PWD BK W7000-893 Proceedings.CDR - Mountain Lion Foundation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

56 sixth Mountain Lion w o r k s h o p A SURVEY OF RECENT ACCOUNTS OF THE MOUNTAIN LION IN ARKANSAS DAVID W. CLARK*, Department of Biology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 72204. STEFFANY C.WHITE, Department of Biology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 72204. ANNALEA K. BOWERS, Department of Biology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 72204. LEAH D.LUCIO, Department of Biology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 72204. GARY A. HEIDT, Department of Biology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR 72204. Abstract: In 1998, we documented (through tracks and fecal material) the presence of one or more mountain lions (Puma concolor) in Arkansas. In this study, we examined 16 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission records of reported sightings and/or sign over the past 5 years. We also solicited information on mountain lion occurrences from hunting clubs, and mailed 850 sighting and sign surveys to professional biologists, county agriculture agents, and Arkansas trappers in an effort to determine presence and localities of mountain lions in Arkansas within the past 5 years. A large number of reports were followed-up by personal telephone conversations. From these inquiries, we received 284 responses indicating the presence of mountain lions. Data were analyzed using CORBETT Geographical Information Systems. While occurrences were reported state-wide, there were concentrations in Washington and Crawford counties in the Ozark Mountains, Yell and Logan counties in the Ouachita Mountains, and near the confluence of the Saline and Ouachita rivers in the southern part of the state. Few occurrences were reported from the Mississippi Delta. We also surveyed the USDA, Arkansas wildlife officers, and state veterinarians in an effort to locate captive animals. Over 170 captive animals were reported to occur in the state. It is not known whether reported free-ranging animals were released or escaped mountain lions or their descendants. The taxonomy of mountain lions in the state is not known. INVESTIGATING COUGAR ATTACKS ON HUMANS: THE BRITISH COLUMBIA APPROACH Abstract: An increasing number of cougar (Puma concolor) and bear (Ursus spp.) attacks on humans prompts British Columbia (BC) conservation officers to develop better procedures for doing investigations. Photographs from 2 cougar attacks and one murder mistaken for a cougar attack will be shown and discussed. Lack of procedure resulted in unfounded speculation and loss of evidence in the murder. Contents and highlights of the procedure and investigation form will be discussed. Copies of the procedure as handouts. Photographs and description of kit contents. Photographs of the kit in use. Training for the kit has been done by CD-ROM. Photos and excerpts from the training will be shown. Sample CDs will be available as handouts. Description of the function and purpose of attack teams. Photos of attack teams in training. Description of training and special equipment. We are willing to share our knowledge and learn from other agencies.
sixth Mountain Lion w o r k s h o p 57 A PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC STUDY OF PUMAS (PUMA CONCOLOR) USINGMITOCHONDRIAL DNA MARKERS AND MICROSATELLITES MELANIE CULVER*, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Blacksburg, VA. WARREN JOHNSON, Genetics Section, Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Frederick, MD. JILL PECON-SLATTERY, Genetics Section, Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Frederick, MD. STEPHEN J. O'BRIEN, Genetics Section, Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Frederick, MD. Abstract: In this research project, several molecular markers were used to ascertain the level of genetic differentiation among natural puma (Puma concolor) populations, and also use this differentiation to understand genetic structure and infer natural history and evolution of the puma. Samples were obtained from throughout the geographical multi-habitat range of pumas and encompass all 32 described subspecies. Population level genetic differentiation in the puma was assessed using 2 independent molecular markers. These are several regions of mitochondrial DNA and 10 feline nuclear microsatellites. Results from both mirochondrial and nuclear markers indicate a low level of genetic variation in North American pumas relative to abundant variation observed in South American pumas. Regional differences are observed for Central and South American pumas with a total of 6 phylogeographic groups identified using both mitochondrial and nuclear markers. Furthermore, extant puma lineages appear to have originated in South America. The North American genetic lineage is younger than the South American lineages and younger than the North American fossil record. This indicates the potential occurrence of an historic extinction and recolonization event among North American pumas. TWO SIMPLE METHODS OF HANDLING RADIO- LOCATION ERROR FOR WIDE-RANGING ANIMALS IN LARGE COMPLEX STUDY AREAS BRETT G. DICKSON*, School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86001. PAUL BEIER, School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86001. Abstract: The study of second-order habitat selection (how an animal selects a home range within a larger area of potential habitat) analyzes the differences between habitats used by an animal versus habitats available on the study area. Most studies of cougar (Puma concolor) habitat use assigned each radio-location to a single vegetation polygon, ignoring the fact that radiolocations are imprecise estimates of the animal's true location (we refer to this as "naive estimator" of habitat use). Herein, we describe 2 simpler alternative procedures to accommodate location error, readily implemented in a GIS. One alternative ("circular error estimator") is to treat each point as the center of a circle with radius equal to the estimated average error, and assign each location to habitat types with probability proportional to area of that habitat type within the circle. Another alternative ("nonpoint estimator") is to use estimated locations solely to construct a home range contour and compare the habitat composition of the home range (rather than of individual points)
Page 1:
P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H E six
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS SCHEDULE.........
Page 7 and 8:
PREDATION RATES OF FEMALE MOUNTAIN
Page 9 and 10:
sixth Mountain Lion w o r k s h o p
Page 11 and 12:
sixth Mountain Lion w o r k s h o p
Page 13 and 14: sixth Mountain Lion w o r k s h o p
Page 15 and 16: RESEARCH AND STATUS REPORTS
Page 59 and 60: ABSTRACTS
Page 63: sixth Mountain Lion w o r k s h o p
Page 88: HOSTS: Texas Parks and Wildlife Dep
show all

PWD BK W7000-893 Proceedings.CDR - Mountain Lion Foundation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?