DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft of August 19, 2019: Do Not Cite, Circulate Or Distribute. Note To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft of August 19, 2019: Do Not Cite, Circulate Or Distribute. Note To LEGAL RULES, ECONOMIC SELECTION AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION DEAN LUECK* Project summary. This project will develop new research on the effect of differential legal ownership regimes for wildlife on the conservation outcomes of those species. The project will focus on two species: the Bison or Buffalo (Bison bison) and the Caribou or Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). Both species have been and currently are governed by different legal ownership regimes. In the U.S. bison are generally governed as domestic livestock and thus subject to ownership like cattle with the attendant rights, obligations and liabilities. Domestic bison can be bought, sold and transported like cattle but are also required to be vaccinated like cattle. In fewer cases (one region of Utah and on National Parks) bison are legally governed as wildlife, free to roam and harvested only per state regulations. Similar legal differences are found for Rangifer taranadus known as caribou in North American and reindeer in Europe. In North America caribou are generally (but not always) governed as wildlife but in Europe reindeer are usually (but not always) governed as private livestock. The incentives for management, husbandry and conservation are expected to be driven by the legal ownership incentives that govern these species and the project will seek to develop economic models of management and conservation and collect data on bison and reindeer/caribou populations to test the implications from these models. A regime of private ownership gives incentives to establish and grow populations in ways that a regime of wildlife does not, but this regime also is likely create populations with different characteristics (e.g., sex-ratios, age distribution) from populations governed as wildlife. This project will seek evidence for these differences and their implications for conservation benefits. Draft of August 19, 2019: do not cite, circulate or distribute. Note to PERC seminar attendees – this is a very preliminary draft that sketches out the basic framework and suggests work to be done. “***” indicate weak transitions and work to be done. *Department of Economics and Ostrom Workshop, Indian University, Bloomington IN. [email protected]. This paper was developed during my visit as Julian Simon Fellow at PERC 2019. Discussions with Jim Huffman and Kyran Kunkel have been helpful in developing this project. 1 PAPER OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTION II. BISON AND REINDEER – A BRIEF ECONOMIC & LEGAL HISTORY A. Bison B. Reindeer III. ECONOMIC MODEL A. Management under wildlife law B. Management under domestic law C. Implications IV. DATA & EVIDENCE A. Case Studies 1. Yellowstone Bison 2. Henry Mountains Bison 3. American Prairie Reserve Bison 4. Sami Reindeer 5. South African Wildlife B. Bison 1. Conservation Herds 2. Commercial Herds C. Reindeer 1. North American vs. Europe 2. Norway -- 3. Reindeer Peoples in Russia V. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION VI. REFERENCES VII. APPENDICES 2 If it was the common law that sheep and lambs belonged to nobody, it would be impossible to preserve them from utter destruction. Each man, when he saw a sheep or lamb, would take and sequester it for his own use, lest his neighbor should get the start on him. There is no common or statute law [in the United States] protecting fish and game, therefore our fish and game are rapidly disappearing. What we need is a law, not simply protecting game and fish... but making game and fish the property of the owners of the land on which they are found, and the streams through whose territory they run.1 1. INTRODUCTION In 2005 bison were reintroduced to the plains of north central Montana by a new NGO called American Prairie Reserve (APR). APR’s grand goal is to recreate an intact prairie ecosystem of over 3 million acres and the key to that end was to introduce the dominant grassland species – the American Bison. To implement this goal APR has done two things. First, they bought rangeland from private landowners and removed cattle from that land. Second, they bought bison from Wind Cave National Park2 and released them on the range. This effort by APR is possible only because of the legal system of ownership for bison in Montana. In Montana and most state, bison are considered as domestic livestock under the law and subject to ownership like cattle or sheep. APR could buy and release bison on its land but cannot do the same for deer or wolves. *** The exploitation and conservation of natural resources depends on the structure of property rights to those assets and those rights in turn depend, often crucially, on the prevailing legal rules. As the APR-bison case shows, this is also true for animals, both domestic and wild. xx Consider, for example, governance of the American bison (Bison bison).3 Today, many bison are privately owned like domestic cattle, but some are also under the administration of national 1 Forest and Stream (volume 5, January 13, 1875, page 361) and cited in Tober (1976, p.122.) 2 It is common for national parks with bison to sell animals each year. 3 Bison bison include two subspecies – the plains and wood bison – which are distinguished later in the paper. 3 park managers and state wildlife agencies where the ownership is less clear. Prior to extensive European contact, Native Americans governed bison as common property with enforcement of hunting territories against other tribes and internal tribal rules about hunting times and methods. During the 19th century as the indigenous peoples were conquered, the bison stocks were subjected to open access depletion and nearly exterminated before they ultimately become governed largely as domestic animals under state agricultural laws. These laws are detailed later in this study. Reindeer or rangifer tarandus (known as caribou in North America) are governed as wild animals in Canada and the US, subject only to full ownership upon harvest. In Europe, however, there is a wide range of governance regimes. Most populations of reindeer come from domesticated stocks and have been governed as private (sometimes communal) property. In other cases reindeer are wild (and never domesticated). *** Wild animals can be distinguished from domestic animals by examining the property rights associated with various species (Lueck 1989). A population or stock of animals is completely wild only when there exists open access. A stock is fully domestic only when property rights to the stock are perfectly defined and enforced. Ownership can take place over populations (e.g., a herd of deer) or over individuals (e.g., a trained tiger), though the focus here is on ownership of populations and other aggregations of individuals. One can also consider wild versus domestic in terms of the animals' habitat and behavior (Lueck and Torrens 2019). The more natural the habitat, the more wild the animals are. In everyday usage "wild" has implications about ownership and habitat. It also follows that ownership affects animal behavior (and ultimately biology) by altering the natural parameters faced by the animals. It is also true that humans affect the population even 4 without ownership, because open access exploitation can lead to over harvest and other impacts. Both concepts of wild and domestic are incorporated in the analysis below. *** This project will examine the implications for the management and conservation of species under wild and domestic legal regimes. While the law of domestic animals offers incentives for husbandry and habitat investment, it also creates differential selection pressures on populations that can be in conflict with more ‘pure’ conservation goals. Section 2 provides and overview of the economic and legal history of bison and reindeer. In section 3, I present an economic model of wildlife management that depends on legal constraints. A key part of the model is the idea of “economic selection.” Economic selection means that characteristics of animals will be chosen (and other excluded) depending on the objective of the owner/manager of the populations. The law of wild and domestic animals will shape the objectives faced by owners/managers. In section 4, I examine the implications of these models against data on populations of bison and caribou. Section 5 is a discuss and short conclusion. II. BISON AND REINDEER – A BRIEF LEGAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY In the United States wildlife are governed by a legal/regulatory regime recently labeled the ”The North American Model of Wildlife Management” in which state wildlife agencies have the dominant management authority and landowners and other government units have lesser authority (Lueck 1989, 2017). The earliest state controls simply restricted the time of year during which it was legal to kill game. When these restrictions were contested, numerous court decisions bolstered the 5 states' authority to regulate the taking and trading of wildlife consistently upholding state wildlife regulations.4 Today, states have the dominant regulatory authority over wildlife control and use, typically vested in a state "fish and game" or "wildlife" agency (Lund 1980 and Tober 1989). The key components of modern game laws and regulations, administered and enforced by game departments, include seasonal restrictions (and sometimes prohibitions) on taking wildlife, prohibition or severe restrictions on game trade, licensing requirements for legal taking of game, and restrictions on the methods by which animals can be taken. Game departments also administer state wildlife refuges and undertake research (e.g. population surveys, re-stocking programs). The federal government has dominant authority for endangered species (under the 1973 Act) and for species linked to international treaties (e.g. migratory waterfowl). Legally species governed as wildlife have no owner while the animals are alive. When legally taken an animal becomes the private property of the taker subject to many restrictions on use and transfer. An important feature of this ownership regime is that the regulatory authority is not liable for damages caused by wild populations.5 *** Bison bison, the American Bison, is a large herbivore also known as the buffalo.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cervid TB DPP Testing August 2017
    Cervid TB DPP Testing August 2017 Elisabeth Patton, DVM, PhD, Diplomate ACVIM Veterinary Program Manager Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Division of Animal Health Why Use the Serologic Test? Employ newer, accurate diagnostic test technology Minimizes capture and handling events for animal safety Expected to promote additional cervid TB testing • Requested by USAHA and cervid industry Comparable sensitivity and specificity to skin tests 2 Historical Timeline 3 Stat-Pak licensed for elk and red deer, 2009 White-tailed and fallow deer, 2010-11 2010 - USAHA resolution - USDA evaluate Stat-Pak as official TB test 2011 – Project to evaluate TB serologic tests in cervids (Cervid Serology Project); USAHA resolution to approve Oct 2012 – USDA licenses the Dual-Path Platform (DPP) secondary test for elk, red deer, white-tailed deer, and fallow deer Improved specificity compared to Stat-Pak Oct 2012 – USDA approves the Stat-Pak (primary) and DPP (secondary) as official bovine TB tests in elk, red deer, white- tailed deer, fallow deer and reindeer Recent Actions Stat-Pak is no longer in production 9 CFR 77.20 has been amended to approve the DPP as official TB program test. An interim rule was published on 9 January 2013 USDA APHIS created a Guidance Document (6701.2) to provide instructions for using the tests https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_ diseases/tuberculosis/downloads/vs_guidance_670 1.2_dpp_testing.pdf 4 Cervid Serology Project Objective 5 Evaluate TB detection tests for official bovine tuberculosis (TB) program use in captive and free- ranging cervids North American elk (Cervus canadensis) White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) Primary/screening test AND Secondary Test: Dual Path Platform (DPP) Rapid immunochromatographic lateral-flow serology test Detect antibodies to M.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Analysis of Eight Sudanese Camel Contagious Ecthyma Viruses Based on B2L Gene Sequence Abdelmalik I
    Khalafalla et al. Virology Journal (2015) 12:124 DOI 10.1186/s12985-015-0348-7 RESEARCH Open Access Phylogenetic analysis of eight sudanese camel contagious ecthyma viruses based on B2L gene sequence Abdelmalik I. Khalafalla1,2* , Ibrahim M. El-Sabagh3,4, Khalid A. Al-Busada5, Abdullah I. Al-Mubarak6 and Yahia H. Ali7 Abstract Background: Camel contagious ecthyma (CCE) is an important viral disease of camelids caused by a poxvirus of the genus parapoxvirus (PPV) of the family Poxviridae. The disease has been reported in west and east of the Sudan causing economical losses. However, the PPVs that cause the disease in camels of the Sudan have not yet subjected to genetic characterization. At present, the PPV that cause CCE cannot be properly classified because only few isolates that have been genetically analyzed. Methods and results: PCR was used to amplify the B2L gene of the PPV directly from clinical specimens collected from dromedary camels affected with contagious ecthyma in the Sudan between 1993 and 2013. PCR products were sequenced and subjected to genetic analysis. The results provided evidence for close relationships and genetic variation of the camel PPV (CPPV) represented by the circulation of both Pseudocowpox virus (PCPV) and Orf virus (ORFV) strains among dromedary camels in the Sudan. Based on the B2L gene sequence the available CPPV isolates can be divided into two genetic clades or lineages; the Asian lineage represented by isolates from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and India and the African lineage comprising isolates from the Sudan. Conclusion: The camel parapoxvirus is genetically diverse involving predominantly viruses close to PCPV in addition to ORFVs, and can be divided into two genetically distant lineages.
    [Show full text]
  • Muskox Management Report Alaska Dept of Fish and Game Wildlife
    Muskox Management Report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 1998–30 June 2000 Mary V. Hicks, Editor Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation December 2001 ADF&G Please note that population and harvest data in this report are estimates and may be refined at a later date. If this report is used in its entirety, please reference as: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Muskox management report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 1998–30 June 2000. M.V. Hicks, editor. Juneau, Alaska. If used in part, the reference would include the author’s name, unit number, and page numbers. Authors’ names can be found at the end of each unit section. Funded in part through Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Proj. 16, Grants W-27-2 and W-27-3. LOCATION 2 GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT: 18 (41,159 mi ) GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION: Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta BACKGROUND NUNIVAK ISLAND Muskoxen were once widely distributed in northern and western Alaska but were extirpated by the middle or late 1800s. In 1929, with the support of the Alaska Territorial Legislature, the US Congress initiated a program to reintroduce muskoxen in Alaska. Thirty-one muskoxen were introduced from Greenland to Nunivak Island in Unit 18 during 1935–1936, as a first step toward reintroducing this species to Alaska. The Nunivak Island population grew slowly until approximately 1958 and then began a period of rapid growth. The first hunting season was opened in 1975, and the population has since fluctuated between 400 and 750 animals, exhibiting considerable reproductive potential, even under heavy harvest regimes.
    [Show full text]
  • What Do Caribou and Wood Bison Have in Common? by Nate Olson
    Refuge Notebook • Vol. 17, No. 4 • January 23, 2015 What do caribou and wood bison have in common? by Nate Olson Residents from the village of Shageluk on the Innoko River assist ADFG and USFWS staff in constructing a holding pen as part of the wood bison reintroduction effort. 100 wood bison are scheduled to be released on the lower Innoko River in March 2015. Photo credit: Tom Seaton, ADFG. Last weekend on a drive back from Anchorage, Wood bison are native to Alaska and were plentiful whizzing by the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center over a large portion of the state until their extirpation at 57 miles per hour my daughter pointed out a strange in the early 1900s. The reasons for their disappearance looking moose on the side of the Seward Highway. are not clearly known but probably related to overhar- “That isn’t a moose,” I explained, “that is a woodbi- vest and habitat loss. son.” Wildlife transplants are nothing new in Alaska. And why are wood bison living in pens next to The reasons for transplanting animals generally fall the Seward Highway? They are part of a reintroduc- into two categories. The first is to provide human re- tion effort by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game lated benefits such as recreational hunting, economic (ADFG) and the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center. gain, or an additional food supply. The second is re- The fate of these wood bison has been in the news lated to species recovery in their historic range. lately as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Kodiak Island is a dramatic example of the first published a final rule in May 2014 that gives the green category.
    [Show full text]
  • The Preparation and Primary Structure of S-Peptides from Different Pancreatic Ribonucleases
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Volume 40, number 1 FEBS LETTERS March 1974 THE PREPARATION AND PRIMARY STRUCTURE OF S-PEPTIDES FROM DIFFERENT PANCREATIC RIBONUCLEASES G.W. WELLING, G. GROEN, D. GABEL+, W. GAASTRA, J.J. BEINTEMA Biochemisch Laboratorium, Rijksuniversiteit, Zernikelaan, Groningen, The Netherlands Received 14 December 1973 1. Introduction Miles-Seravac Ltd. (Maidenhead). All other ribonu- cleases used in this study (goat, giraffe, gnu, reindeer, In 1955, Richards [l] described the isolation of dromedary, kangaroo, lesser rorqual, pig, and horse) ‘an active intermediate produced during the digestion were isolated according to Wierenga et al. [7] and rat of ribonuclease by subtilisin’. The characterisation RNase, according to Beintema et al. [8]. Subtilopep- and separation of the non-covalently linked compo- tidase A (Subtilisin Carlsberg) was a gift from Novo nents was described 4 years later [2] . Ribonuclease Industri (Copenhagen). Sephadex G-50 (fine) was S* possesses full enzymatic activity and the same purchased from Pharmacia (Uppsala). All other rea- holds for the enzyme reconstituted from S-peptide gents were analytical grade products from Merck AG and S-protein. The involvement of S-peptide residues (Darmstadt). in the binding of S-peptide to S-protein and in the Amino acid analysis, high-voltage paper electro- enzymatic activity of the reconstituted RNase S’ has phoresis, dansylation, and dansyl-Edman degrada- been studied by using synthetic S-peptide analogs [3,4] tion were performed as described earlier [7, 93. the cleavage by subtilisin takes place in an external loop. Klee [5] and Gold [6] did not succeed in 2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Comparative Analysis of the Ruminal Bacterial Population in Reindeer (Rangifer Tarandus L.) from the Russian Arctic Zone: Regional and Seasonal Effects
    animals Article The Comparative Analysis of the Ruminal Bacterial Population in Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus L.) from the Russian Arctic Zone: Regional and Seasonal Effects Larisa A. Ilina 1,*, Valentina A. Filippova 1 , Evgeni A. Brazhnik 1 , Andrey V. Dubrovin 1, Elena A. Yildirim 1 , Timur P. Dunyashev 1, Georgiy Y. Laptev 1, Natalia I. Novikova 1, Dmitriy V. Sobolev 1, Aleksandr A. Yuzhakov 2 and Kasim A. Laishev 2 1 BIOTROF + Ltd., 8 Malinovskaya St, Liter A, 7-N, Pushkin, 196602 St. Petersburg, Russia; fi[email protected] (V.A.F.); [email protected] (E.A.B.); [email protected] (A.V.D.); [email protected] (E.A.Y.); [email protected] (T.P.D.); [email protected] (G.Y.L.); [email protected] (N.I.N.); [email protected] (D.V.S.) 2 Department of Animal Husbandry and Environmental Management of the Arctic, Federal Research Center of Russian Academy Sciences, 7, Sh. Podbel’skogo, Pushkin, 196608 St. Petersburg, Russia; [email protected] (A.A.Y.); [email protected] (K.A.L.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: The reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) is a unique ruminant that lives in arctic areas characterized by severe living conditions. Low temperatures and a scarce diet containing a high Citation: Ilina, L.A.; Filippova, V.A.; proportion of hard-to-digest components have contributed to the development of several adaptations Brazhnik, E.A.; Dubrovin, A.V.; that allow reindeer to have a successful existence in the Far North region. These adaptations include Yildirim, E.A.; Dunyashev, T.P.; Laptev, G.Y.; Novikova, N.I.; Sobolev, the microbiome of the rumen—a digestive organ in ruminants that is responsible for crude fiber D.V.; Yuzhakov, A.A.; et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Cervid Mixed-Species Table That Was Included in the 2014 Cervid RC
    Appendix III. Cervid Mixed Species Attempts (Successful) Species Birds Ungulates Small Mammals Alces alces Trumpeter Swans Moose Axis axis Saurus Crane, Stanley Crane, Turkey, Sandhill Crane Sambar, Nilgai, Mouflon, Indian Rhino, Przewalski Horse, Sable, Gemsbok, Addax, Fallow Deer, Waterbuck, Persian Spotted Deer Goitered Gazelle, Reeves Muntjac, Blackbuck, Whitetailed deer Axis calamianensis Pronghorn, Bighorned Sheep Calamian Deer Axis kuhili Kuhl’s or Bawean Deer Axis porcinus Saurus Crane Sika, Sambar, Pere David's Deer, Wisent, Waterbuffalo, Muntjac Hog Deer Capreolus capreolus Western Roe Deer Cervus albirostris Urial, Markhor, Fallow Deer, MacNeil's Deer, Barbary Deer, Bactrian Wapiti, Wisent, Banteng, Sambar, Pere White-lipped Deer David's Deer, Sika Cervus alfredi Philipine Spotted Deer Cervus duvauceli Saurus Crane Mouflon, Goitered Gazelle, Axis Deer, Indian Rhino, Indian Muntjac, Sika, Nilgai, Sambar Barasingha Cervus elaphus Turkey, Roadrunner Sand Gazelle, Fallow Deer, White-lipped Deer, Axis Deer, Sika, Scimitar-horned Oryx, Addra Gazelle, Ankole, Red Deer or Elk Dromedary Camel, Bison, Pronghorn, Giraffe, Grant's Zebra, Wildebeest, Addax, Blesbok, Bontebok Cervus eldii Urial, Markhor, Sambar, Sika, Wisent, Waterbuffalo Burmese Brow-antlered Deer Cervus nippon Saurus Crane, Pheasant Mouflon, Urial, Markhor, Hog Deer, Sambar, Barasingha, Nilgai, Wisent, Pere David's Deer Sika 52 Cervus unicolor Mouflon, Urial, Markhor, Barasingha, Nilgai, Rusa, Sika, Indian Rhino Sambar Dama dama Rhea Llama, Tapirs European Fallow Deer
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Risk of a Cervid TSE Being Introduced from Norway to Britain?
    What is the risk of a cervid TSE being introduced from Norway into Great Britain? Qualitative Risk Assessment June 2018 © Crown copyright 2018 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.3. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ or email [email protected] This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [[email protected]] www.gov.uk/defra Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 3 Background .......................................................................................................................... 4 Hazard identification ............................................................................................................ 5 Risk Question .................................................................................................................... 11 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................... 12 Terminology related to the assessed level of risk ........................................................... 12 Entry assessment ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WP18–27 Executive Summary
    WP18–27 Executive Summary General Description Proposal WP18–27 requests the Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to recognize the customary and traditional uses of muskoxen on Nunivak Island by the residents of Nunivak Island. Submitted by: Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta Subsistence Regional Advisory Council. Customary and Traditional Use Determination—Muskoxen Proposed Regulation Unit 18—Nunivak Island Residents of Nunivak Island. Unit 18—Remainder No Federal subsistence priority. OSM Preliminary Conclusion Support Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Southcentral Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Kodiak/Aleutians Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Bristol Bay Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Western Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council WP18–27 Executive Summary Recommendation Seward Peninsula Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Northwest Arctic Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Eastern Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation North Slope Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Recommendation Interagency Staff Committee Comments ADF&G Comments Written Public Comments None 2 DRAFT STAFF ANALYSIS WP18-27 ISSUES Proposal WP18-27, submitted by the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (Council), requests the Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to recognize the customary and traditional
    [Show full text]
  • Gestation Length in Farmed Reindeer
    Gestation length in farmed reindeer MP Shipka1,2and JERowell' 'Department of High Latitude Agriculture, School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska; 'Center of Reproductive Biology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarundus) are the only cervids indigenous to the arctic environment. In Alaska, reindeer are a recognized agricultural species and an economic mainstay for many native populations. Traditionally raised in extensive free-ranging systems, a recent trend toward intensive farming requires a more in-depth knowledge of reproductive management. Reported gestation length in reindeer varies, ranging from 198 to 229 d in studies performed at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. A switchback study that manipulated only breeding date demonstrated a mean increase in gestation length of 8.5 d among females bred early in the season. The negative correlation between conception date and gestation length is consistent with reindeer research at other locations and reports of variable gestation length in a growing number of domestic and non- domestic species. This paper reviews the phenomenon in reindeer and discusses some of the factors known to affect gestation length as well as possible areas for future research. Introduction Reindeer and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) are the only cervids indigenous to the arctic environ- ment. With a circumpolar range extending from 450 to 80° N (Leader-Williams 1988) these animals have adapted to extremes in light, temperature, and nutrient availability and exhibit a number of characteristics that sets them apart from other deer species. Notably, they are the only deer in which both the male and female grow antlers; their highly gregarious nature con- tributes to the formation of massive herds that migrate greater distances in the spring and fall than any other deer; and they have been subjected to widespread domestication (Goss 1983).
    [Show full text]
  • Muskoxen a Guide to Identification, Hunting and Viewing
    Muskoxen A guide to identification, hunting and viewing Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Wildlife Conservation, 2021 Muskoxen A guide to identification, hunting and viewing A Note to Readers The information in this booklet will assist in identifying muskoxen, preparing for a muskox hunting trip, and provide interesting information about muskoxen in Alaska. Details in the Muskox Information section are adapted from the Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series prepared by Tim Smith and revised by John Coady and Randy Kacyon. Alaska Wildlife Notebook Series, © 2008. Many photos in this booklet are provided to aid in understanding of muskoxen and their habitat. Not all images are referenced within the text. Photos that indicate seasons illustrate the significant changes that occur to muskox appearance over the course of the year. Additional information on muskoxen can be found at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) website: www.adfg.alaska.gov Table of Contents Muskox Information Distribution & Physical Attributes . 2 Life History . 4 History in Alaska . 8 Muskoxen and Humans . 10 Identification Identification of Groups . 12 Identification by Age and Sex . 14 Identification Quiz . 20 Hunting Hunter Requirements . 26 Reporting, Trophy Destruction, Labeling . 27 Hunt Information . 28 Planning Your Hunt . 30 Meat Care . 32 Preventing Wounding Loss . 34 From Field to Table . 36 Meat Salvage . 37 Living with Muskox Sharing the Country with Muskoxen . 38 Muskox Information Distribution Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) are northern animals well adapted to life in the Arctic. At the end of the last ice age, muskoxen were found across northern Europe, Asia, Greenland and North America, including Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Sami Reindeer Herding: the Socio-Political Dimension of an Epizootic in an Indigenous Context
    animals Article Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Sami Reindeer Herding: The Socio-Political Dimension of an Epizootic in an Indigenous Context Simon Maraud * and Samuel Roturier Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, 91405 Orsay, France; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: Chronic wasting disease (CWD), the most transmissible of the prion diseases, was detected in 2016 in Norway in a wild reindeer. This is the first case in Europe, an unexpected one. This paper focuses on the issues that the arrival of CWD raises in Northern Europe, especially regarding the Indigenous Sami reindeer husbandry in Sweden. The study offers a diagnosis of the situation regarding the management of the disease and its risks. We present the importance of the involvement of the Sami people in the surveillance program in order to understand better the diseases and the reindeer populations, movement, and behavior. However, the implementation of new European health standards in the Sami reindeer herding could have tremendous consequences on the evolution of this ancestral activity and the relationship between herders and reindeer. Abstract: Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is the most transmissible of the prion diseases. In 2016, an unexpected case was found in Norway, the first in Europe. Since then, there have been 32 confirmed cases in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. This paper aims to examine the situation from a social and political perspective: considering the management of CWD in the Swedish part of Sápmi—the Sami Citation: Maraud, S.; Roturier, S. Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in ancestral land; identifying the place of the Sami people in the risk management–because of the threats Sami Reindeer Herding: The to Sami reindeer herding that CWD presents; and understanding how the disease can modify the Socio-Political Dimension of an modalities of Indigenous reindeer husbandry, whether or not CWD is epizootic.
    [Show full text]