Cetacean Notes. I. Sei and Rorqual Whales on the Mississippi Coast, a Correction. II. A Dwarf Sperm Whale in Mississippi Sound and Its Helminth Parasites

I. Gunter and Christmas (1973) described the events leading to the stranding of a baleen whale on Ship Island, Mississippi, in 1968, giving the species as Balaenopteru physalus, the Rorqual. Unfortunately the identification was in error, but fortunately good photographs were shown. The underside of the tail was a splotched white, but there was no black margin. The specimen also had fewer throat and belly grooves than the Rorqual, as a comparison with True’s (1904) photograph shows. Dr. James Mead (in litt.) pointed out that the animal was a Sei Whale, Balaenoptera borealis. This remains a new Mississippi record and according to Lowery’s (1974) count, it is the fifth specimen reported from the Gulf of Mexico. The stranding of a sixth Sei Whale on Anclote Keys in the Gulf, west of Tarpon Springs, Florida on 30 May 1974, was reported in the newspapers and by the Smithsonian Institution (1974). II. Gunter, Hubbs and Beal (1955) gave measurements on a Pygmy Sperm Whale, Kogia breviceps, which stranded on Mustang Island on the Texas coast and commented upon the recorded variations of proportional measurements in this species. Then according to Raun, Hoese and Moseley (1970) these questions were resolved by Handley (1966), who showed that a second species, Kogia simus, the Dwarf Sperm Whale, is also present in the western North Atlantic. Handley’s argument is based on skull comparisons and it seems to be rather indubitable. According to Raun et al. (op. cit.), the stranding of a species of Kogia on Galveston Island recorded by Caldwell, Ingles and Siebenaler (1960) was K. simus. They also say that Caldwell (in litt.) had previously come to the same conclusion. Caldwell et al. also recorded another specimen from Destin, Florida, which is now considered to have been a specimen of simus. The known status of these two little sperm whales in the Gulf is summarized by Lowery (op. cit.).

Studies on the Helminth Fauna of Alaska. XIII. Disease in the Sea Otter, with Special Reference to Helminth Parasites

During the spring of 1951, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service undertook the removal of sea otter, Enhydra lutris (L)., from the Aleutian Island of Amchitka, for the purpose of restocking range from which the animals have long been exterminated. The decision to undertake this activity was influenced by the nature of military operations planned for the island later the same year. The capture and removal of the otter were under the supervision of Mr. Robert D. Jones, Biologist, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Heavy losses among the animals shortly after capture made the venture unsuccessful. Many deaths were concurrent among animals in the wild state. The writer was asked to investigate the causes of disease in the sea otter, and it is the purpose of this paper to report the results of these investigation, with special reference to helminth parasites.

Dogs Gone Wild: Feral Dog Damage in the United States

Feral dogs have been documented in all 50 states and estimates of damage in the U.S. from these animals amount to >$620 million annually. In Texas alone, it is estimated that over $5 million in damage to livestock annually can be attributed to feral dogs. We reviewed national statistics on feral dog damage reported to USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services for a 10-year period from 1997 through 2006. Damage by feral dogs crossed multiple resource categories (e.g., agriculture, natural resources); some examples of damage include killing and affecting the behavior and habitat use of native wildlife; killing and maiming livestock; and their role as disease vectors to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans. We review the role of dog damage in the U.S., synthesize the amount of damage between resource categories (agriculture, human health and safety, disease, and natural resources), and report trends in dog damage during the 10-year period. Results showed an increase in dog damage across all resource categories indicating the importance of management.

Livestock Protection Dogs for Deterring Deer From Cattle and Feed

Disease transmission between wildlife and livestock is a worldwide issue. Society needs better methods to prevent interspecies transmission to reduce disease risks. Producers have successfully used livestock protection dogs (LPDs) for thousands of years to reduce predation. We theorized that LPDs raised and bonded with cattle could be used to also reduce risk of bovine tuberculosis (Myobacterium bovis; TB) transmission between white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and cattle by minimizing contact between the 2 species and use of cattle feed by deer. We evaluated 4 LPDs over 5 months, utilizing 2 data collection methods (direct observation and motion-activated video) on deer farms that supported higher densities than wild populations. Dogs were highly effective in preventing deer from using concentrated cattle feed (hay bales), likely the greatest risk factor of TB transmission on farms. Dogs also prevented deer from approaching cattle in core areas of pastures (near hay bales) and were very effective throughout pastures. Our research supports the theory that LPDs, specifically trained to remain with cattle, may be a practical tool to minimize potential for livestock to contract TB from infected deer in small-scale cattle operations. Where disease is present in deer, it may be possible to reduce the potential for disease transmission by employing LPDs.

Use of Confined Dogs for Reducing Deer Damage to Apple Orchards

We assessed the efficacy of free-ranging dogs, confined by buried fences and electronic collars, for reducing deer damage to apple trees in three commercial apple orchards in Oswego County, New York State. During 1995 and 1996, we monitored paired dog-protected and control plots in each orchard. Within dog-protected areas, the percentage of damaged buds was lower, and fruit yield was higher in both 1995 and 1996 than for control plots. Gross economic returns were higher from dog-protected than control plots in both 1995 (by 51%) and 1996 (by 184%). After two seasons of growth, trees planted in May 1995 had nearly three times the cross-sectional area, and were 60% taller if they were in dog-protected rather than control plots. Dogs provided increased economic returns for growers at much lower cost than conventional barrier fencing.

In-Burrow Application of Rozol to Manage Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs

Our experiment demonstrated that black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) will consume rodenticide underground in their burrows. We demonstrated the efficacy of Rozol Pocket Gopher Bait containing the active ingredient chlorophacione (0.005%) 21 days post treatment for managing black-tailed prairie dogs in their burrows in Kansas. Active prairie dog burrows were reduced 90% when 54 grams of Rozol was placed in the burrow without prebaiting. Results indicate use of this toxicant when placed in the burrow can be an effective means of managing prairie dogs. In-burrow application of rodenticides for black-tailed prairie dog management should markedly reduce exposure of birds to toxic bait.

Studies on the Helminth Fauna of Alaska. XXXVIl. Description of Schizorchis caballeroi n. sp. (Cestoda: Anoplocephalidae), with Notes on Other Parasites of Ochotona

Schizorchis caballeroi n. sp. has been described from the collared pika, Ochotona collaris (Nelson), from Alaska, and has been distinguished morphologically from its congeners, S. ochotonae Hansen, 1948, and S. altaica Gvozdev, 1951. Nine species of helminths have been described 10 dale from North American pikas, O. collaris and O. princeps (Richardson). These mammals are markedly allopatric and do not share any species of helminth. Nematodes of two genera, Eugenuris Shults and Labiostomum Akhtar, 1941, occur in O. collaris as weIl as in palearctic species of Ochotona. This, along with other pertinent information, is taken to suggest that O. collaris has invaded North American more recently than did O. princeps or its precursor.

Parasites and Diseases of Mullets (Mugilidae)

The following treatment of parasites, diseases and conditions affecting mullet hopefully serves several functions. It acquaints someone involved in rearing mullets with problems he can face and topics he should investigate. We cannot go into extensive illustrative detail on every species or group, but do provide a listing of most parasites reported or known from mullet and some pertinent general information on them. Because of these enumerations, the paper should also act as a review for anyone interested in mullet parasites or the use of such parasites as indicators about a mullet's diet and migratory behavior. Unfortunately, limited space prohibits us from presenting all the references used. The paper also deals with the public health aspects of eating or selling mullet, whether the product is to be raw, cooked, salted or smoked.