DOCSLIB.ORG

Mountain Goats in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Challenges for Management, Wildlife Society Bulletin, July 10, 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mountain Goats in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Challenges for Management, Wildlife Society Bulletin, July 10, 2016 EXHIBIT INDEX BATES # DOCUMENT Ex001 - Robin J. Innes, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 056 Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Oreamnos americanus, Fire Effects Information System (2011), Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (last visited August 8, 2017) Ex057 - Elizabeth Flesh et al., Range Expansion and Population Growth of Nonnative 066 Mountain Goats in the Greater Yellowstone Area: Challenges for Management, Wildlife Society Bulletin, July 10, 2016 Ex067 - Rolf Johnson, Washington Dept. of Game, Mountain Goats and Mountain Sheep 081 of Washington, January 1983 (excerpt) Ex082 - Clifford Rice & Don Gay, Effects of Mountain Goat Harvest on Historic and 100 Contemporary Populations, 91 Northwestern Naturalist 40 (2010) Ex101 - Bureau of Land Management, Status of the Science on Questions that Relate to 112 BLM Plan Amendment Decisions and Peninsular Ranges Bighorn Sheep (2001) Ex113 - Craig A. Stockwell & Gary C. Bateman, Conflicts in National Parks: A Case 124 Study of Helicopters and Bighorn Sheep Time Budgets at the Grand Canyon, 56 Biological Conservation 317 (1991) Ex125 - Steeve D. Cote, Mountain Goat Responses to Helicopter Disturbance, 24(4) 130 Wildlife Society Bulletin 681 (1996) Ex131 - Alexandre L. Rasiulis et al., The Effect of Radio-Collar Weight on Survival of 135 Migratory Caribou, 78(5) The Journal of Wildlife Management 953 (2014) Ex136 - Steven J. Cooke et al., Troubling issues at the frontier of animal tracking for 138 conservation and management, 00 Conservation Biology 0, 1 (2017) Ex139 - National Park Service, Olympic Nat’l Park, Draft Mountain Goat Management 166 Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (2017) (excerpt) Ex167 - National Park Service, Olympic Nat’l Park, Olympic National Park Minimum 192 Requirements Analysis, 2017 Ex193 - U.S. Forest Service, Olympic, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, and Okanogan-Wenatchee 216 National Forests, Minimum Requirements Analysis Mountain Goat Removal from Olympic National Forest Wilderness Areas, 2016 Ex217 - E-mail from Pamela Manders, Fish and Wildlife Manager, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 218 National Forest, to Rusty Robinson, Bighorn Sheep / Mountain Goat Biologist, UDWR (March 29, 2017) Ex219 - E-mail from Rusty Robinson, Bighorn Sheep / Mountain Goat Biologist, UDWR, 221 to Pamela Manders, Fish and Wildlife Manager, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (June 1, 2017) Ex222 - E-mails between Pamela Manders, Fish and Wildlife Manager, Uinta-Wasatch- 225 Cache National Forest, and Rusty Robinson, Bighorn Sheep / Mountain Goat Biologist, UDWR (August 7 – 9, 2017) Ex226 - UDWR, Utah Mountain Goat Statewide Management Plan (2013) 249 Ex250 - UDWR, Utah Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan (2013) 278 Ex279 - Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Wild Sheep Working Group, 285 Adaptive Wild Sheep Disease Management Venture (DMV) Strategy (January 2017) Ex286 - IDFG, Middle Fork Zone Elk Monitoring MRA (August 7, 2015) 327 Ex328 - E. Frances Cassirer, Pneumonia in Bighorn Sheep: Risk and Resilience, The 341 Journal of Wildlife Management 82(1):32-45 (2018) Ex342 - Katie England, Flying sheep: DWR transports wildlife via helicopter to test for 346 disease, Daily Herald (January 11, 2017) Ex347 - Brian Maffly, Judge rejects suit over La Sal goat introduction, The Salt Lake 350 Tribune (March 4, 2017) Oreamnos americanus https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/oram/all.html Ex001 Oreamnos americanus Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS FIRE EFFECTS AND MANAGEMENT APPENDIX: FIRE REGIME TABLE REFERENCES INTRODUCTORY AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION FEIS ABBREVIATION COMMON NAMES TAXONOMY SYNONYMS ORDER CLASS Nanny and kid in Glacier National Park, Montana. Photo courtesy of G. Keith Douce, University of Georgia, Bugwood.org. AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION: Innes, Robin J. 2011. Oreamnos americanus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2017, August 8]. FEIS ABBREVIATION: ORAM COMMON NAMES: 1 of 56 8/8/17, 12:35 PM Oreamnos americanus https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/oram/all.html Ex002 mountain goat Rocky Mountain goat white goat TAXONOMY: The scientific name of mountain goat is Oreamnos americanus (Blainville) (Bovidae) [143]. SYNONYMS: None ORDER: Artiodactyla CLASS: Mammal DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE SPECIES: Oreamnos americanus GENERAL DISTRIBUTION PLANT COMMUNITIES GENERAL DISTRIBUTION: The mountain goat is native to mountainous regions of northwestern North America from about 44 °N latitude to 63 °N latitude [26]. Its native range occurs from southeastern Alaska south to the Columbia River in Washington; east into Idaho and western Montana; and north to southern Yukon [34,110]. Throughout the 1900s, mountain goats were introduced in some areas outside of their known historical range in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada [24,34,89,110]. They were reintroduced in parts of their native range where they had been extirpated in Alaska, Alberta, Idaho, Montana, and Washington [24,34]. For more information, see Population status and threats. NatureServe provides a distributional map of the mountain goat. PLANT COMMUNITIES: Mountain goats occur in alpine and subalpine areas with rocky, steep terrain in the Coast, Cascade, and Rocky Mountain ranges [24,110]. Mountain goats occur in forests, krummholz, and alpine meadows varying from temperate rainforests near sea level in coastal British Columbia and Alaska to xeric alpine communities at >13,000 feet (4,000 m) in Colorado [34]. In the northern Rocky Mountains, mountain goats range from approximately 4,900 to 8,900 feet (1,500-2,700 m) [24]. In southern and western parts of their range, mountain goats use primarily areas with steep cliffs, but in their northern distribution they are often found in rolling terrain above treeline [34]. For more information, see Preferred Habitat. Alaska: On the Cleveland Peninsula in southeastern Alaska, mountain goats occurred in steep, broken terrain at elevations ranging from sea level to >4,900 feet (1,500 m). Below 2,300 feet (700 m), they occurred primarily in old-growth forests of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Sitka spruce (Picea 2 of 56 8/8/17, 12:35 PM Oreamnos americanus https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/oram/all.html Ex003 sitchensis), and western redcedar (Thuja plicata); Alaska-cedar/sedge (Cupressus nootkatensis/Carex spp.) muskegs in poorly drained areas; and alder (Alnus spp.) on steep slide zones. Above 2,300 feet, mountain goats occurred in alpine heath (Ericaceae) interspersed with rock, scree, and snowfields [41,120]. British Columbia: In British Columbia, mountain goats occur from sea level in the western hemlock forest zone in the Coast Ranges to >7,500 feet (2,300 m) in alpine communities in the southern Rocky Mountains. In the Coast Ranges, mountain goats occur in the western hemlock forest zone on cliffs, talus, and sparsely vegetated rocks, often in old growth [103] and in the subalpine mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) forest zone on rock outcrops and talus, in avalanche tracks, and at seepage sites [104]. Mountain goats occur on cliffs and talus in the interior Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest zone [65] and in the interior western redcedar-western hemlock forest zone [82]. They occur in avalanche tracks and on cliffs and talus in the montane interior spruce (Picea glauca × P. engelmannii) forest zone [66]. In the subboreal lodgepole pine-white spruce (Pinus contorta-Abies concolor) forest zone, mountain goats occur in subalpine parklands and grasslands on steep, rugged slopes, in avalanche tracks, and on sparsely vegetated cliffs, talus, and other rock habitats [125]. They occur in grasslands and scrub on rugged slopes in the subalpine Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir (Picea engelmannii-Abies lasiocarpa) forest zone [25]. In the boreal white and black spruce (P. mariana) zone, they occur in grass-shrub communities along major valleys and foothills [31]. Mountain goats occur in rugged terrain in the white spruce-willow-bog birch (Salix spp.-Betula glandulosa) forest zone [106]. At the highest elevations in the alpine zone, mountain goats occur in alpine heath, grasslands, and shrublands on windswept and south- facing aspects, in krummholz, and on cliffs, talus, and sparsely vegetated rock habitats [105]. In southeastern British Columbia, mountain goats used mineral licks in lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and spruce-subalpine fir stands that were 96 to 213 years old [107]. Alberta: In Banff and Jasper National Parks, Alberta, mountain goats occurred in rugged, rocky terrain in alpine areas above 7,000 feet (2,100 m) in summer and winter but also occurred in subalpine areas. In subalpine zones, mountain goats used grassy avalanche and rock-slide slopes; rocky slopes and ledges with sparse grass (Poaceae) and sedge cover; and grass-sedge communities on south-facing slopes of burned areas [38]. On Caw Ridge in west-central Alberta, mountain goats occurred in open alpine communities, krummholz, and subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce forest from 5,740 to 7,120 feet (1,750-2,170 m), where treeline occurred at approximately 6,200 feet (1,900 m). They occurred on gently rolling hills, rockslides, steep grassy slopes, and short cliffs [35]. In west-central Alberta, mountain goats occurred on talus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Catskill Canister Volume 52 Number 1 January - March 2019
    The Catskill Canister Volume 52 Number 1 January - March 2019 Blackhead Range from West Kill. Photo by Stash Rusin, #2829 In this issue: President's Column Trail Mix: News and Notes from the Club Winter weekend Pitch Perfect - Three Hikes Winter Hiking with Children Beyond the list - what comes after 35? 5th Annual Lighting of the Fire Tower Event Goose in the spruce Conservation Corner Trail Maintenance Update Stewardship Update Advice for the guide? Annual dinner announcement In Memoriam Hike Schedule Member lists Editor's Notes 1 Spathe and Spadix The President’s Column by Heather Rolland As I sit down to write my penultimate President’s column, the snow is piling up. I’m preparing for craft fairs, cooking, dressing the dogs in blaze orange finery, and anticipating the dreaded holiday family get-togethers. We’ve all been there, sitting around the table with Aunt Gertie and Uncle Jasper, and someone asks you about Your Hiking Thing. After all the requisite jokes about the Bataan Death March and how the only hiking Cousin Fred is doing this year is to the fridge and back to the couch… someone asks you the why question. Why do you do it? Why a list? Why in the winter? And especially why if there is no view at the top? I have said it before: the Catskill Forest Preserve is my temple and my gym. The oft repeated John Burroughs quote rings true for me: I too go to nature to be soothed and healed, and to have my senses put in order.
    [Show full text]
  • Rartioter Vol
    rartioter Vol. XII, No. 1 WINTER 1 9 7 9 BLACK DOME IN 1924 The Catskill Mountains have been known to white men for three hundred years and their valleys have been settled more than a cen- tury. It would seem as if all their summits ought by this time to be easily accessible by well known trails. Yet there are a dozen or more of the higher ones, above 3500 feet, which have no trails to their summits and which are climbed only by the exploring hiker, or perhaps a bear hunter in winter. I recently found another trackless peak, Black Dome, just under 4000 feet--3990 according to the Durham sheet of the United States Geological Survey--on a week-end climb in the northern Catskills. There is no trail over it, and the only paths that reach its flanks are faded out logging roads in the valleys north and south, attain- ing heights 1500 feet below its highest point. Black Dome is the central and highest of the three peaks that make up the Blackhead Mountains, running east and west, Black Head being the easternmost, then Black Dome and the last Thomas Cole. The other two are about fifty feet lower than the Dome. South of them is the valley of the East Kill, north that of Batavia Kill. North of Black Head runs a long ridge to Acra Point, then turning west to Windham High Peak. South this ridge runs through North Mountain and Stoppel Mountain to Kaaterskill Clove. Black Head is accessible by a good trail.
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction of Harrington's Mountain Goat (Vertebrate Paleontology/Radiocarbon/Grand Canyon) JIM I
    Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 83, pp. 836-839, February 1986 Geology Extinction of Harrington's mountain goat (vertebrate paleontology/radiocarbon/Grand Canyon) JIM I. MEAD*, PAUL S. MARTINt, ROBERT C. EULERt, AUSTIN LONGt, A. J. T. JULL§, LAURENCE J. TOOLIN§, DOUGLAS J. DONAHUE§, AND T. W. LINICK§ *Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, and Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ 86011; tDepartment of Geosciences and tArizona State Museum and Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; §National Science Foundation Accelerator Facility for Radioisotope Analysis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 Communicated by Edward S. Deevey, Jr., October 7, 1985 ABSTRACT Keratinous horn sheaths of the extinct Har- rington's mountain goat, Oreamnos harringtoni, were recov- ered at or near the surface of dry caves of the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Twenty-three separate specimens from two caves were dated nondestructively by the tandem accelerator mass spectrometer (TAMS). Both the TAMS and the conventional dates indicate that Harrington's mountain goat occupied the Grand Canyon for at least 19,000 years prior to becoming extinct by 11,160 + 125 radiocarbon years before present. The youngest average radiocarbon dates on Shasta ground sloths, Nothrotheriops shastensis, from the region are not significantly younger than those on extinct mountain goats. Rather than sequential extinction with Harrington's mountain goat disap- pearing from the Grand Canyon before the ground sloths, as one might predict in view ofevidence ofclimatic warming at the time, the losses were concurrent. Both extinctions coincide with the regional arrival of Clovis hunters. Certain dry caves of arid America have yielded unusual perishable remains of extinct Pleistocene animals, such as hair, dung, and soft tissue of extinct ground sloths (1) and, recently, ofmammoths (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Otobius Megnini Infestations in Race Horses Rupika S
    We are IntechOpen, the world’s leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists 4,800 122,000 135M Open access books available International authors and editors Downloads Our authors are among the 154 TOP 1% 12.2% Countries delivered to most cited scientists Contributors from top 500 universities Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI) Interested in publishing with us? Contact [email protected] Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected. For more information visit www.intechopen.com Chapter Spinose Ear Tick Otobius megnini Infestations in Race Horses Rupika S. Rajakaruna and Chulantha Prasanga Diyes Abstract Spinose ear tick, Otobius megnini, has a worldwide distribution causing otoaca- riasis or parasitic otitis in animals and humans. It mainly infests horses and cattle. It is a nidicolous, one-host soft tick spread from the New World to the Old World and is now distributed across all the continents. Only the larvae and nymphs are parasitic, feeding inside the ear canal of the host for a long period. Adult males and females are free-living and nonfeeding, and mating occurs off the host. Being inside the ear canal of the host allows the tick to be distributed over a vast geographic region through the distribution of the host animals. The presence of infectious agents Coxiella burnetii, the agent of Q fever, spotted fever rickettsia, Ehrlichia canis, Borrelia burgdorferi, and Babesia in O. megnini has been reported, but its role as a vector has not been confirmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Educator's Guide
    Educator’s Guide the jill and lewis bernard family Hall of north american mammals inside: • Suggestions to Help You come prepared • essential questions for Student Inquiry • Strategies for teaching in the exhibition • map of the Exhibition • online resources for the Classroom • Correlations to science framework • glossary amnh.org/namammals Essential QUESTIONS Who are — and who were — the North as tundra, winters are cold, long, and dark, the growing season American Mammals? is extremely short, and precipitation is low. In contrast, the abundant precipitation and year-round warmth of tropical All mammals on Earth share a common ancestor and and subtropical forests provide optimal growing conditions represent many millions of years of evolution. Most of those that support the greatest diversity of species worldwide. in this hall arose as distinct species in the relatively recent Florida and Mexico contain some subtropical forest. In the past. Their ancestors reached North America at different boreal forest that covers a huge expanse of the continent’s times. Some entered from the north along the Bering land northern latitudes, winters are dry and severe, summers moist bridge, which was intermittently exposed by low sea levels and short, and temperatures between the two range widely. during the Pleistocene (2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago). Desert and scrublands are dry and generally warm through- These migrants included relatives of New World cats (e.g. out the year, with temperatures that may exceed 100°F and dip sabertooth, jaguar), certain rodents, musk ox, at least two by 30 degrees at night. kinds of elephants (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Horned Animals
    Horned Animals In This Issue In this issue of Wild Wonders you will discover the differences between horns and antlers, learn about the different animals in Alaska who have horns, compare and contrast their adaptations, and discover how humans use horns to make useful and decorative items. Horns and antlers are available from local ADF&G offices or the ARLIS library for teachers to borrow. Learn more online at: alaska.gov/go/HVNC Contents Horns or Antlers! What’s the Difference? 2 Traditional Uses of Horns 3 Bison and Muskoxen 4-5 Dall’s Sheep and Mountain Goats 6-7 Test Your Knowledge 8 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 2018 Issue 8 1 Sometimes people use the terms horns and antlers in the wrong manner. They may say “moose horns” when they mean moose antlers! “What’s the difference?” they may ask. Let’s take a closer look and find out how antlers and horns are different from each other. After you read the information below, try to match the animals with the correct description. Horns Antlers • Made out of bone and covered with a • Made out of bone. keratin layer (the same material as our • Grow and fall off every year. fingernails and hair). • Are grown only by male members of the • Are permanent - they do not fall off every Cervid family (hoofed animals such as year like antlers do. deer), except for female caribou who also • Both male and female members in the grow antlers! Bovid family (cloven-hoofed animals such • Usually branched.
    [Show full text]
  • Index 1 INDEX
    Index 1 INDEX A Blue Spring 76, 106, 110, 115 Bluff Spring Trail 184 Adeii Eechii Cliffs 124 Blythe 198 Agate House 140 Blythe Intaglios 199 Agathla Peak 256 Bonita Canyon Drive 221 Agua Fria Nat'l Monument 175 Booger Canyon 194 Ajo 203 Boundary Butte 299 Ajo Mountain Loop 204 Box Canyon 132 Alamo Canyon 205 Box (The) 51 Alamo Lake SP 201 Boyce-Thompson Arboretum 190 Alstrom Point 266, 302 Boynton Canyon 149, 161 Anasazi Bridge 73 Boy Scout Canyon 197 Anasazi Canyon 302 Bright Angel Canyon 25, 51 Anderson Dam 216 Bright Angel Point 15, 25 Angels Window 27 Bright Angel Trail 42, 46, 49, 61, 80, 90 Antelope Canyon 280, 297 Brins Mesa 160 Antelope House 231 Brins Mesa Trail 161 Antelope Point Marina 294, 297 Broken Arrow Trail 155 Apache Junction 184 Buck Farm Canyon 73 Apache Lake 187 Buck Farm Overlook 34, 73, 103 Apache-Sitgreaves Nat'l Forest 167 Buckskin Gulch Confluence 275 Apache Trail 187, 188 Buenos Aires Nat'l Wildlife Refuge 226 Aravaipa Canyon 192 Bulldog Cliffs 186 Aravaipa East trailhead 193 Bullfrog Marina 302 Arch Rock 366 Bull Pen 170 Arizona Canyon Hot Springs 197 Bush Head Canyon 278 Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 216 Arizona Trail 167 C Artist's Point 250 Aspen Forest Overlook 257 Cabeza Prieta 206 Atlatl Rock 366 Cactus Forest Drive 218 Call of the Canyon 158 B Calloway Trail 171, 203 Cameron Visitor Center 114 Baboquivari Peak 226 Camp Verde 170 Baby Bell Rock 157 Canada Goose Drive 198 Baby Rocks 256 Canyon del Muerto 231 Badger Creek 72 Canyon X 290 Bajada Loop Drive 216 Cape Final 28 Bar-10-Ranch 19 Cape Royal 27 Barrio
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3. Ecosystem Profile
    CHAPTER 3. ECOSYSTEM PROFILE 3.1 Introduction This ecosystem profile has been prepared to provide a basis for understanding how watershed processes affect the form and function of Mason County’s shorelines. This chapter provides an overview of the watershed conditions across the landscape and describes how ecosystem-wide processes affect the function of the County’s shorelines as required under shoreline guidelines outlined in WAC 173-26- 210(3)(d). This watershed-scale overview provides context for the reach-scale discussion provided in Chapters 4 through 9. The landscape analysis approach to understanding and analyzing watershed processes developed by Stanley et al. (2005) has been referenced to complete this section of the report. Terms used in this section are defined in the document entitled Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes (Stanley et al., 2005). The maps referenced in this chapter are provided in Appendix A (Map Folio). Mason County is located generally in the southwestern corner of the Puget Sound Basin in western Washington. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Mason County has a total area of 1,051 square miles, of which 961 square miles is land and 90 square miles (8.6 percent) is water. Elevations in the County range from 6,400 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the foothills of the Olympic Mountains, to sea level along the coastline of Puget Sound and Hood Canal. The County includes portions of five Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) as outlined below: • WRIA 14a: Kennedy Goldsborough; • WRIA 15: Kitsap; • WRIA 16/14b: Skokomish-Dosewallips and South Shore of Hood Canal; • WRIA 21: Queets-Quinault; and • WRIA 22: Lower Chehalis.
    [Show full text]
  • (Acari: Ixodidae and Argasidae) Associated with Odocoileus
    https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v12i1.5283 Article Body distribution of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae and Argasidae) associated with Odocoileus virginianus (Artiodactyla: Cervidae) and Ovis canadensis (Artiodactyla: Bovidae) in three northern Mexican states Mariana Cuesy León a Zinnia Judith Molina Garza a* Roberto Mercado Hernández a Lucio Galaviz Silva a a Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Ave. Universidad S/N, Ciudad Universitaria. 66455 San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León. México. *Corresponding author: [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract: Ticks are important vectors of medical and veterinary importance pathogens in Mexico; however, the taxonomic studies of abundance, prevalence, intensity, and body distribution in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) are limited. This study aimed to fill this knowledge gap in the Mexican states of Sonora, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas. The area of study included authorized game farms where hunting is practiced. A total of 372 ticks [21 nymphs (5.65 %) and 351 adults (94.35 %); 41% female and 59 % male] were collected from 233 O. virginianus and four O. canadensis. The ticks collected from O. virginianus were identified as Otobius megnini, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus, and Dermacentor (Anocentor) nitens. Dermacentor hunteri was the only species collected from O. canadensis. Ears were the most infested region (83 females, 70 males, and 21 nymphs, 46.77 %), and the least infested body parts were the legs (10 males and nine females, 5.1 %). This study reports for the first time the abundance, intensity, and prevalence of ticks in O. virginianus in northern Mexico, particularly in the states of Tamaulipas and 177 Rev Mex Cienc Pecu 2021;12(1):177-193 Nuevo León, since the O.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Continental Divide Goat 2009...12
    WMU 402 Goat Survey – ACA/ASRD D‐AUS Report July 2009 By Alberta Conservation Association And Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife July, 2009 Blairmore, Alberta PERMISSION TO QUOTE This report contains preliminary information and interpretations and may be subject to future revision. To prevent the issuance of misleading information, persons wishing to quote from this report, to cite it in bibliographies or to use it in any other form must first obtain permission from the Executive Director of the Wildlife Management Branch, Fish and Wildlife Division and / or its regional representatives within the Southern Rockies Area. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The 2009 WMU 402 goat survey was navigated by Greg Hale (FW), while Mike Jokinen (ACA), Jon Jorgenson (FW) and Rob Watt (Parks Canada‐Waterton) participated as observers. The aircraft was chartered from Bighorn Helicopters with Greg Goodison as the pilot. ABSTRACT An aerial survey to monitor the status of the mountain goat population in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 402 was conducted on July 11th, 12th and 15th, 2009. Survey objectives included the collection of herd distribution, herd composition and total goat numbers. All mountain complexes associated with the WMU 402 goat survey received detailed aerial coverage during the survey. The WMU 402 survey area is the northern portion of Goat Management Area (GMA)–A, and currently does not have a designated goat hunting area. A total of 186 mountain goats (119 adults, 44 kids and 23 yearlings) were observed during the survey. Kid and yearling ratios per 100 adults were 37 and 19 respectively. Sixty nine goats were observed on the Alberta side of the Continental Divide while 41 goats were observed in British Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Sexual Dimorphism in Ceratopsid Horncores
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-01-25 Investigating Sexual Dimorphism in Ceratopsid Horncores Borkovic, Benjamin Borkovic, B. (2013). Investigating Sexual Dimorphism in Ceratopsid Horncores (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26635 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/498 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Investigating Sexual Dimorphism in Ceratopsid Horncores by Benjamin Borkovic A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CALGARY, ALBERTA JANUARY, 2013 © Benjamin Borkovic 2013 Abstract Evidence for sexual dimorphism was investigated in the horncores of two ceratopsid dinosaurs, Triceratops and Centrosaurus apertus. A review of studies of sexual dimorphism in the vertebrate fossil record revealed methods that were selected for use in ceratopsids. Mountain goats, bison, and pronghorn were selected as exemplar taxa for a proof of principle study that tested the selected methods, and informed and guided the investigation of sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs. Skulls of these exemplar taxa were measured in museum collections, and methods of analysing morphological variation were tested for their ability to demonstrate sexual dimorphism in their horns and horncores.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project
    Credits for cover photographs: Brian Wolitski Main cover photograph Anonymous Lake Louise visitor Grizzly bear family group on footbridge Cedar Mueller Bear #56 against fence Cover design Rob Storeshaw, Parks Canada, Calgary, Alberta Document design, layout and formatting: KH Communications, Canmore, Alberta Suggested means of citing this document Herrero, Stephen (editor). 2005. Biology, demography, ecology and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Suggested means of citing chapters or sections of this document S. Stevens, and M. Gibeau. 2005. Research methods regarding capture, handling and telemetry. Pages 17 — 19 in S. Herrero, editor. Biology, demography, ecology and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. BIOLOGY, DEMOGRAPHY, ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF GRIZZLY BEARS IN AND AROUND BANFF NATIONAL PARK AND KANANASKIS COUNTRY Final Report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project 2005 Edited by Stephen Herrero Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project, Environmental Sciences Program, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. ii DEDICATION To everyone who cares about grizzly bears and wildlife and the ecological systems and processes that support them. To the graduate students who were the core researchers: Bryon Benn, Mike Gibeau, John Kansas, Cedar Mueller, Karen Oldershaw, Saundi Stevens, and Jen Theberge. To the funding supporters who had the vision and faith that our research would be worthwhile.
    [Show full text]