Red Fox Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
										Recommended publications
									
								- 
												  2020-2021 Arizona Hunting RegulationsArizona Game and Fish Department 2020-2021 Arizona Hunting Regulations This publication includes the annual regulations for statewide hunting of deer, fall turkey, fall javelina, bighorn sheep, fall bison, fall bear, mountain lion, small game and other huntable wildlife. The hunt permit application deadline is Tuesday, June 9, 2020, at 11:59 p.m. Arizona time. Purchase Arizona hunting licenses and apply for the draw online at azgfd.gov. Report wildlife violations, call: 800-352-0700 Two other annual hunt draw booklets are published for the spring big game hunts and elk and pronghorn hunts. i Unforgettable Adventures. Feel-Good Savings. Heed the call of adventure with great insurance coverage. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on motorcycle insurance. geico.com | 1-800-442-9253 | Local Office Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states, in all GEICO companies, or in all situations. Motorcycle and ATV coverages are underwritten by GEICO Indemnity Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, DC 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. © 2019 GEICO ii ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT — AZGFD.GOV AdPages2019.indd 4 4/20/2020 11:49:25 AM AdPages2019.indd 5 2020-2021 ARIZONA HUNTING4/20/2020 REGULATIONS 11:50:24 AM 1 Arizona Game and Fish Department Key Contacts MAIN NUMBER: 602-942-3000 Choose 1 for known extension or name Choose 2 for draw, bonus points, and hunting and fishing license information Choose 3 for watercraft Choose 4 for regional
- 
												  The Red and Gray FoxThe Red and Gray Fox There are five species of foxes found in North America but only two, the red (Vulpes vulpes), And the gray (Urocyon cinereoargentus) live in towns or cities. Fox are canids and close relatives of coyotes, wolves and domestic dogs. Foxes are not large animals, The red fox is the larger of the two typically weighing 7 to 5 pounds, and reaching as much as 3 feet in length (not including the tail, which can be as long as 1 to 1 and a half feet in length). Gray foxes rarely exceed 11 or 12 pounds and are often much smaller. Coloration among fox greatly varies, and it is not always a sure bet that a red colored fox is indeed a “red fox” and a gray colored fox is indeed a “gray fox. The one sure way to tell them apart is the white tip of a red fox’s tail. Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargentus) Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) Regardless of which fox both prefer diverse habitats, including fields, woods, shrubby cover, farmland or other. Both species readily adapt to urban and suburban areas. Foxes are primarily nocturnal in urban areas but this is more an accommodation in avoiding other wildlife and humans. Just because you may see it during the day doesn’t necessarily mean it’s sick. Sometimes red fox will exhibit a brazenness that is so overt as to be disarming. A homeowner hanging laundry may watch a fox walk through the yard, going about its business, seemingly oblivious to the human nearby.
- 
												  Hunting Deer in CaliforniaHUNTING DEER IN CALIFORNIA We hope this guide will help deer hunters by encouraging a greater understanding of the various subspecies of mule deer found in California and explaining effective hunting techniques for various situations and conditions encountered throughout the state during general and special deer seasons. Second Edition August 2002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME L. Ryan Broddrick, Director WILDLIFE PROGRAMS BRANCH David S. Zezulak, Ph.D., Chief Written by John Higley Technical Advisors: Don Koch; Eric Loft, Ph.D.; Terry M. Mansfield; Kenneth Mayer; Sonke Mastrup; Russell C. Mohr; David O. Smith; Thomas B. Stone Graphic Design and Layout: Lorna Bernard and Dana Lis Cover Photo: Steve Guill Funded by the Deer Herd Management Plan Implementation Program TABLE OF CON T EN T S INTRODUCT I ON ................................................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1: THE DEER OF CAL I FORN I A .........................................................................................................7 Columbian black-tailed deer ....................................................................................................................8 California mule deer ................................................................................................................................8 Rocky Mountain mule deer .....................................................................................................................9
- 
												  Small Predator Impacts on DeerIMPACTS OF SMALL PREDATORS ON DEER TERRY BLANKENSHIP, Assistant Director, Welder Wildlife Foundation, P.O. Box 1400, Sinton, Tx 78387. Abstract: Predator size influences the type of prey taken. Generally, smaller predators rely on rabbits, rodents, birds, fruits, or insects. Food habit studies of several small predators indicate the presence of deer in the diet. Percentages of deer in the diet were larger in the north and northeast where variety of prey was lower. Studies conducted in the south and southeast generally found lower percentages of deer in the diets. Studies in the south indicate fawns were the age class of choice. Although food habit studies indicate the presence of deer in the diet, this does not show these predators have an impact on deer populations. The bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox diet of the smaller predators listed above (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox(Vulpes and the impact they may have on a deer vulpes), and golden eagle (Aquila population or a particular age class of deer. chrysaetos) are several of the smaller predators that have the potential to take deer BOBCAT (Odocoileus spp.) or a certain age class of deer. Much of the research conducted on A compilation of bobcat food habit the impacts of small predators on deer relate studies indicate rabbits (Lepus spp., to the presence or amount found in the diet. Sylvilagus spp.) were the primary prey taken Research has identified major prey items for throughout their range. Deer were an each of these predators in different regions important prey item in the northeast and of the United States.
- 
												  Vulpes Vulpes) Evolved Throughout History?University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses Environmental Studies Program 2020 TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND RED FOXES (VULPES VULPES) EVOLVED THROUGHOUT HISTORY? Abigail Misfeldt University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses Part of the Environmental Education Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Disclaimer: The following thesis was produced in the Environmental Studies Program as a student senior capstone project. Misfeldt, Abigail, "TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND RED FOXES (VULPES VULPES) EVOLVED THROUGHOUT HISTORY?" (2020). Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses. 283. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses/283 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Studies Program at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND RED FOXES (VULPES VULPES) EVOLVED THROUGHOUT HISTORY? By Abigail Misfeldt A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The University of Nebraska-Lincoln In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Bachelor of Science Major: Environmental Studies Under the Supervision of Dr. David Gosselin Lincoln, Nebraska November 2020 Abstract Red foxes are one of the few creatures able to adapt to living alongside humans as we have evolved. All humans and wildlife have some id of relationship, be it a friendly one or one of mutual hatred, or simply a neutral one. Through a systematic research review of legends, books, and journal articles, I mapped how humans and foxes have evolved together.
- 
												  Pheasant HuntYOUTH HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES Selected Wildlife TAKE A KID HUNTING Management Areas for the Pheasant Youth Pheasant Hunt Hunt: November 6, 2004 Saturday, Nov. 6, 2004 Guided Open Open The 2004 Take a Kid Hunting Pheasant Hunt WMA Morning After All will allow properly licensed hunters with a valid 1 pm Day youth license to hunt on one of nine stocked Whittingham X X Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) on Saturday Black River X X morning, Nov. 6, 2004. In a cooperative effort A proud hunter with his Flatbrook X between the Division of Fish and Wildlife and Youth Pheasant Hunt quarry. Clinton X X the NJ State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Assunpink X X volunteer hunting mentors with trained bird dogs will guide youth hunters on a pheasant Colliers Mills X X hunt. This experience will increase the young hunters’ opportunity for harvesting a Glassboro X Millville X X pheasant in a setting which encourages responsible and safe hunting practices. Peaslee X X All participants must pre-register and be accompanied to the check-in by a parent or guardian. Parents or guardians are welcomed and encouraged to follow the hunters Guided: Pre-registration required. through the fields. All pre-registered hunters will receive an information packet. One Open—Afternoon: Any youth hunter with session will be offered, starting at 7 a.m. a valid youth hunting license accompanied Only 50 youth hunters will be allowed on each WMA during each session. If the by a licensed, non-shooting adult (aged number of applicants exceeds the number of slots available, a random drawing will be 21 or older), will be permitted to hunt on held to select participants.
- 
												  Black Bear Information SheetMaine Chapter of The Wildlife Society Excellence In Wildlife Stewardship Through Science and Education The Maine Chapter of The Wildlife Society (MeTWS), established in 1976, is a local membership organization of The Wildlife Society, an international non-profit scientific and educational association dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education. The mission of MeTWS is to enhance the ability of wildlife professionals to conserve diversity, sustain productivity, and ensure responsible use of wildlife resources for the benefit of society. The membership of MeTWS includes approximately 120 wildlife professionals and other concerned individuals employed by government agencies, academic institutions, private firms, and non-governmental organizations, working to promote sound stewardship of wildlife resources throughout Maine. MAINE BLACK BEAR POPULATION INFORMATION April 16, 2004 Current Bear Status in Maine Black bears exist throughout the state with the exception of the extreme south-coastal region of the state. 23,000 bears are estimated to inhabit the state. Maine has the largest population of black bears of any state in the eastern U.S., and one of the largest populations within the lower-48. Regulated hunting and trapping are the primary methods used to manage the number of bears in the population. Black bears are an important component of the state’s ecosystem, and are valued by society, including hunters and non-hunters. Management History State legislature has the authority to enact laws to regulate bear populations, but practical aspects of implementing regulations were transferred to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) in 1972. Bears were bountied from 1770-1957; considered a pest species until 1931 (no closed season); a short season was established and opened coincidentally with the deer season from 1931-1941; year-round open season was reinstituted from 1942-1965; season lengths and harvests have changed since 1966.
- 
												  Elk Neck State Park Hunting 2020-2021 Rules, Regulations AndElk Neck State Park Hunting 2021-2022 Rules, Regulations and Policies 1. Bow hunters are required to wear fluorescent orange or daylight fluorescent pink during shotgun and muzzleloader seasons and Junior Hunt Day: a. October 21 – October 30, November 27 – December 11, December 18, 2021 – January 1, 2022 and January 7 – January 8, 2022. b. Junior Hunt Day: November 13, 2021. 2. All deer harvested count toward the state bag limits. 3. Shooting Hours a. ½ hour before sunrise to ½ hour after sunset. b. Hunters are permitted in the hunting areas 2 hours before sunrise and up to 2 hours after sunset. 4. Hunting is prohibited on Sundays. 5. Hunting is not permitted above or within 50 yards of a trail or road. 6. A DNR Managed Hunt Permit (MHP) and a Free Public Hunting Permit are required to hunt at Elk Neck State Park. Every hunter must have his or her own permit. These permits are NOT transferable. 7. All State and Federal hunting laws, as well as park regulations, will be strictly enforced. 8. Call ahead reservations through the Gwynnbrook Wildlife Office are required for the North East Beach Area. 9. Hunters (and non-hunting companions) must sign in and sign out at the sign-in box at each parking area EVERY time they enter or exit the hunting areas. 10. All harvested deer must be recorded at the sign-in box. 11. Park in designated areas only, as indicated by the hunting map. 12. Hunters are required to display their Free Public Hunting Permit on the dashboard of their vehicle.
- 
												  Pronghorn Antelope Workshop 20:5-23SOUTH DAKOTA PRONGHORN MANAGEMENT PLAN 2019 – 2029 SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF GAME, FISH AND PARKS PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA WILDLIFE DIVISION REPORT draft May 2019 This document is for general, strategic guidance for the Division of Wildlife and serves to identify what we strive to accomplish related to Pronghorn Management. This process will emphasize working cooperatively with interested publics in both the planning process and the regular program activities related to pronghorn management. This plan will be utilized by Department staff on an annual basis and will be formally evaluated at least every 10 years. Plan updates and changes, however, may occur more frequently as needed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This plan is a product of substantial discussion, debate, and input from many wildlife professionals. In addition, those comments and suggestions received from private landowners, hunters, and those who recognized the value of pronghorn and their associated habitats were also considered. Management Plan Coordinator – Andy Lindbloom, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP). SDGFP Pronghorn Management Plan Team that assisted with plan writing, data review and analyses, critical reviews and/or edits to the South Dakota Pronghorn Management Plan, 2019 - 2029 – Nathan Baker, Chalis Bird, Paul Coughlin, Josh Delger, Jacquie Ermer, Steve Griffin, Trenton Haffley, Corey Huxoll, John Kanta, Keith Fisk, Tom Kirschenmann, Chad Lehman, Cindy Longmire, Stan Michals, Mark Norton, Tim Olson, Chad Switzer, and Lauren Wiechmann. Cover art was provided by Adam Oswald. All text and data contained within this document are subject to revision for corrections, updates, and data analyses. Recommended Citation: South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks.
- 
												  Why Communities Are Welcoming Hunters and AnglersPotential Costs of Losing Hunting and Trapping as Wildlife Management Methods Updated: May 25th, 2005 Produced by the Animal Use Issues Committee of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 725 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 624-7890 www.IAFWA.org i Acknowledgements This report was developed for the Animal Use Issues Committee of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). Funding was provided by the Wildlife Restoration Program through Multistate Conservation Grant DC M-35-O awarded to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This report was authored by Rob Southwick, Ashley Woolley and Donna Leonard of Southwick Associates, Inc., Fernandina Beach, FL., and Sharon Rushton of Killingworth, CT. The project was conceived and championed by Bob Carmichael, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, and guided in part by Bruce Taubert, Arizona Game and Fish Department; Gordon Robertson, American Sportfishing Association; Don MacLauchlan and Jen Mock, IAFWA; and Mike S. O’Brien, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources. A special thank you goes to Rob Cahill, Fur Institute of Canada, for ensuring Canadian data and issues were a part of this report. Data was provided by many state, provincial, federal and private agencies and sources, with special mention to Martin Mendoza of the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Stephanie Kenyon and Carol Wynne, Point to Point Communications, Leesburg, Va., provided invaluable editorial and strategic guidance. Reviews and expertise were provided by Alan Clark, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Buddy Baker, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources; Gordon Batchellor, New York Department of Environmental Conservation; and John Erb of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
- 
												  Antelope Mule Deer White-Tailed Deer Elk Bighorn SheepTABLE OF CONTENTS Antelope Rattlesnake (745) - Areas 70-72 1 North Natrona (746) - Area 73 13 North Converse (748) - Areas 25, 26 17 Black Thunder (750) - Areas 4-9, 24, 27, 29 Mule Deer Cheyenne River (740) - Areas 7-14, 21 25 Black Hills (751) - Areas 1-6 29 North Converse (755) - Area 22 33 South Converse (756) - Area 65 36 Bates Hole - Hat Six (757) - Areas 66, 67 40 Rattlesnake (758) - Areas 88, 89 47 North Natrona (759) - Area 34 62 White-tailed Deer Black Hills (706) - Areas 1-6 67 Central (707) - Areas 7-15, 21, 22, 34, 65-67, 88, 89 71 Elk Black Hills (740) - Areas 1, 116, 117 75 Laramie Peak / Muddy Mountain (741) - Areas 7, 19 81 Rattlesnake (742) - Area 23 86 Pine Ridge (743) - Area 122 105 Bighorn Sheep Kouba Canyon (Non-herd unit) – Area 20 108 i 2019 - JCR Evaluation Form SPECIES: Pronghorn PERIOD: 6/1/2019 - 5/31/2020 HERD: PR745 - RATTLESNAKE HUNT AREAS: 70-72 PREPARED BY: HEATHER O'BRIEN 2014 - 2018 Average 2019 2020 Proposed Population: 10,769 10,315 9,965 Harvest: 499 1,110 1,340 Hunters: 518 1,126 1,400 Hunter Success: 96% 99% 96 % Active Licenses: 585 1,215 1,400 Active License Success: 85% 91% 96 % Recreation Days: 1,597 2,950 4,100 Days Per Animal: 3.2 2.7 3.1 Males per 100 Females 48 67 Juveniles per 100 Females 72 52 Population Objective (± 20%) : 12000 (9600 - 14400) Management Strategy: Special Percent population is above (+) or below (-) objective: -14.0% Number of years population has been + or - objective in recent trend: 3 Model Date: 04/06/2020 Proposed harvest rates (percent of pre-season estimate for each sex/age group): JCR Year Proposed Females year old: 10.9% 12.3% Males year old: 17.2% 27.5% Total: 10.6% 12.9% Proposed change in post-season population: -10.4% -9.2% 1 2020 HUNTING SEASONS RATTLESNAKE PRONGHORN HERD (PR745) Hunt Archery Dates Season Dates Type Quota Limitations Area Opens Closes Opens Closes 70 1 Aug.
- 
												  The Greater Prairie Chicken a National LookThe Greater Prairie Chicken A National Look W. Daniel Svedarsky, Ross H. Hier, Nova J. Silvy editors Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station University of Minnesota Saint Paul, Minnesota The University of Minnesota, including the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of numerous authors and associates to this publication: (alphabetically) R.D. Applegate, R.K. Anderson, R.S. Bergland, R.W. Cannon, D.M. Christisen, B. Crouch, T.L. Esker, L.F. Fredrickson, D.E. Gawlik, K.M. Giesen, C.P. Griffin, S. Gough, G.L. Heismeyer, G.J. Horak, R.E. Horton, J.R. Keir, G.D. Kobriger, M.A. Lockwood, L.M. Mechlin, M. Moe, M.E. Morrow, M.J. Peterson, M.A. Schroeder, S.A. Simpson, J.E. Toepfer, W.L. Vodehnal, R.L. Westemeier, B. Winter, D.H. Wolfe, T.J. Wolfe. Cover illustration by Karen A. Smith. Used with permission. Editorial assistance, publication design and production management was provided by experiment station senior editor Larry A. Etkin, in the Communication and Educational Technology Services unit of the University of Minnesota Extension Service. Commercial Products Disclaimer Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station or the University of Minnnesota is implied. Availability This miscellaneous publication of the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station is intended for a very specialized audience, and only a limited number of copies are available, at $25 each, for distribution to the public.