DOCSLIB.ORG

Alaska Habitat Management Guide. Southcentral Region. Volume 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alaska Habitat Management Guide. Southcentral Region. Volume 1 Alasha Habitat lldanagement Guide Southcentral Region Volume I: Life Histories and Habitat Requirements of Fish andWildlife Produced by State of Alasha Department of Fish and Crame Division of Habitat Iuneau, Alasha 1985 o1e85 tl#''* & GAME AIASKA DEPARTMEN] contents Achnovledgements Introduction Mammals Marine Marmal s seal 17 ---HETboFSteller sea lion 25 Sea otter 33 Terrestrial Marnmals ffiiteddeer 47 Caribou 67 Dal I sheeP 77 Moose 87 Birds Bald Eagle 101 Dabbl ing ducks 113 Diving ducks L25 Geese 135 Seabirds I47 Trumpeter swan 157 Fish Freshwater/Anadromous Fi sh en 167 Arctic arayl ing 183 Burbot 201 Lake trout 213 Rainbow trout/steel head 223 Sal mon Chinook ?41 Coho 257 Chum 273 Pink 289 Sockeye 303 Mari ne Fi sh cod 319 --EfficPacific hal ibut 327 Pacific herring 333 Pacific ocean perch 345 Sabl efi sh 353 Wal l eye po'l l ock 361 Yelloweye rockfish 37L ta TraEsShel I fi sh Dungeness 379 King 387 Tanner 401 Razor clam 415 Shrimp 42L Volume z contains narratives on the distribution, abundance, and human trseof selected species of fish and wildlife. Maps Introducti on ffesixregionsoftheAlaskaHabitatMana9ement.Guides5 2. The four subregions of the Southcentral Region 10 3. The Southcentral Region 13 Life Histories and Habitat Requirements aP of the sPecies' range (maP 1 of each narrative). Dabbl inq ducks of dabbling ducks 113 2. Major coastal marshes of UCI 116 Figtlres Introducti on Tpes of narrati ves and maps produced by the Alaska Habitat --T. Management Guides Proiect 6 Tlables Dabbl i n DTil compos'ition of 6? dabbl ing ducks on the west CoPPer River de'lta, Sept.-0ct. 1981 119 Breeding biology of dabbling ducks l2r PTant and animal species utilized by diving ducks r28 Reproductive characteristics of diving ducks 130 Geese 1. Preferred foods and breed'ing habitat of geese in the Southcentral Region 138 2. Prdferred foods and breeding habitat of geese i n the Southwest Region 139 'in 3. lleiti ng , reari ng, and mol ti ng bi ol ogy of geese the Southcentra'l Region 141 4. Neiting, rearing, and molting biology of geese in the Southwest Region 142 Seabi rds Seabi rd I i fe hi stories 150 -T. w Achnowledgements This project is under the direction of the Conmissioner of the Department of Fish and Game, Don l,{. Collinsworth, the Director of the Division of Habitat, Norman Cohen, and the Deputy Director, Bruce H. Baker. Many individua'ls have been involved in the production of this second Alaska Habitat Management Guide. All narratives were reviewed first by project staff and distributed for both technical and departmental reviews. The names of reviewers and other contributors are compiled in appendix A in volume 2. The fol'lowing lists the production team and the portion of the guide for which authors are responsible.* Marianne G. See, Coordinator Bob Durr, Editor Lana C. Shea, Team Leader, Wildlife Group Leader Wayne Do'lezal , Fisheries Group Leader Authors: l.lildlife Steve Albert, Habitat Biologist: Sitka black-tailed deer LH (wjth M. Sjgman), DA; Bald Eagle DA; sea lion DA; harbor seal DA; sea otter DA; caribou DA, HU-H. Mike McDonald, Game Bio'logist: harbor seal LH; caribou LH; moose LH (with F. Nelson), DA, HU-H. Mi ke Masters, Habitat Biologist: Sitka black-tajled deer HU-H; furbearers HU-T. Robi n Mooring, Habitat Biologist: dabbling and diving ducks and geese LHs (wi th J. Westl und). F. Nelson, Game Biologist: trumpeter swan LH (with R. Mooring), DA; Bald Eag'le LH. John Westlund, Game Biologist: dabbling and diving ducks and geese LHs (with R. Mooring), DA, HU-H; seabirds LH (with F. Nelson); sea 'lion LH; sea otter LH (with F. Nelson); Dall sheep LH, DA, HU-H. * LH=life history and habitat requirements; DA=distribution and abundance; HU-C=human use-commercial fishing; HU-T=human use-trapping; HU-H=human use- hunting; HU-P=human use-personal use/subsistence fishing; HU-S=human use- sportfi shi ng. Authors: Fish Wayne Dolezal, Fisheries Bio.logist: chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon LH, DA (with M. Rowse). Katherine A. Rowell, Fisheries Biologist: Pacifjc herring LH, HU-C; king crab LH, HU-C; Dungeness crab LH, HU-C.(with D. Sigurdsson);.Tanner crab LH, HU-C; s'hrimp LH, FU-C (with M. Rowse); chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon HU-C. Melinda L. Rowse, Fisheries Biologist: chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon DA (wittr lrl. Do]eza1 ); ihrimp HU-c (with K' Rowell)' Dora Sigurdsson, Fisheries Technician: Dungeness crab HU-C (with K. Rowel I ) . Sandra K. Sonnichsen, Fisheries Biologist: Pacific halibut LH, DA, HU-C, HU-S; Pacific cod LH, DA, HU-C; sablefish LH, DA, HU-C; yel-loryeyq rockfish LH, bA, HU-C, HU-S; groundfish HU-C; razor clam LH, DA, Hu-C, HU-P; rainbow irout/iteelhead fH, On, HU-S; arctic char/Do11y Varden LH (w_ith K. Webster), DA, HU-S; arctic arayling LH (with K. Webster), DA, HU-S; lake trout HU-S; salmon HU-S; burbot HU-S. Kathleen R. Thornburgh, Habitat Biologist: lake trout DA; burbot LH, DA; Pacjfic herring DA; king crab DA; Dungeness .crab DA; Tanner crab DA; shrimp DA; salmon HU-P; shellfish (crabs and shrimp) HU-p. Keith A. Webster, Fisheries Biologist: arctic char LH (with S. Sonnichsen); arctic grayling LH (with S. Sonnichsen); lake trout LH. Authors: Subsistence and 0ther Local Use of Resources Dave Andersen, F'ish and Game Resource Special'ist: Upper Cook Inlet/Susitna Basin Subregion. Rob Bosworth, Fi sh and Game Resource Speci al i st: Copper Ri ver Basjn/Wrange11 Mountajns and Lower Cook Inlet/Kenai Peninsula Subregi ons . Bob Schroeder, Fish and Game Resource Special'ist: Pri nce tJilliam Sound Subregi on . Support staff Lauren Barker, Ljbrarian Carol Barnhill, CartograPher Tom Bucceri, CartograPher Patti Frink, Drafting Technic'ian Mi chael Frost, Draf ti ng Techn'ici an Susan H. Grainger, Clerk/TYPist Juanita R. Henderson, Clerk/Typist vi Frances Inoue, Drafting Technician Clare A. Johnson, Clerk/Typist Ethel Lewis, Clerk/Typist Greg Mi l'ls , Analyst/Programmer Laura Nowell, Clerk/Typist Cynthia Pappas, Drafting Technician Cheryl Pretzel, Clerk/Typist Gay Pu'l1ey, Graphic Artist Lavonne Rhyneer, Drafting Technician Don Shields, Drafting Technician The process of developing the initial plan and procedtryes for this proiect invoived a number of individuals who are not otherwise listed as authors and contributors. These include many staff within the Division of Habitat, as wel I as p1 anners and research . and management coordi nators of other di vi s'ions . Thi s group a1 so i ncl udils al 1 project team members and a'l I ADF&G regional supervisors. Special mention should be made of the support frgm Cail Yanagawa, Regional Supervisor of the Division of Habitat for the Southcentra'l Region (Region II), and of the contributions of Rai Behnert, who was the original coordinator of this project. |.le would also like to acknowledge the many contributions of John A. Clark, who was Director of the Division of Habitat until his untimely death earlier this year. w Introduction Overvietv of Habitat Management Guides Proiect Background Alaska js an immense and bountiful frontjer, and until iust recently it was all but inconceivable that we would ever need to worry about its capacity to sustain the wealth of fish and wildlife resources for which it is renowned. But the impetus of progress has not abated, and the pressure t9 de_ve1op our lands and waters intensifies dai'ly. Every year more lands in Alaska are being proposed for uses other than as wildlife habitat, especia'lly around citi6s, towns, and vi'l1ages. These proposed uses include logg'ing, mining' geothermal and hydroeiectric projects, agriculture, settlement, -development, oit and gas lease!, among others. As the number of proposals and plans'ly for devel opmdnt conti nues to i ncrease , so does the need to careful and efficibntly eva'luate their possible effects upon species and hab.itats and to recommend vlaUte managerial.options to guarantee that our valuable fish and wildlife resources and habitats are adequate'ly protected and maintained. By using appropriate planning and managerial techniques most of the potential for damage and loss of access for human use can be avoided. One of the responsibilities of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is to assist land managers by recommending to them the best ways and means, based upon the best available data, for protecting local fish' wildlife, and habitats against adverse effects and impacts. Because many proposal p1 d-evel opment and I and uses req_ui re a d response s and ans for -r_api ?roin the department, there may not be enough time for staff to actually study the specific area in which the proposed development js to occur. However, the department still needs to accumulate and assess a wide variety of information jn order to prepare recommendations for manag'ing habjtat. Therefore, the department initiated the Alaska Habitat Management Guides (AHMG) project to prepare reports of the kinds of informat'ion upon which its recommendations must be founded in order to responsibly and rapidly address land and water use proposals made by land managers. These guides are a major undertaking and will be of inestimable value to the state in its efiorts to avoid- or mitigate adverse impacts to Alaska's great wealth of fi sh and wi I dl i fe. Purpose This project presents the best available information on selected fish and wildlife species:'their mapping and discussing their geographical djstribution; assessing relative-abundance; describing their life functions and habitat requirements; identify'ing the human uses made of them, inc'luding harvest patterns of rural communities; and describing their role in the state's economy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Assessing Moose Hunter Distribution to Explore Hunter Competition
    ASSESSING MOOSE HUNTER DISTRIBUTION TO EXPLORE HUNTER COMPETITION Tessa R. Hasbrouck1, Todd J. Brinkman2, Glenn Stout3, and Knut Kielland2 1Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2030 Sea Level Drive, Ketchikan, AK 99901, USA; 2University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1731 South Chandalar Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99975, USA; 3Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701, USA ABSTRACT: Traditional values, motivations, and expectations of seclusion by moose (Alces alces) hunters, more specifically their distributional overlap and encounters in the field, may exacerbate perceptions of competition among hunters. However, few studies have quantitatively addressed over- lap in hunting activity where hunters express concern about competition. To assess spatial and tempo- ral characteristics of competition, our objectives were to: 1) quantify temporal harvest patterns in regions with low (roadless rural) and high (roaded urban) accessibility, and 2) quantify overlap in harvest patterns of two hunter groups (local, non-local) in rural regions. We used moose harvest data (2000–2016) in Alaska to quantify and compare hunting patterns across time and space between the two hunter groups in different moose management areas. We created a relative hunter overlap index that accounted for the extent of overlap between local and non-local harvest. The timing of peak har- vest was different (P < 0.01) in urban and rural regions, occurring in the beginning and middle of the hunting season, respectively. In the rural region, hunter overlap scores revealed a concentration in 20% of the area on 16–20 September, with 50% of local harvest on 33% of the area and 54% of non-local harvest on 18% of the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List the U.S
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE U.S. POPULATION OF NORTHWESTERN MOOSE (ALCES ALCES ANDERSONI) UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT JULY 9, 2015 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY HONOR THE EARTH NOTICE OF PETITION Sally Jewell, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Dan Ashe, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Douglas Krofta, Chief Branch of Listing, Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] PETITIONERS The Center for Biological Diversity (Center) is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center is supported by more than 900,000 members and activists throughout the United States. The Center and its members are concerned with the conservation of endangered species and the effective implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Honor the Earth is a Native-led organization, established by Winona LaDuke and Indigo Girls Amy Ray and Emily Saliers. Our mission is to create awareness and support for Native environmental issues and to develop needed financial and political resources for the survival of sustainable Native communities. Honor the Earth develops these resources by using music, the arts, the media, and Indigenous wisdom to ask people to recognize our joint dependency on the Earth and be a voice for those not heard. ii Submitted this 9th day of July, 2015 Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]