On a trip through the Right Fork of North Creek in Zion National Park a few years ago, I noticed some remarkably clean and well-defined tracks in the sand.
I've not been able to identify them with any certainty. They look much like the front feet of a variety of critters including beaver and racoon. But how would such an animal walk only on it's front feet!? Where are the back feet with the distinctively longer "heel pads"?
Any ideas?
Help ID Tracks in Sand?
I concur. 8)cougarmagic wrote: ↑Ringtail. Cool!
Their numbers seem to be increasing in Ca. too.
-
cougarmagic
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:21 pm
I sure as heck can't get them on camera. Any tips would be appreciated.
the zoocougarmagic wrote: ↑I sure as heck can't get them on camera. Any tips would be appreciated.
Thanks! Mystery solved!cougarmagic wrote: ↑Ringtail. Cool!
Anecdotal, but a trend is becoming definite. I guess my counting road kills might be data.
CM - >Things that might attract RTC's to your cameras would likely attract humans that might take your cameras.
>It wouldn't be a real scenic shot but if you knew a radio tech that works on mountaintop equipment, RTC's are always around them in the winter. The equipment generates a lot of heat and they like to nest near vents, and in the vaults if they can get in.
>Make contacts with Animal Control or Humane Officers. People in the foothill communities trap them in their attics and some turn them in for release. They aren't real shy and take their time about leaving when the door is opened.
>Move to Arizona.
No, of course I hope she doesn't leave. I should have explained: In some parts of Az., RTC's are like ground squirrels are here.
When a critter has no restrictions on take, like seasons or limits, its numbers are pretty healthy.
In Ca., RTC's are classified as fully protected mammals, a status only 9 mammals in the state have, (sea otters, bighorn sheep, wolverine, etc).
In Az., they are a non-game mammal like a ground squirrel, skunk, coyote, etc. When something has the non-game status, the inference is that nothing people might do will affect their numbers. Of course these status's can change.
In wildlife laws "Take" is defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill; or the attempt to hunt, , , , ..........
In Az., they are a non-game mammal like a ground squirrel, skunk, coyote, etc. When something has the non-game status, the inference is that nothing people might do will affect their numbers. Of course these status's can change.
In wildlife laws "Take" is defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill; or the attempt to hunt, , , , ..........
Thank you!!! I get it, now.tracker wrote: ↑In Ca., RTC's are classified as fully protected mammals, a status only 9 mammals in the state have, (sea otters, bighorn sheep, wolverine, etc).
In Az., they are a non-game mammal like a ground squirrel, skunk, coyote, etc. When something has the non-game status, the inference is that nothing people might do will affect their numbers. Of course these status's can change.
In wildlife laws "Take" is defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill; or the attempt to hunt, , , , ..........
Two questions:
Is your impression of increased road kill (HBCs -hit by car-in my profession) from the San Gabriels or from Southern Cal overall?
Is it possible that either state has incorrectly classified them or do you think the CA status is more political/emotional and not evidence-based?
I live and work in the SGM's so my observations are limited to the places I drive. Until about 5 years ago I had never seen a road-killed RTC. I've seen a couple a year lately. I talk to a lot of people too with similar observations. I know - Not much data and not real scientific methods.
Legal status' are fickle at best. I don't have any close contacts in Az. anymore so I couldn't comment on their factors. For Ca., I could make an educated guess: RTC's aren't very common, they don't cause problems, and there isn't any reason to kill them; so why not give them a protected status? Just a personal guess. I've seen more RTC's than badgers yet badgers are classified as non-game in Ca.
Sometimes you can't make sense out of no sense.
Legal status' are fickle at best. I don't have any close contacts in Az. anymore so I couldn't comment on their factors. For Ca., I could make an educated guess: RTC's aren't very common, they don't cause problems, and there isn't any reason to kill them; so why not give them a protected status? Just a personal guess. I've seen more RTC's than badgers yet badgers are classified as non-game in Ca.
Sometimes you can't make sense out of no sense.