DOCSLIB.ORG

Trapping and Furbearer Management in North American Wildlife

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trapping and Furbearer Management in North American Wildlife TRAPPING AND FURBEARER MANAGEMENT In North AmerIcan Wildlife Conservation Trapping and Furbearer Management in North American Wildlife Conservation is a compilation of the knowledge, insights and experiences of professional wildlife biologists who are responsible for the conservation of wildlife resources throughout the United States and Canada. It is based on the original Trapping and Furbearer Management: Perspectives from the Northeast published in 1996 by the Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee. An expanded North American edition was published in 2001. This second edition of that publication was authored by the following subcommittee of the Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee (NEFRTC): Dr. John F. Organ, Subcommittee Chairman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Thomas Decker, Vermont Department of Fisheries and Wildlife; Susan Langlois, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife; and Peter G. Mirick, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Acknowledgements The following professional wildlife biolo- Division of Fisheries and Wildlife; Dave Trapping and Furbearer Management gists critically reviewed drafts of this docu- Hamilton, Missouri Department of Conser- in North American Wildlife Conser- ment and made significant contributions: vation; George Hubert Jr., Illinois Depart- vation is a publication of the Northeast Buddy Baker, South Carolina Department of ment of Natural Resources; Neal Jotham, Furbearer Resources Technical Committee Natural Resources; Chris Bernier, Vermont Canadian Wildlife Service, ret.; Greg and was coordinated by the Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife Department; Clifford Linscombe, Edmond Mouton, and Jennifer Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Brown, West Virginia Department of Natu- Hogue Manuel, Louisiana Department of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division ral Resources; Dr. Thomas J. Deliberto and Wildlife and Fisheries; Michael O'Brien, Nova of Federal Aid. The Executive Committee Richard Chipman, USDA/APHIS Wildlife Scotia Department of Natural Resources; of the Northeast Section of The Wildlife Services; James DiStefano, New Hamp- Colleen Olfenbuttel, North Carolina Wild- Society reviewed and endorsed this docu- shire Fish & Game Department, ret.; Chris life Resources Commission; John Olson, ment. Funding was provided by the As- Dwyer, Linda Welch, and Robert Colona, Wisconsin Department of natural resources; sociation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Dr. Kenneth Steve Petersen, Alaska Departmant of Fish Furbearer Working Group; the Federal Elowe, Walter Jakubas, Jen Vashon, and John and Game; Paul Rego, Connecticut Depart- Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program; and DePue, Maine Department of Inland Fish- ment of Environmental Protection; Chris- The Northeast Section of The Wildlife eries and Wildlife; Dr. John Erb, Minnesota tiane Roy, Kansas Department of Wildlife Society. Original layout and design by Department of Natural Resources; Lloyd and Parks; Bryant White, Association of Fish David Gabriel, Massachusetts Department Fox, Kansas Department of Wildlife and & Wildlife Agencies; and Keith Weaver, U.S. of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Parks; Laura Hajduk-Conlee, Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge System. Law Enforcement. Any reference to specific products or manufacturers does not imply endorsement by the authors, agencies, or organizations involved in the production of this publication. T H E W I L D L I F E SOCIETY The Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee is comprised of professional wildlife biologists from the northeastern United States and Provinces of eastern Canada, and is committed to the study and responsible management of our furbearer resources. The Northeast Section of The Wildlife Society is comprised of professional wildlife biologists and resource scientists and managers from eleven northeastern states and six eastern Canadian provinces, and is committed to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education. For further information on Furbearer Management and Trapping in your state or province, contact your local Fish and Wildlife or Natural Resources Department. © Copyright 2015, all rights reserved Second Edition - Updated July 2015 9/15-50.85M Cover photo of muskrats by Bill Byrne. Pictographs on cover portray cave drawings of methods ancient peoples used to capture wild animals. Introduction The trapping of furbearers – animals that have tra- against trapping itself or the continued use of furbearer ditionally been harvested primarily for their fur – has resources. During the 1920s opposition magnified to been an enduring element of human culture ever since challenge the use of steel jaw foothold traps and the our prehistoric hunter-gatherer ancestors devised the wearing of fur.(1) In response to this development, propo- first deadfalls, pit traps, snares, and capture nets. People nents of trapping and the fur industries began organizing were dependent upon furbearers to provide the basic to defend themselves. By the 1930s, furbearer trapping necessities for survival – meat for sustenance, and fur had become a recurrent public issue. Since then, the for clothing, bedding and shelter – pro- and anti-trapping factions throughout most of human history. have disseminated enormous Defining and defending territory amounts of generally contradictory where furbearers could be cap- information. tured to acquire these critical re- During this same period, new sources united families, clans and technologies and advances in tribes long before the invention of ecology, wildlife biology, statistics agriculture and animal husbandry and population biology allowed gave rise to ancient civilizations. wildlife management to develop While modern technology and into a scientific profession. State, agriculture have significantly provincial and federal agencies reduced human dependence on were created to apply this science furbearers for survival, people in to protect, maintain and restore both rural and developed areas wildlife populations. The harvest continue to harvest furbearers for of furbearers became a highly livelihood and personal fulfill- regulated, scientifically monitored ment. The taking and trading of activity to ensure the sustain- furbearer resources remain on ability of furbearer populations. the economic and environmental Trapping and furbearer manage- agendas of governments through- ment – one steeped in ancient out the world. tradition, the other rooted firmly Trapping furbearers for their in the principles of science – al- fur, meat and other natural prod- lowed furbearer populations to ucts presumably began with our Photo by Bill Byrne expand and flourish. earliest ancestors on the African continent. It has a long Today, as controversy over the use and harvest of tradition in North America, dating back to the time furbearers continues, professional wildlife managers the first aboriginal people arrived on the continent. find themselves spending considerable time trying Several thousand years later, fur was the chief article to clarify public misconceptions about trapping and of commerce that propelled and funded European furbearer management. The complex issues involved colonization of the continent during the 17th and 18th in that management – habitat loss, animal damage centuries. Numerous cities and towns founded as fur control, public health and safety, the responsible treat- trading centers during that period still bear witness to ment of animals – cannot be adequately addressed in the fact that furbearer trapping had a major influence short news articles or 30-second radio and television on the history of the United States and Canada. announcements. The utilization of furbearer resources was an unchal- This booklet is intended to present the facts and lenged activity throughout that history until early in the current professional outlook on the role of trapping 20th century, when the first organized opposition to and furbearer management in North American wildlife furbearer trapping emerged. The focus of that opposi- conservation. It is the combined work of many wildlife tion was primarily on the development of more humane scientists responsible for the successful conservation of traps and curtailment of trapping abuses, rather than furbearer populations in the United States and Canada. 3 The Furbearer Technically, the term furbearer Fur generally becomes prime in includes all mammals, all of midwinter when the coat is fresh and which, by definition, possess some fully grown; the timing for primeness form of hair. Typically, however, is governed by photoperiod and may wildlife managers use the term to vary somewhat depending on species, identify mammal species that have location (latitude) and elevation. traditionally been trapped or hunted primarily for their fur. Furs are generally “dressed” (tanned with the hair on), then North American furbearers are trimmed and sewn into garments, A magnified view of red fox fur shows a diverse group, including both the short, dense underfur that provides rugs, blankets, and ornaments, carnivores (meat-eating predators) insulation and water repellent qualities, and sometimes dyed in a variety of and rodents (gnawing mammals). and the longer guardhairs that resist colors and patterns. Furs are also Most are adaptable species ranging abrasion and protect the underfur from used in fishing lures, fine brushes over large geographic areas. They matting. and other products. Some furs are include beaver,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young
    By Blane Klemek MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young Naturalists the Slinky,Stinky Weasel family ave you ever heard anyone call somebody a weasel? If you have, then you might think Hthat being called a weasel is bad. But weasels are good hunters, and they are cunning, curious, strong, and fierce. Weasels and their relatives are mammals. They belong to the order Carnivora (meat eaters) and the family Mustelidae, also known as the weasel family or mustelids. Mustela means weasel in Latin. With 65 species, mustelids are the largest family of carnivores in the world. Eight mustelid species currently make their homes in Minnesota: short-tailed weasel, long-tailed weasel, least weasel, mink, American marten, OTTERS BY DANIEL J. COX fisher, river otter, and American badger. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer May–June 2003 n e MARY CLAY, DEMBINSKY t PHOTO ASSOCIATES r mammals a WEASELS flexible m Here are two TOM AND PAT LEESON specialized mustelid feet. b One is for climb- ou can recognize a ing and the other for hort-tailed weasels (Mustela erminea), long- The long-tailed weasel d most mustelids g digging. Can you tell tailed weasels (M. frenata), and least weasels eats the most varied e food of all weasels. It by their tubelike r which is which? (M. nivalis) live throughout Minnesota. In also lives in the widest Ybodies and their short Stheir northern range, including Minnesota, weasels variety of habitats and legs. Some, such as badgers, hunting. Otters and minks turn white in winter. In autumn, white hairs begin climates across North are heavy and chunky. Some, are excellent swimmers that hunt to replace their brown summer coat.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Assessment for the Humboldt Marten (Martes Americana Humboldtensis)
    Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Species Assessment for the Humboldt Marten (Martes americana humboldtensis) R. Hamlin, L. Roberts, G. Schmidt, K. Brubaker and R. Bosch Photo credit: Six Rivers National Forest Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, California 95521 (707) 822-7201 www.fws.gov/arcata September 2010 i The suggested citation for this report is: Hamlin, R., L. Roberts, G. Schmidt, K. Brubaker and R. Bosch 2010. Species assessment for the Humboldt marten (Martes americana humboldtensis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. 34 + iv pp. ii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 1 Species Description ................................................................................................... 1 Taxonomy.................................................................................................................. 1 Life History ............................................................................................................... 4 Reproduction .................................................................................................. 5 Diet ................................................................................................................ 5 Home Range
    [Show full text]
  • American Marten (Martes Americana) Species Assessment Prepared For
    American Marten (Martes Americana) Species Assessment Prepared for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest September 2005 Prepared by Matt Vasquez1 with contributions by Leslie Spicer1, 2005 1 Biological Science Technician (Wildlife), Gunnison Ranger District Reviewed and Edited by Clay Speas, Forest Fisheries Biologist and Tom Holland, Forest Wildlife Biologist Cover photos taken by remote cameras at track plate and bait stations on the Gunnison Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest. Last Revised: September 28, 2005 Page 1 of 23 Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest American Marten (Martes Americana) Species Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 5 HABITAT CRITERIA USED IN FOREST-WIDE HABITAT EVALUATION ................................... 6 2001 MIS Habitat Criteria...................................................................................................................... 6 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................... 6 2005 MIS Habitat Criteria...................................................................................................................... 6 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife; Threatened and Endangered Species
    2009 SNF Monitoring and Evaluation Report Wildlife; Threatened and Endangered Species Introduction The data described in this report outlines the history, actions, procedures, and direction that the Superior National Forest (aka the Forest or SNF) has implemented in support of the Gray Wolf Recovery Plan and Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS). The Forest contributes towards the conservation and recovery of the two federally listed threatened and endangered species: Canada lynx and gray wolf, through habitat and access management practices, collaboration with other federal and state agencies, as well as researchers, tribal bands and non-governmental partners. Canada lynx On 24 March 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated the Canada lynx a “Threatened” species in the lower 48 states. From 2004-2009 the main sources of information about Canada lynx for the SNF included the following: • Since 2003 the Canada lynx study has been investigating key questions needed to contribute to the recovery and conservation of Canada lynx in the Western Great Lakes. Study methods are described in detail in the annual study progress report available online at the following address: http://www.nrri.umn.edu/lynx/ . These methods have included collecting information on distribution, snow tracking lynx, tracking on the ground and in the air radio-collared lynx, studying habitat use, collecting and analyzing genetic samples (for example, from hair or scat) and conducting pellet counts of snowshoe hare (the primary prey). • In 2006 permanent snow tracking routes were established across the Forest. The main objective is to maintain a standardized, repeatable survey to monitor lynx population indices and trends.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurasian Lynx – Your Essential Brief
    Eurasian lynx – Your essential brief Background Q: Are lynx native to Britain? A: Based on archaeological evidence, the range of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) included Britain until at least 1,300 years ago. It is difficult to be precise about when or why lynx became extinct here, but it was almost certainly related to human activity – deforestation removed their preferred habitat, and also that of their prey, thus reducing prey availability. These declines in prey species may have been exacerbated by human hunting. Q: Where do they live now? A: Across Europe, Scandinavia, Russia, northern China and Southeast Asia. The range used to include other areas of Western Europe, including Britain, where they are no longer present. Q: How many are there? A: There are thought to be around 50,000 in the world, of which 9,000 – 10,000 live in Europe. They are considered to be a species of least concern by the IUCN. Modern range of the Eurasian lynx Q: How big are they? A: Lynx are on average around 1m in length, 75cm tall and around 20kg, with the males being slightly larger than the females. They can live to 15 years old, but this is rare in the wild. Q: What do they eat? A: The preferred prey of the lynx are the smaller deer species, primarily the roe deer. Lynx may also prey upon other deer species, including chamois, sika deer, smaller red deer, muntjac and fallow deer. Q: Do they eat other things? A: Yes. Lynx prey on many other species when their preferred prey is scarce, including rabbits, hares, foxes, wildcats, squirrel, pine marten, domestic pets, sheep, goats and reared gamebirds.
    [Show full text]
  • Contraceptive Vaccines for Wildlife: a Review Jay F
    REVIEW ARTICLE Contraceptive Vaccines for Wildlife: A Review Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Robin O. Lyda, Kimberly M. Frank The Science and Conservation Center, ZooMontana, Billings, MT, USA Keywords Wildlife, free-ranging and captive, poses and causes serious population Gonadotropin-releasing hormone, problems not unlike those encountered with human overpopulation. immunocontraception, porcine zona pellucida, Traditional lethal control programs, however, are not always legal, wise, wildlife safe, or publicly acceptable; thus, alternative approaches are necessary. Correspondence Immunocontraception of free-ranging wildlife has reached the manage- Jay F. Kirkpatrick, The Science and ment level, with success across a large variety of species. Thus far, the Conservation Center, ZooMontana, 2100 immunocontraceptive research and management applications emphasis South Shiloh Road, Billings, MT 59106, USA. have been centered on porcine zona pellucida and gonadotropin-releas- E-mail: [email protected] ing hormone vaccines. Contraceptive success has been achieved in more than 85 different wildlife species, at the level of both the individual ani- Submitted February 28, 2011; mal and the population. At the population management level with free- accepted March 1, 2011. ranging species, the primary focus has been on wild horses, urban deer, Citation bison, and African elephants. The challenges in the development and Kirkpatrick JF, Lyda RO, Frank KM. application of vaccine-based wildlife contraceptives are diverse and Contraceptive vaccines for wildlife: a review. include differences in efficacy across species, safety of vaccines during Am J Reprod Immunol 2011; 66: 40–50 pregnancy, the development of novel delivery systems for wild and wary free-ranging animals, and the constraints of certain non-contracep- doi:10.1111/j.1600-0897.2011.01003.x tive effects, such as effects on behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Large Carnivores in Serbia
    Status of large carnivores in Serbia Duško Ćirović Faculty of Biology University of Belgrade, Belgrade Status and threats of large carnivores in Serbia LC have differend distribution, status and population trends Gray wolf Eurasian Linx Brown Bear (Canis lupus) (Lynx lynx ) (Ursus arctos) Distribution of Brown Bear in Serbia Carpathian Dinaric-Pindos East Balkan Population status of Brown Bear in Serbia Dinaric-Pindos: Distribution 10000 km2 N=100-120 Population increase Range expansion Carpathian East Balkan: Distribution 1400 km2 Dinaric-Pindos N= a few East Balkan Population trend: unknown Carpathian: Distribution 8200 km2 N=8±2 Population stable Legal status of Brown Bear in Serbia According Law on Protection of Nature and the Law on Game and Hunting brown bear in Serbia is strictly protected species. He is under the centralized jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environmental Protection Treats of Brown Bear in Serbia Intensive forestry practice and infrastructure development . Illegal killing Low acceptance due to fear for personal safety Distribution of Gray wolf in Serbia Carpathian Dinaric-Pindos East Balkan Population status of Gray wolf in Serbia Dinaric-Balkan: 2 Carpathian Distribution cca 43500 km N=800-900 Population - stabile/slight increasingly Dinaric Range - slight expansion Carpathian: Distribution 480 km2 (was) Population – a few Population status of Gray wolf in Serbia Carpathian population is still undefined Carpathian Peri-Carpathian Legal status of Gray wolf in Serbia According the Law on Game and Hunting the gray wolf in majority pars of its distribution (south from Sava and Danube rivers) is game species with closing season from April 15th to July 1st.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Affecting Prolactin Secretion in the African Elephant
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Ursula S. Bechert for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Animal Science presented on January 9, 1998. Title: Factors Affecting Prolactin Secretion in the African Elephant. Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy Fredrick Stormshak Prolactin (PRL) is a peptide hormone that is involved in a number of diverse physiologic roles, particularly with respect to reproduction, including: influencing sexual and parental behaviors, onset of puberty, regulation of seasonal reproduction, follicular maturation, ovulation, luteinization and corpus luteum (CL) function, steroidogenesis, mammary gland development and lactation, testicular and spermatozoal function, and immunomodulation of ovarian processes. Little is known about PRL's role in elephant reproduction. The present research was conducted to determine seasonal changes in PRL secretion in non-pregnant female African elephants. A corollary objective was to examine the potential functional interrelationships between secretions of PRL, cortisol and progesterone. Weekly blood samples for 18 months were taken from four female African elephants and the sera were analyzed by radioimmunoassay for progesterone, cortisol, and PRL concentrations. Estrous cycles averaged 14 weeks in length, and estrous cycle synchronicity was evident between pairs of elephants. The luteal phase was defined by serum concentrations of progesterone consistently above 200 pg/ml, and averaged 9 weeks in length (range: 5-12 weeks) with a mean (± SE) concentration of 750.3 ± 171.9 pg/ml. The follicular phase was defined by serum concentrations of progesterone consistently below 200 pg/ml, and averaged 5 weeks in length (range: 4-8 weeks) with a mean concentration of 103.1 ± 17.5 pg/ml. Mean (± SE) serum concentration of cortisol was 5.7 ± 1.3 ng/ml (range: 1.4-19.3 ng/ml), and concentrations of this adrenal steroid were negatively correlated with progesterone concentrations (r = -0.15; p<0.01).
    [Show full text]
  • Black Bear Ecology Life Systems – Interactions Within Ecosystems a Guide for Grade 7 Teachers
    BEAR WISE Black Bear Ecology Life Systems – Interactions Within Ecosystems A Guide for Grade 7 Teachers Ministry of Natural Resources BEAR WISE Introduction Welcome to Black Bear Ecology, Life Systems – Interactions Within Ecosystems, a Guide for Grade 7 Teachers. With a focus on the fascinating world of black bears, this program provides teachers with a classroom ready resource. Linked to the current Science and Technology curriculum (Life Systems strand), the Black Bear Ecology Guide for teachers includes: I background readings on habitats, ecosystems and the species within; food chains and food webs; ecosystem change; black bear habitat needs and ecology and bear-human interactions; I unit at a glance; I four lesson plans and suggested activities; I resources including a glossary; list of books and web sites and information sheets about black bears. At the back of this booklet, you will find a compact disk. It includes in Portable Document Format (PDF) the English and French versions of this Grade 7 unit; the Grades 2 and 4 units; the information sheets and the Are You Bear Wise? eBook (2005). This program aims to generate awareness about black bears – their biological needs; their behaviour and how human action influences bears. It is an initiative of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. BEAR WISE Acknowledgements The Ministry of Natural Resources would like to thank the following people for their help in developing the Black Bear Ecology Education Program. This education program would not have been possible without their contributions
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Research Reports
    MAMMALS - JULY 2005 WILDLIFE RESEARCH REPORTS JULY 2004 – JUNE 2005 MAMMALS PROGRAM COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Research Center, 317 W. Prospect, Fort Collins, CO 80526 The Wildlife Reports contained herein represent preliminary analyses and are subject to change. For this reason, information MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED OR QUOTED without permission of the Author. STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Russell George, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION Jeffrey Crawford, Chair …………………………………………………………………….…..… Denver Tom Burke, Vice Chair ………………………………….…………...………….…........…Grand Junction Ken Torres, Secretary ……………………………………...…………….……………..……….... Weston Robert Bray………………………………………………….......................................................…Redvale Rick Enstrom………………………………………………………………….………….……...Lakewood Philip James …………………………………………………………………..….………….…Fort Collins Claire M. O’Neal………………………………………………..…………….………..…………..Holyoke Richard Ray ………………………………………………………………………………...Pagosa Springs Robert T. Shoemaker…………………………………………………………….………..…….Canon City Don Ament, Dept. of Ag, Ex-officio…………………………………………………….…….....Lakewood Russell George, Executive Director, Ex-officio……………………………………………..………Denver DIRECTOR’S STAFF Bruce McCloskey, Director Mark Konishi, Deputy Director-Education and Public Affairs Steve Cassin, Chief Financial Officer Jeff Ver Steeg, Assistant Director-Wildlife Programs John Bredehoft, Assistant Director-Field Operations Marilyn Salazar, Assistant Director-Support Services MAMMALS RESEARCH STAFF David Freddy,
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Fertility Control
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service October 2002 Wildlife Fertility Control K.A. Fagerstone USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Fagerstone, K.A., "Wildlife Fertility Control" (2002). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 489. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/489 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Wildlife Fertility Control by K.A. Fagerstone, et al. (2002) 29p. Paper, $7.00 (MEMBER PRICE $5.00) Abstract: Huge flights of Canada geese turn off local park visitors with their messy, smelly "business cards." The superabundant white-tailed deer we love to watch also can do a number on your car at night and host the ticks that carry Lyme Disease. Blackbirds and gulls and coyotes and other critters bring their own problems when their numbers get out of hand. Most such problems reach their highest profile in urban/suburban areas where traditional animal-control techniques such as hunting and trapping are frowned upon or illegal. More and more people are calling for wildlife managers to use "fertility control"–-but is that concept really feasible on populations of free-ranging wildlife? The definitive answers–in the form of the latest science–are contained in a new Technical Review titled Wildlife Fertility Control.
    [Show full text]
  • Lynx, Felis Lynx, Predation on Red Foxes, Vulpes Vulpes, Caribou
    Lynx, Fe/is lynx, predation on Red Foxes, Vulpes vulpes, Caribou, Rangifer tarandus, and Dall Sheep, Ovis dalli, in Alaska ROBERT 0. STEPHENSON, 1 DANIEL V. GRANGAARD,2 and JOHN BURCH3 1Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99701 2Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 305, Tok, Alaska 99780 JNational Park Service, P.O. Box 9, Denali National Park, Alaska 99755 Stephenson, Robert 0., Daniel Y. Grangaard, and John Burch. 1991. Lynx, Fe/is lynx, predation on Red Foxes, Vulpes vulpes, Caribou, Rangifer tarandus, and Dall Sheep, Ovis dalli, in Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 105(2): 255- 262. Observations of Canada Lynx (Fe/is lynx) predation on Red Foxes ( Vulpes vulpes) and medium-sized ungulates during winter are reviewed. Characteristics of I 3 successful attacks on Red Foxes and 16 cases of predation on Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and Dall Sheep (Ovis dalli) suggest that Lynx are capable of killing even adults of these species, with foxes being killed most easily. The occurrence of Lynx predation on these relatively large prey appears to be greatest when Snowshoe Hares (Lepus americanus) are scarce. Key Words: Canada Lynx, Fe/is lynx, Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes, Caribou, Rangifer tarandus, Dall Sheep, Ovis dalli, predation, Alaska. Although the European Lynx (Felis lynx lynx) quently reach 25° C in summer and -10 to -40° C in regularly kills large prey (Haglund 1966; Pullianen winter. Snow depths are generally below 80 cm, 1981), the Canada Lynx (Felis lynx canadensis) and snow usually remains loosely packed except at relies largely on small game, primarily Snowshoe high elevations.
    [Show full text]