DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of Coyote Removal on Pronghorn and Mule Deer Populations in Wyoming

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of Coyote Removal on Pronghorn and Mule Deer Populations in Wyoming Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 12-2009 Effects of Coyote Removal on Pronghorn and Mule Deer Populations in Wyoming Dylan Earl Brown Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brown, Dylan Earl, "Effects of Coyote Removal on Pronghorn and Mule Deer Populations in Wyoming" (2009). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 498. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/498 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EFFECTS OF COYOTE REMOVAL ON PRONGHORN AND MULE DEER POPULATIONS IN WYOMING by Dylan E. Brown A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Wildlife Biology Approved: _____________________ _____________________ Michael R. Conover Terry A. Messmer Major Professor Committee Member _____________________ _____________________ John A. Shivik Byron R. Burnham Committee Member Dean of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2009 ii ABSTRACT Effects of Coyote Removal on Pronghorn and Mule Deer Populations in Wyoming by Dylan E. Brown, Master of Science Utah State University, 2009 Major Professor: Dr. Michael R. Conover Department: Wildland Resources I studied the relationship between coyote (Canis latrans) removal and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) density and fawn:doe ratios in southwest Wyoming and northeast Utah in 2007 and 2008. Coyote removal variables studied included the number of coyotes removed, ground hours worked, total hours worked, coyotes removed/aerial gunning hour, coyotes removed/ground work hour, and coyotes removed/total effort hour. None of the variables explained changes observed in fawn:doe ratios of pronghorn or mule deer. The number of coyotes removed, ground hours worked, total hours worked, and coyotes removed/aerial gunning hour were positively correlated with pronghorn density. However, none of the coyote removal variables were correlated with mule deer density. Coyote removal conducted in the winter and spring explained more variation and had a stronger positive correlation with fawn survival and ungulate density than removal conducted in the summer or fall. My results suggest that coyote removal conducted over large areas may increase density of iii pronghorn. However, coyote removal did not appear to increase mule deer fawn survival or density. (64 pages) iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding was provided by the Predator Management Districts of Lincoln and Sweetwater counties of Wyoming. I thank my advisor, Dr. Michael Conover, for this opportunity and advice given throughout my graduate career, and my committee members, Dr. Terry Messmer and Dr. John Shivik, for their support and feedback. I would like to thank all the graduate students in the Conover and Messmer labs, in particular Josh Vest, for his help in editing and his input on many aspects of the project. Thanks go to all Wyoming Game and Fish employees who helped with the project, especially Mark Zornes and Tim Woolley. I thank USDA Wildlife Services for providing coyote removal data, in particular Rod Merrell as well as the National Wildlife Research Center and Dr. John Shivik for the use of a camp trailer and pickup during the second year of the project. This project would not have been a success without the help of Joe Barnett, who assisted with ungulate and scat counts. Vic Dana helped me learn the country during my first field season and provided a place to stay. Finally, I thank Jody McLeod for supporting me throughout the process. Dylan Earl Brown v CONTENTS Page ABSRACT………………………………………………………………………...ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………..iv LIST OF TABLES....…………………………………………………………….vii LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………ix INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 Effects of Predation on Ungulates ......................................................................2 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................7 METHODS ............................................................................................................10 Coyote Removal.................................................................................................10 Ungulate Counts.................................................................................................11 Coyote Density Index ........................................................................................12 Statistical Analysis .............................................................................................13 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................16 Coyote Removal Indices ....................................................................................16 Effects of Coyote Removal on Coyote Density .................................................16 Pronghorn Density Estimates .............................................................................17 Mule Deer Density Estimates ............................................................................18 Relationship of Coyote Removal to Pronghorn Fawn:Doe Ratios and Density Indices ............................................................................................20 Relationship of Coyote Removal to Mule Deer Fawn:Doe Ratios and Density Indices ............................................................................................23 Effects of Timing on Efficacy of Coyote Removal ...........................................25 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................28 Impact of Coyote Removal on Coyote Density .................................................28 Impact of Coyote Removal on Pronghorn Populations .....................................29 Impact of Coyote Removal on Mule Deer Populations .....................................31 Impact of Timing on Efficacy of Coyote Removal ...........................................32 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS .....................................................................34 vi LITERATURE CITED ..........................................................................................35 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................41 APPENDIX A. COMBINED COYOTE REMOVAL DATA ..........................42 Total Coyotes Removed By Wildlife Services and Private Contractors .......42 Total Hours Spent Removing Coyotes ..........................................................43 Ground Hours Spent Removing Coyotes .......................................................44 Aerial Hours Spent Removing Coyotes .........................................................45 APPENDIX B. WILDLIFE SERVICES COYOTE REMOVAL DATA .........46 Coyotes Removed by Wildlife Services ........................................................46 Total Hours Worked by Wildlife Services.....................................................47 Ground Hours Worked by Wildlife Services .................................................48 Aerial Hours Worked by Wildlife Services ...................................................49 APPENDIX C. PRIVATE CONTRACTOR COYOTE REMOVAL DATA ...50 Coyotes Removed by Private Contractors .....................................................50 Total Hours Worked by Private Contractors .................................................51 Ground Hours Worked by Private Contractors ..............................................52 Aerial Hours Worked by Private Contractors ................................................53 APPENDIX D. UNGULATE SURVEY DATA ...............................................54 Pronghorn Dependent Variables ....................................................................54 Mule Deer Dependent Variables ....................................................................55 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Effect of management type (coyote removal vs. non-removal) on change in number of does per km, fawns per km, total pronghorn per km, and fawns per 100 does between 2007 (pre-treatment year) and 2008 (treatment year), Wyoming Coyote Predation Study, 2008..… 20 2 Effect of management type (coyote removal vs. non-removal) on number of pronghorn does per km, pronghorn fawns per km, total pronghorn per km, and pronghorn fawns per 100 does for 2007 (pre-treatment year), Wyoming Coyote Predation Study, 2008.……….. 21 3 Effect of management type (coyote removal vs. non-removal) on number of pronghorn does per km, pronghorn fawns per km, total pronghorn per km, and pronghorn fawns per 100 does for 2008 (treatment year), Wyoming Coyote Predation Study, 2008….………….21 4 Correlations between variables monitoring the intensity of coyote removal with number of pronghorn does observed per km of transect and pronghorn fawns observed per km during 2007 and 2008 at the 10 sites where pronghorn occurred, Wyoming Coyote Predation Study, 2008………………………………........................….. 22 5 Correlations between variables monitoring the intensity of coyote removal with total
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan
    UTAH PRONGHORN STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PRONGHORN I. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN A. General This document is the statewide management plan for pronghorn in Utah. This plan will provide overall direction and guidance to Utah’s pronghorn management activities. Included in the plan is an assessment of current life history and management information, identification of issues and concerns relating to pronghorn management in the state, and the establishment of goals, objectives and strategies for future management. The statewide plan will provide direction for establishment of individual pronghorn unit management plans throughout the state. B. Dates Covered This pronghorn plan will be in effect upon approval of the Wildlife Board (expected date of approval November 30, 2017) and subject to review within 10 years. II. SPECIES ASSESSMENT A. Natural History The pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) is the sole member of the family Antilocapridae and is native only to North America. Fossil records indicate that the present-day form may go back at least a million years (Kimball and Johnson 1978). The name pronghorn is descriptive of the adult male’s large, black-colored horns with anterior prongs that are shed each year in late fall or early winter. Females also have horns, but they are shorter and seldom pronged. Mature pronghorn bucks weigh 45–60 kilograms (100–130 pounds) and adult does weigh 35–45 kilograms (75–100 pounds). Pronghorn are North America’s fastest land mammal and can attain speeds of approximately 72 kilometers (45 miles) per hour (O’Gara 2004a).
    [Show full text]
  • AWA IR C-AK Secure.Pdf
    United States Department of Agriculture Customer: 3415 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Inspection Date: 25-JUN-14 Animal Inspected at Last Inspection Cust No Cert No Site Site Name Inspection 3415 96-C-0015 001 ALASKA WILDLIFE 25-JUN-14 CONSERVATION CENTER INC. Count Species 000002 Canadian lynx 000004 Reindeer 000009 Muskox 000004 Moose 000002 North American black bear 000003 Brown bear 000001 North American porcupine 000130 American bison 000001 Red fox 000021 Elk 000177 Total United States Department of Agriculture Customer: 7106 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Inspection Date: 15-SEP-14 Animal Inspected at Last Inspection Cust No Cert No Site Site Name Inspection 7106 96-C-0024 001 S.A.A.M.S 15-SEP-14 Count Species 000008 Stellers northern sealion 000006 Harbor seal 000003 Sea otter 000017 Total United States Department of Agriculture Customer: 7106 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Inspection Date: 24-JUN-15 Animal Inspected at Last Inspection Cust No Cert No Site Site Name Inspection 7106 96-C-0024 001 S.A.A.M.S 24-JUN-15 Count Species 000008 Stellers northern sealion 000006 Harbor seal 000014 Total DBARKSDALE United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2016082567946548 Insp_id Inspection Report S.A.A.M.S Customer ID: 7106 P. O. Box 1329 Certificate: 96-C-0024 Seward, AK 99664 Site: 001 S.A.A.M.S Type: ROUTINE INSPECTION Date: 26-SEP-2016 No non-compliant items identified during this inspection. This inspection and exit briefing was conducted with facility representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Brochure Highlight Those Impressive Russia
    2019 44 years and counting The products and services listed Join us on Facebook, follow us on Instagram or visit our web site to become one Table of Contents in advertisements are offered and of our growing number of friends who receive regular email updates on conditions Alaska . 4 provided solely by the advertiser. and special big game hunt bargains. Australia . 38 www.facebook.com/NealAndBrownleeLLC Neal and Brownlee, L.L.C. offers Austria . 35 Instagram: @NealAndBrownleeLLC no guarantees, warranties or Azerbaijan . 31 recommendations for the services or Benin . 18 products offered. If you have questions Cameroon . 19 related to these services, please contact Canada . 6 the advertiser. Congo . 20 All prices, terms and conditions Continental U .S . 12 are, to the best of our knowledge at the Ethiopia . 20 time of printing, the most recent and Fishing Alaska . 42 accurate. Prices, terms and conditions Fishing British Columbia . 41 are subject to change without notice Fishing New Zealand . 42 due to circumstances beyond our Kyrgyzstan . 31 control. Jeff C. Neal Greg Brownlee Trey Sperring Mexico . 14 Adventure travel and big game 2018 was another fantastic year for our company thanks to the outfitters we epresentr and the Mongolia . 32 hunting contain inherent risks and clients who trusted us. We saw more clients traveling last season than in any season in the past, Mozambique . 21 dangers by their very nature that with outstanding results across the globe. African hunting remained strong, with our primary Namibia . 22 are beyond the control of Neal and areas producing outstanding success across several countries. Asian hunting has continued to be Nepal .
    [Show full text]
  • Sequence of Wild Deer in Great Britain and Mainland Europe Amy L
    Variation in the prion protein gene (PRNP) sequence of wild deer in Great Britain and mainland Europe Amy L. Robinson, Helen Williamson, Mariella E. Güere, Helene Tharaldsen, Karis Baker, Stephanie L. Smith, Sílvia Pérez-Espona, Jarmila Krojerová-Prokešová, Josephine M. Pemberton, Wilfred Goldmann, et al. To cite this version: Amy L. Robinson, Helen Williamson, Mariella E. Güere, Helene Tharaldsen, Karis Baker, et al.. Variation in the prion protein gene (PRNP) sequence of wild deer in Great Britain and mainland Europe. Veterinary Research, BioMed Central, 2019, 50 (1), pp.59. 10.1186/s13567-019-0675-6. hal-02263499 HAL Id: hal-02263499 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02263499 Submitted on 5 Aug 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Robinson et al. Vet Res (2019) 50:59 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-019-0675-6 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Variation in the prion protein gene (PRNP) sequence of wild deer in Great Britain and mainland Europe Amy L. Robinson1* , Helen Williamson1, Mariella E. Güere2, Helene Tharaldsen2, Karis Baker3, Stephanie L. Smith4, Sílvia Pérez‑Espona1,4, Jarmila Krojerová‑Prokešová5,6, Josephine M. Pemberton7, Wilfred Goldmann1 and Fiona Houston1 Abstract Susceptibility to prion diseases is largely determined by the sequence of the prion protein gene (PRNP), which encodes the prion protein (PrP).
    [Show full text]
  • Competition for Food Between Mule Deer and Bighorn Sheep on Rock Creek Winter Range Montana
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1969 Competition for food between mule deer and bighorn sheep on Rock Creek Winter Range Montana Allen Cooperrider The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Cooperrider, Allen, "Competition for food between mule deer and bighorn sheep on Rock Creek Winter Range Montana" (1969). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 6736. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/6736 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPETITION FOR FOOD BETWEEN MULE DEER AND BIGHORN SHEEP ON ROCK CREEK WINTER RANGE, MONTANA By- Allen Y, Cooperrlder B.A., University of California, I967 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1969 Approved by: Chairman) Board of T Date X ' ' Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EP37537 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
    [Show full text]
  • WSC 11-12 Conf 14 Layout
    Joint Pathology Center Veterinary Pathology Services WEDNESDAY SLIDE CONFERENCE 2011-2012 Conference 14 25 January 2012 CASE I: NADC MVP-2 (JPC 3065874). Gross Pathology: The deer was of normal body condition with adequate deposits of body fat. There Signalment: 5-month-old female white-tailed deer was crusty exudate around the eyes. Multifocal areas (Odocoileus virginianus). of hemorrhage were seen in the heart (epicardial and endocardial), lungs, kidney, adrenal glands, spleen, History: Observed depressed, listless. Physical exam small and large intestines (mucosal and serosal revealed fever (102.5 F), mild dehydration, normal surfaces) and along the mesenteric border, mesenteric auscultation of heart and lungs, no evidence of lymph nodes and iliopsoas muscles. Multifocal ulcers diarrhea. Treated with IV fluids, antibiotics and a non- were present in the pyloric region of the abomasum. steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Deer died within 5 hours. Laboratory Results: PCR for OvHV-2: positive PCR for EHV: negative PCR for Bluetongue virus: negative PCR for BVD: negative Contributor’s Histopathologic Description: Within the section of myocardium there is accentuation of medium to large arteries due to the infiltration of the vascular wall and perivascular spaces by inflammatory cells. Numerous lymphocytes and fewer neutrophils invade, and in some cases, efface the vessel wall. Fibrinoid degeneration and partially occluding fibrinocellular thrombi are present in the most severely affected vessels. Less affected vessels are characterized by large, rounded endothelial cells and intramural lymphocytes and neutrophils. Within the myocardium are multifocal areas of hemorrhage and scattered infiltrates of lymphocytes and macrophages. 1-1. Heart, white-tailed deer. Necrotizing arteritis characterized by Contributor’s Morphologic Diagnosis: marked expansion of the wall by brightly eosinophilic protein, numerous inflammatory cells, and cellular debris (fibrinoid necrosis).
    [Show full text]
  • Rattlesnake Safety, Awareness, and Safe Handling Scat Talk
    Rattlesnake Safety, Awareness, and Safe Handling Scat Talk • Scat characteristics – size, shape, texture, color, and contents • Common scat family characteristics • Identification (best guess) scat quiz Alicia Vermilye Park Ranger [email protected] jeffco.us @RangerAlicia19 Shape and Texture Spheres: Elongated or round Cords: Thin, thick, broken, twisted Herbivore: Pellets Hard scat – dry diet separate Soft or runny scat - wet diets Carnivore: Cords Hard scat – Hair and bones Soft scat - Feeding on flesh Omnivores: Argh! Size Size and quantity provide clues Length is contributing factor Color • Black - meat diet • Dark color in herbivores - moist vegetation • White - older scat (phosphate from chewed bones or fungus digesting the scat) • Gray - mixture of hair and meat • Brown – vegetable matter • Blue/red – berries • Glittery – insect exoskeletons • Colorful –garbage Family Canidae: Coyote and Fox What do they eat? And when? • Deer • Scavenged ungulate meat • Acorns and nuts • Juniper berries • Rabbits Photo by Wendy Miller • Rodents • Grasshoppers Photo by Steven Beck & Marlane Gottlieb Coyote and Fox Scat Shape: Tubular, twisted, smooth surface, blunt ends, tapered ends Size: Fox: - “ diameter, 3-6” L 5 3 Coyote:⁄16 ⁄4- 1 “ diameter, 5-13” L 3 3 ⁄8 ⁄8 Color: Brown, blue, green, sparkly Coyote and Fox Scat Quiz Photo by Kent McFarland Family Cervidae: Mule Deer, Elk, and Moose What do they eat? And when? Photo by: Andrew DuBois Photo by: Andrew DuBois Photo by: NPS Photo/Kent Miller Mule Deer Elk Moose What do they eat? And when? What
    [Show full text]
  • Mule Deer (Odocoileus Hemionus)
    Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) February 2006 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 28 General information The mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) is a member of the family Cervidae, which is characterized by hoofed mammals that shed their antlers annually. The mule deer is one of only a handful of large herbivores in North America that survived the great extinctions of about 7,000 to 12,000 years ago. The name mule deer is in reference to the animal’s relatively large ears and robust body form, at least in comparison to the more slender structure of its close relative, the white-tailed deer. Mature bucks weigh 150 to 200 pounds on average, though some may ex- National Park Service ceed 300 pounds. Does are noticeably smaller than Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) bucks, ranging from 100 to 150 pounds at maturi- This leaflet is intended to serve as a basic introduc- ty. The coat color of the mule deer is seasonal, turn- tion to mule deer habitat requirements and assist pri- ing from a reddish-brown in summer to a blue-gray in vate landowners and managers in developing man- winter. Although shading is variable, mule deer gen- agement plans for mule deer. The success of any erally have light colored faces, throats, bellies, inner individual species management plan depends on tar- leg surfaces, and rump patches. The tail is short, nar- geting the particular requirements of the species in row, and white with a black tip and, unlike the white- question, evaluating the designated habitat area to en- tailed deer, is not raised when the animal is alarmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Mule Deer Assessment
    The Red Desert to Hoback MULE DEER MIGRATION ASSESSMENT HALL SAWYER MATTHEW HAYES BILL RUDD MATTHEW KAUFFMAN pring is not yet here, but one can feel winter loosening its grip on Wyoming. Soon the snow will melt and the Smountains will turn a vibrant green, flush with grasses and forbs. And soon, Wyoming’s iconic ungulates will leave their low-elevation winter ranges and head up to the mountains, knowing they will find abundant forage there. Elk near Cody will travel west into Yellowstone; some of them mingling with moose arriving from as far south as Jackson. Near Dubois, bighorn sheep will start to follow the receding snow into the craggy peaks of the northern Winds. Down on the sagebrush steppe south of Pinedale, pronghorn and mule deer will begin their migrations toward the Wyoming Range, the Gros Ventre Range, and Grand Teton National Park. Throughout the state, the arrival of spring will set Wyoming’s ungulate herds in motion once again. These long-distance move- ments are not only spectacular; they also allow our herds to exist in such high numbers. The more we learn, the more these animals surprise us. Recently, wildlife researcher Hall Sawyer worked with the BLM to collar what they thought was a resident herd of mule deer living near Rock Springs. Remarkably, they discovered that those deer undertake the longest migration ever recorded in the Lower 48, connecting the sage- brush steppe of the Red Desert with the mountain meadows of the Hoback Basin. This report is an assessment of their remarkable journey and the obstacles these deer encounter along the way.
    [Show full text]