403 research outputs found
Am J Ind Med
No full textBackground:Alaska\u2019s onshore seafood processing industry is economically vital and hazardous.Methods:Accepted Alaska workers\u2019 compensation claims data from 2014\u20132015 were manually reviewed and coded with
the Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System and associated work activity. Workforce data were utilized to
calculate rates.Results:2,889 claims of nonfatal injuries/illnesses were accepted for compensation. The average annual claim rate was 63 per
1,000 workers. This was significantly higher than Alaska\u2019s all-industry rate of 44 claims per 1,000 workers (RR=1.42,
95% CI=1.37\u20131.48). The most frequently occurring injuries/illnesses, were: by nature, sprains/strains/tears (993, 36%);
by body part, upper limbs (1,212, 43%); and by event, contact with objects/equipment (1,020, 37%) and overexertion/bodily
reaction (933, 34%). Incidents associated with seafood processing/canning/freezing (n=818) frequently involved: repetitive
motion; overexertion while handling pans, fish, and buckets; and contact with fish, pans, and machinery.Conclusions:Ergonomic and safety solutions should be implemented to prevent musculoskeletal injuries/illnesses.CC999999/ImCDC/Intramural CDC HHSUnited States/No fundingInternational
Contribución al conocimiento de los peces fósiles de Chapala y Zocoalco (Aternidos y cirpinidos).. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Num. 52 Tomo IV (1972-1973) Séptima Época (1967-1976)
No full textAlvarez, J. 1966 Contribución al Conocimiento de los Bagres Fósiles de Chapala y Zacoalco, Jalisco, México, en Paleontología I. INAH, México.Bertini, L. 1948 Squelette Appendiculaire, en: Grassé, P. Traité de zoologie, 12: 710-747. París.Clements, T. 1963 Pleistocene History of Lake Chapala, Jalisco, México. 20th International Congress of Geology, 1956; 7: 75-77.Gregory, W K. 1959 Fish Skulls. Eric Lundberg Ed, Laurel, Florida, USA
Status assessment of the Critically Endangered Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina
No full text'This work was part of the Azores Bullfinch monitoring programme included in the project LIFE NAT/P/000013 “Recovery of Azores Bullfinch’s habitat in the Special Protection Area of Pico da Vara / Ribeira do Guilherme”'The Azores Bullfinch is endemic to the island of São Miguel (Azores, Portugal). Its status was uplisted to Critically Endangered in 2005 on the basis of an extremely small and declining population that was considered to be restricted to a very small mountain range (43 km2), in a single location, within which the spread of invasive plants constituted a threat to habitat quality. Nevertheless, information was mostly inferred, or the product of, non-systematic studies. In order to carry out a complete assessment of the conservation status we analysed: (i) population trend, calculated from annual monitoring 1991–2008, (ii) population size, and (iii) range size, obtaining estimates in a single morning study in 2008 involving the simultaneous participation of 48 observers. Contrary to previous inferences, the population is no longer decreasing, although quality of laurel forest habitat continues to decline due to the persistent threat of invasive species. Population size (mean ± SE) was estimated at 1,064 ± 304 individuals using distance sampling methods, although the estimate was very sensitive to the survey method used. Range size estimates (extent of occurrence and area of occupancy) were 144 km2 and 83 km2 respectively. Given the present information, we propose the downlisting of Azores Bullfinch to Endangered on the IUCN Red List.Peer reviewe
The collected Leonard J. Arrington Mormon history lectures
No full textIncludes bibliographical references.Faith and intellect as partners in Mormon history / Leonard J. Arrington -- Making space for the Mormons / Richard Lyman Bushman -- "My idea is to go right through right side up with care": the exodus as reformation / Richard E. Bennett -- The theater in Mormon life and culture / Howard R. Lamar -- Mormon domestic life in the 1870s: pandemonium or arcadia? / Claudia L. Bushman -- The importance of the temple in understanding the Latter-day Saint Nauvoo experience: then and now / Kenneth W. Godfrey -- Signifying sainthood, 1830-2001 / Jan Shipps -- Encountering Mormon country: John Wesley Powell, John Muir, and the nature of Utah / Donald Worster -- Rachel's death: how memory challenges history / Laurel Thatcher Ulrich -- "I didn't want to leave the house, but he compelled me to": a personal examination of a Mormon family / F. Ross Peterson
Laurel J. Brinton, The Comment Clause in English. Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development
No full textLaurel Brinton’s The Comment Clause in English is, as the cover notes tell us, “the first full-length diachronic treatment […] focusing on comment clauses formed with common verbs of perception and cognition in a variety of syntactic forms”. The book runs to some 280 pages, comprising eleven evenly balanced chapters, an extremely complete seventeen-page bibliography and a helpful author and subject index. The book is organized into eleven chapters. Chapter One defines comment clauses relativ..
Silverman_et_al_2011_Annual_Survey_Report_for_2010
No full textReference S8. Silverman E, Koneff M, Fleming K, and Wortham J. 2011. 2010 Atlantic coast wintering sea duck survey. Laurel, Maryland: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Silverman_et_al_2012a_Annual_Survey_Report_for_2011
No full textReference S9. Silverman E, Leirness J, Saalfeld D, and Richkus K. 2012a. 2011 Atlantic coast wintering sea duck survey. Laurel, Maryland: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Silverman_et_al_2010_Annual_Survey_Report_for_2009
No full textReference S7. Silverman E, Koneff M, Fleming K, and Wortham J. 2010. 2009 Atlantic coast wintering sea duck survey. Laurel, Maryland: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regulating Mercury Emissions: What Do We Know About Costs and Benefits?
No full textUnited States policymakers are concerned with mercury emissions because mercury has potentially adverse effects on children whose mothers consumed contaminated fish while pregnant. Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency are considering different proposals to cut or even eliminate mercury emissions from oil and coal-fired power plants. We compare the cost of cutting power plants' mercury emissions with the likely reductions in the number of cases of subtle neurological effects. Given current scientific understanding, the health and environmental improvements are very unlikely to provide an economic justification for the costs of stringent controls on mercury emissions. In addition, if Congress or EPA were to regulate mercury emissions from power plants, an approach that used prices would be more efficient than one that limited the quantity of mercury emissions. For a related paper, see Health Risks From Mercury-Contaminated Fish: A Reassessment.
Trumpeter swan population status, 2000
No full texttrumpswan_pop00.pdfTrumpeter Swan
Population Status, 2000
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
TRUMPETER SWAN POPULATION STATUS, 2000
February 2001
Compiled by David F. Caithamer
Division of Migratory Bird Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
11500 American Holly Drive
Laurel, MD 20708-4016
USA
Abstract
The sizes of the three populations of trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator) in
North America were assessed in 2000. Methods for the survey were similar to those of
previous surveys, which generally occurred at 5 year intervals beginning in 1968.
Collectively, a total of 23,647 swans were counted, which is about 3,900 (20%) more
than in 1995 and 20,000 (535%) more than in 1968. Each of the three populations grew
to record high levels in 2000. The Pacific Coast Population (PCP) remains numerically
largest at 17,551, which is 8% higher than its 1995 estimate. The Rocky Mountain
Population (RMP) increased 46% since 1995 to 3,666 swans. The Interior Population
(IP) increased more than 150% since 1995 and now numbers 2,430 individuals.
Introduction and Methods
This report summarizes results of a trumpeter swan survey that was conducted
during 2000 across their entire range in North America. The last comparable survey was
conducted in 1995. Similar surveys also were conducted in 1968, 1975, and then every 5
years. This report compares findings from 2000 to those of previous quinquennial
surveys (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 1994, Caithamer 1996). The purpose of
this survey is to provide assessments of the status of the Pacific Coast, Rocky Mountain,
and Interior populations of trumpeter swans in North America.
The 2000 survey was a coordinated effort of numerous agencies and persons.
Most areas were surveyed aerially or by a network of ground observers. Surveys were
believed to be complete censuses except for northern British Columbia and the Yukon
Territory, where population estimates were based on random samples across the
suspected range of trumpeter swans. Some information, such as number of single, paired,
and flocked swans, was not gathered at all areas. No efforts were directed at surveying
captive swans. The median starting and ending date for surveys were 20 August and 11
September, respectively. However, surveys began as early as 15 April 2000 and ended as
late as 25 January 2001. All population estimates were treated as though they were
measured without error.
Results and Discussion
The late-summer ranges of each population of swans changed since 1995. New
occurrences were noted in New York and Ohio, and at new areas in Alberta, British
1
Columbia, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ontario, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. However,
swans were no longer observed at specific sites in northern California, Washington, and
southwestern Saskatchewan where they previously occurred.
A total of 23,647 trumpeter swans were present in late-summer 2000 (Table 1,
Appendix A). The total population increased by about 3,900 birds (20%) since 1995 and
20,000 birds (>500%) since 1968 (Table 2). Each population increased since 1995 to
record-highs this year (Figure 2). The PCP increased by about 1,200 (8%) since 1995
and remained numerically larger than the RMP and IP combined. Since 1995, the RMP
increased by about 1,100 birds (46%) while the IP increased by about 1,500 birds
(>150%).
Growth in the PCP was due to an increase in Alaska. In the Yukon Territory and
British Columbia, the flock size in 2000 (396, 95% confidence range = 348-444) was
similar to its size in 1995 (490, 95% confidence range = 197-783).
Growth in the RMP since 1995 was due to increased numbers of swans in the
Interior Canada and Tri-State flocks. A small portion (#5%) of the increase in the
Interior Canada flock was possibly due to expanded survey coverage of northern Alberta
in 2000 (G. Beyersbergen, Canadian Wildlife Service, personal communication). The
number of swans in restoration areas decreased slightly since 1995; decreases were
observed in both the number of cygnets and adults. Annual surveys (Reed 2000) indicate
that size of the Tri-State and Restoration flocks were relatively stable during 1983-1991,
and that they decreased by about 125 swans in 1993. Since 1994, the combined size of
the Tri-State and Restoration flocks have increased slightly (6%) (Reed 2000). In
Oregon, some swans may have dispersed into unsurveyed areas and thus the current
estimate may be biased low (B. Bales, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal
communication).
Across the range of the IP, swan numbers continued to increase. Some of these
increases are the result of continuing intensive efforts to reintroduce swans into historic
parts of their range (J. Johnson, Michigan State University, personal communication).
Cygnets comprised 19% of the PCP, which is lower than 5 of the 6 previous
surveys (Table 3). In the RMP, cygnets accounted for 30% of all swans, which was
higher than in 5 of the 6 previous surveys. Cygnets also accounted for 30% of the swans
in the IP, which was typical of other years.
Brood sizes averaged 2.8-3.6 in the 3 populations (Table 1). Brood sizes in
Alaska averaged less (difference between means = -0.4) in 2000 than in 1995; this is
consistent with the smaller proportion of cygnets observed in Alaska in 2000 (Conant et
al. 2001). Average brood size in the IP was greater (difference between means = +0.7)
than in 1995, and accounts for the higher proportion of young observed in 2000. In the
RMP, brood size information was generally not collected for the Tri-State and
Restoration Area flocks in 2000. Thus, it was impossible to compare brood sizes from
these two flock to those from other years.
The proportion of paired birds was lower in the IP and Restoration Flocks of the
RMP than in the Alaska and Interior Canada flocks (Table 4). The lower proportion of
pairs may be related to recent and ongoing population restoration programs in these areas
(Caithamer 1996).
2
Literature Cited
Caithamer, D. F. 1996. 1995 Survey of trumpeter swans in North America. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service unpublished report. 15pp.
Conant, B., J. I. Hodges, D. J. Groves, and J. G. King. 2001. Alaska trumpeter swan
status report – 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished report. 37pp.
Reed, T. 2000. 2000 fall trumpeter swan survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
unpublished report. 28pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, and The Trumpeter Swan
Society. 1994. The North American trumpeter swan status report – 1990.
Unpublished report. 11pp.
Acknowledgements
The data were collected by >140 individuals working for various agencies
(Appendix B), and others who reported incidental observations. Any omissions from this
list is accidental and I offer my apology. R. Andrews, B. Bales, G. Beyersbergen, B.
Bortner, K. Bousquet, A. Breault, B. Conant, J. Cornely, D. Groves, C. Harris, J.
Hawkings, J. Johnson, S. Kittelson, R. Kraft, H. Lumsden, S. Matteson, M. Norton, T.
Reed, D. Sherman, M. St. Louis, and B. Swift coordinated regional surveys and/or
summarized regional data. G. Beyersbergen, B. Conant, J. Cornely, D. Groves, J.
Johnson, G. Smith, and R. Trost provided helpful comments on early drafts of this report.
M. Otto provided statistical advice and assisted analyzing data from northern British
Columbia and the Yukon Territory. Financial support for surveys in Ontario were
provided by Lake Erie Steel Company, Paletta International Corporation, and Mrs.
Allison’s Cookies.
All Division of Migratory Bird Management reports are available at our home
page (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov).
3
Table 1. Demographics of Pacific Coast, Rocky Mountain, and Interior populations of trumpeter swans in late-summer, 2000.
Brood Size
Population Flock Total Swans White Swans1 Cygnets % Cygnets Broods 02 SD3
Pacific Coast Alaska 17,155 13,934 3,221 19 1,149 2.8 1.4
Yukon and Northwestern
British Columbia 396 291 106 27 28 3.5 1.4
Pacific Coast Total 17,551 14,225 3,327 19 1,177 2.8 1.4
Rocky Mountain Interior Canada 3,184 2,175 1,009 32 329 3.1 1.9
Tri-State 426 324 102 24
Restoration Areas 56 49 7 13
Rocky Mountain Total 3,666 2,548 1,118 30 3.1 1.9
Interior High Plains 370 267 103 28 32 3.2 1.4
Mississippi and Atlantic
Flyways 2,060 1,443 617 30 3.6 2.1
Interior Total 2,430 1,710 720 30 3.6 2.0
North American
Total 23,647 18,483 5,165 22 3.0 1.5
1Adult and sub-adult swans.
2Weighted average based on number of broods observed in each survey area.
3Weighted average of standard deviations based on number of broods observed in each survey area.
Table 2. Sizes of trumpeter swan populations, 1968-2000.1
Population Flock 1968 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Pacific Coast Alaska 2,847 4,170 7,696 9,459 13,337 15,823 17,155
Yukon and Northwestern
British Columbia 45 119 489 396
Pacific Coast Total 2,847 4,170 7,696 9,504 13,456 16,312 17,551
Rocky Mountain Interior Canada2 106 131 379 614 1,117 2,076 3,184
Tri-State2 585 537 485 507 589 364 426
Restoration Areas 120 131 111 74 41 77 56
Rocky Mountain Total2 811 799 975 1,195 1,747 2,517 3,666
Interior High Plains 64 116 164 158 185 240 370
Mississippi and Atlantic
Flyways 0 0 12 51 237 687 2,060
Interior Total 64 116 176 209 422 927 2,430
North American
Total 3,722 5,085 8,847 10,908 15,625 19,756 23,647
1Estimates for 1968-1990 were sums of estimates reported for individual areas in Appendices 1, 2, and 3 of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. (1994); estimates
from 1995 were from Caithamer (1996).
2Estimates reported in 1975 were obtained in 1974 or 1975.
Table 3. Percentage of trumpeter swans that were cygnets, 1968-2000.1
Population Flock 1968 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Pacific Coast Alaska 32 28 32 18 27 24 19
Yukon and Northwestern
British Columbia 13 37 39 27
Pacific Coast Total 32 28 32 18 27 25 19
Rocky Mountain Interior Canada2 29 33 27 30 32 30 32
Tri-State2 26 15 5 27 25 15 24
Restoration Areas 18 18 31 8 27 14 13
Rocky Mountain Total2 25 18 16 28 30 28 30
Interior High Plains 33 30 27 40 34 21 28
Mississippi and Atlantic
Flyways 0 14 27 26 30
Interior Total 33 30 25 33 30 25 30
North American
Total 31 27 30 19 27 25 22
1Estimates for 1968-1990 were from estimates reported for individual areas in Appendices 1, 2, and 3 of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. (1994); estimates
from 1995 were from Caithamer (1996).
2Estimates reported in 1975 were obtained in 1974 or 1975.
Table 4. Social status of white (adult and sub-adult) trumpeter swans observed in late-summer,
2000.
Population Flock % Paired % Single % Flocked n
Pacific Coast Alaska 72 6 22 13,934
Yukon and Northwestern
British Columbia
Pacific Coast Total 72 6 22 13,934
Rocky Mountain Interior Canada 69 6 26 1,118
Tri-State
Restoration Areas 46 31 23 13
Rocky Mountain Total 69 6 26 1,131
Interior High Plains 49 4 48 267
Mississippi and Atlantic
Flyways 37 6 57 338
Interior Total 42 5 53 605
North American
Total 70 6 23 15,670
7
Fig. 1. Approximate ranges of Pacific Coast, Rocky Mountain, and Interior populations of trumpeter
swans during late-summer of 2000.
Pacific Coast
Population
Rocky Mountain
Population
Interior
Population
8
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1968 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Population Size
Total
Pacific
Coast
Rocky
Mountain
Interior
Fig. 2. Trends in sizes of the Pacific Coast, Rocky Mountain, Interior, and total
populations of trumpeter swans in North America, 1968-2000.
9
Appendix A. Raw data from the trumpeter swan survey, 2000.
Population Flock Region State Start End Method1 Coverage2 Adults Cygnets
Total
Swans
Flocked
Adults Flocks
PACIFIC PACIFIC AK AK 24-Jul-00 9-Sep-00 1 1 13934 3221 17155 3049 530
PACIFIC PACIFIC YKNBC YKBC 1-Aug-00 24-Aug-00 1 2 291 106 396 95
ROCKY INTCAN YKNBC YKBC 1-Aug-00 24-Aug-00 1 2 1057 469 1526 369
ROCKY INTCAN NEBC BC 13-Aug-00 18-Sep-00 1 1 244 119 363 41 10
ROCKY INTCAN SEBC BC 13-Aug-00 13-Aug-00 2 1 2 4 6 0 0
ROCKY INTCAN MCK MCK 21-Aug-00 24-Aug-00 1 1 204 90 294 33 8
ROCKY INTCAN AB AB 7-Aug-00 14-Sep-00 5 1 668 327 995 212 21
ROCKY INTCAN SK SK 24-Jul-00 24-Jul-00 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
ROCKY TRISTATE MT MT 13-Sep-00 20-Sep-00 1 1 127 24 151
ROCKY TRISTATE WY WY 13-Sep-00 24-Sep-00 5 1 95 38 133
ROCKY TRISTATE IDFEDER ID 15-Sep-00 20-Sep-00 5 1 102 40 142
ROCKY TRISTATE IDSTATE ID 15-Apr-00 1-Sep-00 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
ROCKY RESTOR COLUMBIA WA 15-May-00 15-May-00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
ROCKY RESTOR TURNBULL WA 15-Aug-00 15-Aug-00 2 1 1 0 1 0 0
ROCKY RESTOR RUBY NV 15-Sep-00 15-Sep-00 1 1 26 2 28
ROCKY RESTOR MALHEUR OR 18-Sep-00 18-Sep-00 2 1 10 5 15
ROCKY RESTOR SUMMER OR 21-Sep-00 21-Sep-00 5 1 3 0 3 3 1
ROCKY RESTOR OTHEROR OR 21-Sep-00 21-Sep-00 5 1 9 0 9 0 0
ROCKY RESTOR LKLAMCA CA 15-Aug-00 15-Aug-00 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
INTERIOR HIPLAINS SD SD 20-Aug-00 8-Sep-00 1 1 33 20 53 13 3
INTERIOR HIPLAINS NE NE 20-Aug-00 8-Sep-00 1 1 200 66 266 105 15
INTERIOR HIPLAINS WY WY 20-Aug-00 8-Sep-00 1 1 2 0 2 0 0
INTERIOR HIPLAINS SKMAN SKMAN 28-Aug-00 18-Sep-00 1 1 32 17 49 9 1
INTERIOR MISATFLY ON ON 1-Sep-00 30-Sep-00 5 1 277 48 325
INTERIOR MISATFLY MN MN 1-May-00 25-Jan-01 5 1 612 302 914
INTERIOR MISATFLY WI WI 1-Jun-00 30-Sep-00 5 1 86 114 200
INTERIOR MISATFLY MI MI 1-Sep-00 30-Nov-00 2 1 274 127 401 169 20
INTERIOR MISATFLY IA IA 1-Sep-00 15-Oct-00 2 1 130 6 136
INTERIOR MISATFLY OH OH 29-Aug-00 29-Aug-00 5 1 51 13 64 17 4
INTERIOR MISATFLY NY NY 1-Jun-00 31-Aug-00 2 1 13 7 20 7 1
Appendix A. Concluded.
Population Flock Region State
Pairs W
Cygnets
Pairs W/O
Cygnets
Pairs
Total
Singles
W/O
Cygnets
Singles W
Cygnets Broods
Mean
Brood
Size
SE
Brood
Size
N
Brood
Size3
PACIFIC PACIFIC AK AK 1119 3874 4993 869 30 1149 2.80 0.04 1149
PACIFIC PACIFIC YKNBC YKBC 88 20 28 3.49 0.23 37
ROCKY INTCAN YKNBC YKBC 316 55 163 2.88 0.20 48
ROCKY INTCAN NEBC BC 35 59 94 15 0 35 3.40 0.95 35
ROCKY INTCAN SEBC BC 1 0 1 0 0 1 4.00 1
ROCKY INTCAN MCK MCK 31 47 78 14 1 32 2.81 0.25 32
ROCKY INTCAN AB AB 96 116 212 30 2 98 3.37 0.17 98
ROCKY INTCAN SK SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROCKY TRISTATE MT MT
ROCKY TRISTATE WY WY
ROCKY TRISTATE IDFEDER ID
ROCKY TRISTATE IDSTATE ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROCKY RESTOR COLUMBIA WA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROCKY RESTOR TURNBULL WA 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
ROCKY RESTOR RUBY NV
ROCKY RESTOR MALHEUR OR
ROCKY RESTOR SUMMER OR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROCKY RESTOR OTHEROR OR 0 3 3 3 0 0 0
ROCKY RESTOR LKLAMCA CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INTERIOR HIPLAINS SD SD 4 5 9 2 0 4 5.00 0.71 4
INTERIOR HIPLAINS NE NE 24 22 46 3 0 24 2.75 0.28 24
INTERIOR HIPLAINS WY WY 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
INTERIOR HIPLAINS SKMAN SKMAN 4 6 10 3 0 4 4.25 0.63 4
INTERIOR MISATFLY ON ON 16 6 22 0 0 16 3.00 0.52 16
INTERIOR MISATFLY MN MN 77 3.92 0.44 28
INTERIOR MISATFLY WI WI 31 12 43 31 3.68 0.37 31
INTERIOR MISATFLY MI MI 39 11 50 5 0 39 3.26 0.29 39
INTERIOR MISATFLY IA IA 2 15 17 25 0 2 3.00 2.00 2
INTERIOR MISATFLY OH OH 5 5 10 14 0 5 2.70 0.66 5
INTERIOR MISATFLY NY NY 1 2 3 0 0 1 7.00 1
1Survey method (1= aerial, 2=ground, 3=other, 5=combination of methods).
2Extent of survey coverage (1=believed complete census, 2=sample of entire range, 3=census of part of range).
3Number of broods observed to estimate mean brood size.
Appendix B. Participants in the 2000 survey of trumpeter swans.
Akaran, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Akola, E. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anderson, E. Alberta Environment
Andrews, R. Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Arment, R. Research Air
Arner, B. Ducks Unlimited Canada
Artmann, M. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bales, B. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Barber, J. Ohio Division of Wildlife
Bartos, A. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bertram, M. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Beveridge, E. Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management
Beyersbergen, G. Canadian Wildlife Service
Bortner, B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bouffard, S. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bousquet, K. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Breault, A. Canadian Wildlife Service
Bryant, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Burns, E. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Calverly, B. Ducks Unlimited Canada
Catterson, N. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Colvert, I. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Conant, B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cornely, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Crawford, D. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Dau, C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Denison, D. Coyote Air Service
Duncan, D. Canadian Wildlife Service
Eldridge, B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Erkins, R. Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Fetting, A. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Ficht, J. Alberta Environment
Fischer, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Foote, L. Ducks Unlimited Canada
Found, C. Alberta Environment
Freese, L. Parks Canada
Froggatt, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Gilbert, D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Gorecki, L. Parks Canada
Groves, D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Guldager, N. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (volunteer)
Halverson, L. Parks Canada
Hamilton, S.
Hans, M. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Harris, C. Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Hawkings, J. Canadian Wildlife Service
Hawkings, J. Canadian Wildlife Service
Heckbert, M. Alberta Environment
Henry, D. Parks Canada
Hernandez, H. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
12
Appendix B. Continued.
Heuer, T. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Hill, R. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Hobson, D. Alberta Environment
Hodges, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Hodges, M. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (volunteer)
Hoffman, D. Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Hudolin, M. Wye Marsh Center
Hughes, G. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Huhndorf, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Johnson, J. Kellogg Bird Sanctuary
Jones, B Manitoba Natural Resources
Jozwiak, E. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kampshoff, M. U.S. Forest Service
Kaye, R. Parks Canada
King, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
King, R. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kingdon, B. Private
Kirtley-Wark, M. Alberta Environment
Kittelson, S. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Kraft, R. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kujat, C. Alberta Environment
Kunnas, F. Alberta Environment
Larned, A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Larned, B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Larned, S. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (volunteer)
Larson, K. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Latour, P. Canadian Wildlife Service
Lawrence, S. Private
Laws, M. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Linck, M. Hennepin Parks and The Trumpeter Swan Society
Lucey, B. U.S. Forest Service
Lumsden, H. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, retired
Lust, G. Mountain Air Research
Mackay, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mallek, E. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Manthey, P. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Matteson, S. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Mauser, D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Maxwell, M. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
McCormick, K. Canadian Wildlife Service
McEneaney, T. U.S. National Park Service
Merilies, B.
Morris, R. Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Morse, J. U.S. Geological Survey
Moyles, D. Alberta Environment
Nelson, S. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Norstrom, W. Alberta Environment
Norton, M. Canadian Wildlife Service
Olson, D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Orcutt, D. Idaho Department of Fish and Game
13
Appendix B. Concluded.
Palmer, B. Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Patla, S. Wyoming Fish and Game
Payne, T. U.S. Army
Petersen, P. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Peterson, J. ABR, Incorporated
Pollard, B. Ducks Unlimited Canada
Pryor, P. Canadian Wildlife Service
Quinlan, R. Alberta Environment
Reed, T. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ritchie, B. ABR, Incorporated
Roberts, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Roetker, F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Rule, M. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sarvis, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Schwalen, N. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Shaw, R. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Shea, R. The Trumpeter Swan Society
Sherman, D. Ohio Division of Wildlife
Simpson, F. Ducks Unlimited Canada
Skjonsberg, T. Parks Canada
Smith, T. Manitoba Natural Resources
Smoke, B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Spernak Airways
Spindler, M. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
St. Louis, M. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Staley, R. Parks Canada
Stradley, R. U.S. National Park Service
Strassburg, W. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Swift, B. New York Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources
Tabor, J. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Tak, P. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Thomas, G. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Trenholm, M. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Twist, B. Western Montana Aviation
Vivion, M. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ward, D. U.S. Geological Survey
Watt, R. Waterton Lakes National Park
Webb, D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Whitney, D. Private
Whitworth, K. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Williams, G. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wooten, G. Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Wright, K. Alberta Conservation Association
1
- …
