Comparison of Endocrine Response to Stress Between Captive-Raised and Wild-Caught Bighorn Sheep

Stress hormones in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis), produced in response to environmental changes, road development, or high population density, may impact their immune systems to a threshold level that predisposes them to periodic, large-scale mortality. We compared the stress response to a novel environmental situation and repeated handling between bighorn sheep born and raised in captivity (CR) and bighorn sheep born in the wild (WC) and brought into captivity. We measured plasma epinephrine, norepinephrine, cortisol, and fecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM). Three weeks after each group’s arrival we used a one-time drop-net event to elicit an acute stress response, and we collected blood samples from each sheep over 35 minutes, as well as one fecal sample. We collected blood and fecal samples from both groups on 7 other occasions over the subsequent 6 months. We also collected fecal samples from the pen at approximately 24-hour intervals for 3 days following every handling event to monitor the stress response to handling. We found that CR sheep had a stronger autonomic nervous system response than WC sheep, as measured by epinephrine and norepinephrine levels, but we found a very similar hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis (HPA) response, measured by cortisol levels, to the acute stress event of a drop-net restraint. We also found that once the WC sheep had acclimated, as indicated by the return to the initial baseline FGM levels within 12 weeks, the CR and WC groups’ HPA responses to sampling events were not significantly different from one another. Fecal samples can provide a noninvasive mechanism for managers to monitor baseline FGM for a given herd. Using long-term monitoring of FGM rather than values from a single point in time may allow managers to correlate these levels to outside influences on the herd and better understand the impacts of management changes, population density, or increased human developments on the health of the sheep population.

An Overview of Historical Beaver Management in Arizona

In the mid-1820s, Anglo-American fur trappers, known as "mountain men," entered Arizona and began trapping beaver (Castor canadensis). In Arizona there have been a number of famous mountain men such as Sylvester and James Pattie, Ewing Young, Jededia Smith, and Bill Williams who trapped along the waterways in northern and southern Arizona. Although the heyday of mountain men lasted only a few decades due to a population decline of beaver, management of these animals continues to this day. The purpose of managing beavers shifted from monetary gain to controlling wildlife damage. During the late 1900s, beaver were still widely distributed in limited numbers throughout much of the state. We provide a historical overview of beaver management in Arizona with emphasis on the mountain men, recreational trapping, wildlife damage management, and beaver research in Arizona.

REDUCING NUISANCE CANADA GOOSE PROBLEMS THROUGH HABITAT MANIPULATION

Urban populations of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) cause considerable problems when large numbers congregate in parks, playing fields, and backyards. In most cases, geese are drawn to these sites to feed on the lawns. I tested whether geese have feeding preferences for different grass species. Captive Canada geese preferred Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and disliked tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae) over colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis cv. Highland), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and red fescue (Festuca rubra). They refused to eat some other ground covers such as pachysandra (Pachysandra terminalis) and English ivy (Hedera helix). These results suggest that goose numbers at problem sites could be reduced by changing the ground cover. I also compared the characteristics of foraging sites used by geese to other foraging sites that geese avoided. Occupied sites were more open so that geese had clearer visibility and greater ease in taking off and landing. This suggests that goose numbers at problem sites also could be reduced by planting tall trees to make it harder for the geese to fly away, and planting bushes and hedges to obstruct a goose's visibility.