DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL SPECIES STATUS ASSESSMENT for the PACIFIC WALRUS (Odobenus Rosmarus Divergens), May 2017 (Version 1.0)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL SPECIES STATUS ASSESSMENT for the PACIFIC WALRUS (Odobenus Rosmarus Divergens), May 2017 (Version 1.0) FINAL SPECIES STATUS ASSESSMENT FOR THE PACIFIC WALRUS (Odobenus rosmarus divergens), May 2017 (Version 1.0) James G. MacCracken, William S. Beatty, Joel L. Garlich-Miller, Michelle L. Kissling, Jonathan A. Snyder U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 E. Tudor Rd.MS-341, Anchorage, AK 99503 LIST OF ACRONYMS ADEC – Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADFG – Alaska Department of Fish and Game AK – Alaska BBN – Bayesian Belief Network BOEM – Bureau of Ocean Energy Management CACO3 – calcium carbonates CCR – calf:cow ratio CMIP – Coupled Model Intercomparison Project CO2 – carbon dioxide CPT – Conditional Probability Table ESA – Endangered Species Act EWC – Eskimo Walrus Commission GCM – Global (or General) Circulation Model GHG – Greenhouse Gas IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITR – Incidental Take Regulation LOA – Letter of Authorization LTK – local and traditional ecological knowledge MMPA – Marine Mammal Protection Act NSR – Northern Sea Route NWP – Northwest Passage OA – ocean acidification RCP – Representative Concentration Pathway SSA – Species Status Assessment SST – Sea Surface Temperature TEK – traditional ecological knowledge USFWS – US Fish and Wildlife Service USGS – US Geological Survey USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics YBP – years before present ii iii CONTENTS List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ ii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Review of Previous Listing Actions ...................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Purpose of this Assessment .............................................................................................................. 10 2. Description of the Pacific Walrus ............................................................................................................ 11 2.1 Taxonomy .......................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Subspecies Description and Needs ................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Behavior ..................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Feeding and Prey ........................................................................................................................ 14 2.2.3 Seasonal Distributions................................................................................................................ 16 2.2.4 Habitat Use................................................................................................................................. 19 2.3 Vital Rates ......................................................................................................................................... 24 2.3.1 Reproduction and Productivity .................................................................................................. 24 2.4 Population Abundance and Trends ................................................................................................... 25 2.4.1 Population Modelling ................................................................................................................. 26 2.4.2 Population Indices ...................................................................................................................... 26 2.5 Adaptive Capacity of Pacific Walruses .............................................................................................. 29 2.5.1 Evolutionary History of the Pacific Walrus ................................................................................ 29 2.5.2 Behavioral Adaptation of Pacific Walruses ................................................................................ 30 2.5.3 Intrinsic Adaptive Capacity of Pacific Walruses ......................................................................... 31 3. Current Resource Conditions .................................................................................................................. 33 3.1 Marine Habitats ................................................................................................................................ 33 3.1.1. Sea Ice ....................................................................................................................................... 33 3.1.2 Annual Trends in Sea Ice ............................................................................................................ 35 3.1.3 Effects of Sea Ice Changes on Pacific Walruses ......................................................................... 36 3.1.4 Ocean Warming ......................................................................................................................... 36 3.1.5 Ocean and Benthic Productivity ................................................................................................. 37 3.1.6 Ocean Acidification .................................................................................................................... 40 3.2 Coastal Habitats ................................................................................................................................ 43 4 3.2.1 Use of Bristol Bay Haulouts ........................................................................................................ 43 3.2.2 Use of Chukchi Sea Haulouts ..................................................................................................... 43 3.2.3 Haulout Mortalities .................................................................................................................... 44 3.3 Harvest .............................................................................................................................................. 46 3.3.1 History of Harvest ...................................................................................................................... 47 3.3.2 Harvest Patterns ........................................................................................................................ 47 3.3.3 Harvest Sustainability................................................................................................................. 49 3.4 Disease and Parasites ........................................................................................................................ 50 3.4.1 Infectious Disease ...................................................................................................................... 50 3.4.2 Parasites ..................................................................................................................................... 51 3.5 Predation ........................................................................................................................................... 52 3.5.1 Polar Bears ................................................................................................................................. 52 3.5.2 Killer Whales .............................................................................................................................. 53 3.6 Contaminants and Biotoxins ............................................................................................................. 53 3.6.1. Persistent Organic Pollutants .................................................................................................... 54 3.6.2 Heavy Metals.............................................................................................................................. 54 3.6.3 Radionuclides ............................................................................................................................. 55 3.6.4 Biotoxins ..................................................................................................................................... 56 3.7 Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production .................................................................. 56 3.8 Commercial Fisheries ........................................................................................................................ 60 3.9 Ship and Air Traffic ............................................................................................................................ 63 3.9.1 Shipping ...................................................................................................................................... 63 3.9.2 Air Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 68 3.10 Existing Regulatory Protections ...................................................................................................... 68 3.11 Local and Traditional Ecological Knowledge ................................................................................... 69 3.12 Resiliency, Representation, and Redundancy of the Pacific walrus ............................................... 72 3.12.1 Resiliency ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GASTROPOD CARE SOP# = Moll3 PURPOSE: to Describe Methods Of
    GASTROPOD CARE SOP# = Moll3 PURPOSE: To describe methods of care for gastropods. POLICY: To provide optimum care for all animals. RESPONSIBILITY: Collector and user of the animals. If these are not the same person, the user takes over responsibility of the animals as soon as the animals have arrived on station. IDENTIFICATION: Common Name Scientific Name Identifying Characteristics Blue topsnail Calliostoma - Whorls are sculptured spirally with alternating ligatum light ridges and pinkish-brown furrows - Height reaches a little more than 2cm and is a bit greater than the width -There is no opening in the base of the shell near its center (umbilicus) Purple-ringed Calliostoma - Alternating whorls of orange and fluorescent topsnail annulatum purple make for spectacular colouration - The apex is sharply pointed - The foot is bright orange - They are often found amongst hydroids which are one of their food sources - These snails are up to 4cm across Leafy Ceratostoma - Spiral ridges on shell hornmouth foliatum - Three lengthwise frills - Frills vary, but are generally discontinuous and look unfinished - They reach a length of about 8cm Rough keyhole Diodora aspera - Likely to be found in the intertidal region limpet - Have a single apical aperture to allow water to exit - Reach a length of about 5 cm Limpet Lottia sp - This genus covers quite a few species of limpets, at least 4 of them are commonly found near BMSC - Different Lottia species vary greatly in appearance - See Eugene N. Kozloff’s book, “Seashore Life of the Northern Pacific Coast” for in depth descriptions of individual species Limpet Tectura sp. - This genus covers quite a few species of limpets, at least 6 of them are commonly found near BMSC - Different Tectura species vary greatly in appearance - See Eugene N.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Alaska Reindeer Populations and Range Conditions
    Paper presented at The First Arctic Ungulate Conference, Nuuk, Greenland, 3-8. September, 1991. Assessment of Alaska reindeer populations and range conditions J. D. Swanson1 and M. H. W. Barker2 1 USDA Soil Conservation Service, 201 E. 9th Avenue, Suite 300, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, U.S.A. 2 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska 99508, U.S.A. Abstract: Populations of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) have fluctated greatly since their introduction to Alaska in 1891. In the 1930s, reported numbers exceeded 600,000. Presently, 38,000 reindeer graze 6.2 million ha of rangeland and woodland in Western Alaska (from 66°54'N to 52°07'N latitude). Condition of winter range producing fruticose lichens (Cladina rangiferina, Cladina arbuscula, Cladina stellaris, Cetraria cucullata, Cetra- ria islandica) is of major concern. Monitoring programs have been established for vegetation, fire, reindeer and wildlife. Reindeer have overgrazed lichen resources on some Bering Sea Islands. Wildfires have had the greatest impact on lichen range depletion on the mainland. Overgrazing has been a problem in localized areas. Moose (AIces alces) and muskox (Ovibos moschatus) rarely contribute to major lichen depletion. 60-80% of the mainland and 5-30% of most island winter lichen ranges are presently estimated to be in good to excel• lent ecological condition. Procedures for assessing condition of the lichen ranges are being further refined. Keywords: Alaska, winter, pastures, lichens, population dynamics, sampling techniques Rangifer, 12 (1): 33-43 Introduction Siberian reindeer herders were originally Sheldon Jackson, General Agent of Education brought to instruct local natives in reindeer in Alaska, toured the northern coasts of Siberia husbandry and herding techniques (Brickey, and Alaska in 1890.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Appendix C: An Analysis of Three Shellfish Assemblages from Tsʼishaa, Site DfSi-16 (204T), Benson Island, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada by Ian D. Sumpter Cultural Resource Services, Western Canada Service Centre, Parks Canada Agency, Victoria, B.C. Introduction column sampling, plus a second shell data collect- ing method, hand-collection/screen sampling, were This report describes and analyzes marine shellfish used to recover seven shellfish data sets for investi- recovered from three archaeological excavation gating the siteʼs invertebrate materials. The analysis units at the Tseshaht village of Tsʼishaa (DfSi-16). reported here focuses on three column assemblages The mollusc materials were collected from two collected by the researcher during the 1999 (Unit different areas investigated in 1999 and 2001. The S14–16/W25–27) and 2001 (Units S56–57/W50– source areas are located within the village proper 52, S62–64/W62–64) excavations only. and on an elevated landform positioned behind the village. The two areas contain stratified cultural Procedures and Methods of Quantification and deposits dating to the late and middle Holocene Identification periods, respectively. With an emphasis on mollusc species identifica- The primary purpose of collecting and examining tion and quantification, this preliminary analysis the Tsʼishaa shellfish remains was to sample, iden- examines discarded shellfood remains that were tify, and quantify the marine invertebrate species collected and processed by the site occupants for each major stratigraphic layer. Sets of quantita- for approximately 5,000 years. The data, when tive information were compiled through out the reviewed together with the recovered vertebrate analysis in order to accomplish these objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Report for Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell
    Chapter 6 Responses in Marine Habitats Sea Level Rise: Intertidal organisms will respond to sea level rise by shifting their distributions to keep pace with rising sea level. It has been suggested that all but the slowest growing organisms will be able to keep pace with rising sea level (Harley et al. 2006) but few studies have thoroughly examined this phenomenon. As in soft sediment systems, the ability of intertidal organisms to migrate will depend on available upland habitat. If these communities are adjacent to steep coastal bluffs it is unclear if they will be able to colonize this habitat. Further, increased erosion and sedimentation may impede their ability to move. Waves: Greater wave activity (see 3.3.2 Waves) suggests that intertidal and subtidal organisms may experience greater physical forces. A number of studies indicate that the strength of organisms does not always scale with their size (Denny et al. 1985; Carrington 1990; Gaylord et al. 1994; Denny and Kitzes 2005; Gaylord et al. 2008), which can lead to selective removal of larger organisms, influencing size structure and species interactions that depend on size. However, the relationship between offshore significant wave height and hydrodynamic force is not simple. Although local wave height inside the surf zone is a good predictor of wave velocity and force (Gaylord 1999, 2000), the relationship between offshore Hs and intertidal force cannot be expressed via a simple linear relationship (Helmuth and Denny 2003). In many cases (89% of sites examined), elevated offshore wave activity increased force up to a point (Hs > 2-2.5 m), after which force did not increase with wave height.
    [Show full text]
  • INFORMATION to USERS This Manuscript Has Been Reproduced from the Microfilm Master
    Ecology Of Reindeer On Hagemeister Island, Alaska Item Type Thesis Authors Stimmelmayr, Raphaela Download date 23/09/2021 12:58:50 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/8515 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. Hie quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improperalignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Urchin Rocks-NW Island Transect Study 2020
    The Long-term Effect of Trampling on Rocky Intertidal Zone Communities: A Comparison of Urchin Rocks and Northwest Island, WA. A Class Project for BIOL 475, Marine Invertebrates Rosario Beach Marine Laboratory, summer 2020 Dr. David Cowles and Class 1 ABSTRACT In the summer of 2020 the Rosario Beach Marine Laboratory Marine Invertebrates class studied the intertidal community of Urchin Rocks (UR), part of Deception Pass State Park. The intertidal zone at Urchin Rocks is mainly bedrock, is easily reached, and is a very popular place for visitors to enjoy seeing the intertidal life. Visits to the Location have become so intense that Deception Pass State Park has established a walking trail and docent guides in the area in order to minimize trampling of the marine life while still allowing visitors. No documentation exists for the state of the marine community before visits became common, but an analogous Location with similar substrate exists just offshore on Northwest Island (NWI). Using a belt transect divided into 1 m2 quadrats, the class quantified the algae, barnacle, and other invertebrate components of the communities at the two locations and compared them. Algal cover at both sites increased at lower tide levels but while the cover consisted of macroalgae at NWI, at Urchin Rocks the lower intertidal algae were dominated by diatom mats instead. Barnacles were abundant at both sites but at Urchin Rocks they were even more abundant but mostly of the smallest size classes. Small barnacles were especially abundant at Urchin Rocks near where the walking trail crosses the transect. Barnacles may be benefitting from areas cleared of macroalgae by trampling but in turn not be able to grow to large size at Urchin Rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES an Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals
    OREGON ESTUARINE INVERTEBRATES An Illustrated Guide to the Common and Important Invertebrate Animals By Paul Rudy, Jr. Lynn Hay Rudy Oregon Institute of Marine Biology University of Oregon Charleston, Oregon 97420 Contract No. 79-111 Project Officer Jay F. Watson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 500 N.E. Multnomah Street Portland, Oregon 97232 Performed for National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Table of Contents Introduction CNIDARIA Hydrozoa Aequorea aequorea ................................................................ 6 Obelia longissima .................................................................. 8 Polyorchis penicillatus 10 Tubularia crocea ................................................................. 12 Anthozoa Anthopleura artemisia ................................. 14 Anthopleura elegantissima .................................................. 16 Haliplanella luciae .................................................................. 18 Nematostella vectensis ......................................................... 20 Metridium senile .................................................................... 22 NEMERTEA Amphiporus imparispinosus ................................................ 24 Carinoma mutabilis ................................................................ 26 Cerebratulus californiensis .................................................. 28 Lineus ruber .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2013-2015 Cherry Point Final Report
    Intertidal Biota Monitoring in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve 2013-2015 Monitoring Report Prepared for: Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Citizen Stewardship Committee Prepared by: Michael Kyte Independent Marine Biologist and Wendy Steffensen and Eleanor Hines RE Sources for Sustainable Communities September 2016 Publication Information This Monitoring Report describes the research and monitoring study of intertidal biota conducted in the summers of 2013-2015 in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. Copies of this Monitoring Report will be available at https://sites.google.com/a/re-sources.org/main- 2/programs/cleanwater/whatcom-and-skagit-county-aquatic-reserves. Author and Contact Information Wendy Steffensen North Sound Baykeeper, RE Sources for Sustainable Communities Eleanor Hines Lead Scientist, Clean Water Program RE Sources for Sustainable Communities 2309 Meridian Street Bellingham, WA 98225 [email protected] Michael Kyte Independent Marine Biologist [email protected] The report template was provided by Jerry Joyce for the Cherry Point and Fidalgo Bay Aquatic Reserves Citizen Stewardship Committees, and adapted here. Jerry Joyce Washington Environmental Council 1402 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 206-440-8688 [email protected] i Acknowledgments Most of the sampling protocols and procedures are based on the work of the Island County/WSU Beach Watchers (currently known as the Sound Water Stewards). We thank them for the use of their materials and assistance. In particular, we thank Barbara Bennett, project coordinator for her assistance. We also thank our partners at WDNR and especially Betty Bookheim for her assistance in refining the procedures. We thank Dr. Megan Dethier of University of Washington for her assistance in helping us resolve some of the theoretical issues in the sampling protocol Surveys, data entry, quality control assistance and report writing were made possible by a vast array of interns and volunteers.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Names
    GEOGRAPHIC NAMES CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ? REVISED TO JANUARY, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 PREPARED FOR USE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOGRAPHIC BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY, 1911 ) CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. The following list of geographic names includes all decisions on spelling rendered by the United States Geographic Board to and including December 7, 1910. Adopted forms are shown by bold-face type, rejected forms by italic, and revisions of previous decisions by an asterisk (*). Aalplaus ; see Alplaus. Acoma; township, McLeod County, Minn. Abagadasset; point, Kennebec River, Saga- (Not Aconia.) dahoc County, Me. (Not Abagadusset. AQores ; see Azores. Abatan; river, southwest part of Bohol, Acquasco; see Aquaseo. discharging into Maribojoc Bay. (Not Acquia; see Aquia. Abalan nor Abalon.) Acworth; railroad station and town, Cobb Aberjona; river, IVIiddlesex County, Mass. County, Ga. (Not Ackworth.) (Not Abbajona.) Adam; island, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester Abino; point, in Canada, near east end of County, Md. (Not Adam's nor Adams.) Lake Erie. (Not Abineau nor Albino.) Adams; creek, Chatham County, Ga. (Not Aboite; railroad station, Allen County, Adams's.) Ind. (Not Aboit.) Adams; township. Warren County, Ind. AJjoo-shehr ; see Bushire. (Not J. Q. Adams.) Abookeer; AhouJcir; see Abukir. Adam's Creek; see Cunningham. Ahou Hamad; see Abu Hamed. Adams Fall; ledge in New Haven Harbor, Fall.) Abram ; creek in Grant and Mineral Coun- Conn. (Not Adam's ties, W. Va. (Not Abraham.) Adel; see Somali. Abram; see Shimmo. Adelina; town, Calvert County, Md. (Not Abruad ; see Riad. Adalina.) Absaroka; range of mountains in and near Aderhold; ferry over Chattahoochee River, Yellowstone National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Guide to Common California Intertidal Invertebrates & Algae
    MARINe Workshop – October 22-23, 2005 SWAT Team Guide to common California intertidal invertebrates & algae: distinguishing characteristics Information adapted from various sources and personal observations of the SWAT Team http://cbsurveys.ucsc.edu Anthopleura elegantissima Anthopleura sola (Brandt, 1835) (Pearse and Francis, 2000) • 6 cm diameter for aggregating • to 25 cm diameter, 51 cm high individuals, occasionally larger • up to 10 cm diameter (large solitaries Size range almost certainly A. sola, but if tentacles are touching adjacent animals that have the same disk pattern, then A. elegantissima) • column light green to white • longitudinal rows of adhesive tubercles (verrucae) that are often bearing debris Appearance tentacles of various colors, often several distinctive white, while most greenish; often pink, lavender, or blue tipped • insertions of mesentaries evident as lines radiating from around mouth Oral disk color brownish or greenish • rock faces or boulders, tidepools or • mid to low intertidal, extending well crevices, wharf pilings subtidally • usually in dense aggregations. • often attached to rocks covered with layer of Habitat sand • base nearly always inserted into crevice or holes. • tubercles round, arranged in • identical to A. elegantissima except grows to longitudinal rows and often bearing larger size and does not clone attached debris • can not distinguish two species when solitary • small to medium sized anemones, and below about 5 cm diameter-- probably commonly densely massed on rocks in best to call such individuals A. elegantissima, sand especially if there are lots present, certainly if • identical color pattern as seen in A. they have identical color patters Distinguishing sola • larger animals that are solitary with clear characteristics • can only be sure of identity if tentacles space between them and others almost interdigitate with adjacent clonemates.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Distribution of Pelagic Birds in Bristol Bay, Alaska
    SUMMER DISTRIBUTION OF PELAGIC BIRDS IN BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA JAMES C. BARTONEK Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Jamestown, North Dakota 58401 AND DANIEL D. GIBSON Alaska Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Bristol Bay and its islands, the embayments, the western end of the Aleutian Islands. Shun- lagoons, and other estuaries along the north tov (1966) and Irving et al. (1970) reported side of the Alaska Peninsula, and the nesting on the wintering birds of the Bering Sea. Un- cliffs on the north shore, are seasonally im- analyzed data on birds observed in the Bering portant to vast numbers of seabirds, water- Sea are published with the oceanographic and fowl, and shorebirds that either breed, summer, fisheries records of the RV Osharo Maru winter, or stopover there during migration. ( Hokkaido University 1957-68 ) . This productive southeast corner of the Bering Osgood ( 1904), Murie ( 1959), and Gabriel- Sea is also used by sea otters and several spe- son and Lincoln (1959) summarized the in- cies of pinnipeds and cetaceans, and it is the formation on birds of the lands bordering site of the worlds largest salmon fishery. Bristol Bay. Dal1 (1873) and Cahn (1947) Petroleum development is planned for this described the birds on and about Unalaska area and, judging from the past history of nu- Island, the westernmost point included within merous oil spills in nearby Cook Inlet, could our area of study. Except for Turners’ (1886) have deleterious effects on this rich fauna. brief account of the birds of Cape Newenham This possibility prompted investigations of and recent unpublished administrative reports the migratory birds, including the pelagic of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, species, that could provide the year-round in- the immense bird colonies along the western formation on distribution and numbers nec- half of the north shore of Bristol Bay, includ- essary to protect birds from the possible haz- ing Cape Newenham and nearby islands, and ards of petroleum development and shipping.
    [Show full text]
  • Translocation of Introduced Reindeer from Hagemeister Island, Alaska
    Translocation of introduced reindeer from Hagemeister Island, Alaska R. Stimmelmayr1 & L. A. Renecker2 1 Reindeer Research Program, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, P.O. Box 757200, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA 99775-7200 ([email protected]). •' Renecker & Associates R.# 5. Stratford, Ontario, Canada N5A6S6. Abstract: In 1992 and 1993, 411 live reindeer were shipped by air from Hagemeister Island to the Anchorage area, Alaska. Reindeer were either rounded up by helicopter and then corralled or captured by net-gun fired from a helicop• ter. Outcome of both capture events showed that helicopter corralling of reindeer was more successful than catching them with a net-gun and that post-rut rounding up was more successful than rounding up during the rut itself. Key words: Rangifer, capture, air-shipment techniques, seasonal biology, mortality Rangifer, 18 (1): 19-25 Introduction 1960s (Stimmelmayr, 1994). The herd was mana• The objectives of most wildlife translocations in the ged by Native reindeer herders from the village of State of Alaska have been to increase recreational Togiak. In 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hunting, provide additional food supply, re-esta• (US-F&WS) determined that continued grazing of blish species, and/or preserve endangered species reindeer on Hagemeister Island, part of the Alaska (Franzmann, 1988). In recent years, another objec• Maritime National Refuge, was incompatible with tive has surfaced, namely the removal of introduced the purpose of the refuge. It was decided that the species for ecological reasons. With this shift in removal of the entire herd of approximately 1200 policy of wildlife agencies to a new general mandate animals was necessary.
    [Show full text]