MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W142767476

Montana Gray WolfConservation and Management2006 Annual Report

2007· article· en· W142767476 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carolyn A. Sime, Valpa Asher, L. Bradley, Kent Laudon, Mike Ross, Jon R. Trapp, Mark A. Atkinson, Larry Handegard, John E. Steuber

Notice bibliographique

RevueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueEcology and biodiversity studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGray (unit)Medicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

MONTANA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wolf recovery in Montana began in the early 1980’s. Gray wolves increased in number and expanded their distribution in Montana because of natural emigration from Canada and a successful federal effort that reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and the wilderness areas of central Idaho. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) approved the Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan in early 2004, but delisting in the northern Rockies (NRM) was delayed. When federal funding became available later in 2004, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) began managing wolves in northwestern Montana under a cooperative agreement with USFWS. In 2005, Montana expanded its responsibility for wolf conservation and management statewide under an interagency cooperative agreement. The agreement allows Montana to implement its federally-approved state plan to the extent possible and within the guidelines of federal regulations. Using federal funds, MFWP monitors the wolf population, directs problem wolf control and take under certain circumstances, coordinates and authorizes research, and leads wolf information and education programs. MFWP wolf management specialists were hired in 2004 and are based throughout western and central Montana. A program coordinator is based in Helena. The Montana wolf population increased from 2005 to 2006. The increase is due to a real increase in actual wolf numbers primarily in NWMT and western Montana and the significantly increased monitoring efforts that led to verification of packs that actually existed in 2005 but could not be verified until more information was gathered in 2006. A total of 60 verified packs of 2 or more wolves yielded a minimum estimate of 316 wolves in Montana. Twenty-one packs qualified as a breeding pair according to the federal recovery definition (an adult male and female with two surviving pups on December 31). Across the southern Montana experimental area (Central Idaho and Greater Yellowstone areas combined), there were 29 packs, 10 of which met the breeding pair criteria. A minimum of 149 wolves were estimated (73 in the GYA and 76 in the CID). Across northwest Montana, there were 31 packs, 11 of which met the breeding pair criteria. A minimum of 167 wolves was estimated in the NWMT endangered area. Montana Wildlife Services (WS) confirmed 32 cattle, 4 sheep, 4 dogs and 2 llamas were killed by wolves in calendar year 2006. Additional losses (both injured and dead livestock) most certainly occurred, but could not be confirmed. Most depredations occurred on private property. Fifty three wolves were killed to reduce the potential for further depredations. Of the 53, 2 were killed by private citizens under the 2005 10(j) regulations and 2 were killed by private citizens who had been issued a permit in the experimental area of southern Montana. Wolves in Montana prey primarily on elk, deer, and moose. Numerous research projects are investigating wolf-ungulate relationships. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks recently compiled research results of wolf-ungulate interactions in southwest Montana. This report and other information about wolves and the Montana program are available at www.fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Wolf recovery in Montana began in the early 1980’s. Gray wolves increased in number and expanded their distribution in Montana because of natural emigration from Canada and a successful federal effort that reintroduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and the wilderness areas of central Idaho. Montana contains portions of all 3 federal recovery areas: the Northwest Montana Endangered Area (NWMT), the Central Idaho Experimental Area (CID), and the Greater Yellowstone Experimental Area (GYA) (Figure 1). The biological requirements for wolf recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming were met in December 2002. Before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) can propose to delist gray wolves, federal managers must be confident that a secure, viable population of gray wolves will persist if protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) were removed. To provide that assurance, the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming developed wolf conservation and management plans and adopted other regulatory mechanisms in state law. In late 2003, all 3 states submitted wolf management plans to USFWS for review. Based on the USFWS’s independent review of the state management plans and state law, analysis of the comments of independent peer reviewers and the states’ responses to those reviews, USFWS approved the Montana and Idaho management plans as being adequate to assure maintenance of their state’s share of the recovered tri-state wolf population. Wyoming’s plan, however, was not approved. USFWS will not propose delisting until the Wyoming plan and associated state laws can be approved.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,571

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,173
Écart entre enseignants0,167 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations24
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Même sujetEcology and biodiversity studiesTravaux en français237 207