DOCSLIB.ORG

AN EVALUATION of TECHNIQUES for CAPTURING RAPTORS in EAST-CENTRAL MINNESOTA by Mark R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AN EVALUATION OF TECHNIQUES FOR CAPTURING RAPTORS IN EAST-CENTRAL MINNESOTA by Mark R. Fuller and Glenn S. Christenson Department of Ecologyand BehavioralBiology University of Minnesota 310 Biological SciencesCenter St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 ABSTRACT. To meet the objectivesof a study,several species of raptorshad to be trapped on a 9,880-hectare study area of heterogenoushabitat types. Bal-chatri,mist net, Swedish Goshawk,and automatic bow-net traps (and combinationsof these traps) were used in severalgeneral habitat situations.Mist nets combined with a baited bal-chatri or tethered bait were most successfulin capturingbirds, and the bal-chatrisalone and mist nets alone were next most effective. Trappingwas found to be most productivein deciduousupland habitats where an openingin the canopy or break in the understoryoccurred. Trapping along a woodlot-fieldedge was also effective. Strigiformeswere most often trappedjust before sunriseor just after sunset,while falconiformeswere most often capturedin the late morning and late afternoon. Trapping was least efficient from Decemberto February. A different trap type from that i•sedin the initial captureis often most effectivefor recaptur- ing raptors.Maintenance of healthybait animalsand frequent trap checksare emphasized. Introduction This paperpresents results from a combinationof methodsused to captureand recapture Great HornedOwls (Bubo virginianus), Barred Owls (Strix varia),Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo }amaicensis),and Broad-wingedHawks (Buteo platypterus) on a 9,880-hectarestudy area in east-central Minnesota. Additional information regarding the capture of Saw-whet Owls (Aegoliusacadicus), Long-eared Owls (Asio otus), Goshawks(Accipiter gentills), Red- shoulderedHawks (Buteo !ineatus), and a Harrier(Circus cyaneus) are included. We found no data quantifyingthe resultsof trappingthat employeda combinationof techniqueson a specificstudy area; however, there havebeen numerQuspapers describing varioustraps and techniquesfor capturingbirds of prey (Bergerand Mueller 1959; Ellis 1975; Groinroe 1937; Hamerstrom 1963; Meng 1963, 1971; Nicholls 1973; Robards 1967; Stewart et al. 1945; Tordoff 1954). Severalfalconry books also providehistorical informa- tion on techniquesused for catchingraptors (Beebe and Webster1964; Mavrogordato1974; Peetersand Jameson1970). Other papershave been concernedwith the effectivenessof particulartypes of trapsand methodsby improvingan old design(Henderson 1962, Kitsher 1958, Ward and Martin 1968, Whitman 1960). Data useful in assessingthe utility of a particulartrap for a particularspecies (Berger and Mueller 1959, Ellis 1975, Hamerstrom 1963, Henderson1962, Kitsher1958, Robards1967, Stewartet al. 1945) or for a particular situation (Clark 1971, Ellis 1975, Bergerand Hamerstrom1962, Berry 1971, Hamerstrom 1963, Meng1971, Nicholls1973, Stewartet al. 1945) canbe helpful to researchersdesigning studieswhich involvethe captureof birds of prey. Raptor Research10(1):9-19, 1976 10 RAPTOR RESEARCH Vol. 10, No. 1 The Study Area Thestudy was conducted on the Cedar Creek Natural History Area (93 ø 12'E,45ø24'N) in a variety of habitatsincluding oak uplands,mixed deciduousand coniferousuplands, white cedar (Thuja occidentalis)lowlands, tamarack (Larix laricina)lowlands, deciduous shrub lowlands,marshes, and open fields. Nicholls and Warner (1972) describedthese habitats in more detail and provided a generalphenology for the study area. For the purposeof analyzingtrapping data the followinghabitats were recognized:(1) deciduousopening (a break in the canopyof a deciduousupland woods at least6 m in diameter);(2) deciduous trail (a break in the understoryof a deciduousupland woods at least 3 m by 3 m that may be an actual trail through the woods); (3) field-woodsedge; (4) deciduous-conifertrail (openingor trail like 442but througha mixeddeciduous-conifer upland); (5) deciduous-conifer opening(an openingin the canopylike 4(1 except in a mixeddeciduous-conifer upland); and (6) openfield. Methods Severaltrap types and combinationof trapswere usedduring the study. Trap types included(1) two-shelf121-mm mesh, 12-m-longmist nets (Nicholls1973); (2) modified bal-chatritraps (bergerand Hamerstrom1962, Ward and Martin 1968) of either a 0.7- square-cmhardware cloth cage,10 cm x 20 cm, or a 2.5-cm chicken-wirecage, 25 cm x 35 cm, for mouseor pigeonbait, respectively;(3) SwedishGoshawk traps (Meng 1971); and(4) a modified automaticbow-net (Tordoff 1954). Trap combinationsincluded putting a bal- chatri or tethered bait or decoyin front of a line of one to three mist nets, or in a V formed by two mist nets or in the middle of a triangleof mist nets. The trianglewas formed by stringingone net lengthwiseand stakinganother in a V shape,with the open end of the V againstthe lengthwisenet. A baitedbal-chatri was placed under the triggermechanism of the automatic bow-net. Trap placementin 1971-1972 wasbased on the valuableadvice of Nicholls(pers. comm.) and Hamerstromand Hamerstrom(pers. comm.). During 1972-1973 we reducedthe total numberof trap sitesand alteredlocations because of our experiencefrom the previousfield season.Generally, traps were placed in areaswhere raptors had beenobserved in the habitats described.Nets were placedat the edgesof openingsor perpendicularto trails(see Nicholls 1973) and on field-woodsedges. Bal-chatris, Swedish Goshawk traps, and the bow-netwere placed in fields or on field-woodsedges. Bal-chatris were also droppedfrom vehiclesnear perchedor soaringraptors in the mannerdescribed by Bergerand Mueller (1959). Pigeons(Columba livia) were frequentlyused as bait becauseof easeof maintenanceand their heartiness(Berger and Hamerstrom1962). We alsoused brown and white laboratory mice (Mus musculus);hooded and white laboratoryrats (Ratms norvegicus);game-farm Ring-neckedPheasants (Phasianus colchicus); domestic rabbits (Oryctolaguscunniculus); gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus);and Starlings(Sturnus vulgaris)and Common Grackels (Quiscalusquiscula) obtained from pest-controlprograms. Decoy animals(Hamerstrom 1963, Andersonand Hamerstrom1967) includedGreat HornedOwls and Red-tailedHawks obtainedfrom a raptor rehabilitationprogram (Fuller et al. 1974). Tetheredpigeons and decoy animalswere securedby leather jessesabout their legs.Bait and decoy animalswere givenfood and water at the trap site and were returnedto holdingcages at leasttwo times eachday dependingon temperatureand precipitation conditions. All trapswere closeddown duringperiods of extendedor severeprecipitation or whenambient temperatures fell below 10øF.These conditions were judged too stressfulfor bait anddecoy animals, as well as for raptorsif they shouldbe trapped.Traps were checkedevery four hoursor morefrequently dependingon weatherconditions. Spring 1976 Fuller & Christenson - Capturing Techniques 1 1 Results and Discussion Trappingresults using the variousmethods are presentedin table 1. The combinationof mist nets plusbal-chatri was most successful in termsof numberscaptured and trap daysper capture.The mist net with tetheredbait was as efficient as mist nets plus bal-chatribut resultedin fewer total captures.The bal-chatrialone was next most productiveboth in terms of capturesand efficiency.The mist net alone rankedonly slightlybelow the bal-chatri.We captured only two birds in the SwedishGoshawk trap and were unsuccessfulwith limited useof the bow-net.Calculation of correlationcoefficients (Clarke 1969) for trap daysand capturesprovided no significantcorrelation between the two. Table 1 Capturesby Trap Type Days Tot. Capturesby Species Trap Used Capt. D/C GHO BO LEO SWO RT BW RS GH CH HA Mist 0279 11 25 5 2 1 2 1 % 20 12 24 67 5 15 6 Mist #191 17 11 1 1 4 5 1 4 1 Teth. % 13 18 5 100 18 38 20 25 100 Mist #327 30 11 11 1 9 3 2 2 2 B.C. % 23 32 52 33 41 23 40 50 13 Mist # 91 7 13 3 1 1 1 1 Dec. % 6 8 43 5 20 25 6 B.C. #324 14 23 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 % 23 15 14 10 14 23 20 25 19 Swed. #182 2 91 1 1 Gos. % 13 2 14 5 Bow- # 34 net % 2 Hand* # 12 2 2 3 5 % 13 29 10 14 31 Total 1428 93 7 21 1 3 22 13 5 4 16 1 *Hand-capture data not included in total trap days or days per capture calculations. GHO = Great Horned Owl BW = Broad-winged Hawk BO = Barred Owl RS = Red-shouldered Hawk LEO = Long-eared Owl GH = Goshawk SWO = Saw-whet Owl CH = Cooper's Hawk RT = Red-tailed Hawk HA: Harrier 12 RAPTOR RESEARCH Vol. 10, No. 1 The captureof eachspecies by trap type is alsopresented in table 1. Againthe combina- tions of mist net pluseither bal-chatrior tetheredbait gavethe bestresults. The bal-chatri aloneappeared to be moreefficient for falconiformesthan for strigiformeswhen compared to other methods. Great Horned Owls were used effectively as decoy animalsin efforts to trap other GreatHorned Owls. Hawks trapped by thismeans were caught incidentally to the efforts directed at Great Horned Owls. However, the attacks by hawks on Great Horned Owlsflushed during the day (Dunstanand Harrell 1973, Murphyet al. 1969) and the success of this owl asa decoy(Hamerstrom 1963) suggestthat thistechnique can be widely applied. Barred Owls would probably avoid a Great HornedOwl decoybecause of apparentinter- specificconflicts which occur between these two species(Fuller et al. 1974). No Barred Owls were availableas decoy animals. Mist nets with bal-chatrisand mist nets alone were most effective for capturingBarred Owls. These same two techniqueswere usedsuccessfully to captureRed-tailed and Broad-wingedHawks thoughthese species were trappedwith a variety of trap types. An important point to note here and to bear in mind throughoutthe
Recommended publications
  • And Wildlife, 1928-72

    And Wildlife, 1928-72

    Bibliography of Research Publications of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1928-72 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE PUBLICATION 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, 1928-72 Edited by Paul H. Eschmeyer, Division of Fishery Research Van T. Harris, Division of Wildlife Research Resource Publication 120 Published by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Washington, B.C. 1974 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Eschmeyer, Paul Henry, 1916 Bibliography of research publications of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1928-72. (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Kesource publication 120) Supt. of Docs. no.: 1.49.66:120 1. Fishes Bibliography. 2. Game and game-birds Bibliography. 3. Fish-culture Bibliography. 4. Fishery management Bibliogra­ phy. 5. Wildlife management Bibliography. I. Harris, Van Thomas, 1915- joint author. II. United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. III. Title. IV. Series: United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Resource publication 120. S914.A3 no. 120 [Z7996.F5] 639'.9'08s [016.639*9] 74-8411 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfTie Washington, D.C. Price $2.30 Stock Number 2410-00366 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, 1928-72 INTRODUCTION This bibliography comprises publications in fishery and wildlife research au­ thored or coauthored by research scientists of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and certain predecessor agencies. Separate lists, arranged alphabetically by author, are given for each of 17 fishery research and 6 wildlife research labora­ tories, stations, investigations, or centers.
  • Public Attitudes Toward and Awareness of Trapping Issues In

    Public Attitudes Toward and Awareness of Trapping Issues In

    ATTITUDES TOWARD AND AWARENESS OF TRAPPING ISSUES IN CONNECTICUT, INDIANA AND WISCONSIN Conducted for the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies And the Furbearer Resources Technical Work Group Conducted by Responsive Management May 2001 ATTITUDES TOWARD AND AWARENESS OF TRAPPING ISSUES IN CONNECTICUT, INDIANA AND WISCONSIN May 2001 CONDUCTED BY RESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT NATIONAL OFFICE Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director Peter E. De Michele, Ph.D., Director of Research Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Director Ping Wang, Ph.D., Quantitative Research Associate Jim Herrick, Ph. D., Research Associate Alison Lanier, Business Manager William Testerman, Survey Center Manager Joy Yoder, Research Associate 130 Franklin Street, PO Box 389 Harrisonburg, VA 22801 Phone: 540/432-1888 Fax: 540/432-1892 E-mail to: [email protected] www.responsivemanagement.com EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW Executive Overview of Findings, Implications and Conclusions The purpose of this project was to assist the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) and the Furbearer Resources Technical Work Group in better understanding public awareness of, opinions on, and attitudes toward trapping. There were five phases to this project. Phase I was a series of focus groups with members of the general population in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Indiana (Chapter 1). Phase II consisted of focus groups with two important stakeholder groups: Wildlife professionals (Chapter III), and Veterinarians (Chapter 1). Phase III consisted of utilizing the focus group results to develop a comprehensive group of questions regarding the most salient issues related to public opinion on, and attitudes toward trapping. These survey questions formed the basis of the development of three separate survey instruments that can be used by wildlife agencies to periodically assess attitudes toward trapping on a local, state or national level (Chapter IV).
  • Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research

    Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research

    THE ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL Providing Scientific Information about Birds GUIDELINES TO THE USE OF WILD BIRDS IN RESEARCH Special Publication 1997 Edited by Abbot S. Gaunt & Lewis W. Oring Third Edition 2010 Edited by Jeanne M. Fair, Editor-in-Chief Ellen Paul & Jason Jones, Associate Editors GUIDELINES TO THE USE OF WILD BIRDS IN RESEARCH Jeanne M. Fair1, Ellen Paul2, & Jason Jones3, Anne Barrett Clark4, Clara Davie4, Gary Kaiser5 1 Los Alamos National Laboratory, Atmospheric, Climate and Environmental Dynamics, MS J495, Los Alamos, NM 87506 2 Ornithological Council, 1107 17th St., N.W., Suite 250, Washington, D.C. 20036 3 Tetra Tech EC, 133 Federal Street, 6th floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02110 4 Binghamton University State University of New York, Department of Biology, PO BOX 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 5 402-3255 Glasgow Ave, Victoria, BC V8X 4S4, Canada Copyright 1997, 2010 by THE ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL 1107 17th Street, N.W. Suite 250 Washington, D.C. 20036 http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET Suggested citation Fair, J., E. Paul, and J. Jones, Eds. 2010. Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research. Washington, D.C.: Ornithological Council. Revision date August 2010 2 Dedication The Ornithological Council dedicates this 2010 revision to Lewis W. Oring and the late Abbot (Toby) S. Gaunt, whose commitment to the well-being of the birds for whom ornithologists share a deep and abiding concern has served our profession well for so many years. Toby Gaunt Lew Oring Revision date August 2010 3 Acknowledgments and disclaimer Third edition The Ornithological Council thanks the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare of the National Institutes of Health for their financial support for the production of this revision.
  • Effect of Pheromone Trap Density on Mass Trapping Of

    Effect of Pheromone Trap Density on Mass Trapping Of

    SCIENTIFIC NOTE 281 EFFECT OF PHEROMONE TRAP DENSITY ON MASS TRAPPING OF MALE POTATO TUBER MOTH Phthorimaea operculella (ZELLER) (LEPIDOPTERA: GELECHIIDAE), AND LEVEL OF DAMAGE ON POTATO TUBERS Patricia Larraín S.1*, Michel Guillon2, Julio Kalazich3, Fernando Graña1, and Claudia Vásquez1 ABSTRACT Potato tuber moth (PTM), Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller), is one of the pests that cause the most damage to potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) in both field crops and storage, especially in regions where summers are hot and dry. Larvae develop in the foliage and tubers of potatoes and cause direct losses of edible product. The use of synthetic pheromones that interfere with insect mating for pest control has been widely demonstrated in numerous Lepidoptera and other insect species. An experiment was carried out during the 2004-2005 season in Valle del Elqui, Coquimbo Region, Chile, to evaluate the effectiveness of different pheromone trap densities to capture P. operculella males for future development of a mass trapping technique, and a subsequent decrease in insect reproduction. The study evaluated densities of 10, 20, and 40 traps ha-1, baited with 0.2 mg of PTM sexual pheromone, and water- detergent for captures. Results indicated that larger numbers of male PTM were captured per trap with densities of 20 and 40 traps per hectare, resulting in a significant reduction (P < 0.05) of tuber damage in these treatments compared with the control which used conventional chemical insecticide sprays. Key words: potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella, mass trapping, pheromone. INTRODUCTION researched (El-Sayed et al., 2006). It interferes with insect mating, reducing the future larvae population and The potato tuber moth is a pest which economically subsequent damage.
  • C660 How to Trap a Coyote

    C660 How to Trap a Coyote

    how to trap a coyote Coyote trapping is not difficult. By understanding a few biological traits you can learn to outwit coyotes and trap them successfully. The coyote is a member of the ca- nine (dog) family. This intelligent Items needed to set a coyote trap mammal is at home in rangeland, cropland, mixed woodlands, or even • One 5-gallon (19 ½ inch) plastic • Cloth (or plastic) feed sack to suburban areas. Coyotes stay in one bucket to carry equipment. kneel on while digging a trap bed and pounding the stake. area in spring and summer but may • One No. 3- or No. 4-sized trap roam in late summer, fall, and winter. per set (inside jaw spread should • Roll of plastic sandwich bags to Most coyotes are territorial but do be at least 5 inches). cover and prevent soil from get- not become dominant and establish a ting under the pan of the trap. • One 18- to 24-inch stake for the home territory. They are opportunists holding trap in place. • Screen sifter for sifting soil over that kill and eat whatever is easiest to the traps. obtain. • Straight claw hammer to dig a hole in the ground for trap • Brush or rib bone for leveling Coyotes follow regular paths and placement and to pound the the soil over the trap once it has crossings, establishing regular scent stake into the ground. been set in place and covered. posts to guide them. They inhabit high hills or knolls from which they • Leather gloves to protect fingers • Bottle of coyote urine to attract can view a wide area and disappear while digging the trap bed.
  • Filed Techniques-Bats

    Filed Techniques-Bats

    Expedition Field Techniques BATS Kate Barlow Geography Outdoors: the centre supporting field research, exploration and outdoor learning Royal Geographical Society with IBG 1 Kensington Gore London SW7 2AR Tel +44 (0)20 7591 3030 Fax +44 (0)20 7591 3031 Email [email protected] Website www.rgs.org/go October 1999 ISBN 978-0-907649-82-3 Cover illustration: A Noctilio leporinus mist-netted during an expedition, FFI Montserrat Biodiversity Project 1995, by Dave Fawcett. Courtesy of Kate Jones, and taken from the cover of her thesis entitled ‘Evolution of bat life histories’, University of Surrey. Expedition Field Techniques BATS CONTENTS Acknowledgements Preface Section One: Bats and Fieldwork 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Literature Reviews 3 1.3 Licences 3 1.4 Health and Safety 4 1.4.1 Hazards associated with bats 5 1.5 Ethics 6 1.6 Project Planning 6 Section Two: Capture Techniques 8 2.1 Introduction 8 2.2 Catching bats 8 2.2.1 Mist-nets 8 2.2.2 Mist-net placement 10 2.2.3 Harp-traps 12 2.2.4 Harp-trap placement 13 2.2.5 Comparison of mist-net and harp-traps 13 2.2.6 Hand-netting for bats 14 2.3 Sampling for bats 14 Section Three: Survey Techniques 18 3.1 Introduction 18 3.2 Surveys at roosts 18 3.2.1 Emergence counts 18 3.2.2 Roost counts 19 3.3 Population estimates 20 Expedition Field Techniques Section Four: Processing Bats 22 4.1 Handling bats 22 4.1.1 Removing bats from mist-nets 22 4.1.2 Handling bats 24 4.2 Assessment of age and reproductive status 25 4.3 Measuring bats 26 4.4 Identification 28 4.5 Data recording 29 Section Five: Specimen Preparation
  • Human-Black Bear Conflict a Review of the Most Common Management Practices

    Human-Black Bear Conflict a Review of the Most Common Management Practices

    HUMAN-BLACK BEAR CONFLICT A REVIEW OF THE MOST COMMON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A black bear in Lake Tahoe, NV. Photo courtesy Urbanbearfootage.com 1 A black bear patrols downtown Carson City, NV. Photo courtesy Heiko De Groot 2 Authors Carl W. Lackey (Nevada Department of Wildlife) Stewart W. Breck (USDA-WS-National Wildlife Research Center) Brian Wakeling (Nevada Department of Wildlife; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) Bryant White (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) 3 Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgements Introduction . The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and human-bear conflicts . “I Hold the Smoking Gun” by Chris Parmeter Status of the American Black Bear . Historic and Current distribution . Population estimates and human-bear conflict data Status of Human-Black Bear Conflict . Quantifying Conflict . Definition of Terms Associated with Human-Bear Management Methods to Address Human-Bear Conflicts . Public Education . Law and Ordinance Enforcement . Exclusionary Methods . Capture and Release . Aversive Conditioning . Repellents . Damage Compensation Programs . Supplemental & Diversionary Feeding . Depredation (Kill) Permits . Management Bears (Agency Kill) . Privatized Conflict Management Population Management . Regulated Hunting and Trapping . Control of Non-Hunting Mortality . Fertility Control . Habitat Management . No Intervention Agency Policy Literature Cited 4 Abstract Most human-black bear (Ursus americanus) conflict occurs when people make anthropogenic foods (that is, foods of human origin like trash, dog food, domestic poultry, or fruit trees) available to bears. Bears change their behavior to take advantage of these resources and in the process may damage property or cause public safety concerns. Managers are often forced to focus efforts on reactive non-lethal and lethal bear management techniques to solve immediate problems, which do little to address root causes of human-bear conflict.

  • Chapter 3. Capture and Marking

    CHAPTER 3. CAPTURE AND MARKING A. Overview Scientific studies of birds often require that birds be captured to gather morphometric data and to collect samples for pathological, genetic, and biogeochemical analysis. These data and samples can be used to understand evolutionary relationships, genetics, population structure and dynamics, comparative anatomy and physiology, adaptation, behavior, parasites and diseases, geographic distributions, migration, and the general ecology of wild populations of birds. This knowledge informs us about avian biology and natural history and is necessary to effect science-based conservation and management policies for game and non-game species, endangered species, economically important species, and bird habitat conservation (White and Garrott 1990). Capture is generally necessary to mark birds, which allows scientists to investigate demography, migration/movement patterns, or identify specific individuals after release (Day et al. 1980). Many techniques have been developed to capture and mark birds (Nietfeld et al. 1994; Bub 1995). The assumption that marking does not affect the birds is critical because it is the basis for generalizing the data to unmarked birds (Murray and Fuller 2000). The purpose of this section is not to describe capture and marking techniques, but instead to discuss the effects that different capture and marking techniques have on a bird’s short- and long-term physiological well-being and survival. The more commonly used methods are covered and described briefly, but the focus is on the potential impacts of the method. Thus, even if a particular method is not covered, the researcher is alerted to concerns that may arise and questions to be considered in refining methods so as to reduce impacts.
  • NFBB Vol. 32 1957

    NFBB Vol. 32 1957

    Howard L. Cogswell, Mills College, Oakland, Calif. Russel H. Pray, 662 Santa Rosa Ave., Berkeley, Calif. William K. Kirsher, .571 Fulton Ave., Sacramento, Calif. Lillian Henningson, 124 Cambridge Way, Piedmont, Calif. Address contributions for the N~VS to William K. Kirsher, F~itor-- .571 Fulton Avenue Sacramento 2.5, California PAGE EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND FOUR CLIFF SWALLOWS by William K. Kirsher. 1 MIST NETS LEGALIZED IN CALIFORNIA. • . 4 MIST NET SUPPLIERS . • . • . • . 6 GULL BANDING IN THE KI~~TH by Carl Richardson • 7 NEVlS FROM TIIEBANDERS. 9 CHAPTER NOTES. • • • . • . • . • 10 EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND FOUR CLIFF SWALLOWS b:{William K. Kirsher In the flat agricultural lands around Sacramento, California where in prlml- tive times Cliff swallows (petrochelidon p;trrhonota) must have been hard put to find nesting sites, today there are man-made structures that admirably fill the bird's needs for sheltered, elevated purchases for their mud nests. The species now populates the valley abundantly. Colonies are often found in culverts and under small bridges, some no higher than a man's head. In these, by working at night when all the birds are at the nest, practically the whole colony can be trapped by simultaneously closing both openings of the structure with large fish nets. Most of the m,allows flush at the first disturbance, fluttering to the nets where they are easily captured by hand. There are always a few reluctant ones that have to be flushed by shining a bright light (which the bander wears on his forehead) into the nest as he claps his hands and makes hissing sounds and other noises.
  • Bucket Cable Trap Technique for Capturing Black Bears on Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska Boyd Porter

    Bucket Cable Trap Technique for Capturing Black Bears on Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska Boyd Porter

    Wildlife Special Publication ADF&G/DWC/WSP–2021–1 Bucket Cable Trap Technique for Capturing Black Bears on Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska Boyd Porter Stephen Bethune ©2012 ADF&G. Photo by Stephen Bethune. 2021 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Special Publication ADF&G/DWC/WSP-2021-1 Bucket Cable Trap Technique for Capturing Black Bears on Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska PREPARED BY: Boyd Porter Wildlife Biologist1 Stephen Bethune Area Wildlife Biologist APPROVED BY: Richard Nelson Management Coordinator REVIEWED BY: Charlotte Westing Cordova Area Wildlife Biologist PUBLISHED BY: Sky M. Guritz Technical Reports Editor ©2021 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation PO Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811-5526 Hunters are important founders of the modern wildlife conservation movement. They, along with trappers and sport shooters, provided funding for this publication through payment of federal taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and through state hunting license and tag fees. This funding provided support for Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Black Bear Survey and Inventory Project 17.0. 1 Retired Special Publications include reports that do not fit in other categories in the division series, such as techniques manuals, special subject reports to decision making bodies, symposia and workshop proceedings, policy reports, and in-house course materials. This Wildlife Special Publication was reviewed and approved for publication by Richard Nelson, Region I Management Coordinator for the Division of Wildlife Conservation. Wildlife Special Publications are available via the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s public website (www.adfg.alaska.gov) or by contacting Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Division of Wildlife Conservation, PO Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526; phone: (907) 465- 4190; email: [email protected].
  • OREGON FURBEARER TRAPPING and HUNTING REGULATIONS

    OREGON FURBEARER TRAPPING and HUNTING REGULATIONS

    OREGON FURBEARER TRAPPING and HUNTING REGULATIONS July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022 Please Note: Major changes are underlined throughout this synopsis. License Requirements Trapper Education Requirement By action of the 1985 Oregon Legislature, all trappers born after June 30, Juveniles younger than 12 years of age are not required to purchase a 1968, and all first-time Oregon trappers of any age are required to license, except to hunt or trap bobcat and river otter. However, they must complete an approved trapper education course. register to receive a brand number through the Salem ODFW office. To trap bobcat or river otter, juveniles must complete the trapper education The study guide may be completed at home. Testing will take place at course. Juveniles 17 and younger must have completed hunter education Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) offices throughout the to obtain a furtaker’s license. state. A furtaker’s license will be issued by the Salem ODFW Headquarters office after the test has been successfully completed and Landowners must obtain either a furtaker’s license, a hunting license for mailed to Salem headquarters, and the license application with payment furbearers, or a free license to take furbearers on land they own and on has been received. Course materials are available by writing or which they reside. To receive the free license and brand number, the telephoning Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, I&E Division, 4034 landowner must obtain from the Salem ODFW Headquarters office, a Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem, OR 97302, (800) 720-6339 x76002. receipt of registration for the location of such land prior to hunting or trapping furbearing mammals on that land.
  • American Black Bear Ecology in Southeastern Oklahoma: Population Status and Capture Methodology

    American Black Bear Ecology in Southeastern Oklahoma: Population Status and Capture Methodology

    AMERICAN BLACK BEAR ECOLOGY IN SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA: POPULATION STATUS AND CAPTURE METHODOLOGY By MORGAN A. PFANDER Bachelor of Science in Natural Resource Management University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 2011 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May, 2016 AMERICAN BLACK BEAR ECOLOGY IN SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA: POPULATION STATUS AND CAPTURE METHODOLOGY Thesis Approved: Dr. W. Sue Fairbanks Thesis Adviser Dr. David M. Leslie, Jr. Dr. Barney Luttbeg ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to all of the people who have made this research project possible. It has been a wonderful experience working with all of the graduate students, faculty, and staff here at Oklahoma State University and I feel blessed to have had the opportunity to spend a couple of years in the bear woods of Oklahoma. Thank you especially to my thesis advisor, Dr. W. Sue Fairbanks, for the opportunity to be a part of such an amazing project and for all of the encouragement and advice throughout the research process. I am also grateful to my committee members, Dr. Chip Leslie and Dr. Barney Luttbeg, for their invaluable contributions to the development and analysis of this study. Thank you to Sara Lyda for introducing me to the bear woods and for all of her help with training and project logistics. I would also like to thank all of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation officials, especially Jeff Ford and Joe Hemphill, and my summer technicians and volunteers for all of their help in the field.