DOCSLIB.ORG

World Wildlife Fund Swift Fox Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
World Wildlife Fund Swift Fox Report SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION TEAM Swift Fox in Valley County, Montana. Photo courtesy of Ryan Rauscher REPORT FOR 2009-2010 SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION TEAM: REPORT FOR 2009-2010 COMPILED AND EDITED BY: Kristy Bly World Wildlife Fund May 2011 Preferred Citation: Bly, K., editor. 2011. Swift Fox Conservation Team: Report for 2009-2010. World Wildlife Fund, Bozeman, Montana and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Swift Fox Conservation Team Members ............................................................................................. 6 Swift Fox Conservation Team Participating Cooperators .................................................................... 7 Swift Fox Conservation Team Interested Parties ................................................................................. 8 STATE AGENCIES Colorado Status of Swift Fox Activities in Colorado, 2009-2010 Jerry Apker ............................................................................................................................. 10 Kansas Swift Fox Investigations in Kansas, 2009-2010 Matt Peek ................................................................................................................................ 11 Montana Montana 2009 and 2010 Swift Fox Report Brian Giddings ....................................................................................................................... 13 Nebraska Nebraska Swift Fox Report, 2009-2010 Sam Wilson ............................................................................................................................ 18 New Mexico Swift Fox Conservation Activities in New Mexico, 2009-2010 James Stuart ............................................................................................................................ 19 North Dakota North Dakota Swift Fox Report Stephanie Tucker and Patrick Isakson ................................................................................... 23 Oklahoma Swift Fox Monitoring Update – Oklahoma Mark Howery ......................................................................................................................... 24 South Dakota State Swift Fox Activities in South Dakota Eileen Dowd Stukel ................................................................................................................ 28 Texas Swift Fox Summary John Young ............................................................................................................................ 31 3 Wyoming Evaluation of Swift Fox Survey Techniques Completion Report, 2009-2010 Lee Knox and Martin Grenier ................................................................................................ 32 FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. Forest Service 2009 Swift Fox Survey, USFS Fall River Ranger District, Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Nebraska National Forest Lynn Allan Hetlet .................................................................................................................. 37 TRIBAL AGENCIES Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota Tokala Society – Kit Fox (Swift Fox) Society on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, 2009-2010 SFCT Report Trudy Ecoffey and Robert Goodman ..................................................................................... 46 REINTRODUCTION SITE UPDATE Badlands National Park, South Dakota 2009 and 2010 Summary of Swift Fox Activities at Badlands National Park and Western South Dakota Joshua Delger ......................................................................................................................... 50 Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana Restoration of swift fox on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and northeastern Montana Kyran Kunkel, Les Bighorn, and Robert Magnan ................................................................. 53 ADDITIONAL SWIFT FOX INFORMATION Association of Zoos and Aquariums Swift Fox SSP 2009-2010 Annual Report Marilyn McBirney .................................................................................................................. 60 World Wildlife Fund Swift Fox Projects in Montana Kristy Bly ............................................................................................................................... 62 SFCT ANNUAL MEETING – LARAMIE, WYOMING Swift Fox Conservation Team Meeting: March 30th – April 1st, 2010 Matt Peek ................................................................................................................................ 65 4 INTRODUCTION The swift fox (Vulpes velox) was petitioned to be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1992. Although the United States Fish and Wildlife Service determined the species was warranted for listing, the swift fox was not listed due to higher priorities (USFWS 2005). The Swift Fox Conservation Team (SFCT) was formed in 1994 in response to this petition, and is comprised of state, federal, tribal and nongovernmental organizations, along with other interested organizations within the swift fox range. The SFCT works to assemble existing information, collect new biological data, implement swift fox monitoring and management programs, and advance swift fox conservation and restoration to avoid listing under the ESA. Since 1994, the SFCT developed the ―Conservation Assessment and Conservation Strategy of Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) in the United States‖ (CACS; Kahn et al. 1997), written numerous annual reports, and recently revised the CACS (Dowd Stukel 2011). This report outlines the activities and accomplishments achieved on behalf of swift fox recovery by SFCT members in 2009 and 2010. LITERATURE CITED Dowd Stukel, E., ed. 2011. Conservation assessment and conservation strategy for swift fox in the United States – 2011 Update. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, USA. Kahn, R., L. Fox, P. Horner, B. Giddings, and C. Roy. 1997. Conservation assessment and conservation strategy for swift fox in the United States. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, Montana, USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the swift fox as endangered. Pages 31663 - 31666 in Federal Register Volume 60, Number 116, June 16, 1995. 5 SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION TEAM 2010-2011 Contact List Additional SFCT information is available on the Colorado Division of Wildlife website: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/GrasslandSpecies/SwiftFoxConservationTeam.htm Jerry A. Apker Phone: 719-587-6922 CDOW, Wildlife Manager COLORADO FAX: 719-587-6934 0722 South Road 1 East Email: [email protected] Monte Vista, CO 81144 Matt Peek Phone: 620-342-0658 Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks FAX: 620-342-6248 KANSAS PO Box 1525 Email: [email protected] Emporia, KS 66801 Brian Giddings, Team Co-Chair Phone: 406-444-0042 Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks MONTANA FAX: 406-444-4952 PO Box 200701 Email: [email protected] Helena, MT 59620 Sam Wilson Phone: 402-471-5174 Nebraska Game and Parks Commission NEBRASKA FAX: 402-471-4992 2200 N. 33rd Email: [email protected] Lincoln, NE 68503 Jim Stuart Phone: 505-476-8107 New Mexico Dept of Game & Fish NEW MEXICO FAX: 505-476-8128 PO Box 25112 Email: [email protected] Santa Fe, NM 87504 Patrick Isakson Phone: 701-328-6338 North Dakota Game and Fish Department NORTH DAKOTA FAX: 701-328-6352 100 N. Bismarck Expressway Email: [email protected] Bismarck, ND 58501-5095 Melynda Hickman phone: (405) 424-0099 Wildlife Diversity Biologist fax: (405) 424-1108 OKLAHOMA Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation e-mail: [email protected] 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Eileen Dowd Stukel, Education Comm., Team Co-Chair Phone: 605-773-4229 SOUTH DAKOTA South Dakota Dept Game, Fish and Parks FAX: 605-773-6245 523 E Capitol Email: [email protected] Pierre, SD 57501 John H. Young, PhD Phone: 512-389-8047 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TEXAS FAX: 512-389-8758 4200 Smith School Road Email: [email protected] Austin, TX 78744 Martin Grenier Phone: 307-332-2688, Wyoming Game and Fish Department WYOMING FAX: 307-332-6669 260 Buena Vista Email: [email protected] Lander, WY 82520 6 Chris Keefe Phone: 307-775-6101 BUREAU OF LAND BLM Wyoming State Office FAX: MANAGEMENT 5353 Yellowstone Road Email: [email protected] Cheyenne, WY 82009 Greg Schroeder Badlands National Park Phone: 605-433-5269 NATIONAL PARK 25216 Ben Reifel Rd. FAX: 605-433-5404 SERVICE PO Box 6 Email: [email protected] Interior, SD 57750 Scott Larson Phone: 605-224-8693, ext 232 U.S. FISH AND USFWS Ecological Services FAX: 605-224-9974 WILDLIFE SERVICE 420 S. Garfield, Suite 400 Email: [email protected] Pierre, SD 57501 Bob Hodorff Phone: 605-745-4107 U.S. FOREST USFS - Fall River Ranger District FAX: 605-745-4179 SERVICE PO Box 732 Email: [email protected] Hot Springs, SD 57747 Kirk Gustad WS Western Regional Office Phone: 970-494-7452 USDA/APHIS/WILDLI 2150 Centre Ave, Bldg B FAX: 970-494-7455 FE SERVICES Mail Stop 3W9 Email: [email protected] Fort Collins, CO 80526 Marsha A. Sovada, Research Comm. U.S.G.S./BIOLOGICA Phone: 701-253-5506 Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center L RESOURCES FAX: 701-253-5553 8711 37th Street SE DIVISION Email: [email protected] Jamestown, ND 58401 NATURAL Phone: RESOURCES & Vacant FAX: CONSEVATION Email:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dental and Temporomandibular Joint Pathology of the Kit Fox (Vulpes Macrotis)
    Author's Personal Copy J. Comp. Path. 2019, Vol. 167, 60e72 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/jcpa DISEASE IN WILDLIFE OR EXOTIC SPECIES Dental and Temporomandibular Joint Pathology of the Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis) N. Yanagisawa*, R. E. Wilson*, P. H. Kass† and F. J. M. Verstraete* *Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences and † Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, USA Summary Skull specimens from 836 kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) were examined macroscopically according to predefined criteria; 559 specimens were included in this study. The study group consisted of 248 (44.4%) females, 267 (47.8%) males and 44 (7.9%) specimens of unknown sex; 128 (22.9%) skulls were from young adults and 431 (77.1%) were from adults. Of the 23,478 possible teeth, 21,883 teeth (93.2%) were present for examina- tion, 45 (1.9%) were absent congenitally, 405 (1.7%) were acquired losses and 1,145 (4.9%) were missing ar- tefactually. No persistent deciduous teeth were observed. Eight (0.04%) supernumerary teeth were found in seven (1.3%) specimens and 13 (0.06%) teeth from 12 (2.1%) specimens were malformed. Root number vari- ation was present in 20.3% (403/1,984) of the present maxillary and mandibular first premolar teeth. Eleven (2.0%) foxes had lesions consistent with enamel hypoplasia and 77 (13.8%) had fenestrations in the maxillary alveolar bone. Periodontitis and attrition/abrasion affected the majority of foxes (71.6% and 90.5%, respec- tively).
    [Show full text]
  • The Disastrous Impacts of Trump's Border Wall on Wildlife
    a Wall in the Wild The Disastrous Impacts of Trump’s Border Wall on Wildlife Noah Greenwald, Brian Segee, Tierra Curry and Curt Bradley Center for Biological Diversity, May 2017 Saving Life on Earth Executive Summary rump’s border wall will be a deathblow to already endangered animals on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. This report examines the impacts of construction of that wall on threatened and endangered species along the entirety of the nearly 2,000 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. TThe wall and concurrent border-enforcement activities are a serious human-rights disaster, but the wall will also have severe impacts on wildlife and the environment, leading to direct and indirect habitat destruction. A wall will block movement of many wildlife species, precluding genetic exchange, population rescue and movement of species in response to climate change. This may very well lead to the extinction of the jaguar, ocelot, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl and other species in the United States. To assess the impacts of the wall on imperiled species, we identified all species protected as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, or under consideration for such protection by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“candidates”), that have ranges near or crossing the border. We also determined whether any of these species have designated “critical habitat” on the border in the United States. Finally, we reviewed available literature on the impacts of the existing border wall. We found that the border wall will have disastrous impacts on our most vulnerable wildlife, including: 93 threatened, endangered and candidate species would potentially be affected by construction of a wall and related infrastructure spanning the entirety of the border, including jaguars, Mexican gray wolves and Quino checkerspot butterflies.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution, Ecology, Disease Risk, and Genetic Diversity of Swift Fox
    South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2018 Distribution, Ecology, Disease Risk, and Genetic Diversity of Swift oF x (Vulpes Velox) in the Dakotas Emily Louise Mitchell South Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, and the Other Life Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Mitchell, Emily Louise, "Distribution, Ecology, Disease Risk, and Genetic Diversity of Swift oF x (Vulpes Velox) in the Dakotas" (2018). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2692. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/2692 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY, DISEASE RISK, AND GENETIC DIVERSITY OF SWIFT FOX (VULPES VELOX) IN THE DAKOTAS BY EMILY LOUISE MITCHELL A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science Major in Wildlife and Fisheries Science Specialization in Wildlife Sciences South Dakota State University 2018 ii iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS "When we try and pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." - John Muir I must thank my major advisor Dr. Jonathan A. Jenks for not only suggesting me for this position, but also stepping in when I was in need of a new advisor.
    [Show full text]
  • Den Site Selection by Golden Jackal (Canis Aureus) in a Semi Arid Forest Ecosystem in Western India
    Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences Print version ISSN 0970 0765 Vol.39A (Zoology), No.1, Online version ISSN 2320 3188 January-June 2020: P.160-171 DOI 10.5958/2320-3188.2020.00019.4 Original Research Article Available online at www.bpasjournals.com Den Site Selection by Golden Jackal (Canis aureus) in a Semi Arid Forest Ecosystem in Western India 1Pooja Chourasia* Abstract: 2Krishnendu Mondal The availability of dens in habitat is essential for 3K. Sankar successful recruitment and it is confining factor for the distribution and abundance of den 4 Qamar Qureshi dependent species. Present study was conducted in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. To Author’s Affiliation: determine the most influential variable for 1,4 Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, selectivity of den sites by golden jackal (Canis Uttarakhand 248002, India aureus), data on habitat characteristics were 2 Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate studied at two scales. The physical structure and Change Government of India, New Delhi 110003, protective capabilities of dens were studied at India small scale (microsite selection) by use- 3 Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural availability design along with discrete choice History, Anaikatti, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu models. The selection of den in relation to 641108, India environmental factors was studied at larger scale (macrosite selection) using binary logistic *Corresponding author: regression in generalized linear model. Thirty six Pooja Chourasia jackal dens were observed in the study area (0.23 Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, den / km2). The hypothesis received support as a Uttarakhand 248002, India factor for den site selection was ‘ease of excavation’ at micro scale (314 m2) and ‘cover and E-mail: resource’ at macro scale (3.14 km2).
    [Show full text]
  • CPW Furbearer Management Report 2016-2017 Harvest Year
    Colorado Parks and Wildlife Furbearer Management Report 2016-2017 Harvest Year Report By: Mark Vieira Furbearer Program Manager April 3, 2018 Executive Summary Furbearer Management Report - Executive Summary 2016-2017 In order to prioritize management and harvest data collection needs, CPW examined furbearer species for their relative reproductive potential, habitat needs and risks, as well as relative amounts of historic harvest. This examination resulted in development of management guidelines in 2012 for bobcat, swift fox, and gray fox harvest and efforts toward improving confidence in harvest survey results for swift fox, gray fox, and pine marten. Management Guidelines Bobcat – At all spatial scales bobcat are meeting the management thresholds. The available information suggests that bobcat populations are stable or increasing in most or all of Colorado. Mortality density was below thresholds at all scales. Female harvest composition stayed at high levels in most areas of the state, similar to last year, contrary to the notion of stabilized or increasing bobcat populations. However, it should be noted that while female proportions in hunting harvest (the least selective form of mortality) have risen to 50% or above at most monitoring scales, hunting comprises only about 40% of total bobcat mortality, second to trapping. Prey abundance appears to be at average levels. A 5-year baseline index was established for Harvest per unit effort (HPUE), which will be used in future evaluations. Swift Fox – Surveys indicate no significant changes in habitat occupancy between 1995 and 2016. Occupancy surveys were completed in fall of 2016 and results indicate nearly identical swift fox occupancy rates to 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Reintroducing San Joaquin Kit Fox to Vacant Or Restored Lands: Identifying Optimal Source Populations and Candidate Foxes
    REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX TO VACANT OR RESTORED LANDS: IDENTIFYING OPTIMAL SOURCE POPULATIONS AND CANDIDATE FOXES PREPARED FOR THE U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CONSERVATION PROGRAM 2800 COTTAGE WAY, SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Prepared by: Samantha Bremner-Harrison1 & Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program P.O. Box 9622 Bakersfield, CA 93389 1Current address: School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences Nottingham Trent University, Brackenhurst Campus Southwell NG25 0QF 2011 Kit fox relocation report_ESRP.doc REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX TO VACANT OR RESTORED LANDS: IDENTIFYING OPTIMAL SOURCE POPULATIONS AND CANDIDATE FOXES TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 Behavioral variation and suitability ........................................................................................................... 6 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 9 Study sites .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Swift Fox (Vulpes Velox) in Alberta
    Status of the Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) in Alberta Susan E. Cotterill Alberta Wildlife Status Report No. 7 Published By: Publication No. T/370 ISBN: 0-7732-5132-4 ISSN: 1206-4912 Series Editor: David R. C. Prescott Illustrations: Brian Huffman For copies of this report, contact: Information Centre - Publications Alberta Environmental Protection Natural Resources Service Main Floor, Bramalea Building 9920 - 108 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2M4 Telephone: (780) 422-2079 OR Communications Division Alberta Environmental Protection #100, 3115 - 12 Street NE Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2E 7J2 Telephone: (403) 297-3362 This publication may be cited as: Cotterill, S. E. 1997. Status of the Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 7, Edmonton, AB. 17 pp. ii PREFACE Every five years, the Wildlife Management Division of Alberta Natural Resources Service reviews the status of wildlife species in Alberta. These overviews, which have been conducted in 1991 and 1996, assign individual species to ‘colour’ lists which reflect the perceived level of risk to populations which occur in the province. Such designations are determined from extensive consultations with professional and amateur biologists, and from a variety of readily-available sources of population data. A primary objective of these reviews is to identify species which may be considered for more detailed status determinations. The Alberta Wildlife Status Report Series is an extension of the 1996 Status of Alberta Wildlife review process, and provides comprehensive current summaries of the biological status of selected wildlife species in Alberta. Priority is given to species that are potentially at risk in the province (Red or Blue listed), that are of uncertain status (Status Undetermined), or which are considered to be at risk at a national level by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 116 / Friday, June 16, 1995 / Proposed
    Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 116 / Friday, June 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 31663 solely on a determination of whether the Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations 43 CFR Part 3100 50 CFR Part 17 and whether the other requirements of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have [WO±610±4110±02 1A] been met. and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the Swift Fox as RIN 1004±AC26 Endangered National Environmental Policy Act Promotion of Development, Reduction AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, No environmental impact statement is of Royalty on Heavy Oil Interior. required for this rule since section ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, finding. 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] Interior. provides that agency decisions on SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed State regulatory program ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of reopening of comment period. (Service) announces a 12-month finding provisions do not constitute major for a petition to list the swift for (Vulpes Federal actions within the meaning of SUMMARY: On April 10, 1995, the Bureau velox) under the Endangered Species section 102(2)(C) of the National of Land Management (BLM) published Act of 1973, as amended. After review Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. in the Federal Register (60 FR 18081) a of all available scientific and 4332(2)(C)). notice of proposed rulemaking to amend commercial information, the Service the regulations related to the waiver, finds that listing this species is Paperwork Reduction Act suspension, or reduction of rental, warranted but precluded by other higher royalty, or minimum royalty on ``heavy priority actions to amend the List of This rule does not contain oil'' (crude oil with a gravity of less than Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information collection requirements that 20 degrees).
    [Show full text]
  • Interspecific Killing Among Mammalian Carnivores
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital.CSIC vol. 153, no. 5 the american naturalist may 1999 Interspeci®c Killing among Mammalian Carnivores F. Palomares1,* and T. M. Caro2,² 1. Department of Applied Biology, EstacioÂn BioloÂgica de DonÄana, thought to act as keystone species in the top-down control CSIC, Avda. MarõÂa Luisa s/n, 41013 Sevilla, Spain; of terrestrial ecosystems (Terborgh and Winter 1980; Ter- 2. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology and borgh 1992; McLaren and Peterson 1994). One factor af- Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis, fecting carnivore populations is interspeci®c killing by California 95616 other carnivores (sometimes called intraguild predation; Submitted February 9, 1998; Accepted December 11, 1998 Polis et al. 1989), which has been hypothesized as having direct and indirect effects on population and community structure that may be more complex than the effects of either competition or predation alone (see, e.g., Latham 1952; Rosenzweig 1966; Mech 1970; Polis and Holt 1992; abstract: Interspeci®c killing among mammalian carnivores is Holt and Polis 1997). Currently, there is renewed interest common in nature and accounts for up to 68% of known mortalities in some species. Interactions may be symmetrical (both species kill in intraguild predation from a conservation standpoint each other) or asymmetrical (one species kills the other), and in since top predator removal is thought to release other some interactions adults of one species kill young but not adults of predator populations with consequences for lower trophic the other.
    [Show full text]
  • KIT FOX Vulpes Macrotis
    A-28 KIT FOX Vulpes macrotis Description The small-bodied kit fox closely resembles the swift fox (Vulpes velox) but has larger ears and a more angular appearance. The skull is long and delicate, and The kit fox is the broader at the eyes and more slender at the nose than other North American daintiest of three Vulpes. The ears are set close to the midline of the skull (McGrew 1979, species of Vulpes in Sheldon 1992). The kit fox measures 730 to 840 mm in total length; including a North America 260 to 323 mm tail, 78 to 94 mm ears, and 113 to 137 mm hindfeet. Adult (Fitzgerald et al. weight ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 kg. Females are 15 percent lighter on average 1994). than males (Fitzgerald et al. 1994), but there is no other obvious sexual dimorphism. Tail length averages about 40 percent of total body length—a distinguishing trait, along with the large ears, from swift foxes (Sheldon 1992). The kit fox has a light-colored pelage, variable between grizzled-gray, yellow- gray and buff-gray. The shoulders, flanks and chest range from buff to orange. Guard hairs are tipped black or banded. The underfur is lighter buff or white, and relatively heavy and coarse. The legs are slender and thickly furred. The sides of the muzzle are blackish or brownish, and the tip of the tail is black. The soles of the feet are protected by stiff tufts of hair. Because of its relative coarseness, a kit fox pelt has little market value (O'Farrell 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility and Strategies for Translocating San Joaquin Kit Foxes to Vacant Or Restored Habitats
    FEASIBILITY AND STRATEGIES FOR TRANSLOCATING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES TO VACANT OR RESTORED HABITATS PREPARED FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT CONSERVATION PROGRAM U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 Prepared by: Samantha Bremner-Harrison and Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program 1900 N. Gateway #101 Fresno, CA 93727 November 2007 FEASIBILITY AND STRATEGIES FOR REINTRODUCING SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOXES TO VACANT OR RESTORED HABITATS Samantha Bremner-Harrison and Brian L. Cypher California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................i 1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 2. Literature review of animal reintroductions and translocations ............................. 2 2.1. Introduction and definitions ............................................................................................. 2 2.2. Common issues associated with reintroduction programs............................................. 3 2.2.1. Expense....................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2. Available habitat ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Facts San Joaquin Kit
    Endangered SpecU.S. Environmental iesFacts Protection Agency San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrot is mutica Description and Ecology Status Endangered, listed March 11, 1967. Critical Habitat Not designated. current distribution records include the Antioch area of Contra Costa County. Appearance The average male San Joaquin kit fox measures about 32 inches in length (of which 12 inches is the Habitat Because the San Joaquin kit fox requires dens length of its tail). It stands 12 inches high at the shoulder, for shelter, protection and reproduction, a habitat’s soil and weighs about 5 pounds. The female is a little smaller. type is important. Loose-textured soils are preferable, but The San Joaquin kit fox is the smallest canid species in North modification of the burrows of other animals facilitates America (but the largest kit fox subspecies). Its foot pads denning in other soil types. The historical native vegetation of are also small and distinct from other canids in its range, the Valley was largely annual grassland (“California Prairie”) averaging 1.2 inches long and 1 inch wide. The legs are long, and various scrub and subshrub communities. Vernal pool, the body slim, and the large ears are set close together. The alkali meadows and playas still provide support habitat, but B. Moose Pet erson, U.S. Fish Serviceand Wildlife B. Moose Pet nose is slim and pointed. The tail, typically carried low and have wet soils unsuitable for denning. Some of the habitat has been converted to an agricultural patchwork of row The San Joaquin kit fox is straight, tapers slightly toward its distinct black tip.
    [Show full text]