Tug Fork Valley Flood Damage Reduction Plan (VA,KY): Environmental …, Volume 8 (Google Books)

(1) Commercial Resources. West Virginia and Kentucky have been important hardwood luber-producing states for over a century. Lumber production is an important industry in the region of interest, with hardwood species accounting for nearly all of the volume, especially red oaks, white oaks, maples, and yellow poplar. Oak-hickory species are by far the most productive. McDowell County in West Virginia produced a net volume of sawtimber on commercial forest land of 603.4 million board feet (MBF) in 1975, compared to 526.6 MBF for Mingo and 516.2 MBF for Wayne Counties. For all

counties in West Virginia sawtimber production ranged from 35.7 to 2098.6 MBF

in 1975 (U.S. Forest Service, 1978a).

In 1975, commercial forest land occupied 277,000 acres in McDowell County, 222,800 acres in Mingo, and 265,000 acres in Wayne, the majority composed of oaks and hickories. Mingo and McDowell Counties contained over twice as much land in sawtimber as in poletimber or saplings, while the distribution was nearly uniform in Wayne County.

The total land area of 328,600 acres in Wayne and 341,100 acres in McDowell Counties consist of only 19 percent nonforest land in both counties; Mingo County contains only 18 percent nonforest land of 270,700 acres.

Similarly, 20 percent of Lawrence County in Kentucky is forested, but only 11 percent of the total land area contains forests in Martin and Pike Counties. Nearly all forest land in these counties is of commercial stands, and growing stock is twice the volume of saw timber in Lawrence County but

three times in Martin and Pike (U.S. Forest Service, 1978b).

(2) Wildlife

(a) Regional Habitat Suitability. Suitable wildlife habitat for forest dwelling species is abundant in the region of interest. Habitat is restricted in the Tug Fork main stem valley due to the short distances between bordering slopes, but considerable area is involved when the entire length of the stream is taken into account. Animals inhabit and range throughout the region since habitat is a continuum between the mainstem and the surrounding river basin.

The dominance of forests if conducive to woodland wildlife, particularly when these communities are located adjacent to open fields and brushy areas, such as near lumbered, strip-mine reclamation,‘ and farur areas. Squirrel, cottontail rabbit, deer, fox, and raccoon are among the most important furbearing and browsing mammals supported by the oak-hickory forest type (McKeever, 1952). Major game birds are wild turkey, bobwhite quail, and ruffed grouse. Numerous nesting songbirds include cardinals, wood thrushes, robins, wrens, and orioles. Food, nesting materials, shelter, and cover are provided by a variety of mast, twigs, bark, leaves, and den trees.

Cove hardwoods also provide important habitat for many species. Seeds, shoots, buds, flowers, fruits, and bark of the typically densely populated understory serve as a food for animals. Especially noteworthy is tulip poplar, whose flowers are valuable to hummingbirds and honeybees as a source of nectar, to songbirds for its seeds, and to deer, squirrels, and rabbits for its seeds, shoots, buds, and bark. Other important trees associated with wildlife include maples, hickories, oaks, and dogwood.

Floodplain forests along the Tug Fork and its tributaries support populations of wildlife similar in composition to those in drier woodlands. A

somewhat different complement of songbirds inhabits the floodplain, but many other species are common to various forest communities. Muskrat and possibly some mink occur along the study region floodplains. Great blue herons, green herons, belted kingfishers, Canada geese, and surface feeding ducks utilize the river for feeding and resting only to a limited extent.

[graphic]
Urban and suburban environments usually contain some vegetation, mostly as

short grass, hedges, shrubs, and individual or small groups of trees. Such areas provide habitat for numerous songbirds, woodrats, and field mice. Wildlife species known or expected to occur in the Tug Fork basin include: 31 species of amphibians (frogs, toads, and salamanders), 23 species of reptiles (turtles, lizards, skinks, and snakes), 159 species of birds (41 species are water-oriented), and 45 species of mammals (7 species are water

oriented) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978). Species expected to occur in

the region are listed in Addenda Tables A.7-5 to A.7-8.

Some frogs, especially bullfrogs, are hunted for sport and are good eating. Several turtles, such as snapping turtles, are also sought for food, and some species are kept as pets. Lizards are generally ignored by people and most snakes are avoided, except by collectors. Amphibians and reptiles in the region are of minor economic importance. Some are eaten, some are kept as pets, some eat noxious insects and other pests including certain rodents, but on the whole they have little effect on huans of the area (Barbour, 1971).

(b) Recreational Values. Sport hunting is fairly popular in the area but is confined primarily to forest game. Hunting squirrels has been the most popular sport (Uhlig, 1955), although deer, grouse, raccoon, rabbit, and fox are also hunted. Wild turkey have been stocked in the West Virginia counties bordering the Tug Fork and along the Virginia – Kentucky line. Only eight turkeys were harvested in McDowell County in 1978 and none in Mingo and

Wayne Counties. Harvest of turkeys in the study region has remained low during the last decade (Rieffenberger, et al, 1978), although the turkey was a very common resident of the area until the end of the 19th century (Bailey and Rinell, 1968).

Deer populations are also low in the study area relative to other counties in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia. Only 18 deer were gun harvested in Mingo County during the 1977 season, 193 in Tazewell County, 82 in Wayne County, 120 in Lawrence, and 15 in Pike, compared with a statewide county average in West Virginia of over 600 deer (Allen, et al, 1977). McDowell County has remained closed to deer hunting for several years, as has Martin County in Kentucky and Buchanan County in Virginia. Deer harvests have remained relatively low in the West Virginia counties throughout this century, but deer have been restocked periodically (Allen and Cromer, 1977).

Waterfowl hunting is very limited in the Tug Fork basin, since the area is not heavily used by migrating ducks or geese. The Tug Fork serves as a minor flyway for waterfowl traveling to the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina (Linduska, 1964). The most common breeding duck is the wood duck (Baynes et al, 1977).

In the counties of McDowell, Mingo, and Wayne, hunting success as measured by the average number of animals killed per day was lower than the statewide average for squirrel, rabbit, deer, and raccoon in 1970 and 1975. Grouse hunting in the area appears at least as good as in the state as a whole (see Addenda A.7-9), but less than in the more central portion (Pyle, 1976). The grouse is West Virginia’s most popular game bird. ‘

Wildlife populations in the Tug Fork River Basin are generally lower than the surrounding habitat carrying capacity as a result of wildfires, feral dogs

and cats, poor conservation attitudes, and poaching (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1978). While little habitat management has been implemented, stocking programs for deer, turkey, and bear have been initiated. Stocking of turkey has apparently met with some success, but the status of deer and bear stockings is unknown. With effective game law enforcement, fire control, habitat reclamation of strip mined lands, and public relations programs to improve human attitudes, wildlife resources in the region could improve substantially. (3) Exceptional Natural Features (a) Distinctive Areas. Within the Tug Fork basin are three major tracts of publicly ownedjland: Laurel Creek Public Hunting Area, Panther State Forest, and portions of Cabwaylingo State Forest. All of these areas are located in West Virginia and constitute the only State owned land in the study area. Laurel Creek Public Hunting and Fishing Area is located in Mingo County on the Laurel Fork of Pigeon Creek and contains a 29-acre stocked lake on its 13,000 acres. The area is dominated by forest land – mostly oak, hickory,

[graphic]
cove hardwoods, eastern hemlock, and associated species (Matthews, updated). Recreational facilities include camping units, picnic tables, grills, and shelters. The potential for large forest game population is good, but present populations are small for turkey, deer, and grouse due to poaching, feral dogs, and wildfires. Most hunting efforts have been directed toward squirrels. Raccoon populations have been low and hunting pressure high; no other furbearers are important in this area.

Cabwaylingo State Forest is located on Twelvepole Creek in Wayne County 25 miles south of Wayne,. West Virginia. The forest offers a variety of facilities in the southwestern part of West Virginia. Facilities include a series of scenic trails for hiking, numerous picnic sites, campsites, playground, swimming pool, and cabins. Hunting and fishing are permitted in the

Forest.

Cherokee National Forest (N.F.), South Holston Unit (TN,VA): Environmental … (Google Books)

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
The first attempt at a wildlife management in the vicinity

of Unit l5 began in l948 with the establishment of the
Beaverdam Refuge in the north end of Shady Valley. None

of this area was in Unit l5. Early in the l950’s, the
Kettlefoot Management Area was established in cooperation
with the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission. The Kettle-

foot included most of Unit l5’s area and all of the earlier
Beaverdam area. In recent years, the Kettlefoot area manage-
ment eliminated hunter check-in and out, with no special fees.
The Game and Fish Comission, operating under Cooperative
Agreement with the Cherokee National Forest concentrated their
efforts on setting proper seasons, bag limits, game law en-
forcement and biology research. The Cherokee National Forest
retained responsibility for habitat and other resource coordi-
nation. Big game population in Unit l5 is estimated to be
250-300 white-tailed deer and l00 wild turkeys, well below
present carrying capacity.

Small game in huntable numbers includes gray squirrel,
raccoon, fox and grouse. Fox running with hounds is a
popular night activity in the area southwest of Holston
High Knob. There are appreciable numbers of other common
animals such as ground hogs, rabbits, and quail. A rare and
little known species of salamander, the Yonahlossee, is
present in a few spots.

Wildlife of Unit l5 is affected by several limiting factors,
e.g. its long, narrow shape with a large number of people
living adjacent to the northwest boundary. Road and water
access provides more possibility of poaching. Recreation and
road improvement projects have distributed the wild turkey
flock. They were first stocked in l962 in the Little Oak
area (#46) now being developed as a recreation area.

Unit l5 is deficient in the variety of habitat most suitable for deer. Much of the area is not producing adequate mast because some stands are sparse, damaged, low quality, in need of thinning, or of the wrong composition. Dispersion of timber sales has not been adequate to provide browse throughout the Unit. Older timber sale areas have grown out of reach of deer. Newer and smaller cuts, with wider distribution, are helping the browse situation. Feral dogs, and fox hunting have limited the expansion of deer and turkey populations.

The major limiting factor for grouse is the lack of young age class timber. Carrying capacity of grouse will be increased as more timber is regenerated.

Throughout the Unit the habitat carrying capacity for most species of game and non-game species can be greatly increased. Hunting use for both large and small game is presently low to moderate, but demand is increasing. Raccoon and fox are apparently over hunted in the area southwest of Holston High Knob.

Non-consuptive use of all forms of wildlife in the South Holston Unit is increasing. Conservation education in schools, increasing activities by conservation societies, growing popularity of photography and bird watching, are all contributing to non-harvest use.

Management Direction for Wildlife

Implement current plans to do away with the Kettlefoot
Management Area per se, and consider all National Forest
Lands in Unit l5 as a part of the Cherokee Management Area.

Increase the carrying capacity of the habitat for all species to be featured in management through direct habitat improvements and coordination with timber management.

Feature those species of wildlife most suited to the habitat. The featured species concept is the principal of selecting

one wildlife species for each area of land and concentrating management efforts toward fulfillment of its needs. The purpose for selecting a featured species is to use its habitat requirements to guide wildlife management including coordination, multiple use planning, direct habitat improvement add cooperative programs. Other wildlife species will be present, but the needs of the featured species dictate coordination practices. The selection of wildlife species to feature is based upon four factors, in this order: l) habitat capability 2) compatibility with other resources, 3) public interest and needs, and 4) public and cooperator involvement. This concept does not mean that only one wildlife species is found in each area. It merely means that the habitat requirements of one animal will be used as a target in which to zero in on habitat management and coordination practices.

Featured species for this Unit are squirrel, grouse, raccoon, and turkey. Locations within which each species will be featured are shown on Map 0.

Continue steps to mark, paint, and sign all National Forest ownership. Continue even aged timber management policies with emphasis on dispersed regeneration cuts.

Construct and maintain additional permanent grass legume openings. Continue efforts to have State enact adequate dog control laws. Restrict off-road vehicle use with allout enforcement by both National Forest and Tennessee Game and Fish personnel.

Fisheries Resource Inventory

The shoreline of South Holston Lake is approximately l68 miles,of which the Forest Service owns approximately l00 miles and 68 miles is privately owned. Direct road access is fair. Boat launching facilities at low winter level, 50 feet below full pool, is very limited. Virginia and Tennessee have a reciprocal agreement for stocking, licensing, and law enforcement on the lake. Present population of game fish is good, including large and smallmouth bass, crappie, and rainbow trout. The latter is stocked annually. Coho salmon were introduced as an experiment in l972. The rough fish population is moderate but may be increasing.

There are 8 fishable streams in the Unit, all flowing into South Holston Lake, having a total of 22 miles of fishable water. These streams are:

Little Jacobs Creek 4.0 miles
Big Jacobs Creek 4.0 miles
Sulphur Springs Branch l.5 miles
Fishdam Creek 3.0 miles
Big Creek l.5 miles
Josiah Creek l.0 miles
Sharps Creek 4.0 miles
Harpers Creek 3.0 miles

22.0 miles

All the above streams except Harpers Creek have similar characteristics as to water temperature, shape and capacity to support both rainbow and brook trout. Harpers Creek presently contains some bluegill and bass. The Tennessee Game and Fish Commission has stocked no trout in these streams in recent years.

Fisheries Management Direction

For South Holston Lake, discourage commercial development
on National Forest land within the watershed. Continue
cooperation with Tennessee Game and Fish Commission
biologists for Coho propagation and for improving crappie
population by installation of artificial beds.

For stream fisheries, manage all but Harpers Creek for cold water trout fisheries. Harpers Creek should be considered

a cool, rather than a cold water fishery. Brook trout

should be restored in headwaters of all streams. Give special emphasis to brook trout where possible.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Final Management Plan/environmental … (Google Books)

Key Deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium). A smaller subspecies of the Virginia white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Key deer range from the Johnson Keys/Little Pine Key complex west to Lower Sugarloaf Key (FWS, 1985). Their range is currently restricted to the Lower Keys (Klimstra, 1992), with the greatest concentrations on Big Pine Key and No Name Key (FWS, 1985; Klimstra, 1992). They are known to swim between Keys, particularly when searching for fresh water in times of drought. Like most white-tailed deer, they utilize various habitats depending on availability, activity, and time of day (FWS, 1985). They most frequently occupy mangroves and hardwood hammocks during the day, as these areas provide escape cover, bedding, and loafing sites. They feed on a variety of plants but prefer red mangroves (FWS, 1985). Habitat use is affected by the availability of fresh water. The primary cause of species decline is the destruction or alteration of habitat by human development. Other threats include road kills, water source reductions (e.g., alteration or decreases of freshwater wetlands), harassment, dog attacks, poaching, and drowning (particularly of fawns in mosquito ditches) (FWS, 1985; Klimstra, 1992).

What to do about it

I actually said before that when it comes to cats and especially dogs (since the latter gets overlooked) preying on animals, there are actually times where this is encouraged especially if that animal’s considered a pest but sometimes without knowing that pest actually risks being endangered. Or that dogs are perfectly capable of hunting and killing animals at will, be it deer, horses or seals (that would actually make dogs fairly competent hunters and killers of wildlife).

Bear in mind, there are bound to be cases where hunting and pest-control’s closely entwined but sometimes without realising the damage that’s done to at least very at risk species. The problem is that it’s a very grey area so between wanting to get rid of the pest and the risk done to do it, even if it’s damaging people would rather favour the animal they like even if it’s a capable hunter and invasive predator. Not to mention, this might even be deliberately done like setting cats on snakes or dogs on some deer.

(Bear in mind whilst some deer species are adaptive and prolific, others risk being very endangered so this makes hunting with dogs a real grey area considering which deer species is at risk.)

To be kind, I think using cats and dogs for hunting is fine if it’s restricted to pest control combined with feeding them right and finding ways to keep them from attacking the wrong animal (imperfect but it can be doable). Setting dogs on rats and mice is doable, setting dogs on an already endangered animal might not be a good idea and same can be said of cats.

Or that hunting’s fine within reason, though there’s also the risk of killing somebody’s pet by accident (as it does happen in Europe). The only way to mitigate this is to be more selective with hunting, but that involves exercising greater self-control so you can’t kill animals on impulse and to the point you need to be careful about it. But with stray dogs hunting animals on their own, there’s bound to be conflict anyways.

WILDLIFE COMEBACK IN EUROPE (Some extracts)

WILDLIFE
COMEBACK
IN EUROPE

(Chamois)

Balkans (poaching
outside protected areas)
Greece (poaching,
predation by feral dogs)

(Roe Deer)

Scale Status Population trend Justification Threats
Global
[3]
Least Concern Increasing Widespread
Common
No major threats
1. Genetic mixing as a result of translocations
2. Poaching (C. c italicus)
3. Predation by feral dogs (C. c. italicus)
3. Habitat loss (Syria)
Europe (EU25)
[15]
Least Concern Increasing Widespread
Common
No major threats
1. Genetic mixing as a result of translocations
2. Poaching (C. c italicus)
3. Predation by feral dogs (C. c. italicus)

Dangers and Perils In Your Hands

Dogs and guns might have another thing in common, that is they’re both very dangerous and probably needs to be handled more carefully if people were to be aware of it. Dogs are dangerous, not just because they kill people but they also kill wildlife on their own volition and there are cases where they could kill larger prey pretty well (I guess when it comes to cat and dog predation, it can be both a matter of malnutrition and finding ways to keep them from killing animals, however as much an owner can do about it).

Guns are dangerous but because it’s a matter of exercising stronger self-control where if you threaten to shoot somebody you’re angry at you might have to calm down or find a better outlet for anger without threatening to hurt somebody (you might even need therapy for it). Another is if you try to shoot an animal but you end up shooting somebody else’s pet then you have to be responsible the next time to keep it from happening, if only people were to take to it well.

To complicate matters, you might even risk shooting and killing an endangered animal so when hunting exercise some responsibility and diligence, hunting rats might be permitted but shooting somebody’s pet by accident might be a bad thing to do.

You better control the way you use it

I honestly think cats and dogs aren’t inherently bad as much as I think there are people aware of predation and steps owners are made to prevent as much as they can, certainly not perfect but doable given the circumstances like say keeping cats indoors and keeping them and dogs away from prey animals if they have the time for it (though I also think the lack of adequate nutrition might play a factor in some cases).

Though to make matters worse, some owners may set their pets on animals considered vermin, especially if they’re ironically endangered that complicates the whole picture. So I think in the case with cat and dog predation, it’s not always so clear cut especially with owners using them to hunt the animals that they hate that makes it even trickier to stop it from happening, along with possible malnutrition (i.e. either not fed well or deliberately malnourished to get them to hunt).

Likewise, guns aren’t bad if you can handle using them but that necessitates a certain disposition to make for responsible weapon ownership that if people use those weapons to hurt innocent civilians (I think some blacks might be the worst thing by this in some cases) then they shouldn’t be using those at all and need therapy more. But that involves a greater deal of self responsibility, like reigning in on bad impulses which I think makes gun control tricky.

Even if there are cases where it’s needed like say you threaten to shoot somebody because you’re angry that you need to be taken to therapy. So to speak, almost anything isn’t inherently bad but people need to be responsible in their usage and actions to minimise problems whatever they can do about it.

Federal Register, Volume 48, Issues 12-16 (Google Books)

However, the Service will continue to review the status of these turtles, as there is at least circumstantial evidence which leads scientists to believe they might be declining.

Gray’s monitor lizard, Varanus grayi, was also included in the notice of review. Based on the preliminary work of Dr. Walter Auffenberg (Auffenberg, 1976b, 1979a, b), this large lizard was believed to be threatened through habitat destruction and killing by local people for food. In 1981, the Service funded (in part) additional research and surveys on the lizard to develop a management plan. The Service has received a final report (Auffenberg, 1982b) in which Dr. Auffenberg states that while Philippine protection is necessary, listing under provisions of U.S. Federal law is not warranted at this

time. Hence, this species is not included in this proposed rule. One additional species from the notice, the Hierrogiant lizard (Gallotia simonyi), is not included in this proposal, since it is now believed extinct (R. Honegger, pers. comm.). The Service has reviewed additional literature references and believes that sufficient data exist to propose the Round Island skink, Leiolopisma telfairii, as a Threatened species even though it was not originally included in the notice. Finally, the notice treated the iguana Cyclura nubila as a single species; in the proposal, the subspecies are treated individually because of different degrees of threats to them. The species included in this proposed rule, their proposed status and their IUCN status are as follows:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
Round Island skink…………………….. …..| Leiosopisma teffairii…………….. Threatened…..
Central American river turtle Oe ys mawif Endangered….
Aruba island rattlesnake Crotatus unicolor………………………………………………………………. Threatened……………………………..
Lar Valley wiper………… Vipera satifi Endangered

g

..] Rare. … Rare. … Endangered. ..] Rare. : Rare. ..] Vulnerable. Rare. Endangered.

A brief description of these species and applicable threats is as follows:

Serpent Island gecko—This lizard is restricted to Round Island (151 hectares) where it is rare and Serpent Island (20 hectares) where it is considered very rare; both islands are near Mauritius. Predation from feral animals and habitat destruction are the chief causes of its decline (Honegger, 1979). There are estimated to be between 3,600 and 4,500 lizards remaining. The overall problems of the Round Island ecosystem and its resident herpetofauna have been presented in detail (Bullock, 1977). Round Island is presently a nature reserve and endemic lizards cannot, by law, be captured or exported from Mauritius. The lizards have also been discussed by Vinson and Vinson (1969) and Temple (1977).

Bahame species of Cyclura—All these species are listed in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red Date Book as being of concern (Honegger, 1979). The main threats to their continued survival include habitat destruction for resort development and

the introduction of feral animals, particularly mongooses, cats, and dogs which prey upon the iguanas, especially the young and juveniles, and destroy nests (Iverson, 1978). Introduced goats may compete for food (these species are vegetarian) and humans kill them for food or malicious”sport.” Nearly all these iguanas have very small ranges; many are limited to a single island. Discussions of the threats to these species are contained in Honegger (1979), Carey (1966, 1975), Iverson and Auffenberg (1979), Iverson (1978), Auffenberg (1975, 1976a, 1982), and Gicca (1980). While legal protection is afforded these iguanas in the Bahamas, the law is not enforced (Honegger, 1979). The Service has funded research on C. r. Tileyi to study a potentially serious fungal disease. Cuban and Cayman Islands iguanas— There are three subspecies of Cyclura nubila inhabiting Cuba (mainland and Isla de Pinos) and the Cayman Islands. These are: C. n. Caymenensis (one colony on Cayman Brac), C. m. lewisi (no less then 50 individuals on Grand Cayman Island, and C. n. nubila (Cuba

and adjacent islands and cays). The threats to these iguanas are similar to those of the Bahamas Cyclura (Honegger, 1979) and Townson (1981) has noted additional potential threats from habitat destruction. C. n. nubila is protected in Cuba. Turks and Caicos iguana—The same threats which apply to the Bahama Cyclura also apparently apply to this species (Honegger, 1979). It is found on most of the islands in the Turks and Caicos group. No specific protection laws have been enacted and although several cays where this species occurs are supposed to be reserves, protection is nil (Honegger, 1979). Jamaican iguana—The following is taken from Woodley (1980) who has reviewed the history and status of this species: “For a hundred years, they were only known to survive on the Goat Islands but, after the introduction of the mongoose and the interference consequent to the Second World War, that population became extinct in about 1948. But iguanas had, after all, survived on the mainland; in the Hellshire Hills.

[graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic]
Hog-hunters have been catching occasional specimens up to 1978 and one of these, killed in 1969, was obtained by the author and positively identified. It is unlikely that the Jamaican iguana, already very rare, will survive the proposed development of the Hellshire Hills.” Round Island skink—This species is presently confined to Round Island off the coast of Mauritius. It was once found on Flat Island and Gunner’s Quoin until exterminated by rats. In 1974, the population was thought to be between 4,000–5,000 but declining. Those factors contributing to the decline of other species on Round Island (Bullock, 1977) are also thought to be contributing to the decline of this species (Honegger, 1979; also, see Temple, 1977, and Vinson and Vinson, 1969). Aruba Island rattlesnake—According to Honegger (1979), the habitat of this rattlesnake is shrinking as a result of increasing human activity. Collection may also be contributing to its decline. Lar Valley wiper—Andren and Nilson (1979) have reviewed the biology of this species and state: “Vipera latifii Mertens, Darevsky and Klemmer, a recently described viper from northern Iran, is in severe need of conservation. Its range is restricted to unique, alpine Lar Valley, which in a few years will be used as a huge water reservoir. Observations on the biology of Vipera latiffii are given. Sympatric amphibians and reptiles show ecotypic adaptations.” Central American river turtle—This large river turtle is found only in the coastal lowlands of southern Mexico, northern Guatemala, and Belize. It is hunted extensively for its meat and has been seriously depleted throughout much of its range. According to Alvarez del Toro et al. (1979), this exploitation could lead to its extinction. Additional information on its biology is contained in Smith and Smith (1979) and Iverson and Mittermeier (1980). The Service will follow Iverson and Mittermeier (1980) in the spelling of the specific epithet (i.e., mawii). Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act (codified at 50 CFR Part 424; under revision to accommodate 1982 amendments) states that the Secretary of the Interior shall determine whether any species is an Endangered species or a Threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in Section 4(a)(1) of

the Act. This authority has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. These factors are as follows: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.”

The reptiles proposed for listing as Endangered and Threatened species relate to these factors as follows (numbers refer to factors above): Serpent Island gecko—(A) Rabbits and goats were introduced onto Round Island in 1840 and these animals have destroyed the island’s vegetation so that severe erosion has resulted. The loss of this vegetative cover is thought to have resulted in the loss of available habitat for this species. (C) Since there are no palms on Serpent Island, the scarcity of this species on Round Island has also been attributed to predation. Acklins ground iguana—(A) This species is found only on Fortune Island and Guana Cay in Acklin’s Bight. There are probably less than 1,000 individuals remaining. Increased human settlement in the Bahamas has resulted in the loss of available habitat for this species. (C) Predation by people who use this species for food is thought to have decreased its numbers. (D) While legally protected in the Bahamas, the law is not enforced. Allen’s Cay iguana—(A) This species is found in the Allen Cay group at the northern end of the Exuma Island chain. Like other species of Bahamian iguanas, this species has lost habitat because of human encroachment. There are 75–100 individuals remaining on each island of the group. (C) This subspecies is threatened by being needlessly slaughtered by tourist fishermen for “sport” and is sometimes hunted by local people for food. (D) This iguana is legally protected by the Bahamas, but the law is not enforced. Andros Island ground iguana—(A) This species is primarily found along the western two-thirds of the Andros group. This iguana is losing habitat to agricultural and commercial development and from lumbering. (B) According to Honegger (1979), there is extensive commercial exploitation. (C) This species is used for food by local people who hunt it with dogs. Hog predation on its eggs is also a problem. (D) This iguana is legally protected by

the Bahamas, but the law is not enforced. Cayman Brac ground iguana—(C) This iguana is known only from Cayman Brac and Little Cayman Islands although introduced onto Grand cayman. The population has been reduced by predation from feral pigs, cats, and dogs. Humans also hunt the ground iguana. Cuban ground iguana—(C) This iguana is known from Cuba, Isla de Pinos, and a number of offshore islands and cays. All populations are probably suffering from predation by feral pigs, cats, and dogs. Humans also occasionally hunt the ground iguanas. Exuma Island iguana—(A) This iguana is found on Bitter Guana Cay, Guana Cay, Prickley Pear Cay, and Allen Cay in the Exuma group. This subspecies is threatened by the development of its remaining habitat primarily for commercial and residential purposes. (B) Honegger (1979) states that commercial trade is a threat to this subspecies. (C) Hunting of the iguanas for food and shooting them for “sport” by tourists are threats to this iguana. (D) While this iguana is protected by Bahamian law, the law is not enforced. Grand Cayman ground iguana—(C) This iguana is known only for Grand Cayman; there is believed to be a population of not less than 50 individuals remaining. Threats to the population are mainly thought to be predation from feral pigs, cats, and dogs. Humans also hunt the ground iguanas in the Cayman Islands. Jamaican iguana—(A) Until recently, this species was thought extinct. However, it survives probably is very low numbers in the Hellshire Hills. This area is proposed to be developed. If this occurs, the remaining small population will become extinct. (C) Dogs and people are known to kill these iguanas. Any such loss to the population is a threat to its continued existence. Mayaguana iguana—(A) This subspecies is known only from Bobby Cay east of Mayaguana. According to Honegger (1979), there has been some loss of habitat due to human activities. (C) This species is hunted by local people for food. (D) While legally protected by Bahamian law, the law is not enforced. Turks and Caicos ground iguana—(A) This iguana is found throughout the Turks and Caicos group. According to Honegger (1979), it is declining because of the loss of suitable habitat through housing development and agriculture. (C) Like other ground iguanas, this species is subject to predation from humans and feral dogs and cats. (D) While some of the islands on which this species occurs have been designated as reserves, enforcement is nil. Watling Island (San Salvador) ground iguana—(C) This species is known only from Green Key, Man Head Key, Pidgeon Key, Low Key, and Goulding Key. Though previously reported from White Key and a number of adjacent keys, Gicca (1980) and Auffenberg (1982) note that none were found on these keys during surveys in 1974 and 1981, respectively. There may be a small remnant on San Sahvador in the interior of the island. Causes for extirpation and decline include predation by humans for food and the introduction of feral predators. In addition, a serious fungal disease has in the past affected this subspecies; its cause and long term effects are unknown.but many iguanas have been scarred by it. White Cay ground iguana—(A) This iguana is known only from White Cay in the Bahamas where there are believed to be less than 1,000 individuals. The main threat to this species is from the loss of habitat from an encroaching human population. (B) According to Honegger (1979), the live animal trade could be having an adverse effect on this species. (C) Humans are predators on this species for food. Round Island skink—(A) This species is now restricted to Round Island. Rabbits and goats were introduced onto Round Island in 1840 and these animals have destroyed the island’s vegetation so that severe erosion has resulted. The loss of this cover is though to have resulted in the loss of available habitat for this species. (C) Rats are known predators and are thought to have eliminated this species on Flat Island and Gunner’s Quoin. Central American River turtle: (B) This large river turtle is found only in the coastal lowlands of southern Mexico, northern Guatemala, and Belize. It is hunted extensively for food and has been seriously depleted throughout its range. If this intensive exploitation continues, not only will the turtle disappear, but the local inhabitants will lose an important part of their diet. Turtle meat labeled as from Dermatemys has occasionally been imported into the United States. However, as shown in a recent law enforcement case, this meat was actually from sea turtles. The extent of possible international commercial trade in meat from this turtle is impossible to gauge, but could be significant as there have been numerous inquiries from soup companies as to its legality for trade. Aruba Island rattlesnake—(A) According to Honegger (1979), the habitat of this rattlesnake is shrinking as a result of increasing human activity.

(B) The extent of this problem is unknown, although overcollecting may be a problem for this species. However, captive propagation, such as undertaken at the Houston Zoo (Carl et al., in press) should be able to provide needed specimens for education and zoological display. Lar Valley viper—(A) This species is confined to the alpine Lar Valley in Iran. According to Andrew and Nilson (1979), there is the threat of construction of a dam for a water reservior which would eliminate its habitat.

Effects of the Proposal if Published as Final Rule

Endangered species regulations already published in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions which apply to all Endangered and Threatened species. The regulations referred to above, which pertain to Endangered and Threatened species, are found at $$ 17.21 and 17.31 of Title 50, and are summarized below.

With respect to the 17 species of reptitles in this proposed rule, all prohibitions of Section 9(a)(1) of the Act, as implemented by 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31 would apply. These prohibitions, in part, would make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take, import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale these species in interstate or foreign commerce. It also would be illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife which was illegally taken. Certain exceptions would apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving Endangered and Threatened species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, and 17.23, and 17.32. Such permits are available for scientific purposes, the enhancement or propagation or survival of the species, and economic hardship.

Literature Cited

Alvarez del Toro, M., R.A. Mittermeier, and J. B. Iverson. 1979. River turtle in danger. Oryx, Nov., pp. 170–173

Andren, C. and G. Nilson. 1979. Vipera Latifii (Reptilia, Serpentes, Viperidae) an Endangered viper from Lar Valley, Iran, and remarks on the sympatric herpetofauna. J. Herpetol. 13:335–341

Auffenberg, W. 1975. The dragon isles: West Indian rock iguanas. Bahamas Nat. 1(1):2–7

1976a. Bahamas rock iguanas, Part two.

Bahamas Nat. 2(1):9–16

1976b. First description of an adult Varanus grayi. Copeia 1976:586–588 1979a. A monitor lizard in the Philippines. Oryx, June. pp. 39–46 1979b. Research on monitor lizards. Tigerpaper. 4(4):20–21 1982a. Conservation of Bahamian rock iguanas (Cyclura sp.). Project report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Washington. D.C. 16 pp 1982b. Final report: A study of activity patterns and spacing in Varanus grayi. Final rept. to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 5 pp., 1 fig. 1 table Bullock, D. 1977. Round Island—a tale of destruction. Oryx, July. pp. 51–58 Carl, C., K.H. Peterson, and R.M. Hubbard. In press. Reproduction in captive Aruba Island rattlesnakes, Crotalus unicolor. Herp. Rev Carey, W.M. 1966. Observations on the ground iguana Cyclura macleayi caymanensis on Cayman Brac, British West Indies. Herpetologica 22:265–268 1975. iguanas on the rocks. Animal Kingdom 78(2):15–20 Gicca, D. 1980. The status and distribution of Cyclura r. rileyi (Reptilia: Iguanidae) a Bahamian rock iguana. Carib. J. Sci. 16(14):9–12 Honegger, R.E. (ed.) 1979. Amphibia and Reptilia. IUCN Red Data Book, Vol. 3, Morges, Switzerland Iverson, J.B. 1978. The impact of feral cats and dogs on populations of the West Indian rock iguana, Cyclura carinata. Biol. Conserv. 14:63–73 Iverson. J.B. and W. Auffenberg. 1979. Status and biology of Bahamian archipelago rock iguanas (Cyclura). Paper presented of Bahamian archipelago rock iguanas Cyclura). Paper presented at joint meeting of the Herp. League and Soc. Study Amphib. and Rept., Knoxville, TN Iverson, J. B. and R. A. Mittermeier. 1980. Dermatemys mawii. Cat. Amer. Amphib. Rept. 237.1–237.4 Smith, H. B. and R. B. Smith. 1979. Synopsis of the Herpetofauna of Mexico. Vol. VI. Guide to Mexican turtles, Bibliographic Addendum III. John Johnson Publ., N. Bennington, VT Temple, S.A. 1977. Castaway reptiles of the Indian Ocean. Anim. Kingdom. Aug./Sep. pp. 19–27 Townson, S. 1981. West Indian iguanas of the genus Cyclura: the threat of habitat destruction in the Cayman Islands. Br. J. Herpetol. 6(1):101–104 Vinson, J. and J. M. Vinson. 1969. The Saurian fauna of the Mascarene Islands. Maur. Inst. Bull. 6(4):203–320 Woodley, J. D. 1980. Survival of the Jamaican iguana, Cyclura collei. J. Herpetol. 14:45– 49

Dogs–the most underrated predator

In a sense they are underrated as fearsome predators, considering reports where they take on and eat macrofauna like deer and even musk oxen. If there are anecdotes of dogs taking on boar, it wouldn’t be a stretch for them to take on deer on their own even if that wouldn’t be any better. Though as macropredators they’re weirdly underestimated even by some people who should know better, something like either not wanting their preconceptions cancelled or whatever.

Like supposing if there are reports where dogs hunt and take on cattle, calves and horses on their own, it wouldn’t be a stretch for them to hunt let’s say deer even if that wouldn’t be any better but that would involve any real knowledge of dog predation, secondhand or not as well as either taking it seriously or considering the possibility. I suspect if most of these events occur in the countryside, it shouldn’t be a surprise if dogs were to be left unattended they could be left to their own devices.

Realistically, I suspect even if some people are aware of dog predation some people will not take it seriously either the truth’s too much or whatever that may challenge their belief is a hurdle to accepting canine predation.

Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Code, Volume 4 (Google Books)

eBook – FREE
Get this book in print

AbeBooks
Find in a library
All sellers »
Front Cover
0 Reviews
Write review
Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth Code, Volume 4
By Northern Mariana Islands

About this book

Terms of Service
10-433 – 10-437

Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
DIVISION 3: THIRD SENATORIAL DISTRICT (SAIPAN, ETC.)

bids submitted must be sealed and will be publicly opened five days after the deadline date for the submission of bids at the time and place stated in the bid notice. The minimum bid which can be received and accepted by the Mayor of Saipan and the cockpit board shall be the sum of $10,000, which shall be paid no later than 24 hours following the bid award.

Source: Saipan LL9-8, § 3 (§ 3307), modified.

§ 3609. Bid Award.

The Mayor of Saipan shall award the license to the highest qualified bidder. In the event that for any reason the mayor does not approve the highest bidder, or the highest bid, a new notice shall be issued as soon as practicable in the same manner as set forth under this chapter, except that a bidder who has been disapproved by the mayor shall not be allowed to submit a new bid.

Source: Saipan LL9-8, § 3 (§ 3308), modified.

Commission Comment: In the second sentence, the commission inserted “mayor” after “disapproved by the,” correcting a typographical error.

§ 3610. Duration of License.

A cockpit license shall be issued for a period of one year, commencing on July 1 of each year, and shall end on June 30 of the following year, unless extended for a reasonably longer period of time by the mayor.

Source: Saipan LL9-8, § 3 (§ 3309), modified.

§ 3611. Number of License.

No more than one license for the operation of the cockpit shall be issued. The location of the cockpit shall be subject to the approval of the mayor, except that the licensee may be authorized by the cockpit board to issue a “letter of authorization” to other approved operators to conduct temporary cockfight locations outside the cockpit area within the island of Saipan. The office of the Mayor of Saipan is the only entity authorized to issue a license for the operation of a cockpit.

Source: Saipan LL9-8, § 3 (§ 3310). § 3612. Citizenship Requirement. No license shall be issued to any person, corporation, company or entity who

is not a U.S. citizen and resident of Saipan for at least seven years preceding May 11, 1996.

COMMONWEALTH CODE

Source: Saipan LL9-8, § 3 (§ 3311), modified.

§ 3613. Cockpit Operation.

The licensee may operate the cockpit on any day the licensee deems necessary. The licensee is also permitted to operate the cockpit 24 hours per day as the licensee sees fit.

Source: Saipan LL.9-8, § 3 (§ 3312), modified.

§ 3614. Fees and other deductions.

The licensee is authorized to charge a submission fee of not more than $10 per person per day. The licensee is also authorized to deduct 10 percent from the total sum of each winning bet.

Source: Saipan LL 9-8, § 3 (§ 3313), modified.

§ 3615. Drinks and Food Concession. The licensee is authorized to sell drinks and food items while the cockpit is in operation, including beer and liquor consistent with applicable law.

Source: Saipan LL.9-8, § 3 (§ 3314), modified.

§ 3616. Cockpit Employees.

The licensee may hire employees for the operation of the cockpit and all other related activities consistent with applicable law. The office of the Mayor of Saipan is free from any personal and financial responsibility arising from the operation of the cockpit.

Source: Saipan LL9-8, § 3 (§ 3315), modified.

§ 3617. Funds Collected.

Notwithstanding the provisions 1 CMC § 1403, the Mayor of Saipan, upon the approval of the Saipan legislative delegation by resolution, may expend, obligate, encumber, etc., any and all funds deposited in the special account. The mayor shall submit to the Saipan legislative delegation chairperson a detailed funds status report not later than September 30 of each fiscal year. Except as provided in 10 CMC §§ 3614 and 3615, all funds collected under this chapter shall be placed in a special account to be established by the Secretary of Finance.

Source: Saipan LL.9-8, § 3 (§ 3316), modified.

§ 3618. Penalty. Any person or individual who willfully or knowingly violates any provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation duly promulgated hereunder is guilty of

Division 3: THIRD SENATORIAL DISTRICT (SAIPAN, ETC.)

a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not more than $600, or be imprisoned not more than three months, or both.

[ocr errors]
COMMONWEALTH CODE

DIVISION 3: THIRD SENATORIAL DISTRICT (SAIPAN, ETC.)

[ocr errors]
CHAPTER 7.
Animal and Plant Control.

Article 1. Saipan and Northern Islands Dog Control Act.

Article 1. Saipan and Northern Islands Dog Control Act.

§ 3701. Title.
§ 3702. Authorization to the Municipalities.
§ 3703. Revenues Generated.
§ 3704. Appropriation.

§ 3701. Title. This article may be cited as the Saipan and Northern Islands Dog Control Act.

Source: Saipan LL 9-12, § 1.

Commission Comment: Saipan LL 9-12 took effect October 19, 1995. According to Saipan LL 9-12, §§ 2-4:

Section 2. Findings. The Saipan and Northern Islands Legisla tive Delegation finds that stray dogs pose a serious health problem to the people of the Island of Saipan in that stray dogs have wandered onto public roads creating a hazard to the safety of drivers as well as to the well being of the dogs. The Delegation further finds that stray dogs frequently suffer from malnutrition and ill health and that stray dogs have also created a safety hazard to pedestrians by chasing or attacking said pedestrians. The Delegation further finds that dogs in the Northern Islands should be monitored and controlled so as not to damage the eco-system of the islands and to prevent and/or minimize the population of stray and feral dogs. Finally, the Delegation finds that some of the islands north of Saipan are inhabited by threatened and endangered species, whose existence and habitat feral dogs can aggravate and destroy.

Section 3. Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to authorize the Mayors of the Municipalities of Saipan and the Northern Islands to enact rules and regulations for the regulation, licensing, control and disposal of dogs on the Northern Islands and the Island of Saipan. It is the further purpose of this Act to generate and appropriate revenue for the purpose of implementing this Act.

Section 4. Authority. This Act is adopted pursuant to the Local Law Act of 1983, [1 CMC § 1401 et seq.], and more specifically, pursuant to [1 CMC § 1402(a)(13)].