Swift Fox Conservation Team 2009-2010 Report
73
SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION TEAM Swift Fox in Valley County, Montana. Photo courtesy of Ryan Rauscher REPORT FOR 2009-2010
-
Upload
truongtruc -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
2
Transcript of Swift Fox Conservation Team 2009-2010 Report
SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION TEAM
Swift Fox in Valley County, Montana. Photo courtesy of Ryan Rauscher
REPORT FOR 2009-2010
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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.
6
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
COLORADO
Jerry A. Apker CDOW, Wildlife Manager 0722 South Road 1 East Monte Vista, CO 81144
Phone: 719-587-6922 FAX: 719-587-6934 Email: [email protected]
KANSAS
Matt Peek Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks PO Box 1525 Emporia, KS 66801
Phone: 620-342-0658 FAX: 620-342-6248 Email: [email protected]
MONTANA
Brian Giddings, Team Co-Chair Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks PO Box 200701 Helena, MT 59620
Phone: 406-444-0042 FAX: 406-444-4952 Email: [email protected]
NEBRASKA
Sam Wilson Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 2200 N. 33rd Lincoln, NE 68503
Phone: 402-471-5174 FAX: 402-471-4992 Email: [email protected]
NEW MEXICO
Jim Stuart New Mexico Dept of Game & Fish PO Box 25112 Santa Fe, NM 87504
Phone: 505-476-8107 FAX: 505-476-8128 Email: [email protected]
NORTH DAKOTA
Patrick Isakson North Dakota Game and Fish Department 100 N. Bismarck Expressway Bismarck, ND 58501-5095
Phone: 701-328-6338 FAX: 701-328-6352 Email: [email protected]
OKLAHOMA
Melynda Hickman Wildlife Diversity Biologist Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
phone: (405) 424-0099 fax: (405) 424-1108 e-mail: [email protected]
SOUTH DAKOTA
Eileen Dowd Stukel, Education Comm., Team Co-Chair South Dakota Dept Game, Fish and Parks 523 E Capitol Pierre, SD 57501
Phone: 605-773-4229 FAX: 605-773-6245 Email: [email protected]
TEXAS
John H. Young, PhD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744
Phone: 512-389-8047 FAX: 512-389-8758 Email: [email protected]
WYOMING
Martin Grenier Wyoming Game and Fish Department 260 Buena Vista Lander, WY 82520
Phone: 307-332-2688, FAX: 307-332-6669 Email: [email protected]
7
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Chris Keefe BLM Wyoming State Office 5353 Yellowstone Road Cheyenne, WY 82009
Phone: 307-775-6101FAX: Email: [email protected]
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Greg Schroeder Badlands National Park 25216 Ben Reifel Rd. PO Box 6 Interior, SD 57750
Phone: 605-433-5269 FAX: 605-433-5404 Email: [email protected]
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Scott Larson USFWS Ecological Services 420 S. Garfield, Suite 400 Pierre, SD 57501
Phone: 605-224-8693, ext 232 FAX: 605-224-9974 Email: [email protected]
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Bob Hodorff USFS - Fall River Ranger District PO Box 732 Hot Springs, SD 57747
Phone: 605-745-4107 FAX: 605-745-4179 Email: [email protected]
USDA/APHIS/WILDLIFE SERVICES
Kirk Gustad WS Western Regional Office 2150 Centre Ave, Bldg B Mail Stop 3W9 Fort Collins, CO 80526
Phone: 970-494-7452 FAX: 970-494-7455 Email: [email protected]
U.S.G.S./BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DIVISION
Marsha A. Sovada, Research Comm. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 8711 37th Street SE Jamestown, ND 58401
Phone: 701-253-5506 FAX: 701-253-5553 Email: [email protected]
NATURAL RESOURCES & CONSEVATION
SERVICE
Vacant Phone: FAX: Email:
CANADA TEAM CHAIR
Axel Moehrenschlager Centre for Conservation Research Calgary Zoo 1300 Zoo Road NE Calgary, AB T2E 7V6
Phone: 403-232-7771 FAX: 403-232-9370 Email: [email protected]
CANADA TEAM CO-CHAIR
Pat Fargey Grasslands National Park Box 150 Val Marie, SK S0N 2T0
Phone: 306-298-2166, ext. 224 FAX: 306-298-4505 Email: [email protected]
PARTICIPATING COOPERATORS
Kristy Bly World Wildlife Fund 320 Meadow Lake Drive Columbia Falls, MT 59912
Phone: : 406-600-6728 FAX: 406-582-7640 Email: [email protected]
Ludwig N. Carbyn Canadian Wildlife Service 4999-98th Ave. Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3
Phone: 780-481-2274 FAX: 780-435-7359 Email: [email protected]
8
Shaun Grassel Lower Brule Sioux Tribe PO Box 246 Lower Brule, SD 57548
Phone: 605-473-5666 Cell: 605-730-3208 Email: [email protected]
Jonathan Proctor Defenders of Wildlife 140 S. 4th Street West Suite 1 Missoula, MT 59801
Phone: 406-549-4103 FAX: 406-542-5632 Email: [email protected]
Kyran Kunkel
University of Montana & Mountain Thinking Conservation Science 1875 Gateway S. Rd. Gallatin Gateway, MT 59730
Phone: 406-763-4109 FAX: Email: [email protected]
Marilyn McBirney
Swift Fox SSP Coordinator, Canid TAG AZA Pueblo Zoo (CO), General Curator 3455 Nuckolls Ave, Pueblo, CO 81005
Phone: 719-561-1452 ext 107 FAX: 719-561-8686 Email: [email protected]
Bill Van Pelt
Western Association Fish & Wildlife Agencies Interstate Prairie Ecosystem Coordinator 5000 West Carefree Hwy Phoenix, AZ 85086
Phone: 623-236-7573 FAX: 623-236-7926 Email: [email protected]
Jerry Dragoo University of New Mexico Dept of Biology Albuquerque, NM 87131
Phone: 505-277-6215 FAX: 505-277-0304 Email: [email protected]
INTERESTED PARTIES
Bill Andelt Dept of Fishery and Wildlife Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523
Phone: 970-491-7093 FAX: 970-491-5091 Email: [email protected]
Rickey Gilliland USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services PO Box 60277 WTAMU Canyon, TX 79016
Phone: 806-651-2880 FAX: Email: [email protected]
Shawn Sartorius
USFWS/ES Billings Sub-Office 2900 4th Ave Billings, MT 59101
Phone: 406-247-7369 FAX: Email: [email protected]
Donelle Schwalm
Texas Tech University Dept. of Natural Resources Management Box 42125 Lubbock, TX 79409
Phone: 806-252-6074 FAX: 806-742-2280 Email: [email protected]
Kim Shotola
Swift Fox Studbook Keeper Houston Zoo, Inc. 1513 Cambridge Houston, TX 77030
Phone: 713-533-6645 FAX: Email: [email protected]
9
David Wood
Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office 5001 Southgate Drive Billings, MT 59101
Phone: 406-896-5024 FAX: Email: [email protected]
David Ausband P.O. Box 8512 Missoula, MT 59807
Phone: 406-531-2633 FAX: Email: [email protected]
Les Bighorn Fort Peck Tribe P.O. Box 1483 Poplar, MT 59255
Phone: 406-768-7460 FAX: 406-768-5606 Email: [email protected]
Trudy Ecoffey Oglala Sioux Park & Recreation P.O. Box 157 Kyle, SD 57752
Phone: 605-455-2584 FAX: 605-455-2265 Email: [email protected]
Jane Roybal U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 61 Lewistown, MT 59457
Phone: 406-538-2391 FAX: Email: [email protected]
Brian Kenner Badlands National Park P.O. Box 6 Interior, SD 57750
Phone: 605-433-5260 FAX: Email: [email protected]
Ryan Rauscher Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 50738 US Hwy 2 West Glasgow, MT 59230
Phone: 406-228-3725 FAX: 406-228-8161 Email: [email protected]
Randall Griebel
USDA Forest Service Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Wall RD PO Box 425 Wall, SD 57790
Phone: 605-279-2125 FAX: 605-279-2725 Email: [email protected]
Bryce Krueger Wyoming Game and Fish Department 528 S. Adams Street Laramie, WY 82070
Phone: 307-745-4046 FAX:307-745-8720 Email: [email protected]
David Augustine
Rangeland Resources Research Unit USDA - ARS 1701 Centre Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525
Phone: 970-492-7125 Email: [email protected]
Amariah Anderson 1224 Columbine Court Fort Collins, CO 80521
Phone: 970-310-0994 Email: [email protected]
Indrani Sasmal South Dakota State University 1610 8th Street Apt #A Brookings, SD 57006
Phone: 605-651-0381 Email: [email protected]
Duane Short
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Wild Species Program Director PO Box 1512 Laramie, WY 82073
Phone: 307-742-7978 Email: [email protected]
10
STATUS OF SWIFT FOX ACTIVITIES IN COLORADO, 2009-2010 JERRY APKER, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife Manager, 0722 South Road 1 East, Monte Vista, CO 81144; Phone: (719) 587-6922; FAX: (719) 587-6934; E-mail: [email protected]
In 2009 swift fox hunting seasons were opened: November 1 – end of February. Harvest numbers are estimated from a phone survey of small game license holders. The harvest survey estimated 153 swift fox taken in 2009. Colorado Trappers Association fur auction is also monitored as an index. Swift fox habitat occupancy surveys are planned to be completed in 2011. These surveys will follow similar grid pattern and survey methods as previous surveys approximately 7 and 12 years ago. Safi Darden’s post-doctoral research on swift fox communication and behavior continues. Internally, Colorado Division of Wildlife reorganized Species Conservation, Terrestrial, and Aquatic sections. This change along with the change of swift fox from an un-hunted to a hunted species results in placing swift fox conservation and management activities in the Terrestrial Section.
11
SWIFT FOX INVESTIGATIONS IN KANSAS, 2009-2010
MATT PEEK, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, P.O. Box 1525, Emporia, KS 66801; Phone: (620) 342-0658; FAX: (620) 342-6248; E-mail: [email protected]
Swift fox populations and harvests are monitored through multiple techniques in Kansas. The most reliable and important of these include roadside track surveys, pelt tagging records, and observation records of Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) employees. Track surveys were last conducted in 2004. Results from the other two monitoring programs are provided below. The Kansas counties in which swift foxes were documented in 2009 and 2010 are found in Figure 1. KDWP initiated a pelt tagging program in 1994 to acquire more precise information on swift fox distribution and harvest than had been achieved through the annual Furbearer Harvest Survey. Any swift fox taken in Kansas must be presented to KDWP for tagging within seven days of the close of the season. The number of swift foxes presented annually to KDWP for pelt tagging since the tagging program was initiated is presented in Figure 2. During the 2008-09 and 2009-10 furharvesting seasons, 98 and 40 swift foxes were harvested, respectively. Foxes were harvested from 13 different counties. For a detailed account of swift fox harvest characteristics, see the Kansas reports in the 2002 and 2004 SFCT annual reports. Recent pelt tagging reports can be found on the KDWP website at http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/Other-Services/Research-Publications/Wildlife-Research-Surveys. During both seasons, KDWP participated in a swift fox trapping effort, coordinated by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, as part of an effort to develop Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for trapping in the United States
(http://www.fishwildlife.org/furbearer_bmp.html). As part of this effort to identify humane and efficient trapping systems to capture swift foxes, swift foxes were captured by two trappers who had furharvested swift foxes in recent seasons. Live-trapped foxes were euthanized so that necropsies evaluating trap-related injury could be conducted. Of the total annual harvest mentioned above, 32 and 27 of the foxes taken each season, respectively, were taken as part of this project. As part of an effort to better monitor swift fox distribution in Kansas, KDWP employees have been asked to report all swift fox observations made annually since 1995. Occasionally reports from non-Department employees that can either be verified (i.e. by photos) or are from individuals known to be competent in swift fox identification (i.e. track survey participators) are included with KDWP employee reports as well. The 2010 reports have not been compiled. In 2009, 18 reports were documented from within 8 Kansas counties. Road-killed foxes accounted for 11 of the reports.
12
Figure 1. Kansas counties in which swift foxes were documented in 2009 and 2010, and the ways in which they were documented.
Figure 2. Number of swift fox pelt tagged by KDWP during the 1994-95 through 2009-10 furbearer seasons in Kansas.
48
33 33
177 5 6
32
86
178
102
5870 65
98
40
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
# o
f s
wif
t fo
x
Season
13
MONTANA 2009 and 2010 SWIFT FOX REPORT
BRIAN GIDDINGS, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, MT 59620-0701; Phone: (406) 444-0042; FAX: (406) 444-4952; E-mail:
[email protected] ABSTRACT Monitoring of resident swift fox populations by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) during the 2009 and 2010 report period involved the collection of swift fox occurrence reports in eastern Montana, the live-trapping of swift fox to translocate 48 foxes to the Fort Peck Indian Reservation (FPIR), establishment of a limited harvest season to collect long-term biological and distribution data, and the initiation of a research project to determine the presence of swift fox in southeastern Montana. FWP and partners also continued planning efforts that are expected to help achieve the national Swift Fox Conservation Team (SFCT) conservation strategy objectives as outlined in the Conservation Assessment and Conservation Strategy of Swift Fox in the United States (CACS) (Kahn et al. 1997). INTRODUCTION Montana has been involved with swift fox restoration and conservation activities since 1994 and has annually provided program activity summaries related to accomplishing SFCT conservation strategy objectives (Giddings 2008). The current direction for management activities in Montana is to monitor species distribution through a variety of methods and to determine where unoccupied, but suitable habitat, may occur to promote range expansion in the state. Collecting species location data from observations, surveys, and harvest will provide long-term distribution information. The well established northcentral Montana core population should now be considered a source of animals for translocations that could help to expand swift fox populations in Montana. METHODS & RESULTS Species Observations - Swift fox observations are reported from local trappers, agency biologists and the general public to FWP each year. The majority of reports come from areas in northcentral and portions of eastern Montana, with most reports providing location data. Some of these reports are verified by FWP biologists. Carcasses from vehicle-killed animals and incidentally taken swift fox from resident coyote trappers are also collected annually with location information that is entered into the species distribution database. A number of reports were collected during the 2009 and 2010 period that represented sighting observations, vehicle-killed animals and trapping-related mortalities. During 2010, these reports originated from six eastern Montana counties with at least six out of eight reports outside of the northcentral core population area, and included four confirmed reports. Reports of swift fox from McCone, Prairie, Big Horn, and Powder River counties provide accumulating evidence that
14
swift fox range in the state has expanded southward from the source population in northcentral Montana, and/or that swift fox are moving into southeastern Montana from South Dakota or Wyoming. Swift Fox Translocations - The FPIR requested translocations of swift fox in 2009 and 2010 after securing federal Tribal Wildlife Grant funding for swift fox population augmentation and monitoring. FWP facilitated these translocations to move swift fox from the northcentral Montana core population to identified suitable habitat on the FPIR. Prior to this effort, swift fox presence on the FPIR occurred at low densities from dispersing individuals and a small 2006 introduction (Giddings 2006). FWP assisted the FPIR in facilitating these translocations by coordinating the permitting process, securing FWP Commission approval, and using local trappers and FWP biologists to capture foxes. Trappers were selected based on their ability to trap swift fox and knowledge of source population areas. Trappers were trained by FWP personnel in all aspects of safety and care of captured animals, along with instruction of GPS and map use, field safety, data management, and private landowner relations. Live-trapping was typically conducted during September and October of each year. Two sizes of swift fox live-traps were used: large traps were 109 cm x 39 cm x 39 cm Tomahawk (Tomahawk Live Trap Co., Tomahawk, WI) double-door or 109 cm x 39 cm x 47 cm Safe Guard traps (Safe Guard Products Inc., Lancaster County, PA); small traps were 83 cm x 31cm x 31 cm Tomahawk single door cage traps or 78 cm x 29 cm x 31 cm Safe Guard traps. All traps were lined with 3mm hardboard to reduce injury potential. Cage traps were set and left open until checked the following day. Captured foxes were coaxed into a denim handling bag placed over the end of the cage trap. Trappers handled foxes by positioning the animal on the lap, one hand restraining the head and covering the eyes, and the second hand restraining the body. Each fox was then sexed and aged from tooth wear and all foxes were ear tagged. Juvenile swift fox were preferred for translocation, so most captured adults were released on site. Captured foxes intended for translocation were placed in animal carriers and transferred to Fort Peck tribal biologists the same day of capture. The FPIR requested 30 swift fox for translocation during 2009 and 20 foxes were available in 2010. The number of foxes available in 2010 was a component of the approval for the harvest season. During the fall of 2009 local trappers captured a total of 37 swift fox in northern Blaine, Phillips, and Valley counties. Thirty foxes were translocated to the FPIR that consisted of 17 juvenile females, 11 juvenile males, and two adult males. These swift fox were provided to tribal wildlife officials for soft release in to suitable habitat on the FPIR. During the fall of 2010, a total of 29 foxes were captured from the same areas as the previous year. Eighteen foxes were provided to the FPIR consisting of seven juvenile females, six juvenile males, two adult females and three adult males. Montana Harvest Season - During the fall of 2010 Montana initiated the first limited harvest season for swift fox which was based on population status, incidental take and trapper interest. Recent scientific population census data indicate that more than 500 swift fox are present in northcentral Montana (Moehrenschlager and Moehrenschlager 2006). The Montana population in combination with the contiguous Canadian population comprises over an estimated 1,163 animals, that are viable and sustainable and of sufficient size to allow some limited harvest opportunity. With swift fox becoming more widely distributed and the population increasing in
15
numbers, some incidental take by coyote trappers is occurring. A limited legal harvest allows trappers to retain possession of this relatively unique species and also provides the state’s residents
with a new harvest opportunity. Considering references in the literature, coyote harvest may play an important role in maintaining swift fox in the region. Additionally, the harvested sample of animals will provide another opportunity for FWP to monitor species distribution and status as well as collect long-term biological information for analysis such as genetic samples, age, disease, and reproductive status. A population viability model used by FWP predicts a zero probability of extinction (i.e., no detrimental effects from harvest) in the next 100 years provided the existing habitat and population remain within normal bounds. The management objectives outlined in the 1997 SFCT CACS are to: 1) maintain local self-sustaining populations that are geographically distributed throughout each state; and: 2) that populations occupy a minimum of 50 percent of the available suitable habitat. Both of these objectives have been attained in Montana. Swift fox have become well established as a self-sustaining population in northcentral Montana that are contiguous with the Canadian population. Also a swift fox population has been established on the Blackfeet Reservation that is expanding southward and eastward. Further, past FWP survey and observation reports indicate animals occupy areas in southeastern Montana adjacent to northeastern Wyoming. Presently there are 22 counties in Montana with various amounts of suitable short grass prairie habitat while current species distribution records (1992-2010) indicate that swift fox occupy 16 of the 22 counties. The portion of Trapping District 6 open to swift fox harvest is limited to the northern portion of only four counties in the District. The swift fox season coincides with the general furbearer season from November 1 through March 1. Harvest numbers are limited to a per trapper limit of three swift fox and a TD six quota of 20 animals in 2010. The quota is monitored through a mandatory 24-hour phone in reporting system with a 48-hour season closure period, a 10-day pelt-tagging requirement with harvest registration, and a mandatory skull turn-in. Southeastern Montana Research - During 2010 a swift fox graduate research project was initiated in southeastern Montana through St. Cloud State University in Minnesota (Alexander 2010). Funding partners for this project included the World Wildlife Fund, Bureau of Land Management, Defenders of Wildlife, and Montana FWP. Presence-absence surveys were conducted from September to November of 2010, the main dispersal period of juvenile swift foxes, using camera station transects. The study area includes 11 counties in eastern Montana that consist mostly of short and mixed grass prairie interspersed with dry land agriculture. A swift fox habitat suitability model developed for eastern Montana by World Wildlife Fund (Olimb et al. 2010) was used to select survey townships. The model was derived from six variables chosen from published literature: brightness, crop density, greenness, road density, terrain ruggedness, and wetness. Each township in the study area was assigned one of three classifications according to the percentage it comprised of the three most suitable gradients (0-24%, 25-49%, ≥50%). Eighty townships from the highest suitability
classification were selected to be surveyed for the presence of swift fox. The percentage of suitable habitat in the selected townships ranged from 50-98%. Transects of 5-km were centrally located along a road in each selected township on public, private, and tribal lands. A transect was comprised of six baited camera stations at one-km intervals and deployed for three consecutive nights. Each transect was sampled at least twice in the same season, between one and two weeks apart, to reduce the possibility of false absences and to calculate detection probability.
16
Surveys were conducted between 6 September 2010 and 15 November 2010 and completed in 31 townships in Carter, Powder River, Custer, Fallon, Wibaux, and Prairie counties. Only three pre-selected townships located in Wibaux, Fallon, and Carter counties were not surveyed due to lack of landowner permission, so three alternate townships were surveyed. Twenty nine different species were identified from camera stations. However, swift foxes were not detected at any camera in the surveyed townships. At least one of the 29 species was detected in all townships with coyotes found in 16.1% of townships and red foxes recorded in 12.1% of townships. DISCUSSION Swift fox sighting observations and carcass specimens contribute valuable information on species distribution in Montana, particularly when these occur outside the core northcentral population or are from new locations that were previously unoccupied. Collecting swift fox location data from observations, surveys, and harvest will continue to provide long-term species distribution information as well as to help FWP monitor any changes. A series of swift fox translocations have served to successfully establish a resident population of foxes in the western portion of the FPIR. Animals on the FPIR are adjacent to the core northcentral Montana population and should intermix over time. Maintaining the FPIR population will assist in restoring a culturally important species to FPIR, increase species diversity on the FPIR, facilitate range expansion of swift fox in northeastern Montana and provide additional wildlife viewing opportunities. Tribal wildlife officials have indicated that these translocations have established a viable breeding population on the reservation. FWP proposed and received approval by the FWP Commission to establish a 2010 swift fox season. Along with this also came the approval to allow live-capture and translocation of up to 20 foxes a year, if and where appropriate, to further expand swift fox distribution in the state. The swift fox season will provide a new harvest opportunity for trappers and long-term monitoring information on species distribution and to collect biological parameters. The southeastern Montana research initiated in 2010 will assist in identifying a habitat corridor in eastern Montana that could provide population connectivity between northern populations with populations to the south. There is some evidence that natural north-south dispersal is occurring within this corridor, however the current camera surveys are required to determine if resident animals are present in some of these areas. Future planning activities will evaluate survey results after 2011 to determine the necessity and feasibility for a second project, to investigate the potential for in-state translocations that could be used to enhance population connectivity of northern populations with the more contiguous continental swift fox population in adjacent Wyoming and South Dakota. LITERATURE CITED Alexander, J.L. 2011. Surveys of swift foxes in eastern Montana, annual progress report 2010. St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN. 16 pp.
17
Giddings, B. 2008. Montana annual swift fox report. Pages 17-20 in Isakson, P., editor. 2009. Swift fox conservation team: report for 2008. North Dakota Game and Fish Dept., Bismarck. 67 pp.
Giddings, B. 2006. Monitoring resident swift fox populations during 2005 & 2006 in Montana.
Pages 9-15 in Dowd Stukel, E. and D.M. Fecske, eds. 2007. Swift fox conservation team: report for 2005-2006. South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish & Parks, Pierre, and North Dakota Game & Fish Dept., Bismarck. 97 pp.
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 & Parks. Helena, MT. 54 pp. Moehrenschlager, A. and C. Moehrenschlager. 2006. Population census of reintroduced swift
foxes (Vulpes velox) in Canada and northern Montana 2005/2006. Centre for Conservation Research Report No. 1, Calgary Zoo. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Olimb, S.K., K. Bly, and C. Huang. 2010. Swift fox habitat suitability index for eastern
Montana. World Wildlife Fund, Northern Great Plains Program. Bozeman, MT.
18
NEBRASKA SWIFT FOX REPORT, 2009-2010
SAM WILSON, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, 2200 N 33rd Street, Lincoln, NE 68503; Phone: (402) 471-5174; FAX: (402) 471-5528; E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION The swift fox (Vulpes velox) is listed as a state endangered species in Nebraska. The species currently occurs in the Panhandle and southwestern counties of Nebraska, and occurred historically in the western two-thirds of the state. Swift fox in Nebraska declined due to overharvest, poisoning, and habitat alteration, and are believed to have been absent from Nebraska between 1901 and 1953. Scent station surveys and observations from the public are used to determine the presence of swift fox in Nebraska. METHODS Scent stations were created by sifting a mixture of fine dry sand and glycerin in a circular pattern (~ 0.75m) near gravel and dirt roads. A plaster tablet soaked in a cod-liver/salmon oil mix was placed in the center of each station. Scent stations were placed in each township surveyed and, weather permitting, re-set for 3 consecutive days or until at least one station in a township showed sign of swift fox visitation (tracks, feces). Scent stations within a county were arranged along transects approximately 1.6 km apart. Station locations were selected based on the suitability of surrounding habitat and the presence of certain structures (fence rows, gates, intersections, etc.) that facilitate animal movement. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Surveys were conducted in 2009 by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) and Chadron State College (CSC). Portions of Dawes and Sioux Counties were surveyed (72 scent station nights) by CSC in February and April. Swift fox sign was found at 4 locations in Dawes County during the February survey and one swift fox was observed in Sioux County during the April survey. The Chet and Jane Fliesbach Wildlife Management area in Morrill County was surveyed (20 scent station nights) by NGPC in May. No swift fox presence was detected. In addition to these surveys, swift fox presence was documented in Brown, Cedar, Cherry, Dawes and Sioux Counties by carcass collection, sign, photograph or observation. Swift fox presence in Brown, Cedar and Cherry Counties may have been associated with an unauthorized translocation. Surveys were conducted in August 2010 by NGPC in Chase and Dundy Counties (124 and 256 scent station nights respectively). No swift fox presence was detected. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Scent station surveys will continue in 2011 in areas of high priority, based on habitat, that have not been surveyed in the last five years.
19
SWIFT FOX CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES IN NEW MEXICO, 2009-2010 JAMES N. STUART, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Conservation Services Division,
PO Box 25112, Santa Fe, NM 87504; Phone: (505) 476-8107; FAX: (505) 476-8128; E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Swift fox (Vulpes velox) occur in shortgrass prairies in the eastern one-quarter of New Mexico and are still found in the majority of areas where they occurred historically. Studies of swift fox distribution, ecology, and survey techniques in New Mexico were initiated in 1999. Since 2002, swift fox have been surveyed via scat collection on established road transects in 12 counties. Scat surveys were conducted in early 2008 and the samples were genetically analyzed to determine species in 2009. Swift fox is a harvestable furbearer in New Mexico and harvest data for 2007-2009 are presented and discussed. At present, New Mexico does not have a pelt tagging requirement for swift fox, which is harvested at low levels in the state. The species and its habitat are considered conservation priorities in the New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (State Wildlife Action Plan). INTRODUCTION The swift fox (Vulpes velox) inhabits shortgrass prairie communities in 12 counties of eastern New Mexico. The species presently occurs throughout its historic range in New Mexico with the exception of areas in eastern Curry and Roosevelt counties, which have been developed as cropland, and in southeastern Quay County where taller grass and shrub encroachment has replaced shortgrass prairie (Harrison and Schmitt 2003). The range of kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), which is widespread in central, southern, and western New Mexico, overlaps with that of swift fox in southeastern New Mexico (primarily in Chaves County), and hybridization between the two forms has been documented in this region (Dragoo and Wayne 2003). The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) has funded and participated in ecological studies and monitoring of swift fox in New Mexico since 1999. Monitoring of swift fox in New Mexico using scat surveys was implemented in 2002 under a contract with Robert Harrison. A standardized monitoring protocol was developed for NMDGF by Harrison (2003) who adapted the methodology from surveys done the previous year (Harrison et al. 2004). ACTIVITIES IN 2009-2010 Under a contract with NMDGF, Harrison (2008) conducted surveys for swift fox scat in eastern New Mexico during March-April 2008. Following the monitoring protocol he developed (Harrison 2003), 98 ten-mile transects along public roads were surveyed, including 1,001 searches of individual sites within those transects. A total of 894 scats judged by Harrison to be from swift fox were collected and individually bagged for later species identification. Compared to Harrison’s
scat survey in 2002, there was no evidence of a decline in swift fox throughout the New Mexico range based on the frequency at which likely swift fox scat was found in 2008.
20
Due to funding and contract delays, genetic analysis of the 2008 scat samples could not be completed until 2009. Dragoo (2009) conducted genetic analysis of the scat samples via extraction and amplification of the mtDNA cytochrome b gene and comparison of the DNA sequence to available mammal references. Due to problems with the quality of the samples, only 97 (~11%) of the 894 scat samples analyzed were identified to species. This is substantially lower than the 30-40 % identification rate which is typically achievable in such studies. Despite the availability of likely swift fox scats from all 12 counties surveyed, swift fox was positively identified in only 7 counties based on the genetic analysis: Colfax, De Baca, Harding, Lea, Mora, Quay, and Union. Only 2 other taxa of carnivores, coyote (Canis latrans) and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), were identified from the samples. Swift fox accounted for 61% of the samples that could be identified genetically. Striped skunks represented 31%, and coyotes were identified in 4% of the samples. One sample from Union County was identified as jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), although this sample clearly was a result of identifying a food source rather than a rabbit pellet; the scat was morphologically similar to a canid (Canis or Vulpes) sample. In the seven counties where swift fox scat was identified, Union County had the highest number; this county, which has extensive suitable habitat for swift fox, also had the highest number of transects and scats. Dragoo (2009) noted that the age and condition of the scats was a likely factor in the inability to identify much of the material to species, and the results could have been improved by collecting fresher scats and conducting the genetic analysis much sooner after the material was collected. The protocol for future scat surveys will be adjusted to address the problems encountered in the 2008-2009 survey effort. STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN In 2006, the NMDGF completed preparation of the New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), which identifies and discusses species and habitats in greatest need of management and research funding. Swift fox is included among the CWCS species of greatest conservation need. Prairie habitats used by swift fox (Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie and, to a lesser extent, Western Great Plains Sand-sage Shrubland) in eastern New Mexico were identified as CWCS priority habitats. Funding and public outreach for the implementation of the CWCS by NMDGF (as the New Mexico Wildlife Action Plan) were begun in 2008, although no conservation projects (other than survey efforts) that directly benefit swift fox have been initiated to date. Land acquisitions and conservation efforts by NMDGF within swift fox range in eastern New Mexico are presently underway. FURBEARER HARVEST DATA
All four species of fox that occur in New Mexico (swift, kit, red, and gray) are legally classified as ―fur-bearing animals‖ (furbearers) and can be harvested statewide in New Mexico
during the open season from November 1 through March 15. Both the state statute (17-5-2 New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 [1995 Repl.]) and the pertinent state regulation (19.32.2 New Mexico Administrative Code [NMAC]) for furbearers do not distinguish among the four species of fox that occur in the state; the statute refers only to ―all species of foxes.‖ Harvest data from
previous years was summarized by Harrison and Schmitt (2003) and Stuart (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009).
Swift fox and kit fox are perhaps most often taken as incidental captures by trappers who are
21
targeting coyotes. The estimated sustainable annual harvest limit for swift fox in New Mexico is 2,231-3,702 animals. This harvest limit is derived from the state’s furbearer population assessment
and harvest management matrix which estimates a New Mexico population of 11,106-18,510 animals, based on a density estimate of 0.12-0.20 swift fox per square kilometer and 92,553 square kilometers of habitat. The harvest management objective for swift fox is that a sustained level of < 20% of the estimated population statewide shall be available for sport harvest through 2010.
Harvest data collected in past years by NMDGF’s Wildlife Management Division often combined kit fox and swift fox, based on identifications reported by trappers. In recent years, the two species have been reported separately in harvest summaries, although trappers often use the names ―swift fox‖ and ―kit fox‖ inconsistently. However, it is possible in most cases to separate the harvest numbers for the two species (which are mostly allopatric) based on the counties in which foxes were reportedly taken. NMDGF formerly relied on voluntary reporting for furbearer trappers, but implemented a mandatory reporting requirement beginning with the 2006-2007 trapping season. For the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 trapping seasons, approximately 58% of licensed furbearer trappers responded with reports of their activities and take by species. Based on the reported harvest of swift/kit foxes for those counties in which swift fox occur, 42 were reported harvested in New Mexico in 2007-2008, of which 33 were taken in Chaves County where both species of fox and hybrid animals occur. In 2008-2009, only 15 were reportedly taken in counties in which swift fox occurs, including in Chaves County. The total reported annual harvest statewide for kit fox and swift fox combined were 400 in 2007-2008 and 253 in 2008-2009, indicating that most of the animals being harvested, regardless of how they are identified by the trapper, are kit fox. Harvest results from the 2009-2010 season are affected by the surprisingly low (28.6%) response rate by licensed trappers, despite the mandatory reporting requirement. Of the animals reported as either swift fox or kit fox from eastern counties of New Mexico, 35 animals that could be assigned to swift fox were taken during this season. As with previous seasons, the majority of swift/kit foxes reportedly taken in New Mexico are from counties west of the Pecos River and are therefore assignable to kit fox.
Even allowing for an underestimate of harvest due to incomplete annual reporting data from trappers, the numbers of both swift and kit fox taken in New Mexico during 2007-2010 are far below the estimated sustainable annual harvest limit for both species. NMDGF does not require tagging of swift fox pelts. Based on the current level of harvest derived from trapper reports and agency estimates, NMDGF has decided that pelt tagging is not warranted at this time, but will re-evaluate the need for a tagging rule on an annual basis. CURRENT AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES The next scat surveys are tentatively planned for 2013. Modifications of the survey protocol to allow more rapid genetic evaluation of scat samples (e.g., concurrently with sampling efforts) will be implemented to improve our ability to get species identifications from a greater percentage of the samples. Removal of old scats from survey sites in advance of survey efforts is also an option to ensure that only fresh scat is obtained; however, the cost and time to do this might be prohibitive. NMDGF will continue to compile roadkill and observation data (obtained incidentally) as in previous years. NMDGF will continue research and conservation actions for swift fox through
22
grassland conservation projects that benefit this and other grassland wildlife species under the state’s Wildlife Action Plan. LITERATURE CITED DRAGOO, J.W. 2009. Swift Fox Scat Identification. Final report to New Mexico Dept. Game &
Fish, Santa Fe. DRAGOO, J.W. AND R.K. WAYNE. 2003. Systematics and population genetics of swift and kit
foxes. Pp. 207-222 in The Swift Fox: Ecology and Conservation of Swift Foxes in a Changing World (M.A. Sovada and L.Carbyn eds.). Canadian Plains Research Center, Univ. Regina, Saskatchewan.
HARRISON, R.L. 2003. Population monitoring protocol for swift fox in New Mexico. Unpublished
report to New Mexico Dept. Game and Fish, Santa Fe. HARRISON, R.L. 2008. Swift fox monitoring in New Mexico. Final report to New Mexico Dept.
Game and Fish, Conservation Services Division. HARRISON, R.L., P.S. CLARKE, AND C.M. CLARKE. 2004. Indexing swift fox populations in
New Mexico using scats. American Midland Naturalist 151:42-49. HARRISON, R.L. AND C.G. SCHMITT. 2003. Current swift fox distribution and habitat selection
within areas of historical occurrence in New Mexico. Pp. 71-77 in M.A. Sovada and L. Carbyn (eds.), The Swift Fox: Ecology and Conservation of Swift Foxes in a Changing World. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
STUART, J.N. 2006. Swift fox research in New Mexico: 2004 update. Pp. 11-13 in Stuart, J.N. and
S. Wilson (eds.), Swift Fox Conservation Team: Annual Report for 2004. New Mexico Dept. Game and Fish and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.
STUART, J.N. 2007. Swift fox research in New Mexico: 2005-2006. Pp. 17-19 in E. Dowd Stukel and D.M. Fecske (eds.), Swift Fox Conservation Team: Report for 2005-2006. South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre and North Dakota Game and Fish Dept., Bismarck.
STUART, J.N. 2008. Swift fox surveys and other activities in New Mexico: 2006-2007. Pp. 9-12 in
B. Krueger and M. Ewald (eds.), Swift Fox Conservation Team: Report for 2007. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Laramie.
STUART, J.N. 2009. Swift fox conservation activities in New Mexico: 2008. Pp. 22-25 in P.
Isakson (ed.), Swift Fox Conservation Team Report for 2008. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck.
23
NORTH DAKOTA SWIFT FOX REPORT 2009
STEPHANIE TUCKER, Furbearer Biologist, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 100 North Bismarck Expressway, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501; Phone: (701) 220-1871; E-mail:
PATRICK ISAKSON, Conservation Biologist, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 100 North Bismarck Expressway, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501; Phone: (701) 328-6338; E-mail:
[email protected] Introduction Prior to settlement, the swift fox was found throughout North Dakota (Bailey 1926, Adams 1961, Thwaites 1953). By the early part of the 20th century its range had been reduced to the western side of the state. It is believed sometime during the 1920s it was extirpated from the state (Adams 1961). The loss of swift fox from North Dakota is attributed to unregulated harvest (Bailey 1926, Adams 1961). The presence of a swift fox in North Dakota was not confirmed again until 1984. Monitoring Methods Although we have no known breeding population in the state, the swift fox is listed as a furbearer with a closed season and a Level II Species of Conservation Priority by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (Hagen et al. 2005). Therefore, we monitor the presence of individuals in the state via reports of occurrence and track surveys. Additionally, we are proactive about disseminating information about swift fox ecology to the public so they are aware of the possibility of an encounter and that we are documenting sightings. Results In October 1984, the first confirmed occurrence of a swift fox in North Dakota in over 50 years was documented when one was incidentally trapped in McIntosh County. Since then, we have documented 7 other swift fox mortalities in North Dakota from 5 different counties (Table 1, Figure 1). We did not conduct track surveys in 2009 due to higher priorities. However, we continue to discuss sampling options with Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center for upcoming efforts. Additionally, we continued to investigate credible sightings. Literature Cited Adams, A. W. 1961. Furbearers of North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department,
Bismarck, North Dakota. 102 pp. Bailey, V. 1926. A biological survey of North Dakota. North American Fauna, No. 49. 416 pp. Hagen, S. K., P. T. Isakson, and S. R. Dyke. 2005. North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. North Dakota Game and Fish Deparment, Bismarck, North Dakota. 454 pp.
24
Thwaites, R. G. 1969 ed. Original journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Arno Press, New York, New York.
SWIFT FOX MONITORING UPDATE – OKLAHOMA 2009-2010
MARK HOWERY, Wildlife Diversity Program, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, P.O. Box 53465, Oklahoma City, OK 73152; Phone: (405) 424-2728; FAX: (405) 424-1108; E-
mail: [email protected] Introduction:
The Swift Fox is considered to be a Tier II Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the Oklahoma Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ODWC 2005). The range of the Swift Fox in Oklahoma has been described in reports to the Swift Fox Conservation Team by Julianne Hoagland, and recent surveys (since 1998) have demonstrated that this species’ historic geographic
range and current geographic range are nearly identical. In Oklahoma, the Swift Fox is associated with relatively level, shortgrass prairie rangeland and non-irrigated winter wheat fields in the panhandle of Oklahoma and the northwest corner of the main body of the state (Hoagland 2002, Kilgore 1969). It also occurs in some areas of grazed mixed-grass prairie and sand sagebrush shrubland. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation annually monitors Swift Fox populations to track trends in the relative abundance and geographic range of the Swift Fox in Oklahoma. This is accomplished through timed-searches for Swift Fox tracks along county roads in areas of suitable habitat. Track searches are conducted in one half of the townships that comprise the Swift Fox’s current range in Oklahoma. Approximately 1/3 of the survey townships are covered
each year such that every township is surveyed in a three-year cycle. These townships are evenly distributed across the three counties that comprise the Oklahoma panhandle (Cimarron, Texas and Beaver counties) and the adjacent portion of Harper County in northwest corner of the main body of the state.
The timed-search surveys for Swift Fox tracks were based along county roads and were conducted by wildlife diversity biologist Mark Howery and game warden Max Crocker. The margins of graveled county roads, access roads leading to natural gas well sites or irrigation wells, and the edges of plowed fields were the most commonly searched tracking substrates. Each township was surveyed for a minimum of 30 minutes and a maximum of 120 minutes. In each township, the observer recorded the time that elapsed between the beginning of the survey and the time at which the first Swift Fox track was detected. If a Swift Fox track line was detected during the first 30 minutes of the survey, the observer continued to search for track lines in the township until the minimum 30 minute period had elapsed. As a result, it was possible to record multiple Swift Fox locations within a township. If no Swift Fox tracks were observed after 120 minutes of searching, the survey in the township ceased, the observer recorded that no tracks were found and moved to the next township to initiate a new survey. Each observer carried a watch or stopwatch
25
and recorded the time that was spent actually searching substrates for fox tracks. Typically, an observer would search a section of road for 5 to 10 minutes, return to the vehicle, stop the stopwatch and drive to a new location. At the new location, the observer would resume keeping time and searching for tracks. Track searches were commonly conducted at five to twelve locations within a township. During the search for Swift Fox tracks, tracks of all other carnivores were recorded as well. Additionally, we recorded the tracks of Black-tailed Jackrabbits because of the potential confusion between the size and shape of Swift Fox tracks and those left by the front paws of jackrabbits. To minimize misidentification, we only considered a Swift Fox track to be verified if we could locate a continuous track line of 15 feet or 20 individual track prints.
The Oklahoma panhandle experienced moderate drought conditions during the summer and
fall of 2009. The entire survey area received between three and five inches of precipitation during the period from August 1 through November 30, 2009. Despite the drought conditions, we were able to locate good tracking substrates in most townships except for those in the northern portion of Cimarron County where the soils were rocky or heavy clay.
In the fall of 2009, timed-search surveys for Swift Fox tracks were conducted in 20
townships in the three panhandle counties – 11 in Cimarron County, 8 in Texas County and 1 in Beaver County. Swift Fox tracks were located in 17 of these 20 townships (85%). A total of 25 separate Swift Fox locations were documented during the survey in the 17 townships in which we found fox tracks. Single Swift Fox locations were found in eleven of the 17 townships and two Swift Fox locations were found in each of four townships. We found three separate Swift Fox locations in two townships within the first 30 minutes searching.
Table 1. Summary of Swift Fox Track Presence/Absence During Track Searches in 20 Townships. Township County Swift Fox
Detection (Yes/NO) Number of Swift Fox Detections
Time Until First Swift Fox Detection
T03N, R06E Cimarron Yes 3 7 minutes T04N, R09E Cimarron Yes 1 18 minutes T04N, R03E Cimarron Yes 1 17 minutes T05N, R02E Cimarron Yes 1 35 minutes T06N, R03E Cimarron Yes 1 63 minutes T06N, R07E Cimarron Yes 1 13 minutes T05N, R06E Cimarron Yes 1 27 minutes T01N, R02E Cimarron Yes 3 7 minutes T02N, R05E Cimarron Yes 1 38 minutes T01N, R08E Cimarron Yes 2 22 minutes T02N, R09E Cimarron Yes 2 8 minutes T05N, R10E Texas Yes 1 52 minutes T03N, R10E Texas Yes 2 9 minutes T05N, R16E Texas No 0 - (120 min) T06N, R15E Texas Yes 2 27 minutes T02N, R11E Texas Yes 1 26 minutes
26
T03N, R18E Texas No 0 - (120 min) T01N, R10E Texas Yes 1 51 minutes T01N, R16E Texas No 0 - (120 min) T01N, R24E Beaver Yes 1 8 minutes
The average time that elapsed between the start of each survey and the first detection of a Swift Fox track line was 39 minutes, with a range of 7 minutes to 120 minutes (maximum survey duration). This is similar to average time of first detection that we’ve found in previous years (32 to
49 minutes). The three townships in which no Swift Fox tracks were located were assigned the maximum survey duration of 120 minutes. Sixty-three minutes was the longest time interval between the beginning of a timed search and the finding of a Swift Fox track line in a township. Swift Fox tracks were located within the first thirty minutes of searching during 12 of the 20 township surveys (60%). In four townships, the first set of Swift Fox tracks was located at between 30 and 60 minutes from the initiation of the survey (20%). In only four townships (20%) did we have to search for more than 60 minutes to locate a set of Swift Fox tracks; three of those were townships were we didn’t successfully locate fox tracks. We recorded other carnivores during our track surveys; these results are summarized below in Table 2. We also recorded the track trails of the Black-tailed Jackrabbit. The tracks of Swift Foxes are relatively easy to distinguish from other carnivore tracks due to their small size and the number of toes (relative to mustelids). Over the years, we have found that the tracks that are most likely to be confused with Swift Fox are those of the front paws of the Black-tailed Jackrabbit. The tracks left by Swift Fox and the front paws of Black-tailed Jackrabbits are nearly identical in size and their toe arrangement is also similar (especially for the tracks that are left in sand and dust that don’t have well defined toe impressions). As a result of this similarity, we evaluated each set of
suspected Swift Fox tracks to ensure that these were not the tracks of Black-tailed Jackrabbits. The most certain methods for distinguishing between these tracks was to only count track lines that contained approximately 20 individual track impressions or a solid line of tracks at least 15 feet in length. Typically, a line of Black-tailed Jackrabbits will contain impressions of the larger hind feet, and the impressions left by the hind feet of jackrabbits are usually placed side by side.
Totaling the results of all 20 townships with timed-search surveys, we located 25 sets of Swift Fox tracks, 112 Coyotes, 161 Black-tailed Jackrabbits, 21 Striped Skunks, 10 American Badgers, 6 Raccoons and two Red Foxes (Table 2). Although the Swift Fox was the second most frequently encountered carnivore during our track surveys, this should not be interpreted as the Swift Fox being second most numerous carnivore in the Oklahoma panhandle. Our survey protocol was designed to maximize Swift Fox detections and was biased in favor of the shortgrass prairie habitats in which Swift Foxes are found, and therefore it under-represent the habitats that are more favored by Striped Skunks, Raccoons and Bobcats in the study area. We also observed 17 Black-tailed Prairie Dog colonies along county roads incidentally during the survey.
27
Table 2. Total Carnivore and Jackrabbit Track Sets Located during the Township Track Surveys. Species Swift
Fox Coyote Black-tailed
Jackrabbit Striped Skunk
Badger Raccoon Red Fox
# of individuals
25 112 161 21 10 6 2
# of townships
17 20 20 14 8 5 2
Similar to the results found in previous years of the survey, most Swift Fox track detections occurred in landscapes that were dominated by rangeland. In the Oklahoma panhandle, most rangeland consists of native prairie communities dominated by a combination of Hairy Grama (Bouteloua hirsuta), Blue Grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), Sideoats Grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) and Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium). A few of the areas that we classified as rangeland had historically been crop fields, but they had been planted to either native grasses or Yellow (Old World) Bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum) as part of either the Soil Bank program in the 1950s or the Conservation Reserve Program in the 1980s and 1990s. In all cases, these former Soil Bank or CRP sites were grazed and structurally functioned as rangeland. Eleven of the 25 Swift Fox detections (44%) occurred in sites that were entirely surrounded by habitat that was classified as rangeland. The vegetation surrounding an additional 8 detection sites (32%) was comprised of at least 50% rangeland and 50% or less of non-irrigated winter wheat or ungrazed CRP fields. As a result, 76% of our Swift Fox detections occurred in areas that were comprised of at least 50% rangeland. The remaining 6 Swift Fox detections (24%) were in agricultural areas comprised of an interspersion of winter wheat, fallow fields and CRP fields. Literature Cited: Hoagland, J.W. 2002. Population Distribution of the Swift Fox in Northwestern
Oklahoma Using a Track Search Survey. Final Report. Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Conservation. Federal Aid Project E-49.
Kilgore, D.L. 1969. An Ecological Study of the Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Amer. Midl. Nat. 81:512-534.
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2005. Oklahoma Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Planning for the Future of Oklahoma’s Wildlife. 423 pp.
28
STATE SWIFT FOX ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH DAKOTA EILEEN DOWD STUKEL, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 523 E. Capitol
Avenue, Pierre, SD 57502, USA; Phone: (605) 773-4229; FAX: (605) 773-6245; E-mail: [email protected]
South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) provided feedback to the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority (OSPRA) regarding their planned swift fox reintroduction. SDGFP shared staff comments and questions about the project and worked with OSPRA to resolve issues, resulting in a project Memorandum of Agreement. SDGFP also provided input when requested to the Colorado Division of Wildlife; Colorado served as the source location for swift fox translocated to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. SDGFP staff provided significant assistance in updating and revising the ―Conservation Assessment
and Conservation Strategy for Swift Fox in the United States.‖ A revised document is expected
during mid-2011. SDGFP continued to operate under the ―Protocol for handling swift fox carcasses and swift fox that are injured or in need of relocation – Guidance for SDGFP personnel.‖ This guidance document
helps assure that reintroduction entities are informed of recovery of live and dead radio-collared swift fox and to give reintroduction entities the opportunity to retrieve carcasses for biological information. SDGFP continued to provide financial assistance via State Wildlife Grants funds to the Turner Endangered Species Fund’s swift fox project at the Bad River Ranches in South Dakota. Following
the death of field project leader Kevin Honness, Dr. Jonathan Jenks at South Dakota State University assumed responsibility for analyzing and summarizing project data. SDGFP’s assistance
was directed at the following project and associated objectives: Grant Number: T-25-R Project Title: Assessing Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) habitat use and resource selection in the pup-
rearing period in the mixed grass prairie of west-central South Dakota. Objectives:
1. To evaluate resource selection of swift foxes during the pup-rearing period in the mixed-grass prairie of west-central South Dakota
2. To refine the existing habitat suitability model developed by Kunkel et al (2003) for the pup-rearing period using updated techniques and area-specific data
The following information was provided by Indrani Sasmal and Jonathan Jenks of South Dakota State University in the project’s final report. Any specific questions on this material should be
directed to these lead authors. Habitat Selection by Female Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) During the Pup-Rearing Season
29
Indrani Sasmal, Jonathan A. Jenks, Troy W. Grovenburg, Shubham Datta, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
Greg M. Schroeder, Badlands National Park, 25216 Ben Rifle Road, PO Box 6, Interior, SD 57750 Robert W. Klaver. USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198 Objective 1: To evaluate resource selection of swift foxes during the pup-rearing period in the
mixed-grass prairie of west-central South Dakota ABSTRACT: The swift fox (Vulpes velox) was historically distributed in southwestern South Dakota including the region surrounding Badlands National Park (BNP). The species declined during the mid-1900s due to habitat fragmentation, non-target poisoning, and harvest. Following the successful reintroduction of the species in Canada (1983), a reintroduction program was initiated in BNP in the year 2003. Free-ranging swift fox from Colorado and Wyoming were translocated to BNP from 2003 to 2006. Despite these releases and observations of free-ranging swift fox occurring throughout western South Dakota, it was unknown if a viable population occurred in western South Dakota. Evaluation of habitat selection of female swift fox during pup-rearing season (May-August) can provide information related to the potential viability of a reintroduced population. Habitat selection analysis was conducted during summer 2009 at the landscape-level and within the home range of established foxes. Home range level analysis indicated that swift fox disproportionately decreased use of woodland (ẁ = 0.0), shrubland (ẁ = 0.14), pasture/agricultural-land (ẁ = 0.25) and development (ẁ = 0.16), whereas foxes used grassland (ẁ = 1.01), sparse vegetation (ẁ = 1.4) and prairie dog towns (ẁ = 1.18) in proportion to availability. Our analyses indicated that swift fox selected habitats that provide greater visibility, such as grassland, sparse vegetation, and prairie dog towns mainly due to increased prey availability and avoidance of coyotes (Canis latrans). Objective 2. To refine the existing habitat suitability model developed by Kunkel et al (2003) for
the pup-rearing period using updated techniques and area-specific data by 31 December 2009.
Kunkel et al. (2001) assessed the feasibility of restoring swift fox (Vulpes velox) to west-central South Dakota and concluded that habitats characterizing west-central South Dakota were suitable for swift fox restoration. Variables considered in their (Kunkel et al. 2003) analyses included landscape characteristics, escape terrain, and prey availability for assessing habitat suitability. They also considered predator control, especially coyote (Canis latrans) control to be critically important for successful swift fox restoration. Due to modifications to the project, our study area (Badlands National Park, South Dakota) was somewhat different from Bad River Ranches, South Dakota (Kunkel et al. 2003), which could account for differences in habitat suitability for the species. Badlands National Park is farther southwest with shorter grass, closer to the remnant fox population, and farther within the historic distribution of swift fox than the Bad River Ranches. Despite differences between study areas, we compared results for habitat selection of swift fox during the pup-rearing period in the Badlands Region of South Dakota to those deemed important by Kunkel et al. (2003). According to our findings, swift fox preferred to stay closer to roads than random locations. Kunkel et al. (2003) also had considered roads as an important landscape character for maintaining suitable
30
fox habitat because those areas provided prey and enhanced avoidance of predators, i.e., coyotes (Almasi-Klausz and Carbyn 1999). Although roads are an important landscape variable, Kunkel et al. (2003) did not present information on distance of fox locations from the roads. Also in spite of the fact that the topography at Bad River Ranches consisted of flats incised by intermittent drainages, including the Bad River, they had not mentioned whether foxes were closer to water sources than roads than random locations; an indication of habitat selection. Our results indicated that foxes selected locations that were closer to roads than water sources despite being characterized by topographic features less incised by intermittent drainages than that of Bad River Ranches (Kunkel et al. 2003). Nevertheless, water bodies provide prey sources via association with diverse avian, small mammal, and insect species and thus, likely represent important habitat features for swift foxes. Kunkel et al. (2003) suggested that prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) towns play an important role in creating suitable habitat for swift fox by providing burrows as escape cover to protect the foxes from predators, such as coyotes. Our results also indicated that swift fox used prairie dog towns in proportion to availability rather than avoiding them like pasture/agricultural-land and woodland habitats. Our findings indicated that swift foxes were closer to roads than to prairie dog towns, however, we also documented that the survival rate of foxes closer to prairie dog towns were greater than those foxes that used habitats close to roads. We also documented that foxes closer to prairie dog towns had smaller home ranges than those located farther from prairie dog towns, which suggested that foxes close to prairie dog towns decreased travel costs associated with capture of prey during the pup-rearing period. Smaller home-ranges also increased survival of foxes as they were more vulnerable to coyote mortality when > 1 km from dens (Sovada et al. 1998, Kitchen et al. 1999). According to Kunkel et al. (2003), prey availability and predator density assessment are important aspects for maintaining a viable swift fox population. Swift fox are opportunistic foragers preying on annually and seasonally available prey (Uresk and Sharps 1986, Scott-Brown et al. 1987, Hines and Case 1991, Kitchen et al. 1999, Cypher et al. 2000). Thus, prey abundance is an indicator of quality of the habitat of swift fox. Kunkel et al. (2003) reported that swift fox density, proportion of successfully reproducing adults, and adult survival rates varied relative to prey availability. We did not assess prey availability in our study area. However, Kamler et al. (2003) reported increase in swift fox survival with decrease in coyote abundance in Northwestern Texas. Kunkel et al. (2001) reported high density of coyotes in their study area and suggested control at the onset of reintroduction allowed foxes to become familiar with the release areas until density increased. In our study area, decreased number of coyotes was reported by park biologists (Badlands National Park) due to spread of sarcoptic mange epizootics caused by a mite (Sarcoptes scabiei) (Chronert et al. 2007). Established swift fox range and decreased coyote density in our study area may have increased suitable habitat by increasing the survival rate for swift foxes as suggested by Kamler el al. (2003) and Kunkel et al. (2001). Nevertheless, further study is in need to assess effects of predators on habitat selection of swift fox at Badlands National Park and surrounding areas.
31
SWIFT FOX SUMMARY
JOHN YOUNG, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744; Phone: (512) 389-8047; FAX: (512) 389-8758; E-mail: [email protected]
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) is working on a proposal to change trapping regulations for swift fox for our Division Director’s consideration. TPWD is also seeking funding for a swift fox reintroduction program.
32
EVALUATION OF SWIFT FOX SURVEY TECHNIQUES COMPLETION REPORT
LEE KNOX, Nongame Biologist, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY 82520; Phone: (307) 332-2688; FAX: (307) 332-6669; E-mail: [email protected]
MARTIN GRENIER, Nongame Mammal Biologist, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260
Buena Vista, Lander, WY 82520; Phone: (307) 332-2688; FAX: (307) 332-6669; E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION The swift fox (Vulpes velox) is a small canid that historically occupied the short- and mixed-grass prairie from northern Texas to southern Canada (Scott-Brown et al., 1987). The distribution covered 12 states including areas east of the Continental Divide in Wyoming. Swift fox densities and distribution declined greatly in the nineteenth and late twentieth century due to loss of native prairie habitat, and predator control (Scott-Brown et al., 1987). The swift fox was petitioned for listing as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1992, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a ―warranted but precluded‖ finding in 1995. Due, in large part, to efforts
from the Swift Fox Conservation Team and new data, the swift fox was removed from the ESA Candidate List in 2002. The swift fox is classified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need with a Native Species Status of 4 (NSS4) by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). Population status and trends for the swift fox in Wyoming are unknown, but suspected to be stable, and habitat is restricted or vulnerable without recent or on-going significant loss (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2005).
Several conservation efforts and planning processes for the swift fox are currently underway. The WGFD has identified several objectives under the State Wildlife Action Plan (WGFD 2005) that are consistent with the Conservation Assessment and Conservation Strategy for Swift Fox in North America (Kahn et al. 1997). Under guidance of these documents the WGFD is working to improve the knowledge of swift fox abundance and distribution in Wyoming. Previously, WGFD utilized track plates, methodology described by Olsen et al. (1999), to conduct surveys throughout eastern Wyoming. However, ethyl alcohol, which is required to implement this survey method, can no longer be transported in large volumes because it is considered a hazardous material by the State of Wyoming. As such, our objectives for this project were to evaluate several survey methodologies that could be utilized by the WGFD to conduct future swift fox surveys. We describe 3 survey methods that were implemented in 2009 as part of this pilot study and provide recommendations to implement and improve surveys in the future. METHODS We evaluated infrared cameras, hair snares, and live trapping as potential survey methods for swift fox between May and November 2009 in south central Wyoming. Our study area was east of Rawlins to the Albany county line, south to the Colorado border, and north to Hwy 220. Habitat
33
characteristics were previously described by Olson et al. (1999). We contrasted performance of these methods using several metrics. We calculated LTD by taking the mean number of trap nights until first detection (Forseman et al. 1998), and calculated probability of detection by dividing the number of swift fox detected by the number of trap nights. We compared the cost of the materials and the amount of person • hrs required to implement each method. We did not account for travel
related expenses (e.g., drive time, gas, etc.) during our cost estimates, as these were constant for all techniques. Infrared Cameras
We used 40 infrared cameras (Reconyx, PM35, Holmen, Wisconsin) available from the Trophy Game section of the WGFD to conduct our survey. We programmed each camera to take a picture every second for 10 s, and then pause for 30 s, before taking another picture. About 1 m from the camera, we inserted a 0.5 m wooden stake about 10 cm into the ground, to serve as a reference and focal point for the camera. We placed each camera about 0.5 m aboveground using two pieces of 1.4 × 61 cm rebar and used an elastic cord to secure the camera to the rebar. We created a skunk based attractant by heating 385 ml of petroleum jelly to liquid form, and adding 15 ml of skunk essence (F&T Fur Harvester’s Trading Post, Alpena, Michigan). The attractant was then allowed to solidify. We applied two attractants to each stake. The top of the stake received about 15 ml of the solidified attractant and the base received a few sprays of fish oil. We surveyed 6 random quadrats in our study area. Each quadrat measured about 31 ha (Finley et al 2005). We surveyed quadrats twice, once using an array of 5 cameras, and once using an array of 15. We left each array out for 7 consecutive nights and varied the location of cameras based on available habitat and roads contained within each quadrat. At the end of 7 days we retrieved cameras, downloaded pictures to a laptop computer, and erased each memory card. We left quadrats vacant for a minimum of 1 week between sampling periods. Hair Snares
Hair snares were modeled after the single-sampling hair snare designed by Pauli et al. (2007). We tested two diameters of hair snares, 10.2 cm (i.e., white sewer pipe), and 15.2 cm (i.e., SDS-35 sewer pipe). We modified the design by leaving the pipe intact, and drilled 20 mm holes to insert the two wire brushes with 26 mm rubber stoppers near the top half of the pipe. We surveyed 2 locations where swift fox were known to occur to determine if swift fox would enter the snares. At each location we placed a 10.2 cm snare, and a 15.2 cm snare, each baited with chicken wings. We put a piece of 1.4 × 61 cm rebar through the center of the back of the snare, and hammered it into the ground as an anchor. We also placed an infrared camera about 0.5 m aboveground using two pieces of 1.4 × 61 cm rebar with an elastic cord used to secure the camera to the rebar, to document swift fox response. Snares were left out for 7 consecutive nights. At the end of the sampling period we checked the wire brushes for hair, and examined the pictures. Live Trapping We selected trap sites based on known swift fox locations. We baited 40 traps, each 20 × 23 × 61 cm (True-Catch traps Belle Fourche, SD) with small chunks of deer meat and a commercial attractant (O’Gorman Powder River past, Broadus, MT). Traps were wrapped in burlap and set
34
every 0.4 km along roads and two tracks. We set traps at 1930 hrs and checked them at 0700 hrs the next morning. Trapping occurred in conjunction with a swift fox translocation project for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. All captured swift fox were translocated to the reservation. We report only data for traps that were operated by WGFD personnel. RESULTS Infrared Cameras
We detected 88 swift fox during 741 camera nights. Cameras were easily deployed and took about 8 person • hrs (range 4-12) to set and take down (table 1). In quadrats 7, 8, and 9 we detected swift fox using both arrays of 5 and 15 cameras (table 2, table 3). We failed to detect any swift fox in quadrats 3 and 4. In quadrat 1, we failed to detect swift fox using an array of 5 cameras but were successful using an array of 15 cameras (table 2, table 3). Our mean LTD for arrays of 5 cameras was 1.2 and 2.8 for arrays of 15 cameras (table 2, table 3). The mean swift fox detection for quadrats with arrays of 5 cameras was 4.7, and for quadrats with arrays of 15 cameras were 10 (table 2, table 3). The probability of detecting a swift fox was 0.2 using arrays of 5 cameras and 0.1 using arrays of 15 cameras (table 2, table 3). Hair Snares
We collected 0 swift fox hair samples during 48 trap nights. Hair snares were easily deployed and required about 3 person • hrs (range1-4) per sampling period (table 1). Swift fox were documented investigating both the 10.2 cm and the 15.2 cm hair snares, however swift fox never entered the snares. On one occasion we documented a swift fox attempting to enter the 15.2 cm hair snare, but the individual stopped at its shoulders, failing to leave a hair sample. Live Trapping
Live trapping required about 16 person • hrs (range 15-20) per survey to operate (table 1).
We captured 2 swift fox during 80 trap nights, for a trap efficiency of less than 0.1. Although LTD was 1, few swift fox were captured. DISCUSSION
The most efficient survey method for determining swift fox presence in south central Wyoming was infrared cameras in 2009. Cameras were easily deployed by one person and require minimal person • hrs to set up and take down. The infrared cameras were available at no cost to the project, but personnel considering this approach should consider the potentially large start up costs (i.e., ≥ $500 per camera). Infrared cameras effectively documented swift fox when other methods
failed to do so. Of the methods tested, cameras had the highest probability of detection of 0.2, and the quickest LTD of 1.2 days. Our results suggest that this method is more effective then methods previously used by WGFD (i.e., track plates) which had a mean LTD of 5 days and a probability of detection of 0.04 (Grenier et. al. 2004). Among the camera arrays tested, we found 5 cameras to be
35
more efficient than 15 cameras. Our results indicate that increasing the density of cameras had little effect on detection probability. We hypothesize that this is correlated to the small number (i.e., < 3) of swift fox home ranges available per quadrat. Our results demonstrate that increasing camera densities only resulted in an increase in repeat detections not increased efficiency. Our results for the hair snares are surprising given that a similar approach was used for the closely related San Joaquin kit fox. Using this method with a hair snare diameter of 10.2 cm, Bremner-Harrison et al. (2006) reported a probability of detection of 0.3 hair samples per night. However, Bremner-Harrison et al. (2006) used adhesive paper on the inside of the snare to collect hair, whereas we used wire brushes. We hypothesize that the wire brushes could have caused the hair snare to appear to be too constrictive to swift fox, making them wary of entering, and likely contributed to our lack of success. Consequently we also investigated the cost of building these snares using larger materials. The costs increased dramatically for pvc pipe with a diameter larger than the 15.2 mm because these materials are not widely used for other applications. In addition to pipe costs, the materials, including wire brushes, are more difficult to purchase because their applications are also very specialized. Notably, one of the benefits of using this approach was the low cost of materials. Consequently, constructing these snares using larger diameter pvc pipe is difficult and cost prohibitive.
Live trapping required extensive person • hrs to set and check traps, and process captured
swift fox. The initial cost of the live traps (≥ $ 50.00 per unit) is more than the hair snares, but was
considerably less than the cost of infrared cameras. Most of the issues we encountered were due to using the wrong size of traps (i.e., too small) for the swift fox. Although our trap efficiency is within the range of 0.01 – 0.2 reported by other studies (Finley et al 2005, Harrison et al. 2002, Schauster et al 2002, Deni et al. 1996), we believe that with a larger trap size we would have had results consistent with the upper end of this range.
Although cameras were the most effective method tested, we encountered several technical issues. Like Foresman et al. (1998) we often struggled to keep the cameras functioning for 7 consecutive nights. This was likely due to improper programming. As a result, we encountered issues with the memory cards filling up with non-target pictures and rapid depletion of batteries. Most of these non-target pictures were resulted from non-animal triggers during the day (e.g., moving vegetation due to wind). We believe this problem can easily be resolved by programming the cameras to only take pictures during peak swift fox activity (e.g., dusk till dawn) and by decreasing the sensitivity of the trigger. This will greatly reduce the non-target pictures and conserve batteries life. We encountered other minor issues, such as livestock and ungulates bumping cameras and causing the frame of reference to shift out of view. We believe this can easily be remedied by being more vigilant and careful placement of the infrared cameras.
For future surveys we recommend that WGFD utilize the infrared camera method with an array of 5 cameras per quadrat using a petroleum jelly based skunk essence as the attractant. By using arrays of 5 cameras, more quadrats can be surveyed simultaneously thus reducing costs and duration of the survey. Care should be taken to ensure that cameras are programmed to maximize data storage and battery life. We recommend that surveys should occur during the fall dispersal period (Spetember – December) when swift fox detection rates are reported to be high (Olsen et al. 1999, Finely et al 2005).
36
LITERATURE CITED Bremner-Harrison, S., S. W. Harrison, B. L. Cypher, J. D. Murdoch, J. Maldonado, S. K. Darden.
2006. Development of a Single-Sampling Noninvasive Hair Snare. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:456-461
Finley, D. J., G. C. White, and J. P. Fitzgerald. 2005. Estimation of Swift Fox Population Size and
Occupancy in Eastern Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:861-873 Foresman, K. R., D. E. Pearson. 1998. Comparison of proposed survey procedures for Detection of
forest Carnivores. Journal of wildlife Management 62:1217-1226 Grenier, M. B., and L. VanFleet. 2005. Swift fox in Wyoming completion report. Pages 134-143 in
A. Orabona, editor. Threatened, Endangered, and Nongame Investigations. Wyoming game and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander. 254pp
Harrison, R. L., B. J. Daniel, and J. W. Dragoo. 2002. A Comparison of Population Survey
Techniques for Swift foxes (Vulpes velox) in New Mexico. The American Midland Naturalist 148:320-337
Kahn, R., L. Fox, P. Horner, B. Giddings, C. Roy. 1997. Conservation assessment and conservation
strategy for swift fox in the united States. Swift Fox Conservation Team. Olson, T. L., F. G. Lindzey, and J. S. Dieni. 1999. A Proposed Protocol for Monitoring Swift
Fox in Wyoming. Unpublished manuscript. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie.
Pauli, J. N., M. B. Hamilton, E. B. Crain, S. W. Buskirk. 2008. A Single-Sampling Hair Trap for
Mesocarnivores. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1650-1652 Schauster, E. R., E. M. Gese, and A. M. Kitchen. 2002. An Evaluation of Survey Methods for
Monitoring Swift fox abundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:464-477. Scott-Brown, J. M., S Herrero, and J. Reynolds. 1987. Swift fox. Pages 433-411 in M. Novak, J. A.
Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Mallock, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in north America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2005. A Comprehensive Conservation Wildlife Strategy for
Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne.
37
2009 SWIFT FOX SURVEY, FALL RIVER RANGER DISTRICT, BUFFALO GAP NATIONAL GRASSLAND, NEBRASKA NATIONAL FOREST
LYNN ALLAN HETLET, USFS Fall River Ranger District, 1801 Highway 18 Bypass, Hot Springs, SD 57747, USA; Phone: (605) 745-4107; FAX: (605) 745-4179; E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Surveys were conducted to determine locations of swift fox (Vulpes velox) on the Fall River District of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland from 1989 through 2009. Bait stations in the Ardmore area were placed within an area designated as ―Special Plant and Wildlife Habitat: Swift Fox.‖ Additional routes were added
in this area in 2004 to give more complete survey coverage.
SURVEY AREAS
Approximately 8,300 acres in the Swift Fox Management Area were surveyed in 2009 (Figures 1 – 3).
METHODS
Approximately 105 hours (including travel time) were spent establishing and using bait stations in 2009. Bait stations consisted of a substrate of sand mixed with vegetable oil and baited with canned jack mackerel. Details of this method can be found in Hetlet (2006).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results were limited somewhat by rainfall, with a heavy rain the first night, and a light rain the second night, obscuring results somewhat. A more drastic problem was the grasshopper infestation. As little as one hour of disturbance by the hopping/crawling action of the grasshoppers left tracks unidentifiable, even if they had been distinct before the grasshopper activity began (which coincided closely with sunrise). This obliteration of tracks almost certainly resulted in all mammals using the track stations being under-represented. This, coupled with the rain disturbance, leaves this year’s results nearly meaningless. Tracks found on the 195 bait station-nights yielded the following species on the number of nights listed (Tables 1 -- 3): Swift fox— 30 Striped skunk-- 14 Coyote – 9 Badger -- 1 Literature Cited
Hetlet, L. A. 2006. 2004 swift fox survey: Fall River Ranger District, Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Nebraska national Forest. Pages 50-59 in J. N. Stuart and S. Wilson, editors. Swift fox conservation team:
38
annual report for 2004. new mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 86pp.
Figure 1. Swift fox bait stations in the Hollow Creek, Hay Creek, and Mule Creek allotments, Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Nebraska National Forest, USA, 2009.
39
Figure 2. Swift fox bait stations in the Fox, Miller, and Moody allotments, Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Nebraska National Forest, USA, 2009.
40
Figure 3. Swift fox bait stations in the Ross and Henry allotments, Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Nebraska National Forest, USA, 2009.
41
Table 1. Tracks located at swift fox bait stations in the Swift Fox Wildlife Management Area, Ardmore, South Dakota, USA, August 2009. ______________________________________________________________________________
Allotment Station # 4 Aug 2009a 5 Aug 2009 6 Aug 2009
______________________________________________________________________________ Mule Creek
(North Pasture) 1 3 MEME 6 c c 7 c MEME 8 c MEME 10 13 VUVEb c Hay Creek 14 c c VUVE 16 VUVEb c VUVE 19 VUVE 21 CALA Hollow Creek 23 VUVE 25 VUVEb 27 CALA 29 30 CALA 31 VUVE aSpecies leaving tracks: VUVE (swift fox), CALA (coyote), and MEME (striped skunk). b indistinct, but probable c bait taken
42
Table 2. Tracks located at swift fox bait stations in the Swift Fox Wildlife Management Area, Ardmore, South Dakota, USA, July 2009.
______________________________________________________________________________
Allotment Station # 28 Jul 2009a 29 Jul 2009 30 Jul 2009 ________________________________________________________________________
Fox 1 2 VUVE 3 VUVE 4 VUVE 5 6 CALA 7 8 CALA VUVE 9 VUVE 10 11 12 CALA 13 14 15 0 ________________________________________________________________________
aSpecies leaving tracks: VUVE (swift fox) and CALA (coyote).
43
Table 3. Tracks located at swift fox bait stations in the Swift Fox Wildlife Management Area, Ardmore, South Dakota, USA, August 2009. ___________________________________________________________________________
Allotment Station # 11 Aug 2009a 12 Aug 2009 13 Aug 2009 ___________________________________________________________________________ Henry 1 b 2 3 b
4 b 5 6 MEME 7 MEME 8 b
Ross 9 MEME 10 b VUVE VUVE 12 MEME 13 14 CALA 15 MEME ___________________________________________________________________________ aSpecies leaving tracks: VUVE (swift fox), MEME (striped skunk), and CALA (coyote). bBait taken
44
Table 4. Tracks located at swift fox bait stations in the Swift Fox Wildlife Management Area, Ardmore, South Dakota, USA, August 2009. ___________________________________________________________________________
Allotment Station # 18 Aug 2009a 19 Aug 2009 20 Aug 2009 ___________________________________________________________________________ Miller 26 27
28 29 MEME 15(Fox alltmnt) VUVE Moody 17 b MEME 18 VUVE/CALA
19 CALA 20 b 21 22 23 MEME 24 VUVE 25 b MEME MEME 26 b TATA MEME ___________________________________________________________________________ aSpecies leaving tracks: VUVE (swift fox), MEME (striped skunk), TATA (American badger), and CALA (coyote). bBait taken
45
Table 5. Percentage of bait-station-nights with swift fox tracks in the Swift Fox Wildlife Management Area, Ardmore, South Dakota, USA, 1994-2009. (Because results are always less on the first night, and one night was rained out, the readings from the Ross and Henry Allotments have not been used in the following table for 2008). ______________________________________________________________________________
Year Bait station-nights Station-nights w/tracks Percentage w/tracks (%) ______________________________________________________________________
1994 93 52 55.9 1995 93 49 52.7 1996 93 45 48.4 1997 93 12 12.9 1998 93 34 36.6 1999 93 24 25.8 2000 93 18 19.4 2001 93 22 23.7 2002 93 29 31.2 2003 189 11 5.8 2004 225 26 11.6 2005 158 36 22.8 2006 186 41 22.0 2007 128 55 43.0 2008 111 43 38.7 2009 195 30—48a 15.4--24.6a
a range based on stations with tracks and with stations added that had the bait taken
46
TOKALA SOCIETY – KIT FOX (SWIFT FOX) SOCIETY
ON THE PINE RIDGE INDIAN RESERVATION 2009 and 2010 SFCT REPORT
ECOFFEY, TRUDY M., Wildlife Biologist, and ROBERT GOODMAN, Wildlife Biologist, Oglala
Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority (OSPRA), 101 Ranger Rd, PO Box 570, Kyle, SD 57752. Tel: 605-455-2584; FAX: 605-455-2265; E-mail: [email protected] and
[email protected]. Technicians: Michael Thompson, MJ Bull Bear, Harvey Tallman, Jess Stover
INTRODUCTION The Oglala Sioux Tribe through the Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority (OSPRA) has designated the reintroduction of the swift fox (Vulpes velox) as a major environmental priority. The swift fox is an important species that did and can again play an integral role on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation ecosystem. In addition, the swift fox holds tremendous cultural significance to the Lakota people. Through oral tradition and Euro-American accounts it has been well documented that the Kit-Fox Society (the Lakota make no distinction between the swift fox and its kit fox cousin) played an integral part of Lakota culture and was the most prominent of all warrior societies. Sources from tribal elders indicated that there were numerous accounts of swift fox on the Pine Ridge Reservation from its inception in the 1890s to the mid-1970s. However, recent surveys for swift fox in western Shannon County on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation have yielded mixed results. McDaniel (1975) reported no less than five active den sites and nine visual observations of swift foxes north of Oglala, South Dakota. In 1995, Kruse et al. were unable to observe swift foxes in the same locale but noted a high incidence of other canids (coyotes and red fox). Several experts attribute the swift fox decline in the 1980s to the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s poisoning of prairie dogs in
the area that produced a rapid decline in prey although no research was conducted on the swift fox population during this time (Uresk, D. W. personal interview, September 3, 2003). Dateo et al. (1996) did make a visual sighting of a single swift fox near Oglala. The report again noted a high presence of other canid species (including domestic dogs) that may be influencing swift fox distribution in Shannon County. A grant was awarded by the USFWS in 2005-2007 that was to determine if there is a viable population of swift fox on the reservation and if warranted to establish a plan to reintroduce swift fox to suitable habitat on the Pine Ridge Reservation. This grant was a US Fish and Wildlife Tribal Landowner Incentive grant was funded to accomplish the following goals: 1) to determine if a small swift fox population currently resides on the Pine Ridge Reservation; and 2) conduct a comprehensive feasibility study to examine reintroducing swift fox populations to areas of the reservation. The results of that research determined that there was not a viable population of swift fox on the Pine Ridge Reservation and therefore a reintroduction of swift fox would need to be done if the tribe wanted to again have a population. However, with this grant a Swift Fox Survey Location Priority map was developed. This map was overlaid onto a land status map that would help to look at areas that might be suitable for a reintroduction
47
project. Funding was then secured through another USFWS grant that provided funding to translocate and reintroduce swift fox to the Pine Ridge Reservation and to monitor these efforts over a two year period. OBJECTIVES
1. The first objective was to refine our six suitable sites for swift fox reintroduction. The sites would be securitized for a variety of different criteria with habitat being the most critical that is based on slope, vegetation and the South Dakota GAP Analysis developed using ArcView through a prior USFWS grant.
2. The second objective was to work with other states and/or Cochran Institute in Canada to find a location that allows us to trap and translocate foxes without a significant impact to the supporting population.
3. Our third objective was to trap and translocate 40 to 60 swift fox over a two year period to a secured location on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Foxes will be translocated in the fall for the health and safety of the swift fox. This would also be an appropriate time for the spiritual and cultural emphasis that will be placed on the swift fox by the Lakota people.
4. Our fourth objective was to monitor the swift fox that have been translocated to the reservation. This would be done through the use of radio telemetry. All foxes translocted were collared. This method has proven to be successful for other translocation projects and includes monitoring litters born the following season. Following translocation any pups that are found will be live trapped and radio collared like their parents so that they can be monitored throughout the year. An extensive monitoring effort will be enacted to track foxes that have been translocated. This will include the recording of mortality rates, dispersion information, denning sites and habitat information.
METHODS AND RESULTS OBJECTIVE 1: Before translocation/reintroduction took place of the swift fox the OSPRA Biology Tech Team evaluated over 21 sites were evaluated. It was agreed that the release sites would be located in clusters of 4 sites with two foxes per site. This method was used by the Badlands National Park translocation project. It was also agreed upon that foxes that were trapped would be categorized by where they were trapped and if foxes were trapped fairly close together, those foxes would be released together or at least within the same cluster. Release sites were also analyzed for vegetation height and slope. Based on the map developed for the survey priority map, foxed would be released in those areas best suited for swift fox habitat. Prior to release, ―soft
release‖ pens were made that included building a 6’ X 6’ X 4’ chicken wire fence and a small
escape hole to allow for swift fox to hide from predators. Swift fox can readily dig out of the pen, but not readily escape to allow for swift fox to adjust to their surroundings. OBJECTIVE 2: Early in the project several states were contacted to see if they would be willing to allow for a translocation process. Those states included Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado. Also, the state of South Dakota was also contacted to allow for collaboration on this project of translocation. Eileen Dowd-Stukel was contacted from the SD Game, Fish and Parks in Pierre, SD. It was suggested by her and by Shaun Grassel, Biologist from Lower Brule, SD that a Master Plan
48
for Swift Fox on the Pine Ridge Reservation. This was developed using the Lower Brule Swift Fox master plan as a template. Also developed was Memorandum of Understanding with the state of South Dakota to allow for the following:
A. The purpose of this Agreement is to designate roles and responsibilities for each party with respect to swift fox conservation in South Dakota on or near the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.
B. This Agreement is intended to promote coordination and communication in the conservation of swift foxes on and near the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, in which the State and Tribe share a mutual concern.
C. The need for an Agreement exists to facilitate coordination between the signatory agencies when swift foxes are released onto Tribal lands located within the Pine Ridge Reservation. These species may disperse onto non-Indian-owned fee-title lands within the Reservation and onto other lands outside the Reservation.
Scientific Permits were submitted to the states of Wyoming and Colorado with confirmation granted by both. Wyoming agreed for translocation in the fall of 2009 for 30 foxes and Colorado agreed for translocation of 25 foxes each year for 2009 and 2010. OBJECTIVE 3: In the fall of 2009, 25 foxes from Colorado were trapped on the Pawnee Grassland and 30 foxes from Wyoming were trapped near Rock River and Bosler. The foxes were then processed for translocation to the western part of the Pine Ridge Reservation. In Wyoming, 60 traps were used for 3 nights to equal 180 trap nights. In those traps, 30 foxes were secured. In Colorado, 60 traps were used for 3 trap nights and 28 foxes were secured with four being released back to GPS location were they were trapped. Only 25 foxes were allowed for transport from CO. In the fall of 2010, another 25 foxes were trapped near Lamar, CO. These foxes were processed for translocation to areas on the western edge of Shannon County on the Pine Ridge Reservation in southwest SD. 100+ traps were used for 3 nights to equal 300+ trap nights and 27 foxes were secured, 2 were placed back in GPS locations were they were trapped and the remaining 25 foxes were then processed for translocation which included the following: At the time of field processing all fox were implanted with microchips (Biomark, Boise, ID or AVID Microchip I.D. Systems, Folsom, LA). Sterile microchips were injected subcutaneous between the shoulders. Prior to release all fox were fitted with radio-collars (Telonincs, Mesa AZ) weighing approximately 40g. Collars are made of neoprene impregnated cotton duck belting and have an external antenna. The radio-collar batteries are warrantied for 372 days but have a capacity of operating for 744 days. Blood samples will be collected to test for exposure to diseases and for possible genetic analysis. Diseases to be tested for include sylvatic plague (Yersinia pestis), tularemia (Francisella
tularensis), and canine distemper (canine distemper virus). Blood was collected via vena puncture from the cephalic vein. Approximately 3 to 9cc was collected from each fox. The blood was placed into a 10-ml test tube and spun in a centrifuge. The serum was sent to the Wyoming State
49
Veterinary Lab for immediate processing to determine plague titers and distemper. Foxes were also vaccinated for five-way vaccination. Foxes were also vaccinated with rabies. There was also a small piece of ear taken from each fox for DNA sampling. Before processing, foxes were held in traps. After processing foxes were transfered to portable canine kennels and covered to reduce stress. They remained in the kennels for not more than four days before transportation. Health certificates from a state-certified veterinarian from source state was obtained as well as tracking numbers from the SDAIB prior to transport. Foxes were transported to South Dakota as soon as test results are received and source state has approved. Foxes were fed and watered daily as well as checked for signs of good health on arrival. Foxes, kennels and transport vehicles were dusted with carbaryl powder prior to transport. Once cleared for transport, they were taken to release sites. OBJECTIVE 4: Foxes were immediately tracked following release. Locations are GPSed when a signal from the VH collars that were placed on each fox, was located. Foxes are monitored at least three to four days a week, depending on road conditions and weather conditions. Maps will be made of each fox located to show how animals are moving. Dens will be located and GPSed and mapped as locations are known. DISCUSSION
Of the 54 foxes that were released in 2009, 8 foxes were reported with confirmed mortality signals and collars were retrieved with varying conditions of the fox carcasses. Three foxes had mortality signals but no collars were retrieved and no foxes were retrieved. As of June 30, 2010, 15 fox signals were detected with live signals and 13 foxes were never detected by signal. Of the 54 foxes, 27 foxes have been located following the release either by live signal or mortality. Three flights were conducted to increase the chance for locating foxes. In the summer of 2010, 19 fox pups were documented. Of the nineteen nine were trapped, pit tagged, processed and released.
In the fall of 2010, 25 foxes were released. Of those 25 four have been found via mortality signal two were road kills one showed signs of predation and one possible predation. Twelve of the swift fox released have been detected by live signal.
LITERATURE CITED Dateo, D.M., J.A. Jenks, E. Dowd Stukel, and C.S. DePerno. 1996. Survey of swift fox (Vulpes
velox) on Pine Ridge Oglala Sioux Indian Reservation, Shannon County, South Dakota. Annual report of the swift fox conservation team, 1996. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. 110 pp.
Kruse, K.W., J.A. Jenks, and E. Dowd Stukel. 1995. Presence of swift fox (Vulpe velox) in
southwestern South Dakota. Report of the swift fox conservation team 1995. North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismarck, ND. 166pg.
McDaniel, L. L., 1975. Current distribution of swift fox (Vulpes velox) on the northern Great Plains.
American Society of Mammalogists Annual Meeting, Missoula, Montana, USA.
50
2009 and 2010 SUMMARY OF SWIFT FOX ACTIVITIES AT BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK AND WESTERN SOUTH DAKOTA
JOSHUA A. DELGER, Wildlife Technician, Badlands National Park, Interior, SD 57750, USA;
Phone: (605) 433-5267; Email: [email protected]
In 2003, Badlands National Park began a swift fox restoration project with the release of 30 swift foxes from Colorado. From 2004-2006, an additional 84 foxes were released originating from Colorado and Wyoming. Due to the success of the initial reintroductions, no swift foxes were released after 2006. During summer 2009, 51 litters of swift fox pups were detected. A minimum of 178 pups were estimated to have been produced. The minimum number of pups are based on the mean number of pups documented per litter from 2004-2007 (3.8 pups per litter). A minimum of 152 litters and 561 pups have been produced in the Badlands population (see table). With this reintroduction effort being so largely successful, monitoring effort has since been reduced. Population levels are believed to still both be increasing and expanding or stable based on evidence from detection and trapping efforts and recorded mortalities. Swift Fox Reproduction 2004-2009
The proportion of radio-collared swift foxes in the Badlands area fox population has decreased substantially in the last three years. Furthermore, no radio-collars were put out on swift fox in 2010. As a result, swift fox trapping has resulted in an increased number of uncollared adults being captured each year. However, trapping this year was conducted extensively within Conata Basin,
3 13 1529
41 51
15
48 55
109
155177
0
50
100
150
200
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Litters
51
but time constraints did not allow us to trap other areas around the park. For 2010, total swift fox reproduction numbers could not be obtained based on an incomplete trapping effort. However, the population of swift foxes in the Badlands area is believed to equal that of 2009, or perhaps be larger than past documented numbers, and still appears to be healthy and expanding. There are no plans to radio collar swift fox in the near future. Badlands plans to continue to trap swift foxes and implant them with passive identification tags (PIT tags) in order to continue to build a mark-recapture database for estimating population survival rates. Implanting swift foxes with PIT tags will also assist in identification of road-killed swift foxes throughout the Badlands area and those that may show up in other parts of South Dakota. In 2008, Badlands National Park, in cooperation with South Dakota State University, began a three-year project titled ―Assessing the Long-term Viability of Restored Swift Foxes in Badlands National Park and western South Dakota.‖ One of the project’s objectives is to evaluate the effectiveness of
scent station surveys to estimate population size of swift foxes in western South Dakota. The restored swift fox population at Badlands and the resident swift fox population in Fall River County, SD are the two study sites for this objective. In September 2009, three locations in Fall River (see map below) were surveyed for swift foxes using scent stations. Two of the three sites were new to the study, while one site (Igloo) was surveyed for the second consecutive year. This was followed up with a mark-recapture population estimate using live trapping. Swift foxes were only detected and captured at the Igloo area of the Fall River sites during 2009. In September 2010, two locations in Fall River (see map below) were surveyed for swift foxes using scent stations. One of the two sites was previously surveyed in 2008, while one site (Igloo) was surveyed for the third consecutive year. This was followed up with a mark-recapture population estimate using live trapping. Swift foxes were detected and captured at both the Igloo and Ardmore areas within the Fall River sites during 2010. Analysis of the data is ongoing at South Dakota State University. Analysis of the data is ongoing at South Dakota State University. Swift fox sightings in South Dakota have continually increased following the three reintroduction projects. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks has an established protocol for reporting swift fox sightings. Swift fox sightings in South Dakota should be reported to South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks staff or to Josh Delger, Badlands National Park.
52
Swift fox survey locations in 2009
Swift fox survey locations in 2010
53
RESTORATION OF SWIFT FOX ON THE FORT PECK INDIAN RESERVATION AND NORTHEASTERN MONTANA
KYRAN KUNKEL, Conservation Science Collaborative and Wildlife Biology Program, University
of Montana, 1875 Gateway South, Gallatin Gateway, MT 59730; Phone: (406)-763-4109; [email protected]
LES BIGHORN, Fish and Wildlife Department, Fort Peck Tribe, Box 1027, Poplar, MT 59255;
Phone: (406) 768-7460; FAX: (406) 768-5606; E-mail: [email protected]
ROBERT MAGNAN, Fish and Wildlife Department, Fort Peck Tribe, Box 1027, Poplar, MT 59255
Swift Fox Project Progress Report Winter Quarter 2009
Objectives Overall Objectives (Phase 1 and II) 1. Determine presence and distribution of swift foxes on and around FPIR (baseline completed in phase I, surveys ongoing in phase II). No trapping occurred during this period as snow cover did not allow access to trapping areas. 2. Determine factors associated with swift fox presence on and around FPIR (phase II) We completed a regional habitat suitability model with support from World Wildlife Fund (attached). 3. Determine potential suitability of FPIR for swift fox recolonization and restoration (completed in Phase I). 4. Estimate parameters of swift fox population dynamics on and around FPIR, potential for fox population expansion, and ecological factors affecting this (phase II). We monitored 10 radio collared foxes during the reporting period (Table 1). We monitored at least 3 times weekly on the ground. One fox died during the period from an unknown cause. Four foxes disappeared during the reporting period. It is likely that 1 collar quit transmitting. The other 3 foxes are north of reservation and may not have been heard because they are out of monitoring range. We have confirmed 1 pairing to date this spring.
54
5. Estimate limiting factors for swift fox on and around FPIR (phase II) We translocated 10 foxes to the FPIR in fall 2006. Two of those foxes (110) and (107) have remained in the release area. The remainder of foxes are either offspring of the original 10, unknown residents, or recolonizing foxes. We are currently monitoring 9 foxes. Thus, the confirmed number of foxes in the release area is one less than after release. Limited pairings and reproduction have not offset adult mortality. 6. Develop management recommendations to enhance swift fox restoration including role of habitat protection, fox translocation, and predator mitigation (first translocation completed in Phase I). We have proposed to MFWP biologists since spring 2007 to conduct additional translocations. We held a meeting in March with FWP and we all agreed to present a proposal for additional translocations to the FWP commission in June. Support for this proposal will in part depend on the results of our spring trapping. We would then conduct an EA for the translocation over the summer and conduct the translocation during the fall. 7. Establish a founding population of foxes on FPIR that has a high probability of long term persistence (phase II). See above. 8. Evaluate role of swift foxes as a flagship and umbrella species for conservation of prairie biodiversity on FPIR (phase II). No results to date. 9. Develop long-term swift fox monitoring plan that uses foxes as an indicator to monitor integrity of prairie ecosystem on FBIR (phase II). We are working with WWF and the Calgary Zoo to test remote cameras as a way to monitor fox populations over the long term. Our priority objectives for phase II will be to: 1. Establish a founding population of foxes on FPIR that has a high probability of long term persistence and connects to nearby populations. 2. Build capacity of the FPIR Fish and Game program that allows use of an adaptive management approach to monitor and secure the long term persistence of foxes and appropriate conservation of all native species on FPIR. We have hired 1 technician to assist with the project. Les Bighorn continues to serve as field lead and served as project lead at the meeting with FWP in March to develop translocation plans for 2009.
55
3. Obtain data on primary factors influencing fox population dynamics important for designing conservation and management strategies for the transboundary swift fox population. Ongoing, see above. Performance measures: As outlined in our original proposal, our first goal will be reached when we document foxes on FPIR or nearby and surviving, reproducing and dispersing at demographic rates that meet thresholds for a recovering population (Kunkel et al. 2001a,b; Kamler et al. 2003a). We found no population of foxes on FPIR and we and FWP concluded to proceed with a reintroduction. We are now monitoring these foxes to measure survival and reproductive rates and factors influencing these to determine management strategies to ensure restoration. We continue to judge the translocation to be an initial success based on persistence of at least 9 foxes in the release area. We have documented reproduction in both years after the translocation. Outlook We believe we continue move toward restoration of a population of foxes on and around FPIR. Based on the above, however, more work is required. Intensive monitoring of radioed foxes is necessary to understand potential limiting factors, resource requirements, biotic potential, and to determine population trend so we can manage appropriately. We believe additional translocations will be required to ensure the population develops and persists and connects to the closest surrounding population. Swift Fox Project Progress Report fall quarter 2010
Objectives Overall Objectives (Phase 1 and II) 1. Determine presence and distribution of swift foxes on and around FPIR We completed the baseline work in phase I. We continue to conduct surveys and trapping for new foxes in phase II. We are monitoring 14 radioed foxes from the 2009 and 16 radioed foxes from the 2010 translocation. We captured 15 foxes (6 adult males, 3 adult females, 4 juvenile males and 2 juvenile females) during 481 trap nights in summer and fall and replaced collars on 9 foxes and placed new collars on 6 foxes. 2. Determine factors associated with swift fox presence on and around FPIR
56
We are locating and monitoring survival of all radioed foxes on FPIR at least twice weekly. Most foxes have settled in the areas of largest contiguous rangeland on FPIR. We will analyze habitat use data in 2011. 3. Determine potential suitability of FPIR for swift fox recolonization and restoration We completed this objective in Phase I. 4. Estimate parameters of swift fox population dynamics on and around FPIR, potential for fox population expansion, and ecological factors affecting this. We found pairings of 12 foxes during the period (Figure 1). Both foxes are collared in 5 of these pairs and the sixth pair has 1 collared fox. We confirmed 10 pups from 3 of the pairings. We worked with MFWP to obtain our third permit (2006, 2009, 2010) from the MFWP commission to translocate foxes to FPIR. MFWP proposed a swift fox trapping season for the state in 2010. We worked with them to ensure that there would be no public fox trapping allowed within 100 km of FPIR if a season was established. We worked with MFWP and public trappers to trap and translocate foxes from north of Malta and Hinsdale Montana from October 1 – October 28. We translocated 9 juvenile males, 9 juvenile females, 1 adult female, and 1 adult male. We held these foxes in 20 new soft release pens from 1 – 28 days until they dug out or we released them. The release sites were farther southwest than the previous 2 releases. We estimated our minimum known population to be 46 foxes after the fall release and 35 foxes as of January 1, 2011 (Figure 2) 5. Estimate limiting factors for swift fox on and around FPIR Thirteen foxes have died since the 2009 release. Two foxes died from vehicles, 3 from coyotes, and 8 from unknown causes. We are searching for 4 missing foxes from the 2010 release. A minimum of 3 foxes have dispersed off FPIR The percent of pairings and pups produced has increased each year since the start of the project while the mortality rate has declined as has the number of missing foxes (Table ). The relatively high survival, pairings, and retention of foxes released in 2009 and 2010 further supports our findings of the suitability of FPIR for foxes and the value of the second and third translocations. 6. Develop management recommendations to enhance swift fox restoration including role of
57
habitat protection, fox translocation, and predator mitigation. The 2 additional translocations have enhanced the likelihood of success for our project. Translocations have created increases in pairings and decreases in mortality and missing foxes and lead to population increases. 7. Establish a founding population of foxes on FPIR that has a high probability of long term persistence. Ongoing 8. Evaluate role of swift foxes as a flagship and umbrella species for conservation of prairie biodiversity on FPIR. No new results. 9. Develop long-term swift fox monitoring plan that uses foxes as an indicator to monitor integrity of prairie ecosystem on FBIR. No new results. Administrative activities We hired Oliver Davis Sr. as our new fox technician in July2010 Outlook Survival and retention of the 20 foxes released this fall was much higher than the first release of 10 foxes and higher than the 2009 release. This may result from the greater number of foxes in the area. Foxes may be less likely to disperse if they find other foxes in the area. We will monitor pup production and survival this spring along with continued monitoring of adult survival to determine trajectory and viability of the population. Despite good success this year, the population remains very small. We will continue to assess the population relative to our standards for restoration including linkage to other populations. We will trap foxes this summer to collar new animals and replace old collars. We will assess the origins of the new foxes (locals vs. immigrants).
58
Figure 1. Minimum known population of swift foxes on the Ft Peck Indian Reservation from fall 2006 through December 2010. Translocations occurred in fall 2006, fall 2009, and fall 2010. Literature Cited Carbyn, L. N., H. J. Armbruster, and C. Mamo. 1994. The swift fox reintroduction program in Canada from 1983 to 1992. Pages 247-271 in M. L. Bowles and C. J. Whelan, editors. Restoration of endangered species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K. Kitchen, A. M., E. M. Gese, and E. R. Schauster. 1999. Resource partitioning between coyotes and swift foxes: space, time, and diet. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1645-1656. Kamler, J. F., W. B. Ballard, R. L. Gilliland, and K. Mote. 2003a. Impacts of coyotes on swift fox in northwestern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:317-323.
Kamler, J. F., W. B. Ballard, E. B. Fish, P. R. Lemons, K. Mote, and C. C. Perchellet.
2003b. Habitat use, home ranges, and survival of swift foxes in a fragmented andscape: conservation implications. Journal of Mammalogy 84:989-995.
Kunkel, K. E., K. M. Honness, M. L. Phillips, and L. N. Carbyn. 2001a. Feasibility of restoring swift fox to west-central South Dakota. Turner Endangered Species Conservation Report 01-01. Kunkel, K.E., K.M. Honness, M.K. Phillips, L.N. Carbyn. 2001b. Plan for restoring Swift fox to west central South Dakota. Turner Endangered Species Fund Conservation Report 01-02.
05
101520253035404550
Se
…
De
…
Ma…
Ju
n…
Se
…
De
…
Ma…
Ju
n…
Se
…
De
…
Ma…
Ju
n…
Se
…
De
…
Ma…
Ju
n…
Se
…
De
…
nu
mb
er
Minimum number of known swift foxes on Ft. Peck Indian Reservation, 2006 - 2011
59
Kunkel, K.E., K. Honness, M.K. Phillips, and L. N. Carbyn. 2003. Plan for restoring swift foxes to west-central South Dakota. Pages 189-198 in Ecology and Management of Swift Fox in a Changing World. L.Carbyn and M Sovada, editors. Canadian Plains Research Center, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Moehrenschlager, A., Alexander, S. and T. Brichieri-Colombi. 2007. Habitat
Suitability and population viability analysis for reintroduced swift foxes in Canada and northern Montana. Centre for Conservation Research Report No. 2. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Sovada, M. A., C. C. Roy, J. B. Bright, and J. R. Gillis. 1998. Causes and rates of mortality of
swift foxes in western Kansas. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1300-1306. White, P. J., K. Ralls, and R. A. Garrott. 1994. Coyote-kit fox interactions as revealed by
telemetry. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 72:1831-1836.
60
SWIFT FOX SSP 2009-2010 ANNUAL REPORT
MARILYN MCBIRNEY, Swift Fox SSP Coordinator and General Curator, Pueblo Zoo, 3455 Nuckolls Avenue, Pueblo, CO 81005; Phone: (719) 561-1452 ext 107; FAX: (710) 561-
8686; E-mail: [email protected] Overview of captive breeding program: The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) manages animal populations through species studbooks utilizing a Species Coordinator and a committee comprised of institutional representatives. A small population biologist from the AZA’s Population Management Center provides analysis and insures the genetic and demographic health of the population. The AZA Taxon Advisory Group (TAG) recommends which level of management each species within their taxa should receive, identifies space available for the taxonomic groups, and if North American Zoos will work with the species at all. Factors such as interest and availability of animals, conservation need, quality space available within the AZA zoo community, and ties to global programs determine the level of management. Individual foxes are recommended for breeding or not based on how well the family bloodline’s
genetic material is represented in the population. This is accomplished with a computer program that assigns a mean kinship value and ranks individuals, with those at the top having few relatives. Usually those recommended for breeding are in the top half or top third of the ranked list depending on the number of offspring needed to grow, decrease, or maintain the population. The pairing of animals is accomplished by looking at current pairs and if they should remain the same or matching animals by rank and considering inbreeding potential. Once a master plan is set up with recommended moves to meet institutional wants and needs and pair appropriate animals, institutions have a draft comment period before a final plan is produced. All AZA institutions agree to follow these recommendations and move animals among institutions as part of the accreditation process. The Swift Fox SSP population has been managed since 2003. Current Status: Currently there are 64 specimens at 19 AZA zoos. The original group of animals were received from the USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. As these animals are aging and now post reproductive we are recommending most of the younger captive population be placed in breeding situations to produce replacements. Statistics from the studbook reveal that litter size in captivity averages 3.6 with a litter of up to 6 reported. Youngest dam is 1 yr, 5 days old, oldest female to reproduce is 9 yrs old. Youngest sire to reproduce is 9 mo old, oldest is 13 yrs old. Current oldest male is 10 yrs old, oldest female is 12 yrs old. The age pyramid is skewed with fewer animals in the middle due to limited breeding and space constraints during that time period. To avoid competition for space with other small canid species, the Canid TAG has recommended that the swift fox population be kept to a maximum of 75 animals. It would be a problem maintaining a self sustaining population with such low numbers but the Swift Fox Conservation Team has approved the transfer of wild caught animals on occasion to provide new founders for population viability. The last wild swift fox that was received was in 2006 as a 3 legged non-releasable animal. He was sent to the Riverside Zoo in Scottsbluff, NE per SSP recommendations and has produced 14 surviving pups to date. Currently the captive swift fox population will be looking for additional founders, preferably non-releasable rehab animals, to provide a new
61
bloodline to the Swift Fox SSP population. If your agencies find any animals that are suitable for breeding please contact me for the closest zoo contact and we can provide a new home, transportation and medical costs. Zoos accredited thru the AZA emphasize conservation of species and their habitats as visitors view wildlife. Raising awareness among the public about the importance of prairie ecosystems and the interconnectedness of species is brought to life at swift fox exhibits. These little known charismatic canids of the prairie bring a focus to life underground and the unique adaptations that prairie life utilizes. Contact Information: Marilyn McBirney General Curator Pueblo Zoo, Colorado Swift Fox SSP Coordinator [email protected] 719-561-1452 x107 Kim Shotola Children’s Zoo Supervisor Houston Zoo Swift Fox Studbook Keeper [email protected] Colleen Lynch AZA Population Advisor Population Management Center Lincoln Park Zoo [email protected]
62
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND SWIFT FOX PROJECTS IN MONTANA
KRISTY BLY, World Wildlife Fund, Northern Great Plains Program, 320 Meadow Lake Drive, Columbia Falls, MT 59912; Phone: (406) 600-6728; FAX: (406) 582-7640; E-mail:
Swift Fox Surveys in South Phillips and Valley Counties, Montana The swift fox is a focal species for the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) Northern Great Plains program (NGP). In the Montana Glaciated Plains, one of WWF’s goals is to collaborate with state, federal, tribal, and other non-profit organizations to aid in the conservation and restoration of swift foxes. Beginning fall 2009, WWF conducted a camera trapping survey to determine swift fox presence or absence in northeastern Montana. Camera trapping is a non-invasive survey technique that attracts an animal to a camera then takes a photograph of the visit. We employed camera traps in 18 randomly selected townships on public, private, and tribal lands in south Phillips and Valley counties from September 1 – November 8, 2009. Unfortunately, no swift foxes were detected during this survey. This outcome leads us to predict that if swift foxes are present in south Phillips and Valley counties, we did not detect them, and they are likely individuals dispersing south from the Canadian and northern Montana population. A successful result of this survey was the participation by five private land owners, one tribal representative, the State of Montana, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MT FWP), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all of whom granted us permission to their said land to set camera traps. This was a pilot project that served to determine the presence or absence of swift foxes in Region 6 of Montana. We hope the results of this project can be merged with subsequent monitoring efforts to better assess where swift fox recolonization might be occurring in Montana and where future reintroductions may be warranted. Swift Fox Surveys in Southeastern Montana The WWF NGP program partnered with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Saint Cloud State University, and the Bureau of Land Management to conduct a comprehensive search for swift foxes in southeastern Montana. During September – November 2010, field crews conducted a camera trapping survey to determine swift fox presence or absence in five counties. Camera traps were deployed along five kilometer transects in 36 randomly selected townships within predicted swift fox habitat on public, private, and tribal lands. Each transect was surveyed twice. Although many coyotes, red foxes, bob cats, and ungulates were captured on camera, no swift foxes were detected in this survey. A second survey will begin in fall 2011 and cover six different counties in southeastern Montana. The results of this project are expected in early 2012 and will help shape future swift fox conservation efforts in Montana.
63
Swift Fox Habitat Suitability Model WWF constructed a swift fox habitat suitability model (Olimb et al. 2010) to identify probable areas of swift fox occurrence and areas with high potential for reintroduction across the Northern Great Plains Ecoregion. Model input layers were selected from a suite of variables Moehrenschlager et al. (2006) found to be important to swift foxes, including: brightness, crop density, greenness, road density, terrain ruggedness, and wetness. The model is currently being used to direct a swift fox research project conducted by WWF, Saint Cloud State University, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, and the Bureau of Land Management during 2010 and 2011 in southeastern Montana. We will use the data collected from the southeastern Montana swift fox project, along with updated tassle cap transformation and homogeneity layers to refine and improve the model.
Figure 1. Swift Fox HSI - new model derived by Olimb et al. (2010) from Mohrenschlager et al. (2006). Scale:red (most suitable) - blue (least suitable). Counties outlined in purple are the areas of interest for fall 2010 and 2011camera trapping surveys.
64
Literature Cited Moehrenschlager, A., Alexander, S. and T. Brichieri-Colombi. 2006. Habitat suitability and
population viability analysis for reintroduced swift foxes in Canada and northern Montana.Centre for Conservation Research Report No. 2. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Olimb, S.K., K. Bly, and C. Huang. 2010. Swift fox habitat suitability index for eastern
Montana. World Wildlife Fund, Northern Great Plains Program. Bozeman, MT.
65
Minutes from the 2010 annual meeting Swift Fox Conservation Team
Holiday Inn, Laramie, WY March 30 – April 1, 2010
MATT PEEK, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, PO Box 1525, Emporia, KS 66801. Tel:
(620) 342-0658; Fax: (620) 342-6248; E-mail: [email protected]
Tuesday, March 30, 2010 SFCT Co-chairs Eileen Dowd Stukel and Brian Giddings began the meeting at 8:35am by welcoming the group and leading introductions. Meeting host Martin Grenier then provided information on meeting logistics. World Wildlife Fund northern plains species monitoring program - Kristy Bly, WWF Kristy discussed WWFs effort to conserve various species, including pronghorn, black-footed ferret, cougar, long-billed curlew, and swift foxes. The swift fox project is to assess whether swift foxes are expanding from Southern Canada/northern Montana into other areas. They used baited camera stations along transects. No swift foxes were detected. Their next step is to extend the Canadian habitat suitability model into Montana, then camera trap the best areas of southeast Montana. As part of a 2-4 year project, they may extend into North and South Dakota. Marilyn – Are they working on pure bison genetic issues? Kristy – Yes, they have imported pure bison from several areas. Trudy – Do they have plans to expand fox surveys onto any of the reservations? Kristy – Yes, have talked about it on several reservations. Research results on North American swift fox genetics - Doni Schwalm, Texas Tech Doni’s research is evaluating whether genetically distinct groups of swift foxes exist. If so, where? And what relationship exists between genetics and landscape pattern? She has collected 589 blood, hair and tissue samples; samples from 1996-2008. Mitochondrial analysis – analyzed 100 randomly selected samples; 5 haplotypes (1 universal, 4 local), evidence of historically panmictic population. Microsatellite analysis – of approximately 700 samples, 589 were useable. First level - strong Northern and Southern groups; high level of mixture in Kansas/Colorado where they meet, limited mixture outside contact zone, little or no evidence of migrants. Next level – 6 groups, more evidence of migrants and less admixture. Finest level – 12 unique genetic groups; migrants and admixture, majority of sub-structure occurs in center of species range. Potential barriers to dispersal include rivers and roads and development. Implications for translocations – northern group is best candidate for translocations to the North. She would recommend mixing the source population (one year Wyoming, next year northern Colorado), Kansas should be a secondary choice as reintroduction source due to mix of North/South genetics. Kristy – Why no samples from Fall River? Doni – Wanted samples from Fall River, but couldn’t get them. Patrick – Did the sample from northern border from ND come from North? Doni – Yes, matched to N. Doesn’t know whether any breeding has occurred between
these and foxes from elsewhere.
66
Marilyn – Why are foxes from MT unique? Doni – Foxes from there are from multiple sources. When released, some allele frequencies did better than others, and this has resulted in an identifiable population at fine levels of analysis Indrani – Was this from selection pressure? Doni – I wouldn’t emphasize selection, but rather it could just be a matter of chance. Brian – How much more time until your project is complete? Doni – 1.5 years, 3 more tests to run. Brian – Any effort to look at gene flow along possible dispersal corridors? Doni – Yes, she’s working on this. Marilyn – Like in Pinion Canyon area, is this a unique subpopulation that could be used to
protect foxes in this area? Doni – Possibly, but those foxes are doing very well despite human influence. Strategies to maintain captive swift fox population - Kim Shotola, Houston Zoo Handout provided; 72 swift foxes in AZA institutions, sex, birth age, and holding location provided. Handout also included historical info on captive foxes – oldest male (16), oldest female (13), youngest dam (1), oldest dam (10), youngest sire (8 mo), oldest sire (14), litters born (n=72; 33% April, 42% May, 17% June, 3% July). Strategies to maintain captive swift fox population - Marilyn McBirney, Pueblo Zoo Lu – Do you know how many swift foxes non-AZA institutions have? Marilyn – No, don’t have good counts, but do cooperate with any of them who contact us
with questions Kristy – How many founding members were there for the captive swift foxes? Marilyn – I believe there were 19, from Northern Prairie, which originated in KS. Eileen – Before you got involved, there were zoos breeding willy nilly. Before they breed, do they know where the pups are going? Marilyn – Yes, they contact me before, and we determine where foxes need to be moved. For example, one place that recently lost a female will be getting females from one of the new litters. Brian – Is there a need for new animals in captivity? Marilyn – Yes, obviously the number of animals in captivity determines how rapidly genetics in the population are lost. With swift fox, they limit numbers to around 70 to create room for more endangered canids with the understanding they can get new foxes from the wild as needed. They could use a new fox every 3 years ideally, every 5 years maximum. Doni – I had to euthanize one that broke jaw in trap. How fast of turn around could there be for you to take a fox like this? Who do you contact to give this fox to AZA? Marilyn – They could take the fox quickly. I am the contact and would determine where the fox could go. Eileen – You need one every 3-5 yrs; is it important where the fox comes from? Marilyn – Yes, based on what Doni said. We’ll take advice on what they should do about
this. Kansas, the source, is right in middle so we should have a diverse gene pool. Kristy – What was the source of 20% mortality the first year? Marilyn – Mainly age related.
67
Colorado representatives introduced. Swift fox can now be harvested in CO, so furbearer biologist Jerry Apker will take over on SFCT for Eric Odell. Discussion ensued on status and limitations of swift fox harvest in CO. Eileen – Bill Van Pelt offered to move the SFCT website to the WAFWA website. Colorado maintains it now. Do you have any comments on this? Eric – Colorado isn’t concerned about getting rid of it. We’re willing to keep doing it. Martin – As long as CO is willing to maintain, why move it? Marilyn – So who do we contact with changes to website? Jerry – Me. Oglala Sioux Tribe’s reintroduction effort and potential use of captive animals - Trudy Ecoffey, Rob Goodman, and Michael Thompson, Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority In 2006 and 2007, they conducted an extensive search and had only one possible sighting. They trapped 29 foxes from Wyoming and 25 from Colorado. Foxes were vaccinated for rabies, and tested for plague exposure. Foxes released semi-soft on west side of Reservation in September. By the second day, all had dug out. Monitoring – Michael goes out at least 3 nights a week. They’ve
had 12 mortalities. Of the remaining 43, 31 have not been detected in the last month, 15 of which have never been detected; 6 have been detected recently. What caused mortalities? They had at least one predation, several unknowns, possibly an owl; there was a swift fox foot in an owl pellet. There are lots of raptors in the area associated with the dog towns. Future efforts: monitoring continues. Colorado has agreed to give 25 more foxes, and they will talk with WY. They are collaborating with Oglala Lakota College; looking at DNA, home range modeling, and diet. They are seeking funding for additional work. What about releasing captive bred fox? They have talked with AZA about taking excess captive foxes from zoos, but will take advice of Team relative to this. Marilyn – Is there interest in having necropsies done to determine cause of death? Trudy – Yes, we want to get whatever information we can from the carcass. We’re
picking up and freezing in hopes of conducting necropsies. We do have a high level of distemper that could be a concern. Kristy – Have you conducted aerial surveys to find missing foxes? Michael – Yes, we’ve done this, and are planning on more – at least quarterly. Overview of 3-year Lower Brule reintroduction effort - Shaun Grassel, LB Sioux Tribe The reservation is located in central SD. They conducted a lengthy feasibility study modeled after TESF effort. In 2006, signed into an agreement with the Kansas Dept of Wildlife and Parks to get 40 foxes/yr for 4-6 years. They trapped 119 foxes from various habitat types in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The foxes were dusted and tested for exposure to plague (all non-pos), vaccinated against rabies, given 5-way vaccine, and a tissue sample was collected for Doni. The foxes were held in soft release pens for 2-3 days, and 110 artificial escape dens were placed in the area. Monitoring – foxes were located 3-4 times per week. They investigated mortalities and estimated survival, home range, and litter sizes. The monitoring area is 1600 sq mi. They documented several long range
68
movements; one roadkill 455 mi away in 3 weeks time, one female to Bad River Ranch (documented some population mixing w/ Turner foxes). Reproduction – 2007 2 litters, 2 additional litters likely but not confirmed; 2008 – 2 litters (2 and 4 pups), 2 additional possible litters; 2009 – 1 litter (4 pups). Most mortality by coyotes. Vehicle kill was second most common. The number of foxes that went missing was very problematic. This was main reason they decided to end releases. Foxes were either dead and undetected or outside study area, but not living on the area.
Eileen – When you monitor from aircraft, are you monitoring broader area than just release site?
Shaun – Yes, a much broader area, and still not finding them. We’re right in the middle of the historic range, and grasslands are relatively intact, but we’ve lost the major ecological drivers (bison grazing, fire, and climate). These likely facilitated the persistence of swift fox in mixed grass prairies. The foxes did well in 2006 when precipitation was low, but crashed during more normal years in 2007 and 2008. We are done releasing foxes due to what we now consider unsuitable habitat.
Eileen – Are there any red fox on the area? Shaun – A few, but not many. Brian – Are you going to write this up? Shaun – Eventually, but I’m currently working on my PhD, and that takes priority. Kristy – Similar to Bad River Ranches, there seem to be some habitat issues. But could it be a numbers issue, like not enough foxes released? Lu – Part of the strategy in Canada was to release as many as possible. We released
1000-plus to get 500 established. Shaun – You just know when you’re releasing them and they’re dying and disappearing so
rapidly. It just doesn’t feel right. It’s just not working. Status of Badlands National Park reintroduction - Greg Schroeder, Badlands National Park They released 114 foxes from 2003-2006. All foxes came from CO and WY. Mostly juvenile (59) due to requirement of no plague exposure. They released approximately 30 foxes per year in pairs or trios, and pairs and trios were clustered in the same vicinity. All foxes were radio collared. One of the objectives was to evaluate release methods. Used 3 releases: hard release (just let loose), semi soft (put in den), and soft (put chicken wire around den and hold for 3-5 days). Release types were not statistically different, but survival improved from hard to semi-soft to soft, so they recommend short-term soft releases. Major variable in survival model was how far they moved post release (those that died averaged 23km, those that lived averaged 11km). Juveniles tended to not move as far. They’ve had increasing number of litters and pups every year from 2004-2009. They’re now up to over 50 litters and almost 180 pups. Scott - Any pattern to where they end up when they leave the area? Greg - They go northwest or southwest. Indrani will talk more about specific habitats in which they settle. Trudy – So would you recommend using juveniles? Greg – I would only release juveniles, because they stay closer to where they were released. Marilyn – didn’t Canada use tepees over release site dens. Lu – yes, but these animals were raised in these structures in captivity, so the idea was they were already familiar with them and therefore would be more likely to stay. And it seemed to work.
69
Population viability analysis of swift fox in Badlands National Park - Indrani Sasmal, South Dakota State University Indrani discussed her project looking at population viability analysis, connectivity of reintroduced populations, and habitat selection of females with pups. Habitat preference – foxes showed preference for dog towns and sparse vegetation, avoided shrubland, ag, woodland, and developed areas. Connectivity – there was a northern group and a southern group – separated by the badlands. Home range size was larger for the northern group. The northern group was also farther from prairie dog towns. The southern group density was greater. Viability analysis - not yet conducted. Eileen – You talked about this being a closed population, but there are foxes in Nebraska not far from the South Dakota border. Indrani – I am saying the population is structured. I’m looking at connectivity between
these 2 populations. We consider it closed only during short time period in which we are trapping. Doni – For tissue samples, are you only using samples from foxes that were moved? Indrani – I’m using some samples from foxes that died or were captured. Of 400-plus samples, only 114 were from reintroductions. Scott – Did you see any difference in survival between north and south populations? Indrani – I hadn’t thought of doing that. There is movement back and forth between
populations. Kristy – do you have data for Fall River foxes? Indrani – Yes, but I haven’t conducted any of those analyses yet. Greg – They are looking at using scent station surveys to try and tie to known population numbers in a given area. US Fish and Wildlife Services Update - Scott Larson, USFWS Pete Gober is becoming the full time ferret coordinator, so Scott will take over Pete’s role on this
Team. Most should be familiar with Rozol issue (Handout – copy of Rozol label). Rozol has been registered throughout BTPD range, pending approval by state departments of agriculture. Montana was the only dept of ag that didn’t allow use. There is much evidence of secondary poisoning by
Rozol. EPA has been litigated against, but has not responded. Kaput hasn’t been fully registered
yet. The Service is not currently doing an annual review of swift fox. They have not been foia-ed for several years. Scott is not aware of pending efforts to list swift fox by any group. Wildlife Services update - Kirk Gustad, Wildlife Services Kirk provided a handout showing coyote and swift fox harvest from 2007-2009. WS took approx. 70 swift foxes (mostly NM and WY) and approx 136,000 coyotes. It’s important to consider not
just the number of swift foxes they took, but also the impact that the coyotes they took in certain places would have had on swift foxes. They are working on a swift fox survey in Nebraska. Update on Canadian issues - Lu Carbyn Lu is mainly here to catch up on things and see old friends. Canada is no longer releasing foxes. Not a lot is being done with them other than the work Axel Moehrenschlager is doing. Jeffrey Holroyd is putting out camera traps to look at the food habits of swift fox. He’s finding that foxes
are eating quite a few long-billed curlews. He will be publishing this soon. The Canadian conservation team is not as active as it once was. Swift fox was downlisted from extirpated to endangered about 11 years ago.
70
Review of team action items from previous meeting – Group 1) State Reps that are not done with Matrix are to have them to Eileen by 4/20/08 - completed 2) Eileen will develop narrative of 10 year accomplishments and send to states by 5/20/08 - completed 3) State reps will review and finalize comments to the narrative by 6/20/08 - completed 4) Bill will have a draft of assessment to states for review by 9/1/08 - completed 5) Pete Gober will develop a 1 page write-up on Anti-coagulant use and distribute to the states by 4/20/08 - completed 6) States will review and comment and send comments to Eric Odell ASAP - completed 7) States will present idea to their individual Directors prior to the WAFWA meeting July 14 -
completed 8) Kansas will take on the task of exploring rangeland/habitat loss and present findings at the 2009
meeting – Matt looked into this after the last meeting and thought county level habitat data was available, but he wasn’t able to find it in a recent search. He suggested if we could get
county level data, then each state could evaluate their own range for time periods decided upon by the group. Tyler mentioned the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) as a likely site. Matt indicated statewide totals were on there, but he couldn’t find county totals by state.
He’ll look into this again. Kristy thought we might be able to get this from sodbuster data. DU provided this for Montana by county. She can look into their data on this.
9) Eric Odell will contact OK and TX to determine state contacts - completed. Melynda Hickman is the Oklahoma contact, but Mark Howery is doing the field work. John Young is the Texas contact. 10) Bill will discuss with Directors our desire to redo CACS - completed. Bill also provided Directors our main objectives for the next 5-10 years. 11) States will get newsletter submissions to Eileen Dowd Stukel by 4/20/08 - completed 12) States are asked to review NatureServe rankings and info for swift fox in their state and contact
state heritage program if changes are needed - completed, but questionable whether any changes have resulted.
Eileen – You can go on NatureServe and see rankings by state, but the information is rather outdated. People really shouldn’t really rely on this much. They go through
reviews every once in a while. Brian – once Marsha completes distribution paper, we can send this to them as the basis for change in their info.
Kristy – Does anyone know where this paper stands? Brian – It has been submitted and is under review. CACS document revision and accomplishments discussion – Group Brain and Eileen provided background information on this process. Bill rewrote CACS in new format. Eileen suggested we go through and consider Bill’s conclusions of each threat. 1. Destruction or Modification of Habitat Key considerations included rangeland loss, dryland vs irrigated ag, development, gas/oil development, etc. Lu brought up biofuels as potential threat. Tyler brought up CRP loss. Matt indicated in Kansas where CRP is tallgrass species, CRP would be improved by grazing or conversion back to dryland ag from the swift fox’s perspective. Also, as Oglala aquifer dries up,
71
irrigation rights are being lost. He can come up with a citation for this. What about windfarms? Need to evaluate GIS habitat measures. Brian, some of these things can be tied back to strategy, things to measure/do. 2. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes No one really thought this was a threat rangewide. Doni mentioned there is a concern about harvest in TX, but not rangewide. 3. Disease and Predation Greg - Mange in coyotes was a concern when it showed up, but has not affected foxes at all. Matt - Mange mite is somewhat species specific, it doesn’t affect gray foxes either. Predation – Coyotes are an issue, but no coyotes would mean more red foxes, which would presumably be worse for swift foxes. Indrani - Should this killing by coyotes be under predation or competition? Jon – The Service considered red fox expansion one of the main concerns, and kept under predation. The group decided to move red fox under predation and clarify that both it and coyote are primarily interguild predation or competition rather than typical food-related predation. 4. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms Do TX and NM monitor harvest numbers annually? TX doesn’t monitor harvest or population, and there is a long season. We need more detail on what each state is doing to include in this document. 5. Other natural or manmade factors Climate and weather – Lu – see Jennifer Redman publication on climate change and swift fox in southwest. Poisoning – Matt - should we add secondary poisoning from lead shot at prairie dogs? Martin - We looked at this in ferrets and found no difference between shot and unshot areas. Within conservation strategy, could recommend collecting fox livers to test for lead/rozol. Roadways – Patrick suggested adding oil and gas development as a separate component here given the increase in roads and traffic associated with them. Red fox competition – move to predation and clarify that it’s interguild predation displacement. Lack of historical disturbance regimes – might want to add this as per Shaun’s comments regarding
suitability of mixed grass prairie habitat on Lower Brule. The factors that may have made the mixed grass prairie suitable to swift fox are significantly altered or missing – fire regime, bison-style grazing, climate (long term drought/precipitation), locusts, etc. Accomplishments that need added to document We need published literature of accomplishments, if any are missing, or if studies have been misinterpreted. Brian – For the new assessment, we need to review the old document briefly through executive summary or a matrix of old strategies. The next section is all of our accomplishments in relation to those. We can use that information to address 5 listing factors. Wednesday, March 31, 2010 Group Field Trip
72
Stop 1 – Southwest of Laramie where houses exist along roadway within good swift fox habitat. Discussion about impacts of development on swift foxes. Also discussion about camera trapping swift foxes and difficulties/advantages of this technique around development.
Stop 2 – Wheatland Reservoir - approximate camp location for Oglala Sioux swift fox trapping effort. This was also the vicinity of a previous TESF trapping effort. Discussion of
swift fox trapping and local land ownership issues. Stop 3 – lunch at historic Virginian Hotel in Medicine Bow Stop 4 – Existing wind farm site West of Medicine Bow. Discussion about potential impacts of
wind farms on swift foxes. Stop 5 – Future wind farm site on southern edge of Shirley Basin North of Medicine Bow, where
initial construction has already begun. Discussion about degree of landscape disturbance and rapid speed at which wind farms are constructed, once the process begins. Note – in addition to innumerable pronghorn, several deer, and a badger, the group also observed 3 swift foxes sunning outside their dens right along the road; a pair at the first location and a single at the second. Martin was unanimously congratulated for organizing such a fine trip! Thursday, April 1, 2010 Day 3 attendees – Marilyn, Kim, Greg, Brian, Eileen, Matt, Martin, Duane, Jonathan, Tyler, Kristy, Indrani SFCT Co-chair Brian Giddings began the meeting by welcoming the group and thanking Martin for excellent field trip. Conservation Strategy Eileen provided a handout showing changes to the original Conservation Strategy. The group discussed whether to establish a timeline, prioritize strategies, and establish a distribution goal for disbanding the group, but did not come to a consensus. Then each objective was discussed by the group. Eileen will update the Strategy with changes recommended by the group, and send out for review. Meeting Wrap-up When is next annual report? end of 2010, Kristy and Brian will edit Who is willing to host next meeting? We need to send out past meeting locations, and consider who is due to host. Marilyn said Pueblo could possibly host. Eileen will produce a newsletter this summer. Since we did not have time for status reports during the meeting, please prepare a paragraph or two to summarize your agency's recent swift fox activities and plans for the upcoming year. Forward those to Eileen at [email protected] by May 21. Photos are also welcome. Brian and Eileen will continue to chair for another year. Jon - Blackfeet haven’t done any surveys in 6 yrs. Defenders assisted with this. Would anyone like
73
to collaborate with Jon to get Blackfeet surveys done? Initially interested in doing this on Reservation but also interested in expanding off reservation onto private lands. Needs a source of funds for cameras. WWF would support. MT can’t do this within reservation, but could do
something off of it. Why not use Tribal Wildlife Grants? Meeting Attendees Jerry Apker, CO Division of Wildlife Eric Odell, CO Division of Wildlife Matt Peek, KS Department of Wildlife and Parks Brian Giddings, MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks Patrick Isakson, ND Game and Fish Eileen Dowd Stukel, SD Game, Fish and Parks Martin Grenier, WY Game and Fish Greg Schroeder, NPS/Badlands National Park Scott Larson, USFWS Bob Hodorff, US Forest Service Kirk Gustad, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services Kristy Bly, World Wildlife Fund Lu Carbyn, Canadian Wildlife Service Shaun Grassel, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Jonathan Proctor, Defenders of Wildlife Marilyn McBirney, AZA/Pueblo Zoo Donelle Schwalm, Texas Tech University Kim Shotola, AZA/Houston Zoo Trudy Ecoffey, Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Rob Goodman, Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Michael Thompson, Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Indrani Sasmal, South Dakota State University Tyler Abbott, BLM Duane Short, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance
