Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

S. H. Fritts

Publications and source records attributed to S. H. Fritts.

18 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2006

Lead poisoning in captive Andean condors (Vultur gryphus)

Elevated lead in the tissues of raptors, especially those that scavenge, is a common occurrence, and lead poisoning appears to be a significant problem in the ongoing recovery effort for California condors (Gymnogyps californianus). Elevated blood lead levels have been found in released birds, and a number of birds have died of lead poisoning. In earlier work, we dosed turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) with lead shot but found them to be a poor model for lead poisoning. In this study, we dosed four Andean condors (Vultur gryphus) with lead shot and found them to be quite sensitive, as two of the birds died and the other two exhibit signs of lead poisoning within 50 days. All lead-responsive parameters were affected, and regurgitation of dosed shot occurred only once. The response of the Andean condors appeared to mimic California condors, suggesting that once exposed to lead, the possibility of survival is poor. This is consistent with observations in the wild, where otherwise healthy birds exposed to metallic lead quickly succumb. At the very least, the release program has to maintain constant surveillance and an active lead monitoring program.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗
USGS2003

Experimental lead poisoning in Turkey Vultures, Cathartes aura

Lead-induced mortality appears to have been a major factor in the decline of the California condor ( Gymnogyps californianus ). We orally dosed turkey vultures ( Cathartes aura ) with BB-sized lead shot from January 1988 through July 1988 to determine physiologic response (delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase inhibition, erythrocyte protoporphyrin levels, anemia), diagnostic tissue lead concentrations (blood, liver, and kidney), and comparative sensitivity of this species. Two turkey vultures died and two became so intoxicated they were euthanized. Overall, responses of measured parameters were comparable to other species exposed to lead although there was considerable individual variation. Survival time (143–211 days), even with the large numbers of shot and constant redosing, was much longer than reported for other species of birds, suggesting considerable tolerance by turkey vultures to the deleterious effects of lead ingestion. Based on these observations, turkey vultures appear to be poor models for assessing the risk of lead poisoning to California condors or predicting their physiologic response.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗
USGS1996

Wolf management in the 21st century: From public input to sterilization

Human-population increase and land development portend increasing conflict with large predators. Concurrently, changes and diversification of human attitudes are bringing increased disagreement about wildlife management. Animal-rights advocacy resulting from urbanization of human populations conflicts with traditional wildlife management. These forces focus more on wolves than on other wildlife because of strong public and media interest in wolves. Thus wolf management in the future will come under even greater public scrutiny, involve more public input, and may have greater restrictions imposed on it. This will lead to increased complexity in wolf management including more zoning, more experimentation with lethal and non-lethal capture techniques and alternate methods of alleviating damage to pets, livestock, and large ungulate herds, and greater public and private subsidy of wolf damage. One form of non-lethal control of wolf populations that may hold some promise is direct sterilization of males to reduce the biotic potential of the wolf population. Experimental vasectomy of five wild male wolves from four packs in Minnesota indicates that sterile males will continue to hold mates and territories, which would be necessary if sterilization is to be a viable technique for assisting with population control. If sterile males held territories but failed to produce pups, such territories might contain only about a third the number of wolves as fertile pack territories. Because wolves are long-lived in unexploited populations and their territories are large, direct sterilization of relatively few animals each year might significantly reduce populations.

Journal of Wildlife Research↗
USGS1995

Minnesota wolf dispersal to Wisconsin and Michigan

Records are presented of three wolves that dispersed ≥200 km from northern Minnesota to the Minnesota-Wisconsin border, to southern Wisconsin, and to Michigan. This report documents that wolves cross major highways and other developed areas and that the recently recolonized wolf population in Wisconsin and Michigan could have originated from wolf populations in Minnesota other than those living along the Minnesota-Wisconsin border.

Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin↗
USGS1992

Trends and management of wolf-livestock conflicts in Minnesota

The nature and extent of wolf-livestock conflicts in Minnesota during 1975-86 was studied as part of a wolf depredation control program. The level of wolf (Canis lupus) depredation on livestock in Minnesota, as determined from the total number of complaints verified annually during 1975-86, showed a slight upward trend but did not increase significantly. A significant portion of the annual variation in verified complaints-perhaps the best index on severity of the depredation problem was explained by variation in severity of the winter before the depredation season (inverse relation). The addition of a time variable did not account for a significant portion of the remaining variation. Verified complaints of depredations averaged 30 per year, affecting an average of 21 farms (0.33% of producers) annually. Conflicts were highly seasonal and involved primarily cattle (mainly calves), sheep, and domestic turkeys. Annual variation in losses of sheep and turkeys was higher than for cattle. In recent years, sheep and turkey losses in two northwestern counties have increased; preventive control may be warranted in those areas. Site-specific trapping and removal of wolves in response to depredations was the primary control method, resulting in captures of 437 wolves in 12 depredation seasons. For the wolf range as a whole, no relation was found between wolf removal and subsequent depredation rates; however, wolf removal seemed to reduce depredations locally at some farms. When adults and yearlings were removed, no subsequent losses occurred in about 55% of instances; removal of young of the year reduced losses in 22%. Removal of breeding wolves did not reduce the incidence of subsequent losses more than removal of nonbreeding adults and yearlings did. The low number of conflicts for 1975-86 was remarkable considering the frequent contact between wolves and livestock. However, an update of complaints for 1987-89 revealed a definite upward trend in depredations (Epilogue). Improvements in farm management practices may reduce the present number of conflicts.

Resource Publication↗
USGS1991

Seroepidemiology of leptospirosis in Minnesota wolves

Serum samples (n = 457) from wolves (Canis lupus) in northern Minnesota were collected from 1972 through 1986 and were tested for antibodies against Leptospira interrogans using a microtiter agglutination test. Twelve serovars included in the study were: australis, autumnalis, ballum, bataviae, bratislava, canicola, copenhageni, grippotyphosa, hardjo, pomona, pyrogenes, and tarassovi. Fifty-two (11%) sera had antibody titers of greater than or equal to 1:50 against one or more serovars of L. interrogans. The seroprevalence of different serovars in decreasing order was: grippotyphosa, bratislava, autumnalis, canicola, pomona, ballum, pyrogenes, hardjo, and copenhageni. No antibodies were found against australis, bataviae, and tarassovi. These results indicate that L. interrogans infection may occur in wolves of Minnesota.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗
USGS1989

Interactions of wolves and dogs in Minnesota

This article reports on the nature and extent of wolf-dog interactions in Minnesota, based on investigations of complaints received by personnel of the federal government dealing with wolf-depredation control. Findings may indicate the wolf-dog interactions that can be expected in other recovery areas.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS1982

Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota

Depredation by wolves (Canis lupus) on cattle, sheep, and other livestock in Minnesota currently is a minor problem except to a few individual farmers. Indices to the seriousness of the problem are available only from recent years, so historical trends cannot be detected. From 1976 through 1980 the number of farms in the wolf range suffering verified losses to wolves ranged from 9 to 19 (mean of x = 13) per year out of about 12,230. From 1977 through 1980, the highest cattle losses claimed by farmers were 0.45 per 1,000 cattle available in 1979; the highest sheep losses claimed were 1.18 per 1,000 available in 1980. Many claims of losses (especially of calves) are based on missing animals, and few wolves are involved in the verified losses. Most losses occur in summer when livestock are released to graze in open and wooded pasture. Herd management practices, such as calving in forested or brushy pastures and disposal of carcasses in or near pastures, are responsible for many instances of wolf depredation. Failure to distinguish wolves from coyotes (Canis latrans) has contributed to an exaggerated view of the importance of wolves as livestock predators. Recently the number of wolves killed in depredation control has declined, whereas the number of livestock killed has remained fairly stable. Results of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's depredation- control program in 1979 and 1980 suggest that highly restricted trapping, coupled with other management methods, has potential for reducing both livestock losses and the number of wolves that need to be killed.

Resource Publication↗