DOCSLIB.ORG

<I>Mycobacterium Bovis</I>

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
<I>Mycobacterium Bovis</I> University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Other Publications in Zoonotics and Wildlife Disease Wildlife Disease and Zoonotics 3-2011 Assessment of Pathways for the Introduction and Spread of Mycobacterium bovis in the United States Katie Portacci USDA APHIS, [email protected] Jason Lombard USDA APHIS Lauren Abrahamsen USDA APHIS Eric Bush USDA APHIS Charles Fossler USDA APHIS See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/zoonoticspub Part of the Agriculture Commons, Animal Diseases Commons, Animal Sciences Commons, Bacterial Infections and Mycoses Commons, Biology Commons, and the Immunology and Infectious Disease Commons Portacci, Katie; Lombard, Jason; Abrahamsen, Lauren; Bush, Eric; Fossler, Charles; Harris, Robert; Johnson, Kamina; Miller, Ryan S.; Mitchell, Dianna; Pritchard, Randy; Sweeney, Steven; and Weaver, Todd, "Assessment of Pathways for the Introduction and Spread of Mycobacterium bovis in the United States" (2011). Other Publications in Zoonotics and Wildlife Disease. 167. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/zoonoticspub/167 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Disease and Zoonotics at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Publications in Zoonotics and Wildlife Disease by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Katie Portacci, Jason Lombard, Lauren Abrahamsen, Eric Bush, Charles Fossler, Robert Harris, Kamina Johnson, Ryan S. Miller, Dianna Mitchell, Randy Pritchard, Steven Sweeney, and Todd Weaver This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ zoonoticspub/167 United States Department of Assessment of Pathways for the Agriculture Introduction and Spread of Animal and Plant Health Mycobacterium bovis in the United Inspection Service States, 2009 Veterinary Services March 2011 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Veterinary Services, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health NRRC Building B, M.S. 2E7 2150 Centre Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117 (970) 494-7000 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.aphis.usda.gov/about_aphis/programs_offices/veterinary_services/ceah.shtml ii Suggested bibliographic citation for this report: USDA. 2009. Assessment of Pathways for the Introduction and Spread of Mycobacterium bovis in the United States, 2009 USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH. Fort Collins, CO Contacts for further information: Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Katie Portacci (970) 494-7001 E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the reviewers from Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS’s) Veterinary Services (VS), Wildlife Services (WS), Animal Care (AC), and International Services (IS) for their time and effort. Also, thank you to several individuals from VS’ National Animal Health Policy and Programs, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH), National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), Eastern Region, and Western Region, as well as Wildlife Services’ National Wildlife Disease and Emergency Response Program for providing the information and guidance needed. Contributors: Editors: Drs. Katie Portacci and Jason Lombard Authors: Ms. Lauren Abrahamsen, Dr. Eric Bush, Dr. Charles Fossler, Dr. Robert Harris, Ms. Kamina Johnson, Dr. Jason Lombard, Mr. Ryan Miller, Ms. Diana Mitchell, Dr. Katie Portacci, Dr. Randy Pritchard, Dr. Steve Sweeney, and Dr. Todd Weaver iii Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 1. Overview of the Current Bovine TB Program ................................................................................. 3 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Epidemiology of M. bovis ............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 M. bovis activity in the United States ........................................................................................... 4 1.4 References ................................................................................................................................. 16 2. Recent Bovine TB Outbreaks ....................................................................................................... 18 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 18 2.2 Tuberculosis in California cattle herds, 2007–2009 ................................................................... 18 2.3 Tuberculosis in Michigan cattle herds, 1998–2009 .................................................................... 28 2.4 Tuberculosis in Minnesota cattle herds, 2005–2008 .................................................................. 40 2.5 Tuberculosis in New Mexico cattle herds, 2002–2009............................................................... 47 2.6 Summary of outbreaks ............................................................................................................... 53 2.7 References ................................................................................................................................. 53 3. Legal and Illegal Importation of Cattle .......................................................................................... 55 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 55 3.2 U.S. cattle imports and regulations ............................................................................................ 55 3.3 U.S. cattle imports from Mexico ................................................................................................. 57 3.4 U.S. cattle imports from Canada ................................................................................................ 61 3.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 62 3.6 References ................................................................................................................................. 63 4. U.S. Cattle Industry Practices ....................................................................................................... 65 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 65 4.2 The role of management practices in current U.S. bovine TB outbreaks .................................. 66 4.3 Management practices related to TB risk in the beef cow-calf industry ..................................... 67 4.4 Management practices related to TB risk in the dairy industry .................................................. 74 4.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 81 4.6 References ................................................................................................................................. 81 5. U.S. Captive Cervid Industry ........................................................................................................ 83 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 83 5.2 Captive cervid distribution .......................................................................................................... 83 5.3 Regulations and regulatory authorities ...................................................................................... 87 5.4 Bovine TB surveillance in captive cervids .................................................................................. 88 5.5 Historical occurrences of M. bovis in captive cervids in the United States ................................ 90 5.6 Mitigation and future needs .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download the Entire Fall 2013 Issue
    american fall 2013 The Long Ride The Tour DiviDe is 2,800 miles of ruggeD foresT Terrain, unforgiving weaTher anD enDurance pusheD To The limiTs, all from The saDDle of a bike. Vol 119 No 2 CONTENTS Fall 2013 Departments 2 Offshoots A word from our CEO 4 Tree Doctor Advice from tree care experts 6 Treelines Alligator juniper, longleaf pine and post-Irene reforestation in 24 44 Vermont, plus: FOREST FRONTIERS: Meet Phil Radtke, a member of the Big Tree Program’s new Measuring Guidelines Working Group. PARTNERS: Bank of America e. L Charitable Foundation partners with us for Community ReLeaf easda t in five cities. Plus, join our exclusive trip to Mexico to meet aron the monarchs. a y B FROM THE FIELD: American Forests staffers report on proj- ects happening in Wyoming and Tennessee and share exciting oute. Photo oute. Photo r news of an award. 38 People and Trees By Ruth Wilson Muse upon our connection to trees and the many ways they bring ivide Mountain Bike ivide Mountain d meaning into our lives. 44 Earthkeepers A WILD CROP AND BACKYARD HARVEST 16 By Jack Wax Meet the man who turns a wild crop into the nuts in your snack drawer. Features 48 Last Look By Tatiana Boyle ed Meadow Pass in Montana on the Great on the Great in Montana Pass ed Meadow 16 24 32 r The Long Ride Aspen in a Reintroducing By Bob Marr Changing Elk to the es toward es toward CL Join us on a bike ride along the y CORRECTIONS C continental divide from Canada to World Great Smoky Spring/Summer 2013, cover and “Islands By Tyler Williams in the Balance,” p.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Abundance of Tule Elk in the Owens Valley January 2020
    Owens Valley Tule Elk Report 2020 Distribution and Abundance of Tule Elk in the Owens Valley January 2020 This final report fulfills the objectives that were outlined in the “Owens Valley Elk Movement” project proposal with a project start date of spring 2015 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Bishop, California Mike Morrison, Environmental Scientist Cody Massing, Environmental Scientist Dave German, Research Analyst Tom Stephenson, Wildlife Supervisor 1 Owens Valley Tule Elk Report 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2019, the minimum count for the Owens Valley population of tule elk (Cervus canadensis nannodes) was 343 elk with an annual recruitment rate of 0.37; the historic average annual population and recruitment rate were 335 and 0.30, respectively. The Owens Valley population of tule elk is distributed between lowland habitat, concentrated mainly around the Owens River and east of U.S. Highway 395, and upland habitat, which is located on the west side of Highway 395 along the base of the Sierra Nevada mountains. The lowland population is comprised of the Bishop, Tinemaha, Independence, and Lone Pine sub-herds with a current population of 196 tule elk. The upland population is comprised of the Tinemaha West, Tinemaha Mountain, Goodale, and Whitney sub-herds with a current population of 147 tule elk. There are no known cow elk occupying the Tinemaha Mountain sub-herd at present. In February 2019, 30 tule elk were translocated from the Central Valley to the Owens Valley. Eight bulls and twelve cows were translocated from the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (SLNWR) in Los Banos on February 2 and one bull along with nine cows were translocated from the Tupman State Reserve in Buttonwillow (near Bakersfield) on February 3, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Summary for June 24-25, 2020
    Item No. 2 STAFF SUMMARY FOR JUNE 24-25, 2020 2. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (DAY 1) Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ Receive public comments, petitions for regulation change, and requests for non-regulatory actions for items not on the agenda. Summary of Previous/Future Actions • Today receive requests and Jun 24-25, 2020; Webinar/teleconference comments • Consider granting, denying or referring Aug 19-20, 2020; Fortuna Background This agenda item is to provide the public an opportunity to address FGC on topics not on the agenda. Staff may include written materials and comments received prior to the meeting as exhibits in the meeting binder (if received by written comment deadline), or as supplemental comments at the meeting (if received by the supplemental comment deadline). Public comments are generally categorized into three types under general public comment: (1) petitions for regulation change; (2) requests for non-regulatory action; and (3) informational- only comments. Under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, FGC cannot discuss or take action on any matter not included on the agenda, other than to schedule issues raised by the public for consideration at future meetings. Thus, petitions for regulation change and non- regulatory requests generally follow a two-meeting cycle (receipt and direction); FGC will determine the outcome of the petitions for regulation change and non-regulatory requests received at today’s meeting at the next regular FGC meeting, following staff evaluation (currently Aug 19-20, 2020). As required by the Administrative Procedure Act, petitions for regulation change will be either denied or granted and notice made of that determination.
    [Show full text]
  • Mixed-Species Exhibits with Pigs (Suidae)
    Mixed-species exhibits with Pigs (Suidae) Written by KRISZTIÁN SVÁBIK Team Leader, Toni’s Zoo, Rothenburg, Luzern, Switzerland Email: [email protected] 9th May 2021 Cover photo © Krisztián Svábik Mixed-species exhibits with Pigs (Suidae) 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3 Use of space and enclosure furnishings ................................................................... 3 Feeding ..................................................................................................................... 3 Breeding ................................................................................................................... 4 Choice of species and individuals ............................................................................ 4 List of mixed-species exhibits involving Suids ........................................................ 5 LIST OF SPECIES COMBINATIONS – SUIDAE .......................................................... 6 Sulawesi Babirusa, Babyrousa celebensis ...............................................................7 Common Warthog, Phacochoerus africanus ......................................................... 8 Giant Forest Hog, Hylochoerus meinertzhageni ..................................................10 Bushpig, Potamochoerus larvatus ........................................................................ 11 Red River Hog, Potamochoerus porcus ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Dakota Elk Management Plan 2015-2019
    SOUTH DAKOTA ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN 2015-2019 SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF GAME, FISH AND PARKS PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA WILDLIFE DIVISION REPORT 2015-01 APRIL 2015 This document is for general, strategic guidance for the Division of Wildlife and serves to identify what we strive to accomplish related to elk management. This plan will be utilized by Department staff and Commission on an annual basis and will be formally evaluated at least every 5 years. Plan updates and changes, however, may occur more frequently as needed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This plan is a product of substantial discussion and input from many wildlife professionals. In addition, those comments and suggestions received from private landowners, hunters, and those who recognize the value of elk and their associated habitats were also considered. Management Plan Coordinator – Andy Lindbloom, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP). SDGFP Elk Management Plan Team that assisted with plan writing, data review and analyses, critical reviews and/or edits to the 2015 Elk Management Plan – Nathan Baker, Gary Brundige, Paul Coughlin, Shelly Deisch, Keith Fisk, Steve Griffin, Corey Huxoll, John Kanta, Emily Kiel, Tom Kirschenmann, Chad Lehman, Cynthia Longmire, Stan Michals, Mark Norton, Kevin Robling, Chad Switzer, and Lauren Wiechmann. Those who served on the South Dakota Elk Stakeholder Group during this planning process included: Travis Bies (Western SDGFP Regional Advisory Panel/BHNF Grazing Permittee); Kerry Burns (United States Forest Service); Tim Gutormson (Southeast
    [Show full text]
  • Cow Elk Ecology, Movements and Habitat Use in the Duck Mountains of Manitoba
    COW ELK ECOLOGY, MOVEMENTS AND HABITAT USE IN THE DUCK MOUNTAINS OF MANITOBA MASTER OF ENVIRONMENT THESIS June 2009 Daniel John Chranowski Master of Environment University of Manitoba Faculty of Graduate Studies Department of Environment & Geography © i ABSTRACT This study conducted baseline research to determine home range, movements and habitat selection of Manitoban elk (Cervus elaphus manitobensis) in the Duck Mountain (DM) of west-central Manitoba. Cow elk (n =22) were captured by helicopter net-gun and GPS radio-collared in 2005/06. Data was analyzed with ArcView 3.3 for Windows (ESRI). DM elk show selection for deciduous forest and avoidance of roads. Mean 100% MCP home ranges were 127.85 km2 with 95% and 50% adaptive kernel home range sizes of 58.24 km2 and 7.29 km2, respectively. Home range overlap occurs at all times of the year with many elk using farmland. Elk moved the least in late winter. Movements increased in the spring, declined in June with a gradual increase from July to October. Elk had generalized movement in southerly directions. No cow elk dispersed from the study area. Mean estimated calving date was June 3rd and mean estimated breeding date was September 27th. DM elk were found in mature deciduous/mixed-wood forest and shrub/grassland/prairie savannah ecosites but not found within 200 m of a road or water feature more often than expected by random. Elk were found in areas with <10% and >81% crown closure, on middle slopes and variable aspects. Elk displaced from forestry cut-blocks. Only 149 of 79,284 elk locations were within 100 m of a winter cattle operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Prehistoric Humans and Elk (Cervus Canadensis) in the Western Great Lakes: a Zooarchaeological Perspective
    University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations May 2020 Prehistoric Humans and Elk (cervus Canadensis) in the Western Great Lakes: A Zooarchaeological Perspective Rebekah Ann Ernat University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.uwm.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Ernat, Rebekah Ann, "Prehistoric Humans and Elk (cervus Canadensis) in the Western Great Lakes: A Zooarchaeological Perspective" (2020). Theses and Dissertations. 2372. https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/2372 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PREHISTORIC HUMANS AND ELK (CERVUS CANADENSIS) IN THE WESTERN GREAT LAKES: A ZOOARCHAEOLGOCIAL PERSPECTIVE by Rebekah Ann Ernat A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Anthropology at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee May 2020 ABSTRACT PREHISTORIC HUMANS AND ELK (CERVUS CANADENSIS) IN THE WESTERN GREAT LAKES: A ZOOARCHAEOLGOCIAL PERSPECTIVE by Rebekah Ann Ernat The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2020 Under the Supervision of Professor Jean Hudson This thesis examines the relationship between humans and elk (Cervus canadensis) in the western Great Lakes region from prehistoric through early historic times, with a focus on Wisconsin archaeological sites. It takes a social zooarchaeological perspective, drawing from archaeological, ecological, biological, historical, and ethnographic sources. I also use optimal foraging theory to examine subsistence-related decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • FEIS Citation Retrieval System Keywords
    FEIS Citation Retrieval System Keywords 29,958 entries as KEYWORD (PARENT) Descriptive phrase AB (CANADA) Alberta ABEESC (PLANTS) Abelmoschus esculentus, okra ABEGRA (PLANTS) Abelia × grandiflora [chinensis × uniflora], glossy abelia ABERT'S SQUIRREL (MAMMALS) Sciurus alberti ABERT'S TOWHEE (BIRDS) Pipilo aberti ABIABI (BRYOPHYTES) Abietinella abietina, abietinella moss ABIALB (PLANTS) Abies alba, European silver fir ABIAMA (PLANTS) Abies amabilis, Pacific silver fir ABIBAL (PLANTS) Abies balsamea, balsam fir ABIBIF (PLANTS) Abies bifolia, subalpine fir ABIBRA (PLANTS) Abies bracteata, bristlecone fir ABICON (PLANTS) Abies concolor, white fir ABICONC (ABICON) Abies concolor var. concolor, white fir ABICONL (ABICON) Abies concolor var. lowiana, Rocky Mountain white fir ABIDUR (PLANTS) Abies durangensis, Coahuila fir ABIES SPP. (PLANTS) firs ABIETINELLA SPP. (BRYOPHYTES) Abietinella spp., mosses ABIFIR (PLANTS) Abies firma, Japanese fir ABIFRA (PLANTS) Abies fraseri, Fraser fir ABIGRA (PLANTS) Abies grandis, grand fir ABIHOL (PLANTS) Abies holophylla, Manchurian fir ABIHOM (PLANTS) Abies homolepis, Nikko fir ABILAS (PLANTS) Abies lasiocarpa, subalpine fir ABILASA (ABILAS) Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica, corkbark fir ABILASB (ABILAS) Abies lasiocarpa var. bifolia, subalpine fir ABILASL (ABILAS) Abies lasiocarpa var. lasiocarpa, subalpine fir ABILOW (PLANTS) Abies lowiana, Rocky Mountain white fir ABIMAG (PLANTS) Abies magnifica, California red fir ABIMAGM (ABIMAG) Abies magnifica var. magnifica, California red fir ABIMAGS (ABIMAG) Abies
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Elk Distribution on the Canadian Prairies
    MAPPING ELK DISTRIBUTION ON THE CANADIAN PRAIRIES: APPLYING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE TO SUPPORT CONSERVATION A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science In the Department of Animal and Poultry Science University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By MOLLY JANE PATTERSON Copyright Molly Jane Patterson, June, 2014. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Animal and Poultry Science University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8 i ABSTRACT Once abundant across the Great Plains of North America, prairie-parkland elk (Cervus canadensis manitobensis) underwent a catastrophic population collapse and dramatic contraction of their overall range through the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s due to habitat loss (primarily from agricultural expansion) and unregulated hunting.
    [Show full text]
  • Elk (Cervus Elaphus Manitobensis)
    Elk (Cervus elaphus manitobensis) Considered one of Manitoba’s most valued wildlife resources, this species is an integral part of the landscape for the aspen-parkland and mixed prairie-parkland habitats. Elk are valued by many, and provide special enjoyment for viewing and hunting by licenced and rights-based hunters. Because of early and ongoing adaptive management practices, the provincial elk population has increased and expanded in range occupied from an estimated 500 animals in 1914 to the current estimate of 6,500 animals. Presently, there are 10 identified populations located in the south central third of the province. There are also several satellite herds, which are too small to be considered separate herds. The current distribution of elk inhabit Riding Mountain, Duck Mountain, Porcupine Mountain, Turtle Mountain, Spruce Woods-Shilo, Tiger Hills and north and south Interlake areas. Small satellite herds exist in the, Pine River, Ethelbert, Souris River, Rock Lake, The Pas, Kettle Hills and Vita areas. Description Bulls reach full size at 5 years, (prime years span between 4 – 8 years), and cows at 4 years of age. During their first winter, calves are 40 per cent of adult weight, and yearlings are 67 per cent of adult weight. Calves are born late May to early June, their coat is a yellowish-brown with spots to blend in with their environment. Calves shed their spotted coat in September and assume a dark brown juvenile coat. A dark brown head, mane, neck and limbs, a lighter yellowish-brown coloured body and rump patch, and a short tail characterize adult colouration.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Elk (Cervus Canadensis) Restoration in Ontario
    The History of Elk ( Cervus canadensis ) Restoration in Ontario JOsEf HamR 1, f Rank f. m allORy 2, 3 , and Ivan fIlIOn 1 1applied Research, Cambrian College of applied arts and Technology, sudbury, Ontario P3a 3v8 Canada 2Department of Biology, laurentian University, sudbury, Ontario P3E 2C6 Canada 3Corresponding author: [email protected] Hamr, Josef, frank f. mallory, and Ivan filion. 2016. History of Elk ( Cervus canadensis ) restoration in Ontario. Canadian field- naturalist 130(2): 167–173. Elk ( Cervus canadensis ) historically inhabited southern Quebec and central Ontario, but, by the early 1900s, the species was extir - pated from this region. attempts to re-establish an Elk population in Ontario during the first half of the 20th century had limited success. We reviewed historical documents, population census records, and a previous study pertaining to Elk reintroduced to Ontario in the early 1900s for clues to the cause(s) of their limited population growth. after an apparent rapid population increase in the 1940s followed by unregulated hunting during the subsequent 3 decades, Elk abundance in Ontario had not appreciably changed from 1970 to 1997, most likely because of the small founding population, unsustainable hunting, and accidental mortality. after the abolition of legal hunting in 1980, natural mortality appeared to be the main limiting factor. a limited sample of preg - nancy and calf recruitment rates, body measurements, and physical condition parameters collected in 1993–1997, suggested that adults were healthy, reproducing successfully, and not limited by food availability; thus, it was concluded that remnant Elk popula - tions could be augmented by introducing additional animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Grassland Ecosystem Conditions in the Southwestern United States: Wildlife and fish—Volume 2
    United States Department of Agriculture Assessment of Grassland Forest Service Ecosystem Conditions in the Rocky Mountain Research Station Southwestern United States: General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-135-vol. 2. Wildlife and Fish September 2005 Volume 2 Editor Deborah M. Finch Abstract__________________________________________________ Finch, Deborah M., Editor. 2005. Assessment of grassland ecosystem conditions in the Southwestern United States: wildlife and fish—volume 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-135-vol. 2. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agricul- ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 168 p. This report is volume 2 of a two-volume ecological assessment of grassland ecosystems in the Southwestern United States. Broad-scale assessments are syntheses of current scientific knowledge, including a description of uncertainties and assumptions, to provide a characterization and comprehensive description of ecological, social, and economic components within an assessment area. Volume 1 of this assessment focused on the ecology, types, conditions, and man- agement practices of Southwestern grasslands. Volume 2 (this volume) describes wildlife and fish species, their habitat requirements, and species-specific management concerns, in Southwestern grasslands. This assessment is regional in scale and pertains primarily to lands administered by the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service (Arizona, New Mexico, western Texas, and western Oklahoma). A primary purpose of volume 1 is to provide information to employees of the National Forest System for managing grassland ecosystems and landscapes, both at the Forest Plan level for Plan amendments and revisions, and at the project level to place site-specific activities within the larger framework. This volume should also be useful to State, municipal, and other Federal agencies, and to private landowners that manage grasslands in the Southwestern United States.
    [Show full text]