DOCSLIB.ORG

Distribution and Population Characteristics of Bighorn Sheep Near Thompson Falls in Northwestern Montana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distribution and Population Characteristics of Bighorn Sheep Near Thompson Falls in Northwestern Montana University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1974 Distribution and population characteristics of bighorn sheep near Thompson Falls in northwestern Montana Gerald Warren Brown 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 Brown, Gerald Warren, "Distribution and population characteristics of bighorn sheep near Thompson Falls in northwestern Montana" (1974). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 6510. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/6510 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]. DISTRIBUTION AND POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS OF BIGHORN SHEEP NEAR THOMPSON FALLS IN NORTHWESTERN MONTANA By Gerald W. Brown B. A ., University of California at Riverside, 1970 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1974 Approved by: Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean/ Graduate School ! i 7 r Date UMI Number: EP37311 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. UMT OisjWMlâtiofi PuWishing UMI EP37311 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code P roQ ^sf ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am especially grateful to Dr. Bart W. O’Gara, major advisor for this project, for assistance and guidance throughout this study and for critical review of the manuscript. Thanks are also due other members of the committee, Drs. P. L. Wright and Bob Ream, and Mr. R. P. Weckwerth for review of the thesis. Dr. Lee Metzgar provided helpful suggestions on inter­ pretation of population data. Gary Halvorson, Jack Fisher, and Dick Smith of the U. S. Forest Service, Lolo National Forest, provided helpful graphic m a te r ia ls. I appreciate the cooperation, use of equipment, and flight time provided by the Montana Fish and Game Department. My wife, Chris, assisted with some of the trapping and provided the patience and understanding sorely needed during this study. My brother-in-law. Bill Unbehend, also helped with some of the trapping. Numerous others helped in various ways, and to them I say thanks. Financial support for this project came from the Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (U. S, Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Montana, Montana State Fish and Game Department, and Wildlife Management Institute cooperating). ii TABLE OF CONTENTS P age LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ v i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ v iii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .... 6 L o c a t i o n ................................................................................... 6 G e o l o g y ................................................................................... 6 Land U s e ................................................................................... 9 C l i m a t e ................................................................................... 10 V e g e t a t i o n ............................................................................. 13 III. MATERIALS AND METHODS............................................... 21 T r a p p in g ................................................................................... 21 Group F i d e l i t y ....................................................................... 26 Winter Centers of A ctivity............................................. 26 P a r a s it e s 2 7 Food Habits 2 7 C ensus in g ................................................................................... 28 O b serv a tio n s 2 9 IV. RESULTS ........................................................................................... 31 T r a p p in g ................................................................................... 31 Salt Lick U tilization .......................................................... 34 C o l l a r s ................................................................................... 37 C o n d itio n ................................................................................... 38 D e m o g r a p h y............................................................................. 38 Population s e g m e n t s .................................................... 38 Population e s t i m a t e s .................................................... 39 111 Page A g e-se x c o m p o s it io n .................................................... 42 Survivorship ....................................................................... 45 Group size and com position ....................................... 45 Group fid elity ................................................................ 49 Distribution and Movements ............................................. 51 Winter range ....................................................................... 51 Winter centers of a c tiv ity ....................................... 60 Spring range ....................................................................... 62 L a m b in g ............................................................................. 63 Summer ran ge ................................................................ 63 Summer activity centers............................................. 64 F a ll r a n g e ....................................................................... 66 Habitat u s e ....................................................................... 67 Diseases and P arasites................................................... 67 Lung an alyses................................................................ 71 Ectoparasites ................................................................ 71 P r e d a tio n ................................................................................... 73 A c c id e n ts ................................................................................... 74 Food H abits ............................................................................. 75 Horn Growth ............................................................................. 79 V. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... 83 T r a p p in g ................................................................................... 83 Salt lick utilization.......................................................... 84 C o l l a r s ............................................................................. 85 C o n d itio n ............................................................................. 86 D e m o g r a p h y............................................................................. 89 Population segm ents ................................................... 89 Age-sex com position ................................................... 90 Group size and composition ....................................... 92 Group fid e lity ................................................................ 93 Distribution and Movements ............................................. 94 Winter range ....................................................................... 95 Winter centers of a c tiv ity ....................................... 95 Spring range ....................................................................... 96 L a m b in g ............................................................................. 97 Summer ran ge ................................................................ 97 Summer centers of activity....................................... 98 F a ll r a n g e ....................................................................... 100 Diseases and P arasites.................................................... 100 Population Regulation .......................................................... 103 iv Page Food H abits ............................................................................. 104 Horn Growth ............................................................................. 106 Management O ptions .......................................................... 108 Natural population regulation ................................ 108 Three-fourths horn harvest ....................................... 109 Trophy ram s....................................................................... 109 Maximum productivity............................................. 109 VI. SUMMARY ..................................................................................... I l l LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PROCEEDINGS of the BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA January 3, 2017
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA January 3, 2017 The Board of Commissioners of Sanders County, Montana, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 3, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Present were Carol Brooker, Presiding Officer; Glen E. Magera, Commissioner, and Anthony B. Cox, Commissioner. The Boards and Committees that the Commissioners will attend in 2017 are as follows: Commissioner Cox Commissioner Brooker Commissioner Magera Avista Management Committee Child Development Center Board Sanders County 911 Advisory Board Flathead Valley Chemical Dependency of Directors, Chairman Area Agency on Aging Board Area VI, Corporation, Board of Directors Governors Board of County Printing Chairman Sanders County Board of Health MACo Natural Resources/Public Lands Community Action Partnership Sanders County Solid Waste Refuse Litigation Fund Committee Hot Springs Refuse Disposal District Disposal District MACo Public Land Committee Sanders County Board of Health MACo Board of Directors Sanders County Board of Health Sanders County Community Housing Sanders County Aquatic Invasive Plants Sanders County Community Organization (AIP) Task Force Development Corporation, Board of Sanders County Council on Aging Boards Attended: Directors Sanders County Council on Aging Sanders County DUI Task Force Sanders County Solid Waste Refuse Financial Committee Committee Disposal District Board Sanders County Solid Waste Refuse Resource Advisory Committee Thompson Falls Community Trails Disposal District Terrestrial Resources Tech
    [Show full text]
  • Thompson River Watershed Restoration Plan
    Thompson River Watershed Restoration Plan March 8, 2018 Upper Thompson River near Bend. Photo Credit: Brian Sugden Page 1 of 99 Acknowledgements Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group (LCFWG) has taken the lead in organizing and drafting the Thompson River Watershed Restoration Plan, but the completion of this plan was only possible with the contribution of many local stakeholders throughout the Thompson River Watershed. A special thank you to all of the community members within the Thompson River Watershed who took the time to complete our online survey and provide us with local input. Authors: Sarah Bowman – Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group Brita Olson – Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group Secondary Authors: Ryan Kreiner – Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Samantha Tappenbeck – Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Montana Brian Sugden – Weyerhaeuser Company Contributing Stakeholders: Clark Fork Coalition: John DeArment Eastern Sanders County Conservation District: Steve Dagger Flathead Conservation District: Valerie Kurth Green Mountain Conservation District: Leona Gollen Lincoln Conservation District: Becky Lihme Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group: Brita Olson, Jay Stuckey, Jean Dunn, Ruth Watkins, Sarah Bowman, Sean Moran Montana Department of Environmental Quality: Eric Trum Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation: Dave Mousel, Dave Olsen, Mike Anderson, Tony Nelson Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks: Ryan Kreiner Natural Resources Conservation Service (Kalispell Field Office): Angel Rosario Natural Resources Conservation Service
    [Show full text]
  • Thompson River Comprehensive Report (2017)
    Thompson River Fisheries Investigations: A Compilation Through 2017 Prepared by: Ryan Kreiner and Marc Terrazas Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Thompson Falls, MT 2018 Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Landownership .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Roads ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Fish Stocking Summary ............................................................................................................................. 7 Angler pressure ......................................................................................................................................... 8 MAINSTEM FISHERIES MONITORING ............................................................................................. 9 Methods ................................................................................................................................................... 10 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 Rainbow Trout .................................................................................................................................... 13 Brown Trout
    [Show full text]
  • The Fur Trade in the Columbia River Basin Prior to 1811
    The Fur Trade in the Columbia River Basin Prior to 1811 By T.C.ELLIOTT Member of American Historical Association and of Oregon Historical Society. The Ivy Press Portland, Oregon 1915 Photo, by H. Ries. Aug. 1912 See page 8 The Source of the Columbia River View looking South across the Portage to Kootenay River | C^T&vV^- 3L /,l- ,U-!,\:r7^ THE FUR TRADE IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN PRIOR TO 1811 By T. C. ELLIOTT* One of the present activities of the historical societies of Oregon and Washington is the publication of source material relating to the early fur trade along the Columbia River. It has been a popular and to an extent a scientific habit to refer to the city of Astoria as the oldest trade center of the Old Oregon Country; some of our histories furnish evidence to that effect. It was on the 12th of April, 1811, that the officers and employees of the Pacific Fur Company were landed from the ship Tonquin and established a temporary encampment on the south side of the Columbia River, ten miles from Cape Disappointment, and immediately thereafter began the erec­ tion of the trading post named by them Fort Astoria. On the 15th of July, four months later, David Thompson, the North-West Company fur trader and astronomer, coming from the source of the river recorded in his journal: "At 1 P. M., thank God for our safe arrival, we came to the house of Mr. Astor's Company, Messrs. McDougall, Stuart and Stuart, who received me in the most polite manner." And in another con­ nection Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes 2021
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA January 5, 2021 The Board of Commissioners of Sanders County, Montana, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. Present were Glen E. Magera, Presiding Officer; Carol Brooker, Commissioner and Anthony B. Cox, Commissioner. The Board met with Michael Feiger, District Ranger, Cabinet Ranger District to discuss: district updates. Mr. Feiger provided a briefing on the Montana Forest Action Plan. The Cabinet Ranger District will be proposing the Lego WUI Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Mitigation project. This project is on the Elk Creek/Rice Draw area SSE of Heron, MT. The proposal is for 152 acres of commercial and non-commercial treatments in three units adjacent to private lands in the vicinity of Elk Creek. Updates were also provided on wildland fire, recreation, vegetation management/timber sale activity, the Kootenai National Forest, and the workforce. The Board adjourned at noon and resumed the regular session at 1:30 p.m. The Board examined the County journal vouchers for the end of 2020. Presiding Officer Glen E. Magera examined and approved the Journal Voucher Detail report for the accounting period of 13/2020. The Board met with Katherine Maudrone, Director of Land Services to discuss: a proposed Wildlife Hazardous Mitigation plan. Also in attendance were: Travis Pfister, acting Fire Management Officer, Lolo National Forest, via teleconference, and Randy Garrison, Manager, Penn Stohr Airport, via teleconference. Due to important individuals needed for the conversation and their absence, the Board rescheduled the meeting for Tuesday, January 12, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Water-Quality Data for the Clark Fork (River)
    HISTORICAL WATER-QUALITY DATA FOR THE CLARK FORK (RIVER) AND THE MOUTHS OF SELECTED TRIBUTARIES, WESTERN MONTANA By T. M. Brosten and M. A. Jacobson U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 85-168 Helena, Montana April 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch 428 Federal Building U.S. Geological Survey 301 South Park Box 25425, Federal Center Drawer 10076 Lakewood, CO 80225-0425 Helena, MT 59626-0076 CONTENTS Page Listing of water-quality stations, in downstream order, for which data are presented ................................. IV Abstract ................................... 1 Introduction ................................. 1 Water-quality records. ............................ 3 Hydrologic data. .............................. 3 Station description. ............................ 4 Effects of regulation. ........................... 5 Definition of terms. ............................. 5 References cited ............................... 11 Water-quality station descriptions and data. ................. 12 ILLUSTRATION Figure 1. Map showing location of the Clark Fork (River) and streamflow- gaging, chemical-measurement, and temperature-measurement stations. ............................ 2 TABLES Table 1. Availability of daily, continuous streamflow records in the Clark Fork basin ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Estes Park 30' X 60' Quadrangle, North-Central
    Geologic Map of the Estes Park 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, North-Central Colorado By James C. Cole and William A. Braddock Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3039 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey CONVERSION FACTORS Multiply By To obtain centimeters (cm) 0.3937 inches (in.) meters (m) 3.281 feet (ft) kilometers (km) 0.6214 miles (mi) To convert Celsius (°C) to Fahrenheit (°F), use formula (°C x 1.8) + 32 Suggested citation: Cole, J.C., and Braddock, W.A., 2009, Geologic map of the Estes Park 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, north-central Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3039, 1 sheet, scale 1:100,000, pamphlet, 56 p. Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Geography and Geomorphology ........................................................................................................3 Compilation Sources and Methods ...................................................................................................5 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................5 Description of Map Units ..............................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 31. Columbia Headwaters Recovery Unit—Clark Fork River Basin Critical Habitat Unit
    Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification: Rationale for Why Habitat is Essential, and Documentation of Occupancy Chapter 31. Columbia Headwaters Recovery Unit—Clark Fork River Basin Critical Habitat Unit 31.1. Priest Lakes Critical Habitat Subunit ........................................................................... 827 31.2. Lake Pend Oreille Critical Habitat Subunit .................................................................. 835 31.3. Lower Clark Fork River Critical Habitat Subunit ........................................................ 847 31.4. Middle Clark Fork River Critical Habitat Subunit ....................................................... 855 31.5. Upper Clark Fork River Critical Habitat Subunit ........................................................ 861 31.6. Bitterroot River Critical Habitat Subunit ..................................................................... 865 31.7. Rock Creek Critical Habitat Subunit ............................................................................ 873 31.8. Blackfoot River Critical Habitat Subunit ..................................................................... 877 31.9. Clearwater River and Lakes Critical Habitat Subunit .................................................. 881 31.10. Flathead Lake, Flathead River, and Headwater Lakes Critical Habitat Subunit .......... 887 31.11. Swan River Critical Habitat Subunit ............................................................................ 903 31.12. South Fork Flathead and Hungry Horse Reservoir Critical
    [Show full text]
  • Down the Clark Fork- a River Rebounds
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1994 Down the Clark Fork- A River Rebounds Murray Carpenter 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 Carpenter, Murray, "Down the Clark Fork- A River Rebounds" (1994). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 9280. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/9280 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]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of MONTANA Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. ** * * Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author's Signature Date Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. DOWN THE CLARK FORK - A RIVER REBOUNDS by Murray Carpenter B.A., University of Colorado, Boulder, 1985 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Studies University of Montana 1994 Approved by Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP72588 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF File
    “Exploration is the product of a cultural or individual curiosity; it is a unique pro- cess that has enabled mankind to know and understand the world and is at the heart of scientific thinking. One of its most significant aspects is that it teaches people to ask the right questions; by doing so, it forces us to reevaluate what we think we know and under- stand. At its core, exploration is a series of moral dramas. But it is these dramas, involv- ing new lands, new people, and exotic ecosystems of staggering beauty, that make the explorers’ stories not only moral tales but also some of the greatest adventure stories ever recorded. They represent the process of learning in its most expansive and vivid form.” --William Goetzmann Copyright © 2012 Mountain Light School. All rights reserved. The special contents of this Travelogue and Sourcebook may not be reproduced without written permission of the publisher. The Mountain Light School Project Seattle Pacific University 3307 Third Avenue West, Suite 202 Seattle, Washington 98119-1950 For Sharon Okamoto, Michael Friedland, and Amy Timoll; Seattle Urban Academy educators of wisdom and courage. Publication of this work was made possible by a generous grant from The McGregor Company 5 Table of Contents Introduction IX Journey Map and Group Portrait XIV Unit One: The Upper Columbia and Kootenay Chapter 1: The Fur Trade and First Peoples Prologue: Expedition Origins 19 The Northwest and North America 1.1 Someone Our Age 21 Mapping: The Pacific Northwest Today 1.2 The Hudson’s Bay Company 25 Literature:
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Guide of the Hoodoo Valley Area
    Geologic Guide of the Hoodoo Valley Area Roy M. Breckenridge Dean L. Garwood Idaho Geological Survey University of Idaho Staff Report 14-3 875 Perimeter Drive MS 3014 August 2014 Moscow, Idaho 83844-3014 www.IdahoGeology.org Geologic Guide of the Hoodoo Valley Area Roy M. Breckenridge Dean L. Garwood Staff Reports present timely information for public distribution. This publication may not conform to the agency’s standards. Idaho Geological Survey University of Idaho Staff Report 14-3 875 Perimeter Drive MS 3014 August 2014 Moscow, Idaho 83844-3014 www.IdahoGeology.org Geologic Guide of the Hoodoo Valley area Hoodoo Valley Field Trip Coeur du Deluge Chapter Ice Age Floods Institute June 1, 2014 Roy M. Breckenridge* and Dean L. Garwood** *University of Idaho, Emeritus **Idaho Geological Survey The information in this field guide is prepared for use by the Ice Age Floods Institute, Coeur du Deluge Chapter and should not be used for other purposes without written consent of the authors. This event is sponsored by the Ice Age Floods Institute, http://www.iceagefloodsinstitute.org/deluge.html INTRODUCTION This field trip guide from Sandpoint, Idaho explores glaciation of the southern part of the Purcell Trench ice lobe and the northern route of glacial floods from the southern end of Lake Pend Oreille through the Hoodoo valley to the Pend Oreille River. GEOLOGIC HISTORY Northern Idaho has a rich geologic history, the incomplete record of which extends from 2.6 billion years ago to the present. The oldest known rocks, exposed near Priest River, Idaho, originated as sedimentary layers deposited in an ancient ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Range Plan Sanders County, Montana
    1 Long Range Plan Sanders County, Montana Section I. Introduction Purpose The Long-Range Plan is a working document outlining the natural resource data, status and trends from Sanders County. This plan represents a commitment to local and regional partnerships and outlines strategic approaches to solving complex natural resource issues. The plan will be used to prioritize projects for NRCS financial incentive programs. The goal of the Long-Range Plan is to review natural resource characteristics and issues found throughout Sanders County and surrounding areas. Updated on a semi-annual basis, this document will be used to highlight resource concerns of high priority and will provide guidance on future planning of Targeted Implementation Plans (TIP). The Sanders County Long Range Plan was developed by the NRCS Plains Field office with help from multiple partners. In addition, existing resource plans and management plans from partners have been referenced in completing this document. A full listing of resources can be found in the “Source” section. Partners in Natural Resources ● Eastern Sanders Conservation District (ESCD) ● Green Mountain Conservation District (GMCD) ● Lower Clark Fork Watershed Group ● Avista Energy ● Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) o Plains Field Office o Pablo Field Office o Ronan Field Office ● Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) ● Montana State University Extension ● U.S. Forest Service ● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ● Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) ● Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (FIIP) ● Kaniksu Land Trust ● Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) ● Trout Unlimited (TU) ● Intermountain West Joint Venture (IMJV) ● Montana Land Reliance ● The Nature Conservancy ● Soil and Water Conservation Districts of Montana (SWCDM) ● Montana Association of Conservation Districts (MACD) ● Sanders County Government 2 Section II.
    [Show full text]