body condition measures were recorded from each animal. A JBER nutritional landscape map was developed based upon seasonal metabolic requirements of moose and the JBER landscape. Resource Selection Function (RSF) analyses of moose habitat use were inconclusive, though provided support for the nutritional landscape model. JBER moose habitat can be highly fragmented and resident moose have individualistic movements. RSF work showed that shrub habitat is important and that moose tend to seasonally avoid open grassy areas that may have deep snow. Distance to buildings was negatively correlated to habitat selection. Travel between habitat patches is highly individualistic; however large structures such as the Glenn highway are somewhat resistant barriers to moose movement. Gene frequencies among JBER moose show a developing division into two distinct groups separated by the Glenn highway. This report contains multiple appendices which contain individual project descriptions and results. Resident JBER wolf packs were extirpated due to dangerous behavior relative to people and no research was conducted. Black bears were also collared with GPS collars on JBER and location data are reported. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102 2 Table of Contents SF298 Cover…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 SF 298………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………3 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Body……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Key Research Accomplishments……………………………………………………………6 Reportable Outcomes……………………………………………………………………………………8 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 3 Introduction Beginning in 2010 through 2012 JBER adult cow moose were outfitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) collars and a variety of body condition measures recorded from each animal. Black bears were also collared with GPS collars on JBER and location data collected. A metabolic model of moose requirements was constructed as a nutritional landscape map with important moose habitat. Resource Selection Function (RSF) analyses of moose habitat use were inconclusive, though provided support for the nutritional landscape model. JBER moose habitat can be highly fragmented and resident moose have individualistic movements. RSF work showed that shrub habitat is important and moose tend to avoid open grassy areas that may have deep snow. Distance to buildings was negatively correlated to habitat selection. Travel between habitat patches is highly individualistic; however large structures such as the Glenn highway are barriers to movement. Long-term effects will be to develop two distinct moose populations. Current gene frequencies among JBER moose show a division into two distinct groups separated by the highway. There are multiple reports appended to this report as stand-alone appendices. Resident JBER wolf packs were extirpated due to dangerous behavior relative to people and no research was conducted. Body This report summarizes work that investigated biological attributes associated with habitat use by moose (Alces alces) and black bear (Ursus americanus) on Joint Base Elmendorf Fort Richardson (JBER). Beginning in 2010 and continuing until 2012 adult cow moose on JBER were captured, outfitted with Global Positioning System (GPS) collars, and a variety of body condition measures recorded from each animal. Black bears were captured on JBER as well and collared with GPS radio-collars. Location data were collected on bear movements as well as areas of high bear problem calls to JBER wildlife game wardens Habitat use by moose was examined by constructing a nutritional landscape map of JBER, identifying important moose diet items, and then combining the results from a metabolic model of moose requirements with the habitat map to generate a map outlining potential moose production for all areas. Managers will be able to take the ArcMap files of this nutritional landscape and use them to predict the effect on moose populations from proposed developments and to generate plans to improve habitat to support the moose population. This work is presented in the Master’s thesis by Joe Welch and is found in Chapter 1. We employed Resource Selection Function (RSF) analyses to identify habitat used by moose according to degree and type of use (encamped or traveling). Whereas the nutritional landscape maps show the metabolic values of habitat types, the RSF work was intended to identify habitat use that was not nutritionally explicit (i.e., cover, distance to buildings). The RSF work was somewhat inconclusive, though overall provided additional support for the nutritional landscape models. JBER moose habitat that was part of this study is a highly fragmented landscape and the resident moose are individualistic in their movements. The fragmentation apparently drives moose to adopt highly individualistic movements at a scale less than 100m. Overall RSF work showed that shrub habitat is important to moose, which is a conclusion shared by the nutritional landscape model. The RSF model also showed that moose tend to avoid open grassy areas (likely due to snow depth) and that distance to buildings was negatively correlated to habitat selection. Travel between habitat patches is highly individualistic as well, however it became clear that large structures such as the Glenn highway are barriers to movement and that the long-term effects will be to drive the development of two distinct moose populations. While the GPS collars
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska's Predator Control Programs
    Alaska’sAlaska’s PredatorPredator ControlControl ProgramsPrograms Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? In 1995, Alaska Governor Tony Knowles responded to negative publicity over his state’s predator control programs by requesting a National Academy of Sciences review of Alaska’s entire approach to predator control. Following the review Governor Knowles announced that no program should be considered unless it met three criteria: cost-effectiveness, scientific scrutiny and broad public acceptability. The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) released its review, Wolves, Bears, and Their Prey in Alaska, in 1997, drawing conclusions and making recommendations for management of Alaska’s predators and prey. In 1996, prior to the release of the NRC report, the Wolf Management Reform Coalition, a group dedicated to promoting fair-chase hunting and responsible management of wolves in Alaska, published Showdown in Alaska to document the rise of wolf control in Alaska and the efforts undertaken to stop it. This report, Alaska’s Predator Control Programs: Managing for Abundance or Abundant Mismanagement? picks up where that 1996 report left off. Acknowledgements Authors: Caroline Kennedy, Theresa Fiorino Editor: Kate Davies Designer: Pete Corcoran DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. www.defenders.org Cover photo: © Nick Jans © 2011 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4604 202.682.9400 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302 Anchorage, AK 99501 907.276.9453 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 2. The National Research Council Review ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) from the List of Endangered
    References Cited for the Proposed Rule “Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered” Adams, L.G., R.O. Stephenson, B.W. Dale, R.T. Ahgook, and D. J. Demma. 2008. Population dynamics and harvest characteristics of wolves in the central Brooks Range, Alaska. Wildlife Monographs 170: 1-25. Adaptive Management Oversight Committee and Interagency Field Team [AMOC and IFT]. 2005. Mexican wolf Blue Range reintroduction project 5-year review. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/MWNR_FYRD.shtml Anschutz, Steve. 2003. E-mail from Anschutz, USFWS Nebraska Field Office Supervisor to Laura Ragan, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 04/01/03. Subject: gray wolf shot. 1 p. Anschutz, Steve. 2006. E-mail from Anschutz, USFWS Nebraska Field Office Supervisor to Ron Refsnider, USFWS Regional Office, Ft. Snelling, MN, dated 10/30/06. Subject: Nebraska wolf from 1995? Arizona Department of Health Services. 2012. Rabies Statistics and Maps, 2008-2012. www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/vector/rabies/stats.htm. Accessed on July 23, 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Predator management in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation. 32pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2011. 2011-2012 Alaska trapping regulations. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 48pp. Allendorf, F.W. and N. Ryman. 2002. The role of genetics in population viability analysis. Pages 50-85 in Beissinger, S.R., and D.R.
    [Show full text]
  • National Reactor Innovation Center Enabling the Testing and Demonstration of Advanced Reactor Concepts
    National Reactor Innovation Center Enabling the testing and demonstration of advanced reactor concepts he National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) • Validate advanced nuclear reactor concepts. at Idaho National Laboratory provides resources for testing, demonstration, and • Resolve technical challenges of advanced T nuclear reactor concepts. performance assessment to accelerate deployment of new advanced nuclear technology concepts. • Provide general research and development to improve innovative technologies. What is NRIC? Authorized by the Nuclear Energy Innovation How will NRIC interface with the Gateway for Capabilities Act (NEICA), NRIC provides private Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN)? sector technology developers access to the Both GAIN and NRIC are necessary components strategic infrastructures and assets of the national laboratories. Companies can use in a modern business model and approach, given these resources for commercial nuclear energy today’s technological and regulatory environment. research, development, demonstration and The GAIN initiative was developed as a mechanism deployment activities. These capabilities will to provide the nuclear energy industry with access ultimately support a timely and cost-effective to the technical, regulatory and financial support path to the licensing and commercialization of necessary to move new or advanced nuclear new nuclear energy systems. technologies toward commercialization, as well as ensuring the continued reliable; clean and Why is NRIC needed? economic operation of the existing nuclear reactor NRIC is intended to: fleet. It offers a single point of access to the broad • Enable testing and demonstration of reactor range of capabilities in DOE’s national laboratory concepts by the private sector. complex and has developed and maintained NRIC Provides Capabilities to Accelerate Technology Readiness from Proof of Concept through Proof of Operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Moose Survey Report 2013
    AERIAL MOOSE SURVEY on and around KANUTI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE November, 2013 Tim Craig US Fish and Wildlife Service and Glenn W. Stout Alaska Department of Fish and Game February 2014 DATA SUMMARY Survey Dates: 12- 18 November (Intensive survey only) Total area covered by survey: Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter, Refuge) Survey Area: 2,715 mi2 (7,029 km2); Total Survey Area: 3,736 mi2 (9676 km2) Total Number sample units Refuge Survey Area: 508; Total Survey Area: 701 Number of sample units surveyed: Refuge Survey Area: 105; Total Survey Area: 129 Total moose observed: Refuge Survey Area: 259 moose (130 cows, 95 bulls, and 34 calves); Total Survey Area: 289 moose (145 cows, 105 bulls, 39 calves) November population estimate: Refuge Survey Area: 551 moose (90% confidence interval = 410 - 693) comprised of 283 cows, 183 bulls, and 108 calves*; Total Survey Area: 768 moose (90% confidence interval = 589 – 947) comprised of 387 cows, 257 bulls, 144 calves*. *Subtotals by class do not equal the total population because of accumulated error associated with each estimate. Estimated total density: Refuge Survey Area: 0.20 moose/mi2 (0.08 moose/km2); Total Survey Area: 0.21 moose/mi2 (0.08 moose/km2) Estimated ratios: Refuge survey area: 36 calves:100 cows, 11 yearling bulls:100 cows, 37 large bulls:100 cows, 65 total bulls:100 cows; Total Survey Area: 35 calves:100 cows, 11 yearling bulls:100 cows, 40 large bulls:100 cows, 67 total bulls:100 cows 2 INTRODUCTION The Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter, Refuge), the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the Bureau of Land Management cooperatively conducted a moose (Alces alces) population survey 12 - 18 November 2013 on, and around, the Refuge.
    [Show full text]
  • MOOSE Applications
    NUCLEAR ENERGY NUCLEAR ENERGY Continued from previous page • Bighorn: The physics contained in Bighorn (led by Richard Martineau) will simulate the mass and energy transport of reac- tor systems coolant. The project will help advance INL’s MOOSE (Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation INL’s Advanced Test Reac- Environ ment) enables tor (ATR) modeling and advanced simulation tools to simulation to the forefront be devel oped in a fraction of of computational methods the time previously required. for nuclear reactor design/ For more information analysis. Its applications could include light water reactors, Next Generation Joseph Campbell Nuclear Plant concepts and (208) 526-7785 The Grizzly code models degradation that can build up after years of sodium-cooled fast reactors. use in reactor pressure vessels and other components. [email protected] • Condor: This module (led by Argonne National Laboratory) is a proposed fort will build Condor using interface — and proven A U.S. Department of Energy high-temperature supercon- the MOOSE framework. scalability properties — is National Laboratory ductivity simulation tool. MOOSE, with its multi- an ideal platform for this The Argonne SciDAC (Sci- physics coupling capabili- pressing computational sci- entific Discovery through ties, adaptive mesh refine- ence problem. Advanced Computing) ef- ment and mesh generator • RAVEN: The RAVEN soft- ware tool (led by Cristian Rabiti) will provide a user interface for RELAP-7, the newest version of INL’s Reactor Excursion and Leak Analysis Program, INL’s premier reactor safety and systems analysis tool. The RAVEN software tool also MOOSE Simulation Environment will use RELAP-7 to per- Fostering a herd of modeling applications form Risk-Informed Safety Margin Characterization.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Note Usda Natural Resources Conservation Service Alaska
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE ALASKA Alaska Biology Technical Note – No. 1 HABITAT ENHANCEMENT for MOOSE in BOREAL ALASKA Introduction Moose evolved in Eurasia and migrated to North America over the Bering Land Bridge during the Pleistocene. Moose have been an important part of Alaska Native subsistence culture for millennia. In addition to being one of the most familiar large mammals in the state, they are also one of the most sought-after wildlife species in Alaska. Harvest is over 7,000 animals per year which yields millions of pounds of meat for human consumption. Wildlife management seeks to manage wildlife populations at an optimum abundance and provide sustainable harvest, maintain a desired nutritional or health condition of wildlife species and their forage plants, and provide for non- consumptive uses, such as wildlife viewing. Abundance of moose is constrained by hunting, predation, other sources of natural mortality (e.g., winter severity) as Moose. Photo courtesy of US Fish & Wildlife Service. well as the quantity and quality of available habitat. In the boreal forest, productive moose habitat is largely maintained by stochastic wildland fire in uplands and more regular fluvial action constrained to riparian corridors. During most years in Alaska, over one million acres of forest is burned. Many of these fires create optimal moose habitat for 20 – 30 years until preferred forage species like aspen, birch, and poplar grow out of the reach of moose or are replaced by non-forage species, typically spruce. Intensive foraging by high density moose populations can accelerate successional change from preferred forage species to non-preferred species.
    [Show full text]
  • September 2018
    DSC NEWSLETTER VOLUME 31,Camp ISSUE 8 TalkSEPTEMBER 2018 DSC Heartland Chapter Gets Kids Outside n late July, DSC Heartland hosted a youth IHunter Education certification course in IN THIS ISSUE Nebraska. This was done through a joint effort with the Nebraska Game and Parks doing most Letter from the President .....................1 of the advertising for us and providing us with Outdoor Youth Event .............................4 all the teaching materials necessary along with Photo Contest .........................................5 the test form. Papillion Gun Club in Papillion, Auction Donations .................................6 Nebraska was our host providing facilities for Convention Registration ....................22 Hotel Reservations ..............................25 a classroom setting and kitchen. Lunch was DSC Foundation ...................................27 provided for both kids and parents. Trophy Awards .....................................28 At their top-notch trap shooting facility, the DSC 100 Photos ....................................28 chapter held a youth clinic for the kids that chose Obituary ..................................................29 to stay and participate after the hunter ed course Texas Game Warden Graduation....30 was completed. Instructors took each of the kids DSC New Mexico Gala ......................31 one by one to the trap shooting range and taught Happy Hill Farm ....................................32 them proper shooting techniques. They live-fired After a youth Hunter Ed course, DSC Heartland
    [Show full text]
  • A Special Program for Secondary Schools in Bristol Bay
    DOCUMNNT RNSUPIR RC 003 626 ED 032 173 By-Holthaus, Cary H. Bristol Bay. Teaching Eskimo Culture to Eskimo Students:A Special Program for Secondary Schools in Pub Date May 68 Note -215p. EDRS Price MF -$1.00 HC Not Availablefrom EDRS. *Eskimos.HistoryInstruction, Descriptors -*Biculturalism,CultureConflict.*Curriculum Development. Instructional Materials, LanguageInstruction, *Resource Materials.Rural Areas, Secondary Education, *Social Studies Identifiers-Alaska, Aleuts, Bristol Bay Eskimo youth in Bristol Bay,Alaska. caught between the clashof native and white cultures, have difficultyidentifying with either culture.The curriculum in Indian schools in the area. gearedprimarily to white middle-classstandards. is not relevant to the students. Textbooks andstandardized tests, based onexperiences common to a white culture, hold little meaningfor Eskimo students.Teachers unfamiliar with Eskimo traditions and culture areunable to understand orcommunicate with the native people. Since the existingcurriculum in Bristol Bayschools ignores thestudents' cultural background. theauthor considers the creationof a unified multi-semester social studies curriculumabout the native heritage as amethod of dealing with students' problems. This paper. as afirst step in creating such acurriculum, can and is directed serve as a sourcematerial for informationabout the Bristol Bay area. toward the developmentof a one semester secondarylevel course in native history of the paper consists ofmaterial about the history. and culture. A major portion folklore of geography.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Strategies for Species Affected by Apparent Competition
    Conservation Practice and Policy Conservation Strategies for Species Affected by Apparent Competition HEIKO U. WITTMER,∗ ROBERT SERROUYA,† L. MARK ELBROCH,‡ AND ANDREW J. MARSHALL§ ∗School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand email [email protected] †Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada ‡Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. §Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. Abstract: Apparent competition is an indirect interaction between 2 or more prey species through a shared predator, and it is increasingly recognized as a mechanism of the decline and extinction of many species. Through case studies, we evaluated the effectiveness of 4 management strategies for species affected by apparent competition: predator control, reduction in the abundances of alternate prey, simultaneous control of predators and alternate prey, and no active management of predators or alternate prey. Solely reducing predator abundances rapidly increased abundances of alternate and rare prey, but observed increases are likely short-lived due to fast increases in predator abundance following the cessation of control efforts. Sub- stantial reductions of an abundant alternate prey resulted in increased predation on endangered huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) deer in Chilean Patagonia, which highlights potential risks associated with solely reducing alternate prey species. Simultaneous removal of predators and alternate prey increased survival of island foxes (Urocyon littoralis) in California (U.S.A.) above a threshold required for population recovery. In the absence of active management, populations of rare woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) continued to decline in British Columbia, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeography of Moose in Western North America
    Journal of Mammalogy, 101(1):10–23, 2020 DOI:10.1093/jmammal/gyz163 Published online November 30, 2019 Phylogeography of moose in western North America Nicholas J. DeCesare,* Byron V. Weckworth, Kristine L. Pilgrim, Andrew B. D. Walker, Eric J. Bergman, Kassidy E. Colson, Rob Corrigan, Richard B. Harris, Mark Hebblewhite, Brett R. Jesmer, Jesse R. Newby, Jason R. Smith, Rob B. Tether, Timothy P. Thomas, and Michael K. Schwartz Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Missoula, MT 59804, USA (NJD) Panthera, New York, NY 10018, USA (BVW) Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Forest Service, Missoula, MT 59801, USA (KLP, MKS) British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, Penticton, British Columbia V2A 7C8, Canada (ABDW) Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA (EJB) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Palmer, AK 99645, USA (KEC) Alberta Environment and Parks, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2M4, Canada (RC) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA 98501, USA (RBH) University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, USA (MH) University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA (BRJ) Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT 59901, USA (JRN) North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Jamestown, ND 58401, USA (JRS) Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan S9X 1Y5, Canada (RBT) Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Sheridan, WY 82801, USA (TPT) * Correspondent: [email protected] Subspecies designations within temperate species’ ranges often reflect populations that were isolated by past continental glaciation, and glacial vicariance is believed to be a primary mechanism behind the diversification of several subspecies of North American cervids.
    [Show full text]
  • Pciaficj Vid Verbyla, Ph.Df
    Space use and movements of moose hunters and wolves in the Yukon Flats, Alaska Item Type Thesis Authors Johnson, Ian Download date 09/10/2021 09:21:11 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/6374 SPACE USE AND MOVEMENTS OF MOOSE HUNTERS AND WOLVES IN THE YUKON FLATS, ALASKA By Ian Johnson RECOMMENDED: PciAficJ vid Verbyla, Ph.Df Kris Hundertmark, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Co-Chair Todd Brinkman, Ph.D. Advisory Committee Co-Chair Kris Hundertmark, Ph.D. Chair, Wildlife Program Department of Biology and Wildlife APPROVED: SPACE USE AND MOVEMENTS OF MOOSE HUNTERS AND WOLVES IN THE YUKON FLATS, ALASKA A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Ian Johnson, B.A. Fairbanks, AK December 2015 Abstract Within the Yukon Flats, Alaska, subsistence communities utilize moose (Alces alces) as a primary resource (78% of households) and wolves (Canis lupus) hunt them as an obligatory prey item. Hence, understanding the potential of direct or indirect competition between wolves and humans is useful for managers. In Chapter 1, I used a novel approach utilizing spatially-linked interviews to quantify the distance subsistence users were traveling from communities and rivers to harvest moose in the Yukon Flats. My study was the first to quantify hunter access in the Arctic and may provide managers with a harvest estimation approach that may supplement the current harvest ticket system, for which reporting is considered consistently low. My final results and model may be used by game managers outside of the Yukon Flats where hunter success is linked to access to forecast the impact of creating new access on game populations or forecast the effect of access closure on game populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Warthog: a MOOSE-Based Application for the Direct Code Coupling of BISON and PROTEUS (MS-15OR04010310)
    ORNL/TM-2015/532 Warthog: A MOOSE-Based Application for the Direct Code Coupling of BISON and PROTEUS (MS-15OR04010310) Alexander J. McCaskey Approved for public release. Stuart Slattery Distribution is unlimited. Jay Jay Billings September 2015 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via US Department of Energy (DOE) SciTech Connect. Website: http://www.osti.gov/scitech/ Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone: 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD: 703-487-4639 Fax: 703-605-6900 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Ex- change representatives, and International Nuclear Information System representatives from the following source: Office of Scientific and Technical Information PO Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone: 865-576-8401 Fax: 865-576-5728 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal lia- bility or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or rep- resents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not nec- essarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or fa- voring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]