Bat's Not Right

http://www.welists.com/itemimages/indian-flying-fox-from-the-sedgwick-county-zoo-kansas.jpg

The Mariana Fruit Bat (Fahini)

(Pteropus mariannus mariannus)

By: Jo-Annie Tran

DESCRIPTION OF ECOLOGY OF ORGANISM
The Mariana fruit bats are highly depend on the Native forests of Guam and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). They form big roosts in many of the trees. Trees provide great resting and nursing spots, but also a source of food. Their high metabolism and fast digestive system forces them to constantly seek fruit, nectar, and pollen. They require stepping stone patches where they can maneuver in and between forests residing in islands. Fanihi fly over oceans to get to one island to another.

http://www.lizasreef.com/HOPE%20FOR%20THE%20OCEANS/Images%20HFTO/northern_mariana_islands.gif

GEOGRAPHIC AND POPULATION CHANGES
The Mariana fruit bats are endemic to 14 of the 15 Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. Finding out their population numbers are really difficult. It is unknown as to when they move form island to island, how long they reside in each island, and how many are in the island. It is noted that the number of bats on bigger island have been declining.

https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3116/2391674470_851d4116c6_b.jpg

LIST DATE AND TYPE OF LISTING
It is listed as threatened on March 30, 2010.

CAUSE OF LISTING AND MAIN THREAT TO ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE
These bats no longer live near the Southern parts of the Mariana Islands because of hunting, habitat loss and degradation. Settled humans use part of the land for agriculture leading to an introduction of many non-native plants and animals into the environment. Economic growth and war has also caused a disturbance in the habitat.

Fanihi was also hunted and viewed as a food source in Guam and CNMI. However, because of the rapidly declining numbers in bat population, local governments has made hunting illegal since 1970. Illegal hunting causes a massive threat to the population. Many poachers find it thrilling to hunt down the last of these fruits bats, and there is little enforcement from the CNMI Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Although these little creatures are known to evolved and adapt very quickly, the rapid decline in numbers due to human activities has made them really vulnerable to natural forces such as typhoons and volcanic eruptions. Other natural factors that affect their survival is the brown treesnake. Responsible for the extinction of many native birds, the brown treesnake is also known to eat baby fanihis.

DESCRIPTION OF RECOVERY PLAN

Fanihi scores a 9 between 1 and 18 on the recovery priority scale. 1 mean it is the most critical.

The overall goal for recovering the Mariana fruit bats are so increase their interaction in their metapopulation, deter them away from areas at high risk of natural disasters, and to change human behavior. Habitat restoration will give these bats a chance at repopulating the islands, but there needs to be stricter enforcement on poaching, and a change in culture where bat meat is such valuable food. The most challenging one will be reaching out to locals and raising awareness on bat populations.

If future plans go well, the Mariana fruit bat may be delisted by 2030.

For more information on fruit bats, check out these sites!
http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/bats-magazine/bat_article/239
http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Pteropus_mariannus/

Cited:

Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Mariana Fruit Bat or Fahini. 2009. Regional Director, US Fish and Wildlife Services, Nov. 2009. Web. 8 June 2015.

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/100330.pdf

Save Some Water for the California Tiger Salamander

The Last of The Herd

Thuy Michelle Tran

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle- One of the Last Two of its Genus

Credit: NOAA

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle

Lepidochelys kempii

By: Evany Wang

Description and Ecology of Organism

Weighing in at approximately 32-49kg and measuring in at 60-65cm the Kemp's Ridley is considered to be the smallest of all the extant sea turtles. One distinct characteristic of this species is the distinct changes that the coloration develops throughout its lifespan. At birth, they start out with grey-black dorsum and plastron. When they grow into their juvenile stage, the coloration changes to grey-black dorsum with yellow-white plastron. Finally, as adults, their coloration matures into a light grey-olive carapace with cream-white plastron. They have a very limited distribution; nesting only occurs along the western Gulf of Mexico, Veracruz, and Texas, and infrequently in other U.S. states.

http://seaturtleexploration.com/explore-and-learn/sea-turtle-facts/kemps-ridley/

Geographic and Population Changes

Historically, nesting has been reported to be in south Texas, although nesting is now being seen infrequently in other U.S. states as well as Texas. Second most frequently, though, the Kemp's Ridleys occur along the Gulf of Mexico, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea. In 1947, the adult female population was estimated to be 40,000+; however, in approximately three decades, the population had declined to 924 nests to 702 nests in 1985.With optimism, since the mid-1980s, the population has increased by 15% per year. In recent years, the population has been steadily increasing and population models predict a 12-16% increase per year. These numbers are based on Rancho Nuevo, Tepehuajes, and Playa Dos as the primary nesting beaches (Hildebrand 1963, Carr 1963, Heppell et al. 2005)

Credit: The National Park Service

Listing Date and Type of Listing

On December 2nd, 1970, the ESA listed the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, as endangered. On July 1st, 1975, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) listed the Kemp's Ridley on Appendix I, prohibiting all commercial international trade. Similarly, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature lists the Kemp's Ridley as Critically Endangered (ESA, CITES, IUCN)

Cause of Listing and Main Threats to its Continued Existence

The cause of listing and main threats are habitat destruction, erosion, pollution, and fisheries, to name a few. The erosion and pollution of their nesting beaches greatly reduces the amount of locations that the Kemp's Ridleys can reproduce. Sea turtles caught as bycatch are most often injured or killed. The sea turtles are often forcibly drowned or experience so much stress that it interrupts their biochemistry and causing biochemical reactions (ex. anaerobic glycolysis) that could lead to death. Reducing these nets is a key component to the recovery of the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle.

Description of Recovery Plan

The Strategy:

• Maintain and strengthen previously successful conservation strategies
• On nesting beaches:
• reinforcing habitat protection efforts
• protecting nesting females
• maintaining or increasing hatchling production levels
• In the water:
• maintaining the use of TEDs in fisheries currently required to use them
• expanding TED-use to all trawl fisheries of concern
• reducing mortality in gillnet fisheries
• Increasing education and research on the Kemp's Ridley

Works Cited

"Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles, Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Pictures, Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Facts - National Geographic." National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 June 2015.

"Kemp's Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys Kempii)." :: NOAA Fisheries. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 June 2015.

USA. ESA. Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle. ESA, 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 5 June 2015.

United States. National Park Service. "The Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle."National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 05 June 2015. Web. 06 June 2015.

Sei Whales are always on always on the move...But for how long? by Hannah Stone

Description of Organism

The sei whale is a type of baleen whale. Baleen whales do not have teeth, so instead they have what is known as a baleen plate that filters their food from water. Within the category of baleen whales, sei whales are categorized in the largest group of baleen whales, known as rorquals. Out of the nine species of rorquals, the sei whale is the fourth largest behind the blue whale, the fin whale and the humpback whale.

SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/sci_nat_whaling_debate_-_key_species/html/3.stm

It is difficult to distinguish sei whales from their close relatives when at sea. Sei whales are highly mobile, prefer deeper waters and do not reside in one specific location. They are dispersed throughout most of the world’s oceans including the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean and the Southern Hemisphere.

Geographic and Population Changes

Due to their mobility, natural populations of sei whales are historically considered unpredictable and irregular. In certain feeding areas, specifically in the eastern North Atlantic Ocean, the occurrence of sei whales is sometimes referred to as an invasion. However, their migration patterns are somewhat traceable. They can be found at low latitudes in the winter and move to higher latitudes in the summer.

SOURCE:http://www.whales.org.au/discover/sei/seid.html

 In recent decades, sei whale population and movements recorded in the North Atlantic have indicated change. Although there is not enough data to officially calculate trends in the amount of sei whales, the population began to quickly decrease from overexploitation in the 19th century. There is reason to believe the population has decreased because of the large-scale commercial whaling back then that took the lives of over 250,000 whales.

Endangered or Threatened Species Listing

The sei whale is listed as endangered and is protected in the United States under the Endangered Species Act. It is also listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITIES) list, to protect species against international commercial trade. 

SOURCE: http://e2nz.org/2010/03/09/nz-gives-support-to-resumption-of-commercial-whaling/

The current main threats to the species, not including low-level threats, are directed hunting and the loss of their prey base due to climate and ecosystem change. Whale hunting, although rare today, is the main reason for the sei whale endangered status. This is still listed as a medium level threat because a scientific whaling program in Japan still actively hunts sei whales and there is still a possibility that hunting could again become a more serious threat. In addition, despite the immeasurable risk of climate change, it is speculated that oceanographic changes likely threaten the habitat and food availability for sei whales.

Recovery Plan

The reality is that there is very little known about the current sei whale population structure. One of the biggest priorities of the recovery plan is to gather more data in order to find patterns between the observed changes and outside factors. The first out of the three tiers outlines a few different data collection methods. The second tier’s goal is to estimate the population size of the species. And the third tier is dependant upon the data and estimations to conduct risk analyses. The last tier aims to use the information gathered to ultimately promote action steps.

SOURCES:

Recovery Plan: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/FINAL%20Sei%20Whale%20Recovery%20Plan.24July.pdf

There are not a lot of Ocelots: Steps to Recovery

Ocelot Recovery Plan

(Leopardus pardalis)

By: Claire Thompson

Description and Ecology of Organism

The medium-sized spotted cat has a pale-gray to cinnamon coloration near the upper parts of the body with spots on the head and two black stripes on the cheek. There are conspicuous white spots on its rounded, black ears. Elongated black-edged spots are arranged in chain-like bands on the body and the tail has dark bars, or incomplete rings. It is divided into as many as 11 subspecies that range from the southwestern United States to northern Argentina. The two sub-species that occur in the U.S. occur are the Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot and the Arizona/Sonora ocelot.

Geographic and Population Changes

In California, Arizona, and Florida, fossils of ocelots have been reported, however, the exact date of habitation is unknown. There are no fossil records in Texas, but it is assumed that they occurred there in prehistoric times. An ocelot carved on human bone from the time between 1400 and 1500 A.D., found in the Hopewell Mound Group, indicates that it may have extended into Ohio. This bone, however, could have been the result of a trade with distant human populations. The Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot inhabited southern and eastern Texas, perhaps stretching into Louisiana, but evidence to prove this is limited. The Sierra Madre highlands and the Mexican Plateau isolate the Texas/Tamaulipas ocelot from the Arizona/Sonora ocelot. Also, genetic analysis indicates that no genetic exchange has occurred between Texas and Mexico populations and that overall, both have lost genetic diversity due to this isolation.

Because the ocelot is a secretive, nocturnal carnivore, estimating the population sizes is difficult. As a result, it is challenging to generalize about the status and distribution of this species in the U.S. and northern Mexico.  In 1986, it was estimated that there were 80-120 individuals in Texas based on distribution of radio-tagged ocelots. In 2005, 38 ocelots were counted in Cameron County.

Listing Date and Type of Listing

The listing date of the First Revision Draft was August 26, 2010. It has been approved by the Regional Director and made available for public comment. The ocelot is listed as endangered.

Cause of Listing and Main Threats to its Continued Existence

The cause of listing is due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the ocelots’ habitat or range. The distribution in the U.S. has been drastically reduced in the last two centuries. It is limited to just a few of Texas’ southernmost counties. For example, in Cameron County, 91% of native woodlands were lost during the mid-1900s for agricultural use. More recently, this agricultural land is being converted into urban development. Another cause of listing is due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. In 1970, ocelot imports peaked in the U.S. with 140,000 skins. In addition, disease or predation has threatened the ocelot populations. In South Texas, Notoedric mange (Notoedres cati) may have killed at least one ocelot in South Texas. The tapeworm (Taenia taeniaeformis) was also found in ocelots.  There is also an inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Because many ocelot populations occur on private land, it has been hard to survey and enforce laws for conservation. Roads, border issues, agricultural pesticides, climate change, and other natural or anthropogenic factors have affected its continued existence.

Description of Recovery Plan

The goal of the recovery plan is to: 

• Assess, protect, and enhance ocelot populations and habitat in the borderlands of the U.S. and Mexico
• Reduce the effects of human population growth and development on the ocelot
• Maintain or improve genetic fitness, demographic conditions, and health of the ocelot in borderland populations
• Assure the long-term success of ocelot conservation through partnerships, landowner incentives, community involvement, application of regulations, and public education and outreach
• Practice adaptive management in which recovery is monitored and recovery tasks are revised by USFWS
• Support efforts to conserve ocelot populations south of Tamaulipas and Sonora

Links to National Geographic Ocelot Information:

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/ocelot/

Follow this link for more interesting ocelot facts:

http://bigcatrescue.org/ocelot-facts/

Works Cited:

"Ocelot." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 2015. Web. 5  June. 2015. 
        <http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/ocelot/>.

"Ocelot Facts." Big Cat Rescue. N.p., 15 Mar. 2015. Web. 5 June 2015. 

        <http://bigcatrescue.org/ocelot-facts/>. 

"Ocelot Recovery Plan." Endangered Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 26 Aug. 2010. Web. 4 June 2015. <http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/100826.pdf>. 

North American Grizzly Bear

Fighting a Losing Battle

Grizzly Bear

Ursus arctos horribilis

By: Cody Sousa

Description and Ecology

Contrary to popular belief, grizzly bears are actually reclusive creatures.  They are “intelligent, curious, and have excellent memory, particularly regarding where food sources are located” (http://westernwildlife.org/grizzly-bear-outreach-project/biology-behavior/). In addition, grizzly bears have excellent senses.  Their eyesight, hearing, and smell are especially advanced.  While often shown by the media to be ravenous predators, grizzly bears are known to alter their habits to be more active during times in which humans would be less present.  Living to be around 20 to 25 years old, grizzly bears can begin reproducing as early as 3 years of age.  These litters normally bring 2 cubs, but can bring as many as 4.  Only half of the bear cubs born will survive past their first year.  Grizzly bears are omnivores, but their diet mainly consists of grasses, berries, bulbs, roots, and fungi.  In some areas, a grizzly bear’s diet will consist of less than 10% fish or meat (http://westernwildlife.org/grizzly-bear-outreach-project/biology-behavior/).  Grizzly bears are most often found in upper elevation mountains and lower elevation wetlands.  Females need much less habitat space, 50 to 300 miles compared to 200 to 500 for males (http://westernwildlife.org/grizzly-bear-outreach-project/biology-behavior/).  Grizzly bears spend 4 to 6 months a year hibernating, but are known to be easily woken during this time.

Geographical and Population Changes

North America, the grizzly bear’s range first extended from California to the mid-plains.  The bear population was flourishing until westward expansion caused a rapid recession in the population of the lower 48 states, decreasing from over 50,000 to less than 1,000 between the years 1800 and 1975 (Servheen).  With continuing human development, these bears were eradicated from Texas, Utah, Oregon New Mexico, and Arizona before 1935.  Now, only national parks and wilderness areas of Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have self perpetuating or remnant populations (Servheen).  Some areas have been identified as areas that could support grizzly bear recovery, including the Bitterroot Ecosystem and the North Cascades Ecosystem.

 

Reason for Listing and Listing Type/Date

The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) was listed as threatened on July 28, 1975, determining that the grizzly bear was likely to become an endangered species in the near future.

Cause of Listing and Main Threats to Continued Existence

Grizzly bears were listed because they have lost much of their habitat and range in the past couple centuries. The grizzly bear was originally widely distributed throughout North America, and current distribution is reduced to less than 2 percent of its former range (Servheen).  Habitat loss along with human caused mortality is to blame for the drastic increase in population.

Recovery Plan Description

The 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan goes into great depth on how to get the grizzly bear off of the threatened species list. The factors that limit both population and habitat will need to be determined and solutions to solve those issues will need to be found. Techniques should be developed that can move bears from source areas to sink areas. In the areas deemed grizzly ecosystems, human-bear conflict should be minimized while improving education to develop better support for the species.  Also, habitat loss or degradation as a result of human actions should be limited.  Habit and security for the grizzly bears should be improved.  During this recovery process, research on both the bears and their habitat should be conducted to ensure that enough information is available for the conservation managers to make educated decisions.

More information

http://www.defenders.org/grizzly-bear/basic-facts

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/grizzly-bear/

Works Cited

"Grizzly Biology & Behavior - Western Wildlife Outreach." Western Wildlife Outreach. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 June 2015. <http://westernwildlife.org/grizzly-bear-outreach-project/biology-behavior/>.

Servheen, Christopher. "Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan." (n.d.): n. pag. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Web. <http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/930910.pdf>.

The San Francisco Mission Blue Butterfly

Right click me to download!

Puma (=Felis) Concolor Coryi

Last Remaining Puma Type in Eastern US

Clay Teixeira
Bio 227 Spring 2015
Species: Puma (=Felis) Concolor Coryi

Ecology of Species and Threats to Existence
            The Florida Panthers is "tawny brown on the back and pale grey underneath" (Defenders). The males reach around 23-27 inches tall at the shoulder while being seven feet long from nose to tip of tail. they weigh around 130 pounds while living between 10 and 15 years (Defenders). These animals are wide ranging, very secretive, and occur at low levels. These characteristics lead to the necessity of large contiguous areas so that the panthers are able to participate in their social, reproductive, and energetic needs. The areas they decide to reside in are directly correlated to three limiting factors. These include habitat availability, prey availability and lack of human tolerance. The main threats to their livelihood include habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation. These threats are a result of urbanization, mining, mineral exploitation, and lack of land planning that recognizes a panther’s needs.
           
Geographical And Population Changes
            The area that the had panthers historically existed in has decreased by 95%. This leaves a mere 5% and only one breeding population exists within in it. This breeding population resides on the southern tip of Florida, south of the Caloosahatchee River. The population has increased from roughly 12-20 in the early ‘70s to around 100-120 in 2007 (Recovery Plan). Although the species is making a comeback, it is constantly threatened by an ever increasing human population and development in the panther’s habitat. Due to male Panthers ranging of 200 square miles (defenders), the mortality due to collisions with motor vehicles is also a threatening factor to the expansion of their habitat.

Reason for Listing and Listing Type/Date
            Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 the Florida Panther was federally listed as an endangered species, as well as being on the state endangered species list in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This is because the Florida Panther is the last remaining subspecies of Puma that is surviving in the Eastern US. Its scientific name is Puma (=FELIS) concolor coryi and the plan was last revised on December 12, 2008. The Panther population is being treated under the Third Revision of the Florida Panther Recovery Plan and has made progress in trying remove the Florida Panthers from the endangered list and placed on the threatened list. The panther has a recovery priority number of 6c. The highest priority is 1c and the lowest is 18 (The Florida Panther).

Recovery Plan Description
        Maintaining, restoring, and expanding the Florida Panther population is the main goal of its recovery plan. The wish to achieve another goal of two additional breeding population within the historic ranges but not confided to south Florida. The panther is dependent upon a certain quantity and quality of habitat for survival. Since the range required to expand the panther population is so large, the panther serves as an umbrella species. In order to protect the panthers, they must protect a vast, wild territory that includes many other animals and plants that reside within its boundaries. The Florida Panther is at the top of the food chain and therefore help to keep the prey populations balanced and in check. (defenders)

Works Cited

"Basic Facts About Florida Panthers." Defenders of Wildlife. N.p., 21 Mar. 2012. Web. 04 June 2015.

http://www.defenders.org/florida-panther/basic-facts

The Florida Panther. Florida: Florida Power & Light, 1992. US Fish and Wildlife Services, 8 Dec. 2008. Web. 3 June 2015.

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/081218.pdf

Google Images of Panther and Habitat

http://blog.audubonguides.com/files/2012/02/FL-panther.jpg

The Endangered Ovis Canadensis Sierrae

ESA Assignment

Max Starubinskiy

Bio 227 Spring 2015

Species: Ovis Canadensis sierrae

Organism Ecology

            The Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep, or Ovis canadensis sierrae, lives in five distinct subpopulations along the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains, with these groups adding up to only about 300 individuals total. Both males and females have permanent horns, with male horns being larger and coiled.  Males can get up to one meter tall at the shoulder, and weigh up to 99 kg compared to the female maximum of 63 kg [LD:1]. They prefer to inhabit alpine and subalpine zones in summer, and use the open slopes of these rough, rocky and sparsely vegetated mountain highlands. When winter comes, the Bighorn Sheep migrate to high windswept ridges or else to lower elevation sagebrush-steppes to avoid the deepest snows and additionally have more access to vegetation [LD:2].

            Species vary and its is shown by the color variations of the sheeps horns. The colors may range from a white to a dark brown. When the bighorn sheep gets older their horns become rough and have scars. Also as the bighorn sheep get older the color of their horns change to a yellowish brown to dark brown. [LD:1]

They are a diurnal species, grazing and foraging on their mountain slopes. Their feeding style is opportunistic and they make do with what is available, searching to find the most nutritious options within their normal diet of grasses, shoots, twigs, and leaves of trees and shrubs. Males over 2 years of age live separately from females and younger males for most of the year outside of the mating season. Breeding season is in the fall, with a gestational time of about 6 months and most ewes birthing one lamb at at time.  Once a lamb is born, that ewe will live in solitude for a short while before joining what can be referred to as a nursery group, which is made up of about 6 ewes and their lambs. Lambs learn to climb their treacherous terrain quickly, at as young as 2 days old. Lambs reach breeding maturity at around 2 years, and while female lambs may stay with their mothers indefinitely after maturity, males branch out into independence as they reach breeding age. These sheep can reach ages of 9 to 11 years, though maximum lifespan of certain rams has been measured at 12 to 14 years [LD:2].

Original Geographic Range

            The Bighorn Sheep’s original range encompassed the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevadas, a portion of the western slope, and from Sonora Pass to Kern Pass for a total range of about 346 km. The 5 main populations today are distributed across the eastern slope. Though only five subpopulations remain today, historically there were 20 subpopulations, with those original 20 dropping to 10 around the year 1900. In the mid 20^th century, that number halved again to the five we see today. In the 1970’s the count was at a low of only 2 subpopulations in Mount Baxter and Mount Williamson.  Three subpopulations were reintroduced in 1979 to 1986 from the Mount Baxter population that had remained. Currently, the subpopulations occur in Lee Vining Canyon, Wheeler Crest, Mount Baxter, Mount Williamson, and Mount Langley in Mono and Inyo counties [LD:1]. Though these sheep were established in this range long before human populations came into the area, the largest population size prior to human settlement is estimated at over 1000 individuals, compared to 325 today. These population losses began to occur after humans started immigrating to the Sierra Nevada range in the mid 1800’s for the California Gold Rush, and ever since these losses have been reported [RP:12]. Indeed, though there are only five regions home to Bighorn Sheep populations now, it is likely that originally there were 16 Sierra Nevada areas that gave home to separate populations [RP:13]. Though human impact from mining towns have played a huge role in their loss, a large die off in the 1870’s was attributed to scabies. More die offs have been linked to pneumonia contracted from domestic sheep herds, which began to be grazed in the Sierra Nevadas in the 1860’s and extended into the 1900’s [LD:14].

Principal Threats to Continued Existence

            Though these sheep have faced some hunting, this has not played a large role in population decline. Additionally, their habitat is in public ownership and largely not subject to resource exploitation. Consequently, habitat degradation and fragmentation have not played a significant role in population decline either [RP:21]. Since 1970, a main source of death and decreased population size to the Bighorn Sheep has been mountain lion predation (see table 1). In this time period, mountain lion predation on livestock and pets in the same regions has increased as well [RP:17]. Indeed, predation has played one of the largest roles in the decline of this species. Since 1970, this predation has not been properly regulated. Proposition 117 in California passed in 1990 and effectively ended the California Department of Fish and Game’s power to remove lions in high risk Bighorn Sheep habitat areas [RP:22].

            Genetic problems have also been a tremendous issue for the bighorn sheeps. As stated previously there are only 5 subpopulations and it is very likely that they will lose some genetic variability.  Its believe that atleast some of the demes have variation which can be analyzed through DNA and possibly reach our goal. The goal that is brought before us is to distribute as many different genetic variations among all species in order to strengthen the chances of survival in various climates as well as reproduce with one another. [RP:22]

            In addition to predation, the Bighorn Sheep have had such steep declines as a result of disease. Contact with domestic sheep herds has allowed Bighorn Sheep to contract pneumonia, a disease sheep are particularly vulnerable to already. Indeed, pneumonia has been known to be able to extirpate entire sheep populations and cannot be downplayed as a factor [RP:21]. Despite efforts, the U.S. Forest Service has been unable to reduce at all contact between Bighorn Sheep and domestic sheep, and thus has not effectively reduced the transmission risk [RP:22].

ESA Listing

            The Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep was proposed as an endangered species in 1999. Following failed attempts at regulation of faltering populations, the species was emergency listed as endangered under the ESA in April 20, 1999.This listing has not changed since its original entrance into the ESA [LD:1].

Recovery Plan

            Approved on September 24, 2007, the Recovery Plan of Ovis canadensis hopes to achieve population sizes and geographic distribution of Bighorn Sheep in the Sierra Nevada that ensure long term viability of the population. By achieving this, the species can then be delisted as endangered [RP:v]. Specific actions hoped to be taken immediately are protecting the current herds with helping populations to grow and managing predation, augmenting smaller herds through translocations, and preventing contact with domestic sheep or goats [RP:vii]. This plan is estimated to cost $21,730,000 over 20 years, and hoped to reach downlisting with population growth in 2017 and again in 2027.  These dates are estimated with optimal conditions for population growth [RP:viii]. Recovery potential for this species is high if immediate action is carried out [RP:32]. In 2000, a temporary order was issued prohibiting goats and dogs on habitat areas in Inyo National Forest to minimize transmission of disease, and this temporary order was being finalized with the publication of the recovery plan [RP:29].  Additional actions taken already have been reviewing Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to revise terms that allow detrimental effects to the Bighorn Sheep, such as term grazing permits for sheep adjacent to habitat areas, prescribed fire, permits for guides and packers.  The prescribed fire is still being used to decrease mountain lion habitat [RP:29]. The Recovery Plan outlines that recovery of this species is possible, but only with proper funding and timely actions taken by agencies involved.

Bibliography

Clark, Jamie Rappaport. ETWP; Emergency Rule to List the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of California Bighorn Sheep as Endangered. 

Environmental Conservation Online System. 20 April 1999. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr3401.pdf

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team. Final recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. Environmental Conservation Online System. 24 September 2007.

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/080213_1.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdLOkOExePk

https://www.google.com/search?q=bighorn+sheep&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=494&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=wIBzVcWxA4m0ogSXp4GoAQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=Sierra+Nevada+bighorn+sheep