DOCSLIB.ORG

Allred, M. 1981. the Potential Use of Beaver Population Density in Beaver Resource Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Allred, M. 1981. the Potential Use of Beaver Population Density in Beaver Resource Management References- Allred, M. 1981. The potential use of beaver population density in beaver resource management. Journal of the Idaho Academy of Science. 17(1): 14-24. Borrecco, J.E.; Black, H.C. 1990. Animal damage problems and control activities on National Forest System lands. In: Davis, L.R.; Marsh, R.E.; Beadle, D.E., eds. Proceedings, 14th vertebrate pest conference; 1990 March 6-8; Sacramento, CA. Davis, CA: University of California: 192-198. Bradt, G.W. 1947. Michigan beaver management. Lansing, Ml: Michigan Department of Conservation, Game Division. 56 p. Dyer, J.N.; Rowell, C.E. 1985. An investigation of techniques used to discourage rebuilding of beaver dams demolished by explosives. In: Bromley, P.T., ed. Proceedings, 2d Eastern wildlife damage conference; 1985 September 22-25; Raleigh, NC. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University: 97-120. Fisher, P.H. 1986. Keeping beavers from plugging culvert inlets. Engineering Field Notes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 18: 9-13. Fitzgerald, W.S.; Thompson, R.A. 1988. Problems associated with beaver in stream or floodway management. In: Crabb, A.C.; Marsh, R.E., eds. Proceedings, 13th vertebrate pest conference; 1988 March 1-3; Monterey, CA. Davis, CA: University of California: 190-195. Hill, E.P. 1982. Beaver (Castor canadensis). In: Chapman, J.A.; Feldhamer, G.A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 256-281. Medin, D.E.; Torquemada, K.E. 1988. Beaver in western North America: an annotated bibliography, 1966 to 1986. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-242. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 18 p. Owen, C.N.; Adams, D.L.; Wigley, T.B. 1984. Inefficacy of a deer repellent on beavers. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12: 405-408. Provost, E.E. 1958. Studies on reproduction and population dynamics in beaver. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 78 p. Ph.D. dissertation. Roblee, K.J. 1983. The use of corrugated plastic drainage tubing and wire mesh culverts for controlling water levels at nuisance beaver sites. In: Decker, D.J., ed. Proceedings, 1st Eastern wildlife damage control conference; 1983 September 27-30; Ithaca, NY. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Cooperative Extension: 56-57. Roblee, K.J. 1987. The use of T-culvert guard to protect road culverts from plugging by beavers. In: Holler, N.E., ed. Proceedings, 3d Eastern wildlife damage control conference; 1987 October 18-21; Gulf Shores, AL. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Cooperative Extension: 25-41. Wigley, T.B., Jr. 1981. A model of beaver damage and control. State College, MS: Mississippi State University. 151 p. Ph.D. dissertation. Nutria (Myocaster copypu) Description-These semiaquatic rodents are native to South America. They resemble beavers but have long round tails. Males sometimes weigh as much as 20 pounds, but most adults weigh about 8 pounds. Their hind feet are webbed between the inner four toes. Economic significance-Nutria may cause damage to newly planted cypress seedlings and are a deterrent to natural regeneration of cypress in some flooded areas of the Southeastern United States. They also may cause minor damage to Douglas-fir plantations in western Oregon and Washington. Life history information- Preferred habitat-Wetlands and flooded areas provide ideal habitat. Through escape from fur farms and distribution by fur trappers, nutria have established substantial populations in Oregon and Washington, North Carolina to Maryland, and Alabama to Texas. Wild populations have been reported in at least 40 States. Feeding habits-Nutria commonly feed on the basal parts of soft grasses or aquatic plants. They may eat several pounds of food daily. Activity--When alarmed on land, these animals splash into water and may remain hidden in aquatic vegetation. Like muskrats, they build feeding platforms of discarded plant parts. They may dig extensive burrow systems and are primarily nocturnal animals. Reproduction-Nutria breed throughout the year; litter size averages five young, after a 130-day pregnancy. Newborns are fully furred, with their eyes open and can swim immediately. Damage problems and their management-Nutria have been damaging newly planted cypress seedlings in Louisiana since the late 1940s. By 1960, the problem was so serious that the USDA Soil Conservation Service recommended that further plantings be suspended until a control method was available. In a 1985 test, plastic seedling protectors were chewed through at the water level, the seedlings were clipped and dropped and the taproots pulled out. The taproot bark and root collars were eaten. All seedlings were destroyed within 8 weeks. Chickenwire fences pro- vided excellent protection from nutria in dry areas. Individual wire tubes for use as seedling protectors were found to be difficult to make and install. Zinc phosphide is the only Federally registered toxicant for use in nutria control and usually is used with fresh carrot bait, after prebaiting. Baiting procedures are difficult and must be carefully followed for effectiveness and safety. Forest Service personnel should consult with their wildlife biologist, Regional Office pesticide-use specialist, or APHIS-ADC personnel for the latest control recommendations before initiating control practices. In some states, nutria are protected furbearers; consult state wildlife officials before initiating controls. 119 References- Connor, W.H.; Toliver, J.R. 1987. The problem of planting Louisiana swamplands when nutria (Myocaster coypu) are present. In: Holler, N.R., ed. Proceedings, 3d Eastern wildlife damage control conference; 1987 October 18-21; Gulf Shores, AL. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Cooperative Extension: 42-49. Evans, J. 1983. Nutria. In: Timm, R.M., ed. Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Cooperative Extension: B-61 to B-70. Evans, J. 1987. Vexar seedling protectors did not reduce nutria damage to planted bald cypress seedlings. Tree Planters Notes. 38(3): 26-29. Willner, G.R. 1982. Nutria. In: Chapman, J.A.; Feldhamer, G.A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 1059-1076. Meadow Voles Description-Meadow voles (also known as field (Microtus spp.) mice) are mostly brownish gray, with dense fur, beady eyes, small ears, and relatively short tails. The several species of meadow voles differ widely in size; the combined length of their heads and bodies ranges from 2 to 5 inches. Vole presence is indicated by 1/2-inch-wide runways through matted grass. Further evidence includes small piles of droppings and short clippings of grass along these runways. Lemmings, tree voles, and redback voles may be confused with Microtus spp. Individual species coloration is the main distinguishing factor. Economic significance-Meadow voles eat conifer seeds, newly germinated seed- lings, and bark of young trees. They can cause serious damage to conifer plantations, especially where snow occurs in winter. Meadow voles also are detrimental to many agricultural crops during periods when their populations are high. Life history information- Preferred habitat-Meadow voles occur in a variety of sites with sufficient vegetation to provide food and cover. Grassy areas provide the most desirable habitat. Feeding habits-All types of vegetation, including grass, herbaceous foliage, twigs, roots, seeds, and bark, are eaten. Activity--Meadow voles are active both day and night throughout the year. Their pre- sence is readily detected by distinct winding runways beneath the vegetation. Each vole usually maintains its own set of runways, but its territory may be occupied by several voles. Individual home territories range from a few square feet to areas as large as 0.1 acre. Damage problems and their management- Identification-Barking of small limbs and seedlings is characterized by indistinct tooth marks and a fuzzy, roughened appearance (fig. 31). Areas of dense ground vegetation have numerous distinct runways. 120 Figure 31-Vole-barked seedlings showing typical roughened stem. Determining the need for damage management-Meadow vole populations fluctu- ate dramatically, often causing damage at high-population levels, with populations dropping after damage is noticed and before control is undertaken. When considering whether to undertake damage management, be sure to verify that a problem still exists, as the population can crash in a matter of weeks. Management methods- BaitineMeadow voles usually can be controlled with 2-percent zinc phosphide- treated grain. Distribute the bait in quantities of l/2 teaspoonful directly in runways and burrows. The quantity of bait needed per acre will differ depending on vole density and distribution and on the density of cover. Six pounds of bait per acre normally is enough to control high populations in dense cover. Correct bait placement is very important, as the voles seldom venture from the protection of their runways. Baiting is most effective in late fall. Baiting may be needed for several years in problem areas. Anticoagulants are registered for use in some states. Check with your wildlife biologist or Regional Office pesticide-use specialist to determine the status of toxicants registered in your area. Habitat man$u/atio+Removing food and cover is an effective method for con- trolling damage by meadow voles, but it may have adverse effects on other wildlife. This approach to damage control is most applicable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thurston County Species List
    Washington Gap Analysis Project 202 Species Predicted or Breeding in: Thurston County CODE COMMON NAME Amphibians RACAT Bullfrog RHCAS Cascade torrent salamander ENES Ensatina AMMA Long-toed salamander AMGR Northwestern salamander RAPR Oregon spotted frog DITE Pacific giant salamander PSRE Pacific treefrog (Chorus frog) RAAU Red-legged frog TAGR Roughskin newt ASTR Tailed frog PLVA Van Dyke's salamander PLVE Western redback salamander BUBO Western toad Birds BOLE American bittern FUAM American coot COBR American crow CIME American dipper CATR American goldfinch FASP American kestrel TUMI American robin HALE Bald eagle COFA Band-tailed pigeon HIRU Barn swallow STVA Barred owl CEAL Belted kingfisher THBE Bewick's wren PAAT Black-capped chickadee PHME Black-headed grosbeak ELLE Black-shouldered kite (White-tailed kite DENI Black-throated gray warbler DEOB Blue grouse ANDI Blue-winged teal EUCY Brewer's blackbird CEAM Brown creeper MOAT Brown-headed cowbird PSMI Bushtit CACAL California quail BRCA Canada goose VISO Cassin's vireo (Solitary vireo) BOCE Cedar waxwing PARU Chestnut-backed chickadee SPPA Chipping sparrow NatureMapping 2007 Washington Gap Analysis Project ANCY Cinnamon teal HIPY Cliff swallow TYAL Common barn-owl MERME Common merganser CHMI Common nighthawk COCOR Common raven GAGA Common snipe GETR Common yellowthroat ACCO Cooper's hawk JUHY Dark-eyed (Oregon) junco PIPU Downy woodpecker STVU European starling COVE Evening grosbeak PAIL Fox sparrow ANST Gadwall AQCH Golden eagle RESA Golden-crowned kinglet PECA Gray jay ARHE Great
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Beavers
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center Wildlife Damage for July 1994 Mountain Beavers Dan L. Campbell USDA-APHIS-Animal Damage Control, Olympia, WA Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Campbell, Dan L., "Mountain Beavers" (1994). The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. 14. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Dan L. Campbell Project Leader Olympia Field Station MOUNTAIN BEAVERS Denver Wildlife Research Center USDA-APHIS- Animal Damage Control Olympia, Washington 98512 Fig. 1. Mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa Damage Prevention and Repellents Identification Control Methods 36% Big Game Repellent Powder has The mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa, been registered for mountain beaver Exclusion Fig. 1) is a medium-sized rodent in the in Washington and Oregon. family Aplodontiadae. There are no Use plastic mesh seedling protectors Toxicants other species in the family. Average on small tree seedlings. Wire mesh adults weigh 2.3 pounds (1,050 g) and cages are somewhat effective, but A pelleted strychnine alkaloid bait was range from 1.8 to 3.5 pounds (800 to large diameter cages are expensive registered in Oregon but may be 1,600 g). Average overall length is 13.5 and allow animals to enter them.
    [Show full text]
  • Morse Wildlife Preserve Interpretive Trail Guide 3
    MORSE WILDLIFE PRESERVE INTERPRETIVE TRAIL GUIDE 3 This Interpretive Trail Guide offers visitors a route to WELCOME TO THE MORSE WILDLIFE PRESERVE follow for maximum enjoyment of the Preserve. A THRIVING PARTNERSHIP STOP 1 | MAIN KIOSK You are welcome to walk the trails in any direction. The The Morse Wildlife Preserve contains over 90 acres of land that was preserved to be wildlife habitat. It guide lists points of interest numbered 1 through 36. Stop 2 also provides an exceptional educational and recreational experience for hundreds of visitors each year. is north of the main kiosk in the dry Douglas-fir forest. The Forterra, Tahoma Audubon Society, and the Morse Force work together to help steward the land for numbered stops continue clockwise through the prairie, along today’s visitors and future generations. the wetland edge, to the tower, onto the boardwalk crossing Muck Creek, into the moist lowland mixed forest and forested The preserve started with a donation of about 50 acres of land from Lloyd and Maxine Morse. A private wetlands, and finally back through the prairie into the oak party purchased another 40-plus acres and then donated that land to the Tahoma Land Conservancy savanna before returning to the dry Douglas-fir forest. In this (now Forterra). Forterra owns the property, while the Tahoma Audubon Society provides educational Trail Guide, the trails and stops are color coded to indicate habitat types that have a common ecological origin. programming and support. The Morse Force, a group of dedicated local volunteers, provides essential management and maintenance support, including staffing for work parties and events like Second Sunday.
    [Show full text]
  • Acanthus Family Paznehtníkovité
    acanthus family paznehtníkovité antlion family mravkolevovití acoleomate láčkovci ant-loving cricket family cvrčíkovití actinomycete aktinomycety ape lidoopi,primáti adlai slzy Jobovy apeman lidoopi admiral family babočkovití aphid family mšicovití aepyornitis epyornitidi apionid weevil family nosatčíkovití aestivating lungfish family američtí bahní- apple subfamily jabloňové kovití arachnid pavoukovci African lungfish family afričtí bahníkovití arachnoid pavoukovci Afro-American sideneck turtle family tere- argentine family stříbrnicovití kovití archiannelid prakroužkovci Afro-American side-necked turtle family archimycete pravovřeckaté houby terekovití armadillo family pásovcovití agama family agamovití armadillos pásovci agave family agávovité armoured catfish family krunýřovcovití agnatha bezčelistantci arrow worm brvoústky agnathan bezčelistnatci arrowgrass family bařičkovité agoutis and acuchi family agutiovití arrow-tooth eel subfamily tupohlavcovití airsac catfish family keříčkovcovití arthropod členovci alligator lizard family slepýšovití articulate členovci almond family slivoňovité articulated animal článkovci amandibulate bezkusadlovci arum family árónovité amandibulate arthropod bezkusadlovci ash-gray leaf bug family sítěnkovití amaranth family laskavcovité aschelminth hlísti amaranthus family laskavcovité Asian watermeal family drobničkovité amaryllis family narcisovité assassin bug family zákeřnicovití ambush bug family hranatkovití astraeid coral family donkovití American legless lizard family hadovcovití atentaculate
    [Show full text]
  • Woodland Raptors Documents
    Woodland Fish & Wildlife • July 2016 Managing Small Woodlands for Raptors: Oregon &Washington Ken Bevis, Fran Cafferata Coe, and Jennifer Weikel Ken Bevis, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Jennifer Weikel, Oregon Department of Forestry, and Fran Cafferata Coe, Cafferata Consulting. Introduction control and are indicators of healthy for small woodland owners interested The soaring wings, sharp talons and ecosystems. The number one way that in enhancing, creating or maintaining intense eyes of raptors, have long in- woodland forest owners can provide habitat for raptors on their woodlands. spired people. Raptors, or birds of prey, habitat for raptors is by keeping their land in forestry. Forest-Dwelling Raptors in include hawks, eagles, osprey, falcons, Oregon and Washington owls and vultures. Woodland forest This publication provides information on owners know these birds as interest- the range, habitat, status and life-cycle of Oregon and Washington are home to a ing and important denizens of their forest-dwelling raptors in Oregon and variety of raptor species, across all habitat land. Raptors are powerful hunters and Washington. Additionally this publica- types and geographic ranges. This publica- principal predators in forests. They fill tion briefly discusses pertinent regulations tion focuses on raptor species that inhabit unique ecological roles, particularly for these raptors. Note that all species in forested areas. These species can be cat- by preying upon a variety of species this publication are protected by the egorized by forest habitat type association. including small mammals, insects, fish, Migratory Bird Species Act (MBTA). Table 1 lists raptors commonly associated birds, snakes and lizards. Raptors are This publication also outlines specific with forested areas of Oregon and Wash- valuable to small woodlands for rodent management objectives and practices ington.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the Point Arena Mountain Beaver Aplodontia Rufa Nigra (Rafinesque) POINT ARENA MOUNTAIN BEAVER Aplodontia Ru/A Nigra (Rafinesque) RECOVERY PLAN
    Recovery Plan for the Point Arena Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra (Rafinesque) POINT ARENA MOUNTAIN BEAVER Aplodontia ru/a nigra (Rafinesque) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by’ Dale T. Steele and Laurie Litman for Region I U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: Reg 1 D e .S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Disclaimer Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and,’or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors. State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as xvell as the need to address other priorities. Costs indicated for task implementation and/or time for achievement of recovery are only estimates and subject to change. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation. other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of thc U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wily after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status. and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Point Arena Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia ru/a nigra (Rafinesque)) Recovery Plan. Region 1, Portland, OR. 71 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-3421 or 1-800-582-3421 The fee for the Plan varies depending on the number of pages of the Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Aplodontia Rufa) in PACIFIC NORTHWEST FORESTS
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Proceedings of the Thirteenth Vertebrate Pest Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings Conference (1988) collection March 1988 RECENT APPROACHES TO CONTROLLING MOUNTAIN BEAVERS (Aplodontia rufa) IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST FORESTS Dan L. Campbell USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Forest Animal Damage Control Research Station, Olympia, Washington 98502 James Evans USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Forest Animal Damage Control Research Station, Olympia, Washington 98502 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpcthirteen Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Campbell, Dan L. and Evans, James, "RECENT APPROACHES TO CONTROLLING MOUNTAIN BEAVERS (Aplodontia rufa) IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST FORESTS" (1988). Proceedings of the Thirteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference (1988). 38. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpcthirteen/38 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings collection at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Thirteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference (1988) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. RECENT APPROACHES TO CONTROLLING MOUNTAIN BEAVERS (Aplodontia rufa) IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST FORESTS DAN L. CAMPBELL and JAMES EVANS, USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Forest Animal Damage Control Research Station, Olympia, Washington
    [Show full text]
  • Order Rodentia
    Lab 5: Rodentia and Lagomorpha Order Rodentia (8 families in B.C.) Sciuridae – squirrels (16 species in B.C.) Muridae – mice, rats, lemmings, voles (16) Aplodontidae – mountain beaver (1) Castoridae – beaver (1) Dipodidae – jumping mice (2) Erethizontidae – N. American porcupines (1) Geomyidae – pocket gophers (1) Heteromyidae – kangaroo rats, pocket mice (1) Order Rodentia • Incisors – Single pair of upper, single pair of lower – Enamel on anterior surface, not posterior surface • Diastema • No canines Order Rodentia Family Sciuridae • Postorbital process well-developed • Infraorbital foramen reduced - usually small and round Order Rodentia Family Sciuridae • Postorbital process well-developed • Infraorbital foramen reduced - usually small and round • 4-5 cheekteeth – anterior premolar sometimes small and peg-like – usually with transverse ridges Order Rodentia Family Muridae • Infraorbital foramen usually V-shaped (wider above) Order Rodentia Family Muridae • Infraorbital foramen usually V-shaped (wider above) • 2-3 cheekteeth – Prismatic with folds of enamel or cuspidate with 2-3 longitudinal rows Order Rodentia Family Aplodontidae Aplodontia rufa (mountain beaver) Namanu Outdoor School Order Rodentia Family Aplodontidae Aplodontia rufa (mountain beaver) • Infraorbital foramen small and round • 5 cheekteeth – Prominent outer projections • Auditory bullae flask-shaped Order Rodentia Family Aplodontidae Aplodontia rufa (mountain beaver) • Most primitive rodent • Not closely related to the beaver, despite the name • Range: western B.C. Order Rodentia Family Castoridae Castor canadensis (American beaver) Order Rodentia Family Castoridae Castor canadensis (American beaver) • Infraorbital foramen small and slit-like • 4 cheekteeth – Distinctive transverse folds • Broad jugal • Incisors massive • Bony tube surrounding external auditory meatus Order Rodentia Family Castoridae Castor canadensis (American beaver) • Largest rodent in North America • Create extensive “lodges” • Range: throughout B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Ecosystem Conservation
    Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Ecosystem Conservation Department 2007 Annual Wildlife Report The Ecosystem Conservation Department of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) conducted surveys to assess presence/probable absence, reproductive activity and success, and spatial distribution of California spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis occidentalis ), northern goshawk ( Accipiter gentili s), osprey (Pandion haliaetus ), willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii ), and bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) in 2007. California Spotted Owl METHODS The LTBMU conducted surveys for California spotted owl in cooperation with California State Parks (CaSP), Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), and Hauge Brueck Associates (contractor for Heavenly Mountain Resort) in 2007. We also coordinated with our neighboring Forests (the Eldorado, Tahoe, and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests) . However, none of the neighboring forests conducted spotted owl surveys on or immediately adjacent to the LTBMU in 2007. Except where noted, all surveys for California spotted owl followed Forest Service, Region 5, ‘Protocol for Surveying for Spotted Owls in Proposed Management Activity Areas and Habitat Conservation Areas’ (USDA, revised 1993). Surveys for spotted owls determined survey area occupancy, individual and pair status, nesting status, and reproductive success. We identified pairs based on whether the detections occurred within ¼ mile of each other as described in the regional protocol. A territory was determined to be ‘reproductive’ if nesting activity was observed or if juveniles were detected during the field season. Fledging was verified when juveniles were detected outside the nest cavity. The LTBMU and its partners surveyed 26 areas within the Lake Tahoe Basin for California spotted owl in 2007 (Appendix 1). Survey areas were established in highly suitable to marginally suitable habitats within ¼ mile of agency project-implementation sites; including fuels treatment, habitat restoration, and trail reroute projects (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Mountain Beaver Damage in Forest Plantations
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center Other Publications in Wildlife Management for January 1993 Controlling Mountain Beaver Damage in Forest Plantations David S. de Calesta Oregon State University Extension Ralph E. Duddles Oregon State University Extension Michael C. Bondi Oregon State University Extension Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmother Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons de Calesta, David S.; Duddles, Ralph E.; and Bondi, Michael C., "Controlling Mountain Beaver Damage in Forest Plantations" (1993). Other Publications in Wildlife Management. 54. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmother/54 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Publications in Wildlife Management by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Extension Circular 11 44 Reprinted January 1993 Woo and Reforestation F Controlling Mountain Beaver DamaaeM inForest Plantations D.S. deCalesta, R.E. Duddles, und M.C. Bondi Damage to conifer regeneration by mountain beavers, more commonly called boomers, results in significant losses in Western Oregon annually. Most of the damage is to 1- to 5-year-old conifer seedlings. Where populations are high, repeated clip- ping by mountain beavers can cause loss of production through poorly stocked acres-even reforestation failures. Damage can continue on saplings up to 15 to 20 years old; however, newly planted seedlings are particu- larly vulnerable. In a few instances, extensive burrowing can undermine the roots of larger trees enough to topple them.
    [Show full text]
  • MOUNTAIN BEAVERS Denver Wildlife Research Center USDA-APHIS- Animal Damage Control Olympia, Washington 98512
    Dan L. Campbell Project Leader Olympia Field Station MOUNTAIN BEAVERS Denver Wildlife Research Center USDA-APHIS- Animal Damage Control Olympia, Washington 98512 Fig. 1. Mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa Damage Prevention and Repellents Identification Control Methods 36% Big Game Repellent Powder has The mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa, been registered for mountain beaver Exclusion Fig. 1) is a medium-sized rodent in the in Washington and Oregon. family Aplodontiadae. There are no Use plastic mesh seedling protectors Toxicants other species in the family. Average on small tree seedlings. Wire mesh adults weigh 2.3 pounds (1,050 g) and cages are somewhat effective, but A pelleted strychnine alkaloid bait was range from 1.8 to 3.5 pounds (800 to large diameter cages are expensive registered in Oregon but may be 1,600 g). Average overall length is 13.5 and allow animals to enter them. discontinued. inches (34 cm), including a rudimen- Exclusion from large areas with buried Fumigants tary tail about 1 inch (2.5 cm) long. The body is stout and compact. The head is fencing is impractical for most sites. None are registered. relatively large and wide and blends Cultural Methods/Habitat Trapping into a large neck with no depression Modification where it joins the shoulders. The eyes No. 110 Conibear® traps placed in and ears are relatively small and the Plant large tree seedlings that will main burrows are effective but may cheeks have long silver “whiskers.” tolerate minor damage. take nontarget animals using The hind feet are about 2 inches (5 cm) burrows, including predators. Burn or remove slash to reduce cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammal Inventory at Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Crook
    Mammal Inventory Report Crook Point, Oregon, 2009. Siskiyou Research Group Introduction and Study Area The Crook Point Unit of Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge is a 134-acre undeveloped coastal headland located approximately 12 miles south of Gold Beach, Oregon. Notwithstanding post-European settlement activities of livestock grazing and timber harvesting, Crook Point provides exceptional examples of coastal headland habitats, which have largely disappeared from Oregon as a result of development and conversion (Kagan 2002). Currently, Crook Point provides habitat for rare plant species such as Poa unilateralis, Lasthenia ornduffii, and Artemisia pycnocephala (Kagan 2002, Chan 2001, Bilderback 2008). Moreover, the associated offshore islands and rocks provide important nesting habitat for seabirds, haul-out and breeding areas for marine mammals, and suitable cliff habitat for nesting peregrine falcons (Ledig 2009). Saddle Rock, the largest island associated with Crook Point, provides nesting habitat for a large population of Leach’s storm petrels (PRBO 2004). There is evidence the Saddle Rock population is being decimated by mammalian predators (reference). In 2000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) acquired this coastal headland making it the second mainland unit in the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge system. Presently USFWS is focusing on site restoration, resource protection, and biological inventory, monitoring, and research. This mammal survey is part of an effort to document the biological diversity of Crook Point. Prior to this survey no systematic mammal inventory work has been conducted at Crook Point. Objectives The primary objective of this survey was to compile a mammalian species list for Crook Point using multiple detection methods of trapping, motion-triggered trail cameras, direct observation, and animal sign (prints, scat, excavations).
    [Show full text]