THE LONG-EARED OWL INSIDE by CHRIS NERI and NOVA MACKENTLEY News from the Board and Staff
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Accipiters.Pdf
Accipiters The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) are the Alaskan representatives of a group of hawks known as accipiters, with short, rounded wings (short in comparison with other hawks) and long tails. The third North American accipiter, the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) is not found in Alaska. Both native species are abundant in the state but not commonly seen, for they spend the majority of their time in wooded habitats. When they do venture out into the open, the accipiters can be recognized easily by their “several flaps and a glide” style of flight. General Description: Adult northern goshawks are bluish- gray on the back, wings, and tail, and pearly gray on the breast and underparts. The dark gray cap is accented by a light gray stripe above the red eye. Like most birds of prey, female goshawks are larger than males. A typical female is 25 inches (65 cm) long, has a wingspread of 45 inches (115 cm) and weighs 2¼ pounds (1020 g) while the average male is 19½ inches (50 cm) in length with a wingspread of 39 inches (100 cm) and weighs 2 pounds (880 g). Adult sharp-shinned hawks have gray backs, wings and tails (males tend to be bluish-gray, while females are browner) with white underparts barred heavily with brownish-orange. They also have red eyes but, unlike goshawks, have no eyestrip. A typical female weighs 6 ounces (170 g), is 13½ inches (35 cm) long with a wingspread of 25 inches (65 cm), while the average male weighs 3½ ounces (100 g), is 10 inches (25 cm) long and has a wingspread of 21 inches (55 cm). -
Tinamiformes – Falconiformes
LIST OF THE 2,008 BIRD SPECIES (WITH SCIENTIFIC AND ENGLISH NAMES) KNOWN FROM THE A.O.U. CHECK-LIST AREA. Notes: "(A)" = accidental/casualin A.O.U. area; "(H)" -- recordedin A.O.U. area only from Hawaii; "(I)" = introducedinto A.O.U. area; "(N)" = has not bred in A.O.U. area but occursregularly as nonbreedingvisitor; "?" precedingname = extinct. TINAMIFORMES TINAMIDAE Tinamus major Great Tinamou. Nothocercusbonapartei Highland Tinamou. Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou. Crypturelluscinnamomeus Thicket Tinamou. Crypturellusboucardi Slaty-breastedTinamou. Crypturellus kerriae Choco Tinamou. GAVIIFORMES GAVIIDAE Gavia stellata Red-throated Loon. Gavia arctica Arctic Loon. Gavia pacifica Pacific Loon. Gavia immer Common Loon. Gavia adamsii Yellow-billed Loon. PODICIPEDIFORMES PODICIPEDIDAE Tachybaptusdominicus Least Grebe. Podilymbuspodiceps Pied-billed Grebe. ?Podilymbusgigas Atitlan Grebe. Podicepsauritus Horned Grebe. Podicepsgrisegena Red-neckedGrebe. Podicepsnigricollis Eared Grebe. Aechmophorusoccidentalis Western Grebe. Aechmophorusclarkii Clark's Grebe. PROCELLARIIFORMES DIOMEDEIDAE Thalassarchechlororhynchos Yellow-nosed Albatross. (A) Thalassarchecauta Shy Albatross.(A) Thalassarchemelanophris Black-browed Albatross. (A) Phoebetriapalpebrata Light-mantled Albatross. (A) Diomedea exulans WanderingAlbatross. (A) Phoebastriaimmutabilis Laysan Albatross. Phoebastrianigripes Black-lootedAlbatross. Phoebastriaalbatrus Short-tailedAlbatross. (N) PROCELLARIIDAE Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar. Pterodroma neglecta KermadecPetrel. (A) Pterodroma -
Revised January 19, 2018 Updated June 19, 2018
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION / BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE YUBA PROJECT YUBA RIVER RANGER DISTRICT TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST REVISED JANUARY 19, 2018 UPDATED JUNE 19, 2018 PREPARED BY: MARILYN TIERNEY DISTRICT WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 3 II. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 4 III. CONSULTATION TO DATE ...................................................................................................... 4 IV. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ............................................................................... 5 V. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ......................... 6 VI. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES, AND DETERMINATION ......................................................................... 41 SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION ........................................................... 54 TERRESTRIAL SPECIES ........................................................................................................................ 55 WESTERN BUMBLE BEE ............................................................................................................. 55 BALD EAGLE ............................................................................................................................... -
Migratory Movements of Peregrine Falcons Falco Peregrinus, Breeding on the Yamal Peninsula, Russia
Ornis Hungarica 2018. 26(2): 222–231. DOI: 10.1515/orhu-2018-0030 Migratory movements of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus, breeding on the Yamal Peninsula, Russia Vasiliy SOKOLOV1, Aleksandr SOKOLOV2 & Andrew DIXON3* Received: October 30, 2018 – Revised: November 11, 2018 – Accepted: December 21, 2018 This is a contribution submitted to the Proceedings of the World Conference on the Peregrine Falcon in Buda- pest in September 2017. Sokolov, V., Sokolov, A. & Dixon, A. 2018. Migratory movements of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus, breeding on the Yamal Peninsula, Russia. – Ornis Hungarica 26(2): 222–231. DOI: 10.1515/orhu-2018-0030 Abstract We describe the migration pathways of 12 Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus cali dus breeding on the Yamal Peninsula, Russia. Overall, we tracked 30 complete (17 autumn and 13 spring) and 5 incomplete seasonal migration routes. Winter ranges extended from the Atlantic coast of southern Portugal in the west to Kish Island in the Arabian Gulf in the east, and from Krasnodar in southern Russia in the north to South Sudan. Eight birds were tracked to their wintering sites, with migration pathways ranging from 3,557 km to 8,114 km, taking 14 to 61 days to complete. Birds spent an average of 190 days in their winter ranges (range 136 to 212 days, N = 14), and departure on spring migration took place in April. The home ranges used by win- tering Peregrines were varied including coastal habitats, agricultural landscapes, savannah, desert and an urban city. Departure from breeding areas took place in September with birds returning in May. Peregrines exhibited a high degree of fidelity to their winter ranges, with four birds tracked over three successive migrations until the 2012 breeding season. -
Immature Northern Goshawk Captures, Kills, and Feeds on Adult&Hyphen
DECEMUER2003 SHO•tT COMMUNICATIONS 337 [EDs.], Proceedingsof the 4th Workshop of Bearded Vulture (Gypaetusbarbatus) in the Pyrenees:influence Vulture. Natural History Museum of Crete and Uni- on breeding success.Bird Study46:224-229. versity of Crete, Iraklio, Greece. --AND --. 2002. Pla de recuperaci6 del trenca- --AND M. RAZIN.1999. Ecologyand conservationof 16s a Catalunya: biologia i conservaci6. Documents the Bearded Vultures: the case of the Spanish and dels Quaderns de Medi Ambient, 7. Generalitat de French Pyrenees.Pages 29-45 in M. Mylonas [ED.], Catalunya, Departament de Medi Ambient, Barcelo- Proceedingsof the Bearded Vulture Workshop. Nat- na, Spain. ural History Museum of Crete and University of , ---,J. BERTP,AN, ANt) R. HERrre^. 2003. Breed- Crete, Iraklio, Greece. ing biology and successof the Bearded Vulture HIRALDO,F., M. DELIBES,ANDJ. CALDER(SN. 1979. E1 Que- (Gypaetusbarbatus) in the eastern Pyrenees.Ibis 145 brantahuesos(Gypaetus barbatus). L. Monografias 22. 244-252. ICONA, Madrid, Spain. , --, AND R. HE•Em^. 1997. Estimaci6n de la MARGAiJDA,A. ANDJ. BERTRAN.2000a. Nest-buildingbe- disponibilidad tr6fica para el Quebrantahuesosen Ca- haviour of the Bearded Vulture (Gypaetusbarbatus). talufia (NE Espafia) e implicacionessobre su conser- Ardea 88:259-264. vaci6n. Do•ana, Acta Vertetm24:227-235. --AND --. 2000b. Breeding behaviour of the NEWTON,I. 1979. Populationecology ofraptors. T. &A D Bearded Vulture (Gypaetusbarbatus): minimal sexual Poyser,Berkhamsted, UK. differencesin parental activities.Ibis 142:225-234. ß 1986. The Sparrowhawk.T. & A.D. Poyser,Cal- --AND --. 2001. Function and temporal varia- ton, UK. tion in the use of ossuaries by Bearded Vultures --^NO M. MA•QUtSS.1982. Fidelity to breeding area (Gypaetusbarbatus) during the nestling period. -
1 Northern Goshawk Forest Type Preference in the Chippewa
Northern Goshawk Forest Type Preference in the Chippewa National Forest Travis W. Ludwig Department of Resource Analysis, Saint Mary’s University of MN, Winona, MN 55987 Keywords: Goshawk, Accipiter gentilis, GIS, forest stands, Chippewa National Forest, minimal convex polygons, quaking aspen Abstract The Chippewa National Forest has large expanses of land that are densely forested and largely uninhabited providing excellent habitat for Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles). The Chippewa National Forest is currently updating its forest management plan and one of the issues is the importance of goshawk habitat. The goshawk is a listed Sensitive Species in the Eastern Region for the U.S. Forest Service. This study used a geographic information system to assess which forest types are important as goshawk habitat. Since limited knowledge exists concerning goshawk habitat, three habitat estimations (minimal convex polygons, Kernel 95% and Forage Buffer) were used to determine which forest stands occur within goshawk utilization areas. While quaking aspen plays a vital role in goshawk habitat in the Chippewa National Forest, goshawks there are opportunistic and take advantage of many other forest types. Introduction The Chippewa National Forest, hereafter called Chippewa NF, encompasses 1.6 million acres. Of this, 666,325 acres are managed by the USDA Forest Service. The forest consists of aspen, birch, pine, balsam fir, and maple species. The Chippewa NF contains approximately 1300 lakes, 900 miles of rivers and streams, and 400,000 acres of wetlands. The Chippewa NF is the largest national forest east of the Mississippi (Chippewa National Forest Website, 2002). The Chippewa NF is located in northern Minnesota between the cities of Grand Rapids to the east and Bemidji to the west (Figure 1). -
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter Gentiles)
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) Paul Cotter The northern goshawk (goshawk) is a short-winged, highly maneuverable hawk of the accipiter group inhabiting boreal and mountain forests of North American, Europe, and northern Russia. Some goshawks migrate; some are resident; and others are probably nomadic, moving more in years of low prey. The breeding and winter ranges of the goshawk overlap extensively. In Southeastern Alaska (Southeast), the goshawk is a year-round resident and begins to occupy nesting stands in February and March (Iverson et al. 1996) (Fig 1). Relatively large size, a slate gray back, and a fine gray barring on underparts make the adult goshawk difficult to confuse with any other bird of prey in the Tongass National Forest. Under poor light and in the forest, however, the FIG 1. Male northern goshawk at nest in old-growth forest in southeastern Alaska. (Bob Armstrong) goshawk and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) can be confused, even by experienced birders. Short wings multiyear study to examine the ecology and habitat and a long tail make the goshawk well-suited for associations of Queen Charlotte goshawks in the navigating through its most common habitat of old- Tongass National Forest. growth forest, where it often crashes through dense brush to capture birds and small mammals. In STATUS IN SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA Southeast, the primary diet of the goshawk includes Distribution grouse, ptarmigan, red squirrels (Tamiasciurus The goshawk is found across the Tongass National hudsonicus), songbirds, jays, and crows (Lewis 2001). Forest from Dixon Entrance in southern Southeast In the mid-1990s, the conservation status of the (Iverson et al. -
Northern Goshawk Laingi Subspecies
COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Northern Goshawk Laingi subspecies Accipiter gentilis laingi in Canada THREATENED 2000 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION DES ENDANGERED WILDLIFE ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: Please note: Persons wishing to cite data in the report should refer to the report (and cite the author(s)); persons wishing to cite the COSEWIC status will refer to the assessment (and cite COSEWIC). A production note will be provided if additional information on the status report history is required. COSEWIC 2000. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Northern Goshawk Laingi subspecies Accipiter gentilis laingi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 36 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm) Cooper, J.M. and P.A. Chytyk. 2000. Update COSEWIC status report on the Northern Goshawk Laingi subspecies Accipiter gentilis laingi in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status status report on the Northern Goshawk Laingi subspecies Accipiter gentilis laingi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-36 pp. Previous Report Duncan P. and D.A. Kirk. 1995. COSEWIC status report on the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 44 pp. Production note: The Northern Goshawk laingi subspecies Accipiter gentilis laingi was formerly designated by COSEWIC as the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi. -
Accipiter Gentilis -- (Linnaeus, 1758)
Accipiter gentilis -- (Linnaeus, 1758) ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- ACCIPITRIFORMES -- ACCIPITRIDAE Common names: Northern Goshawk; Autour des palombes; Eurasian Goshawk; Goshawk European Red List Assessment European Red List Status LC -- Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1) Assessment Information Year published: 2015 Date assessed: 2015-03-31 Assessor(s): BirdLife International Reviewer(s): Symes, A. Compiler(s): Ashpole, J., Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L. Assessment Rationale European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) EU 27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) At both European and EU27 scales this species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern within both Europe and the EU27. Occurrence Countries/Territories of Occurrence Native: Albania; Andorra; Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland, Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Moldova; Montenegro; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; Gibraltar (to UK) Vagrant: Canary Is. (to ES) Population The European population is estimated at 166,000-220,000 pairs, which equates to 332,000-440,000 mature individuals. -
Brettsmithersthesis2003.Pdf
Copyright © 2003 Brett Smithers i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study would not have been possible without the efforts and contributions of many organizations and individuals. My appreciation is extended to Dr. Clint Boal, my major advisor, for helpful and timely editing, guidance and for serving as my mentor. Thanks are extended to Dr. David Andersen, my co-advisor, for his scholarly and insightful comments and advice. Funding for this project was provided by the Chippewa National Forest, The National Council for Air and Steam Improvement, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Potlatch Corporation, Superior National Forest, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I owe a great deal to those individuals who assisted with nest inventories, trapping, equipment installation, and changing tapes and batteries at monitored nests: Aimee Roberson, Lisa Smithers, Amanda Wester, Wayne Steffans, Frank Nicoletti, Cameron Trembath, Jeremy Ridelbauer, and Ann Bellman. Matt Solensky assisted with hawk trapping, and Steve Day of Airways Aviation provided air service for relocating telemetered goshawks during the 2001 field season. Personnel from the many cooperating agencies and organizations provided assistance and logistical support during this project. They included, in no particular order, Jim Gallagher, John Casson, Jeff Hines, Mike Houser, Rich Baker, Al Williamson, Ben Ohlander, Steve Mortensen, Carol Mortensen, Robin Vora, Maya Hamady, Lissa Grover, Ed Lindquist, and Wayne Russ. ii Video equipment for the 2000 and 2001 field seasons was provided by Alaska Department of Fish & Game, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources provided office space, computer, and an all- terrain vehicle during the 2002 field season. -
Wildlife Program Annual Report
2009 Wildlife Program Annual Report Ecosystem Conservation Department Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Written by Shay Zanetti (Wildlife Biologist), Daniel Gaube (Biological Science Technician), Sandra Harvill (Biological Science Technician), Ellen Sherrill (Biological Science Technician) and Blake Taylor (Biological Science Technician) Reviewed by Victor Lyon (Wildlife Biologist) Approved by Holly Eddinger (Forest Biologist) Page 1 of 80 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 POPULATION MONITORING ................................................................. 4 1.1 NORTHERN GOSHAWK ...................................................................................... 4 1.2 BALD EAGLE......................................................................................................... 4 2.0 PROJECT INVENTORIES .......................................................................... 5 2.1 CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL ............................................................................. 5 2.2 NORTHERN GOSHAWK .................................................................................... 12 2.3 OSPREY ................................................................................................................ 21 2.4 BALD EAGLE....................................................................................................... 25 2.5 GOLDEN EAGLE ................................................................................................. 27 2.6 PEREGRINE FALCON........................................................................................ -
Prey of Breeding Northern Goshawks in Washington
j. RaptorRes. 32(4):297-305 ¸ 1998 The Raptor ResearchFoundation, Inc. PREY OF BREEDING NORTHERN GOSHAWKS IN WASHINGTON JAMESW. WATSON,DAVID W. HAYSAND SEAN P. FINN1 WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife,600 CapitolWay N., Olympia,WA 98501-1091 U.S.A. PAUL MEEHAN-MARTIN 2 ResearchExperiment Station, 3625 93rd Ave. S.W., Olympia,WA 98502 U.S.A. ABSTRACT.--Weidentified 936 prey from food remains and pellets collected at 82 Northern Goshawk (Accipitergentilis) nest sitesin Washingtonfrom 1986-96. Mammals and birds constitutedhalf of the prey by frequencyand biomassthroughout Washington, although birds were more prevalent(P = 0.050) in the diet of goshawksnesting in the Olympicand Cascademountains of westernWashington (53%), than in the Cascadesof easternWashington (47%). Douglas'squirrels (Tamiasciurus douglasii), grouse (Dendragapusobscurus and Bonasaumbellus), and snowshoehares (Lepusamericanus) were jointly the most frequentlyrepresented prey on the westside (41%) and eastside (54%). Grouseand snowshoehares accountedfor the overwhelmingmajority of prey biomassin theserespective areas (76% and 80%). Relativeto other Northern Goshawkpopulations, goshawks in Washingtonappeared to prey on species from a similar number of genera,but they had a smallerfood-niche breadth and they took larger-sized birds primarily due to their high consumptionof grouse.Northern Goshawksin westernWashington took prey in more equal numbersthan thoseon the eastside. Potential bias from examinationof prey remainswhen comparedto pelletsreinforced the need for inclusionof