DOCSLIB.ORG

National Bison Range Annual Narrative Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NATIONAL BISON RANGE Moiese, Montana ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1982 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM NATIONAL BISON RANGE Moiese, Montana ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1982 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM Review and Approval S/J'/A-S Submtted By Date Regional Office PERSONNEL Permanent Full Time Jon M. Malcolm, Refuge Manager - GS-485-12 E. Merritt, October, 82 Hugh H. Null, Assistant Manager - GS-485-11 E. Merritt, October, 82 William J. Berg, Assistant Manager GS-485-7 Transferred 11/82 E. Merritt, October 83 Victor B. May, Maintenance Foreman WS-4749-6 E. Merritt, October, 82 Grant Hogge, Engineering Equipment Mechanic WG-5803-10 E. Merritt, October, 82 Ernest W. Kraft, Maintenanceman, WG-4749-9 E. Merritt, October, 82 Career Seasonal Edward G. Krantz, Maintenanceman, VTQ-4749-7 E. Merritt, October, 82 Robert L. Middlemist, Maintenanceman, WG-4749 E. Merritt, October, 83 Temporary Intermittent Beth Hogg, Education Technician, GS-1702-5 James R. Norgaard, Bio-Aid, GS-404-3 YCC Kelliann Johnson Daren Thomas TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa£e 1 A- HIGHLIGHTS 1 B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 2 C. LAND ACQUISITION 1. Fee Title - Nothing to Report 2. Easements - Nothing to Report 3. Other - Nothing to Report D. PLANNING 1. Master Plan - Nothing to Report - 2. Management Plan - Nothing to Report 3. Public Participation - Nothing to Report 4. Compliance with Environmental Mandates - Nothing to Report . 5. Research and Investigations 2 E. ADMINISTRATION 1. Personnel 4 2. Youth Programs 5 3. Other Manpower Programs - Nothing to Report 4. Volunteers Program 5 5. Funding 6 6. Safety 6 7. Technical Assistance 7 8. Other Items 7 F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT 1. General 8 2. Wetlands - Nothing to Report 3. Forests 8 4. Croplands - Nothing to Report 5. Grasslands 8 6. Other Habitats - Nothing to Report 7. Grazing 9 8. Haying 10 9. Fire Management 10 10. Pest Control 11 11. Water Rights 11 12. Wilderness and Special Areas - Nothing to Report 13. WPA Easement Monitoring - Nothing to Report TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Page G. WILDLIFE I 1. Wildlife Diversity 12 2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species 12 3. Waterfowl i 12 4. Marsh and Water Birds 13 5. Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species 13 6. Raptors 13 7. Other Migratory Birds 13 8. Game Mammals 14 9. Marine Mammals - Nothing to Report 10. Other Resident Wildlife 18 11. Fisheries Resources 21 12. Wildlife Propogation and Stocking - Nothing to Report .... 13. Surplus Animal Disposal - 21 14. Scientific Collections 23 15. Animal Control - Nothing to Report 16. Marking and Banding - Nothing to Report 17. Disease Prevention and Control 23 H. PUBLIC USE 1. General 23 2. Outdoor Classrooms - Students 24 3. Outdoor Classrooms - Teachers 24 4. Interpretive Foot Trails- 25 5. Interpretive Tour Routes 25 6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations 26 7. Other Interpretive Programs 28 8. Hunting - Nothing to Report 9. Fishing 28 10. Trapping - Nothing to Report 11. Wildlife Observation 29 12. Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation 29 13. Camping - Nothing to Report 14. Picnicking 30 15. Off-Road Vehicling - Nothing to Report 16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation - Nothing to Report. 17. Law Enforcement 30 18. Cooperating Associations 32 19. Concessions 32 I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES 1. New Construction "32 2. Rehabilitation 33 TABLE OP CONTENTS Page I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES (Cont.) 3. Major Maintenance 33 4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement 33 5. Communication Systems 34 6. Energy Conservation 34 7. Other - Nothing to Report J. OTHER ITEMS 1. Cooperative Programs 34 2. Items of Interest 34 3. Credits 36 K. FEEDBACK 36 A. HIGHLIGHTS Work was completed on the new visitor center-office building. Displays and exhibits were installed in early spring, and the center was open to the pub­ lic in May. An "open house" was held June 19, when FWS Director Jantzen was on hand for the official opening and dedication, (Sections H-l and 1-1). Environmental education activity continued to increase, (Section H-2 and 3). Visitor numbers at the annual bison roundup were intentionally reduced in 1982, (Section H-12). Reproduction in the antelope and bighorn sheep herds was very poor, (Sec- tion G-8). A mild sunny day greeted visitors at the "open house" cermonies. A crowd of 350 showed up to hear the Director and other dignitaries speak. K. Olson, June 82 Director Jantzen officially opening the new visitor center. Assisting is Refuge Manager Jon Malcolm. On left Master of Cer­ monies George Ostrom looking on. K. Olson, June 82 Artwork by Ernie Kraft 2 B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS The month of January, which is usually our coldest month, was relatively mild, with only two days of below zero temperatures recorded. However, our balmy winter ended in February, when eight consecutive days had temperature read­ ings below zero. Snowfall for January and February amounted to 21 inches. Despite the above average snowfall, all big game species came through the winter in good shape. Precipitation from March through May was more than one inch above normal for the period. Cool-season buhchgrasses responded to the extra moisture and range green-up was earlier than normal. Summer months continued to be wetter than normal, with over 2.5 inches of rainfall recorded in June alone. Weeds, especially goatweed (Hypericum perforatum), took advan­ tage of the late spring-early summer moisture and spread in several areas. Kentucky bluegrass and red three-awn were also quite prevalent. Fall months were mild. The first snowfall occurred on November 11. The year ended with relatively mild temperatures and bare ground. 1982 Weather Precipitation 30-Year Month High Low 1982 Average Snow January 50 -16 0.70 0.99 15.00 February 59 -21 0.74 0.56 6.00 March 63 18 1.77 0.68 2.00 April 77 11 0.85 1.03 May 88 22 1.72 1.50 June 94 32 2.51 1.98 July 96 37 1.53 0.95 Auqust 05 35- 0.75 1.00 September 90 26 1.99 1.02 October 75 16 0.85 0.89 November 55 3 0.62 0.76 5.25 December 55 -7 0.70 0.85 8.25 14.73 12.21 36.50 D. PLANNING 5. Research and Investigations National Bison Range NR82 - Sarcocystis in Wild Herbivores and Coyotes of the National Bison Range (61540-31) Daniel B. Pond, Montana Coop­ erative Wildlife Research Unit Field work on this study was completed in 1981, and a final report (M.S. Thesis) was received this year. A high incidence of the common parasite Sarcocystis hemionilatrantis was found in mule deer, white-tailed deer, eik, and coyotes collected on the Bison Range. An additional species of 3 Sarcocystis (as yet undescribed) was found in elk. Coyotes, the defini­ tive host, were experimentally infected from meat of all three intermed­ iate hosts. Nine of twelve mule deer fawns successfully infected with Sarcocystis that had been passed through coyotes developed pathogenic symptoms and died. The study concluded that "wildlife managers should be aware of this com­ mon and pathogenic parasite because S^. hemionilatrantis may have direct or indirect impacts on deer populations." However, under natural con­ ditions on the Bison Range, the parasite is presently not seriously affecting the health or productivity of deer and elk. National Bison Range NR82 - The Role of Body Size in Herbivore Competi­ tion (61540-33) Gary E. Belovsky and Jennifer Slade, University of Wash­ ington Field data collection continued on the Bison Range and surrounding vici­ nity in 1982. Mr. Belovsky and his assistants also helped us by document­ ing production and species composition on a 20Tacre spring prescribed grassland burn and three adjacent treatment types on the eastern edge of the range. National Bison Range NR82 - A Study of Social Organization, Social Be­ havior, and Population Dynamics in Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep on the National Bison Range (61540-34) Jack Hogg, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit - Jack Hogg completed field work on this study in 1982, and it was taken over by Chris Hass (see 61540-38). A final report has not been received to date. National Bison Range NR82 - Social Organization, Dominance and Reproduc­ tion Among Female American Bison (61540-35) Allen Rutberg, University of Washington A progress report received in February, 1982, stated an emerging conclu­ sion that age is a critical factor in the social organization of bison. Older cows achieve high dominance status. Cows appear to prefer mating with older bulls rather than dominate bulls. Observation of female bison was completed during the 1982 field season. A final report was due January 1, 1983, but has not been received to date. National Bison Range NR82 - Behavorial Development in Pronghorn (Antilo- capra americana) 61540-36 John A. Byers, University of Idaho This was the second season of field work on this study. Mr. Byers esti­ mated that 45 antelope does should have had fawns and that 90 fawns should have been born on the range. Twenty-six fawns, three or more days old, were tagged for study purposes. Only one of the tagged fawns survived until fall (4 per cent). Only four of the estimated 64 untagged fawns survived until fall(6 per cent). Mr. Byers's data and observations in­ dicated coyote predation as the primary mortality factor, and no differ­ ence between survival of tagged and untagged fawns. On the assumption that mortality in 1983 will continue at 95 per cent, Mr. Byers has re­ quested permission to tag as many fawns as possible in order to have an adequate sample of surviving fawns. However, we plan to authorize tagging of up to 50 fawns, which is about 40 percent of the antici­ pated fawn crop.
Recommended publications
  • Montana Forest Insect and Disease Conditions and Program Highlights

    Montana Forest Insect and Disease Conditions and Program Highlights

    R1-16-17 03/20/2016 Forest Service Northern Region Montata Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Forestry Division In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
  • Deer, Elk, Bear, Moose, Lynx, Bobcat, Waterfowl

    Deer, Elk, Bear, Moose, Lynx, Bobcat, Waterfowl

    Hunt ID: 1501-CA-AL-G-L-MDeerWDeerElkBBearMooseLynxBobcatWaterfowl-M1SR-O1G-N2EGE Great Economy Deer and Moose Hunts south of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada American Hunters trekking to Canada for low cost moose, along with big Mule Deer and Whitetail and been pleasantly surprised by the weather and temperatures that they were greeted by when they hunted British Columbia, located in Canada, north of Washington State. Canada should be and is cold but there are exceptions, if you know where to go. In BC if you stay on the western Side of the Rocky Mountains the weather is quite mild because it is warmed by the Pacific Ocean. If you hunt east of the Rocky Mountains, what I call the Canadian Interior it can be as much as 50 degrees colder depending on the time of the year. The area has now preference point requirements, the Outfitter has his allotted vouchers so you can get a reasonably priced license and, in most cases, less than you can get for the same animal in the US as a non-resident. You don’t even buy the voucher from the Outfitter it is part of his hunt cost because without it you could not get a license anyway. Travel is easy and the residents are friendly. Like anywhere outside the US you will need a easy to acquire Passport if you don’t have one, just don’t wait until the last minute to get one for $10 from your local Post office by where you live. The one thing in Canada is if you have a felony on your record Canada will not allow you into their safe Country.
  • Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist

    Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist

    STATE OF NEVADA Steve Sisolak, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Tony Wasley, Director GAME DIVISION Brian F. Wakeling, Chief Mike Cox, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat Staff Specialist Pat Jackson, Predator Management Staff Specialist Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer and Antelope Staff Specialist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist Western Region Southern Region Eastern Region Regional Supervisors Mike Scott Steve Kimble Tom Donham Big Game Biologists Chris Hampson Joe Bennett Travis Allen Carl Lackey Pat Cummings Clint Garrett Kyle Neill Cooper Munson Sarah Hale Ed Partee Kari Huebner Jason Salisbury Matt Jeffress Kody Menghini Tyler Nall Scott Roberts This publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Federal Laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against in any NDOW program, activity, or facility, please write to the following: Diversity Program Manager or Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop: 7072-43 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Arlington, VA 22203 Reno, Nevada 8911-2237 Individuals with hearing impairments may contact the Department via telecommunications device at our Headquarters at 775-688-1500 via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada Relay Operator at 1-800-326-6868. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 2018-2019 BIG GAME STATUS This program is supported by Federal financial assistance titled “Statewide Game Management” submitted to the U.S.
  • Bison Literature Review Biology

    Bison Literature Review Biology

    Bison Literature Review Ben Baldwin and Kody Menghini The purpose of this document is to compare the biology, ecology and basic behavior of cattle and bison for a management context. The literature related to bison is extensive and broad in scope covering the full continuum of domestication. The information incorporated in this review is focused on bison in more or less “wild” or free-ranging situations i.e.., not bison in close confinement or commercial production. While the scientific literature provides a solid basis for much of the basic biology and ecology, there is a wealth of information related to management implications and guidelines that is not captured. Much of the current information related to bison management, behavior (especially social organization) and practical knowledge is available through local experts, current research that has yet to be published, or popular literature. These sources, while harder to find and usually more localized in scope, provide crucial information pertaining to bison management. Biology Diet Composition Bison evolutional history provides the basis for many of the differences between bison and cattle. Bison due to their evolution in North America ecosystems are better adapted than introduced cattle, especially in grass dominated systems such as prairies. Many of these areas historically had relatively low quality forage. Bison are capable of more efficient digestion of low-quality forage then cattle (Peden et al. 1973; Plumb and Dodd 1993). Peden et al. (1973) also found that bison could consume greater quantities of low protein and poor quality forage then cattle. Bison and cattle have significant dietary overlap, but there are slight differences as well.
  • Buffalo Hunt: International Trade and the Virtual Extinction of the North American Bison

    Buffalo Hunt: International Trade and the Virtual Extinction of the North American Bison

    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES BUFFALO HUNT: INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND THE VIRTUAL EXTINCTION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN BISON M. Scott Taylor Working Paper 12969 http://www.nber.org/papers/w12969 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 March 2007 I am grateful to seminar participants at the University of British Columbia, the University of Calgary, the Environmental Economics workshop at the NBER Summer Institute 2006, the fall 2006 meetings of the NBER ITI group, and participants at the SURED II conference in Ascona Switzerland. Thanks also to Chris Auld, Ed Barbier, John Boyce, Ann Carlos, Charlie Kolstad, Herb Emery, Mukesh Eswaran, Francisco Gonzalez, Keith Head, Frank Lewis, Mike McKee, and Sjak Smulders for comments; to Michael Ferrantino for access to the International Trade Commission's library; and to Margarita Gres, Amanda McKee, Jeffrey Swartz, Judy Hasse of Buffalo Horn Ranch and Andy Strangeman of Investra Ltd. for research assistance. Funding for this research was provided by the SSHRC. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. © 2007 by M. Scott Taylor. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Buffalo Hunt: International Trade and the Virtual Extinction of the North American Bison M. Scott Taylor NBER Working Paper No. 12969 March 2007 JEL No. F1,Q2,Q5,Q56 ABSTRACT In the 16th century, North America contained 25-30 million buffalo; by the late 19th century less than 100 remained.
  • National Bison Range Is Administered by the U.S

    National Bison Range Is Administered by the U.S

    REGULATIONS • Remain at your car and on the road. If you are near bison do not get out of your vehicle. • Hiking is permitted only on designated footpaths. • Trailers and other towed units are not allowed on the Red Sleep Mountain Drive. • Motorcycles and bicycles are permitted only on the paved drives below the cattle guards. x% Place of Discovery • No overnight camping allowed. • Firearms are prohibited. • All pets must be on a leash. • Carry out all trash. • All regulations are strictly enforced. • Our patrol staff is friendly and willing to answer your questions about the range and its wildlife. 3/4 MILE CAUTIONS • Bison can be very dangerous. Keep your distance. • All wildlife will defend their young and can hurt you. • Rattlesnakes are not aggressive but will strike if threatened. Watch where you step and do not go out into the grasslands. <* The Red Sleep Mountain Drive is a one-way mountain road. It gains 2000 feet in elevation and averages a 10% downgrade for about 2 miles. Be sure of your braking power. • Watch out for children on roadways especially in the picnic area and at popular viewpoints. • Refuge staff are trained in first aid and can assist you. Where to Start? Contact them in an emergency. The best place to start your visit to the ADMINISTRATION Bison Range is the Visitor Center. Here The National Bison Range is administered by the U.S. Fish you will find informative displays on and Wildlife Service as a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Further information can be obtained from the the bison, its history and its habitat.
  • Antelope, Deer, Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goats: a Guide to the Carpals

    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.
  • Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of Contagious Ecthyma Infection

    Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of Contagious Ecthyma Infection

    FI.NAL REP.ORT (R.ESEARCH) State: Alaska Cooperators: Randall L. Zarnke and Kenneth A. Neiland Project No.: W-21-1 Project Title: Big Game Investigations Job No.: l8.1R Job Title: Serologic Surveys for Natural Foci of contag1ous Ecthyma Infection Period Covered: July 1, 1979 to J~~? ~0, 1~80 SUMMARY Contagious ecthyma (C. E. ) antibody prevalence in domestic sheep and goats in Interior Alaska du~ing 1978 was quite low (7-10%). This suggested a low level of transmission of the virus among these species during this time period. C. E. antibody prevalence in Dall sheep increased .from 30 percent in 1971 to 100 percent in 1978. This suggested an increased level of transmission to, and/or among, these animals during this period. Following a C.E. epizootic in a band of captive Dall sheep in 1977, antibody prevalence was 80 percent in this group of sheep. Less than l year later, prevalence had dropped to 10 percent in the ·same band. Thus it appeared that antibody produced in response to this . strain of C.E. is short-lived. Antibody was also detected in 10 of 22 free­ ranging muskoxen taken by sport hunters on Nunivak Island in 1978. Detectable antibody levels were not found in any of 19 muskoxen captured on the island in 1979. No antibody was found in a small number of captive muskoxen from Unalakleet. Several of the captive muskoxen were ·known to have been infected with C.E. within 1 to 2 years prior to the time of sampling. This further substantiates the belief that anti­ body produced in response to infection by the Alaskan strain of C.E.
  • Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats

    Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats

    Bighorn Sheep, Moose, and Mountain Goats Brock Hoenes Ungulate Section Manager, Wildlife Program WACs: 220-412-070 Big game and wild turkey auction, raffle, and special incentive permits. 220-412-080 Special hunting season permits. 220-415-070 Moose seasons, permit quotas, and areas. 220-415-120 2021 Bighorn sheep seasons and permit quotas. 220-415-130 2021 Mountain goat seasons and permit quotas. 1. Special Hunting Season Permits 2. Moose – Status, recommendations, public comment 3. Mountain Goat – Status, recommendations, public comment 4. Bighorn Sheep – Status, recommendations, public comment 5. Questions Content Department of Fish and Wildlife SPECIAL HUNTING SEASON PERMITS White‐Tailed DeerWAC 220-412-080 • Allow successful applicants for all big game special permits to return their permit to the Department for any Agree 77% reason two weeks prior to the Neutral 9% opening day of the season and to have their points restored Disagree 14% 1,553 Respondents • Remove the “once‐in‐a‐lifetime” Public Comment restriction for Mountain Goat Conflict • 223 comments, 1 email/letter Reduction special permit category • General (90 agree, 26 disagree) • Reissue permit (67) • >2 weeks (21) • No change (12) Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE • Primarily occur in White‐Tailed DeerNE and north-central Washington • Most recent estimate in 2016 indicated ~5,000 moose in NE • Annual surveys to estimate age and sex ratios (snow dependent) • Recent studies (2014-2018) in GMUs 117 and 124 indicated populations were declining • Poor body condition (adult female) • Poor calf survival • Wolf predation • Tick infestations • Substantial reduction in antlerless permits in 2018 Department of Fish and Wildlife MOOSE RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
  • Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan

    Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan

    UTAH BIGHORN SHEEP STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BIGHORN SHEEP I. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN A. General This document is the Statewide Management Plan for bighorn sheep in Utah (hereafter referred to as the “Plan”). This Plan provides overall guidance and direction to Utah’s bighorn sheep management program. This Plan assesses current information on bighorn sheep, identifies issues and concerns relating to bighorn sheep management in Utah, and establishes goals and objectives for future bighorn management programs. Strategies are also outlined to achieve goals and objectives. This Plan helps determine priorities for bighorn management and provide the overall direction for management plans on individual bighorn units throughout the state. Unit management plans will be presented to the Utah Wildlife Board when one of the following criteria are met: 1) a new bighorn sheep unit is being proposed, 2) the current unit requires a significant boundary change, 3) a change to the unit population objective is being proposed, or 4) the unit has not yet had a management plan approved by the Utah Wildlife Board. All other changes to unit management plans will be approved by the Division Director. This Plan, among other things, outlines a variety of measures designed to abate or mitigate the risk of comingling and pathogen transmission between domestic and wild bighorn sheep. This Plan is not intended to be utilized to involuntarily alter domestic sheep grazing operations in Utah. The only mechanism acceptable to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) for altering domestic sheep grazing practices to avoid risk of comingling is through voluntary actions undertaken by the individual grazers.
  • Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion

    Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion

    THE AUTHORS : MARY L. SOMMER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WILDLIFE BRANCH 1812 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 REBECCA L. BARBOZA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SOUTH COAST REGION 4665 LAMPSON AVENUE, SUITE C LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 RANDY A. BOTTA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SOUTH COAST REGION 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 ERIC B. KLEINFELTER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION 1234 EAST SHAW AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93710 MARTHA E. SCHAUSS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION 1234 EAST SHAW AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93710 J. ROCKY THOMPSON CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL REGION P.O. BOX 2330 LAKE ISABELLA, CA 93240 Cover photo by: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Suggested Citation: Sommer, M. L., R. L. Barboza, R. A. Botta, E. B. Kleinfelter, M. E. Schauss and J. R. Thompson. 2007. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 THE CALIFORNIA WOODLAND CHAPARRAL ECOREGION 4 Description 4 Ecoregion-specific Deer Ecology 4 MAJOR IMPACTS TO MULE DEER HABITAT 6 IN THE CALIFORNIA WOODLAND CHAPARRA L CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND SPECIFIC 7 HABITAT GUIDELINES Long-term Fire Suppression 7 Human Encroachment 13 Wild and Domestic Herbivores 18 Water Availability and Hydrological Changes 26 Non-native Invasive Species 30 SUMMARY 37 LITERATURE CITED 38 APPENDICIES 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ule and black-tailed deer (collectively called Forest is severe winterkill. Winterkill is not a mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus ) are icons of problem in the Southwest Deserts, but heavy grazing the American West.
  • Why Game Meats?

    Why Game Meats?

    Mount Royal USA Product Guide 713-862-1800 Why Game Meats? Venison and other farm raised game meats are fast becoming a popular option for chefs seeking healthy, convenient, and versatile flavors. Game meats are low in fat/cholesterol and high in proteins. All animals are grazed on pastures and fed supplemental feed which contains no steroids, antibiotics, or hormones. The products therefore are 100% natural. Venison The gamey flavor often associated with venison (and other game meats) is not noticeable in farm raised products. The reason for this is quite simple. Wild animals rely on berries or whatever they can find for food and then are stressed or “hunted” before killing. The diet of the animals and the adrenaline which gets pumped into their system before being killed affects the taste of the meat. An animal which has been fed a specific diet and is killed under different conditions will naturally have a slightly different taste which results in a less “gamey” type of flavor. Venison from Mount Royal is farm raised in New Zealand on lush pastures and exported under the Cervena label to insure maximum tenderness and consistency in processing. VENISON PRODUCTS NAME Venison Racks GB7065 Denver leg GB7075 Striploin GB7880 Boneless GB7415 Shoulder Stew GB7440 Venison Ground GB7085 Elk Racks GB7090 Tenderloin GB7080 Venison Flank GB7420 Bone In Saddle GB7435 Ven trim GB7455 Elk trim GB7475 Osso Bucco GB7445 Elk Striploin GB7095 Elk Ground GB7476 Venison Bones GB7460 Ostrich Ostrich is similar in taste to beef and with a texture similar to venison. Protein content is also like beef, but the meat has less cholesterol, less fat and fewer calories than beef, chicken, or turkey.