Webless Migratory Game Bird Program - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Assessment of Techniques for Evaluating American Woodcock Population Response to Best Management Practices Applied at the Demonstration-area Scale 67 Kyle O. Daly, David E. Andersen, and Wayne L. Brininger Jr. Factors Affecting Detection of American Woodcock on Singing-Ground Surveys 75 Stefanie M. Bergh and David E. Andersen Marshbirds The Effect of Waterfowl Impoundments on Sora and Virginia Rail Populations 85 Brian J. Olsen and Ellen P. Robertson Nesting, Brood Rearing, and Winter Habitat Selection of King Rails and Clapper Rails within the ACE Basin, South Carolina 92 William E. Mills, Ernie P. Wiggers, Catherine E. Ricketts, Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman, and Sara H. Schweitzer Evaluation of an Expert-based Landscape Suitability Model for King Rails in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture Region 97 David G. Krementz and Jason R. Bolenbaugh Implementation of the National Marshbird Monitoring Program in Ohio 99 David E. Sherman and John W. Simpson Implementation of a National Marshbird Monitoring Program: Using Wisconsin as a Test of Program Study Design 103 Andy Paulios and Ryan Brady Estimating Population Trends, Relative Abundance, and Effects of Management Actions on 7 Species of Webless Migratory Game Birds 109 Courtney J. Conway, Leonard Santisteban, and Christopher P. Nadeau Expanding the Michigan Marsh Bird Survey to Facilitate Conservation at Multiple Scales 112 Michael J. Monfils and David L. Cuthrell Development of a Winter Survey for Wilson’s Snipe in the Mississippi Flyway 116 David G. Krementz and J. Matthew Carroll Developing Optimal Survey Techniques for Monitoring Population Status of Rails, Coots, and Gallinules 123 Courtney J. Conway, Mark Woodrey, Christopher Nadeau, and Meaghan Conway King Rail Nesting and Brood Rearing Ecology in Managed Wetlands 126 David G. Krementz and Karen L. Willard Appendices Appendix I. Projects Funded by the FY2012 Webless Migratory Game Bird Program 134 Appendix II. Summary of FWS Region 5 Projects Supported by the Webless Migratory Game Bird Program 136
HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE WEBLESS MIGRATORY GAME BIRD PROGRAM, 1995-2012 THOMAS R. COOPER, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 950, Bloomington, MN 55437, USA (tom_cooper@fws.gov) DAVID D. DOLTON (retired), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, PO Box 25486 DFC, Denver, CO 80225-0486, USA Introduction The Webless Migratory Game Bird (WMGB) Program is an outgrowth of the WMGB Research Program (1994-present) and the WMGB Management Program (2007-present). The revised WMGB Program was designed to provide cooperative funding for both research and management activities from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), state wildlife agencies, and other sources for projects benefitting the 16 species of migratory game birds in North America (Table 1). Table 1. The 16 species of migratory shore and upland game birds eligible for funding through the Webless Migratory Game Bird Program. Common Name Scientific Name King Rail Rallus elegans Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Sora Porzana carolina Purple Gallinule Porphyrio martinica Common Gallinule 1 Gallinula galeata American Coot Fulica americana Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata American Woodcock Scolopax minor Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Scaly-naped Pigeon Patagioenas squamosa Zenaida Dove Zenaida aurita Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica White-tipped Dove Leptotila verreauxi 1 Formerly Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) History The WMGB Program is an outgrowth of several funding initiatives, both past and present. The first effort was the Accelerated Research Program (1967- 1982). Congressional funding of the ARP was $250,000 annually. Of this total, $175,000 was 1 contracted to states: $50,000 was used directly by the USFWS to support 2 field stations to study woodcock and doves; and, $25,000 was retained by the USFWS to administer the program. The ARP ended when funding for the program was eliminated due to USFWS budget constraints in 1982. In 1984, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (now AFWA) formed the Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird (MSUGB) Subcommittee. One goal of the subcommittee was to reinstate a webless game bird research program. To accomplish this goal, the subcommittee documented the past accomplishments of the ARP and lobbied for reinstatement of a webless research program. The efforts and persistence of the MSUGB Subcommittee came to fruition in the fall of 1994 when funding became available. The new program was titled the WMGB Research Program. Projects were selected for funding beginning in 1995 with funding being obligated for the entire project. Detailed information about the history of the ARP and WMGB Research Programs can be found in Dolton (2009). The WMGB Research Program was funded at various levels during 1995-2006; however, funding was suspended due to budget limitations in 2003 and 2004. Funding was reinstated in 2005 at a level of $250,000/year, with $30,000 of the total being obligated for webless projects in USFWS Region 5 (Northeast U.S.). In 2007, the USFWS received additional funding for MSUGB work ($487,000/year). The primary purpose of the new funding was to address the management needs of MSUGB. From 2007-2009, funding was directed towards supporting mourning dove banding in several states and other management related projects for woodcock, rails, and sandhill cranes. Another key contribution made by the MSUGB Committee was the publication of the book entitled Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Management in North America (Tacha and Braun 1994). This was a
Page 1 and 2: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Webles
Page 3: CONTENTS Development and History of
Page 7 and 8: Program Administration The USFWS Pr
Page 9 and 10: Appendix A - Priority Information N
Page 11 and 12: Table 1. Harvest and crippling of m
Page 13 and 14: idge between current monitoring eff
Page 15 and 16: Figure 1. Estimated age ratios of m
Page 17 and 18: other, showing similar behavior (e.
Page 19 and 20: Table 5. Detection probability and
Page 21 and 22: mechanism for accurate aging of whi
Page 23 and 24: Currently laboratory measurements o
Page 25 and 26: Band-tailed Pigeons BAND-TAILED PIG
Page 27 and 28: flux:rock), fused at 1000°C in a m
Page 29 and 30: The mineral station design was adju
Page 31 and 32: unripe], cascara, and blue elderber
Page 33 and 34: at the station each day ranged from
Page 35 and 36: that Interior birds tended to retai
Page 37 and 38: Sandhill Cranes POPULATION GENETIC
Page 39 and 40: distinguishing between nearly ident
Page 41 and 42: Table 2. Pairwise Fst Values betwee
Page 43 and 44: VHF transmitters were synchronized
Page 45 and 46: Alternatively, a different survey m
Page 47 and 48: (Bennett and Bennett 1990, Nesbitt
Page 49 and 50: Spatial Data Landscape-scale data
Page 51 and 52: time-dependent variable of minimum
Page 53 and 54: We found colt survival was lower on
Page 55 and 56:
McWethy, D. B., and J. E. Austin. 2
Page 57 and 58:
Recent advancements in technology a
Page 59 and 60:
Wildlife Resource Agency, Obion (So
Page 61 and 62:
Figure 4. Preliminary breeding terr
Page 63 and 64:
American Woodcock HABITAT USE AND O
Page 65 and 66:
Figure 2: Map of a pointing dog tra
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 4: Kriged 13th secondary fea
Page 69 and 70:
Texas A&M University, College Stati
Page 71 and 72:
ASSESSMENT OF TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUA
Page 73 and 74:
ivers, marshes, and shrub swamps. V
Page 75 and 76:
adio-marked broods 5-7 days per wee
Page 77 and 78:
adult female, considerably lower th
Page 79 and 80:
FACTORS AFFECTING DETECTION OF AMER
Page 81 and 82:
We classified land-cover types at e
Page 83 and 84:
were neighbor = 1.0, observer = 1.0
Page 85 and 86:
was included within the official su
Page 87 and 88:
Beyer, H. L. 2004. Hawth's Analysis
Page 89 and 90:
Marshbirds THE EFFECT OF WATERFOWL
Page 91 and 92:
Table 2. Relative Importance of mod
Page 93 and 94:
nests to account for repeated measu
Page 95 and 96:
Literature Cited Bogner, H. E. and
Page 97 and 98:
a common nest substrate. Tall forms
Page 99 and 100:
despite rails’ apparent ability t
Page 101 and 102:
EVALUATION OF AN EXPERT-BASED LANDS
Page 103 and 104:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL MARS
Page 105 and 106:
truthed before the actual survey. H
Page 107 and 108:
IMPLEMENTATION OF A NATIONAL MARSHB
Page 109 and 110:
Table 1. Numbers of individuals of
Page 111 and 112:
was required because it was not rea
Page 113 and 114:
ESTIMATING POPULATION TRENDS, RELAT
Page 115 and 116:
This abstract represents a final ab
Page 117 and 118:
Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), So
Page 119 and 120:
volunteers to cover new sites in la
Page 121 and 122:
Plain of Louisiana (Figure 1). We s
Page 123 and 124:
for concentrations of wintering sni
Page 125 and 126:
Table 1. Model selection results an
Page 127 and 128:
DEVELOPING OPTIMAL SURVEY TECHNIQUE
Page 129 and 130:
Conway, C. J., and J. P. Gibbs. 201
Page 131 and 132:
Figure 1. Red Slough Wildlife Manag
Page 133 and 134:
estimate visual obstruction 10 m fr
Page 135 and 136:
Table 3. Habitat measurements recor
Page 137 and 138:
Thesis, South Dakota State Universi
Page 139 and 140:
Reproductive Success and Survival i
Page 141 and 142:
The goal of the study is to address
Page 143 and 144:
When interacting with private lando
show all

Webless Migratory Game Bird Program - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?