98 



Mtimiikils — Our Liviiii; Resources 



Kentucky 



83 85 



87 89 

 Year 



91 93 



Fig. 3. State and national trends 

 lor Indiana bats. H)S.^-43 



For further information: 



Ronald D- Drobney 



National Biological Service 



Missouri Cooperative Fish and 



Wildhte Research L'nit 



1 12 Stephens Hall 

 University of Missouri 

 Columbia. MO 65211 



Althotigh the national trend indicates a 22*^ 

 decline during the past 10 years, this decrease 

 has mn been consistent across the species" win- 

 ter range (Fig. 3). Most of the decrease in the 

 lO-year national census results can be account- 

 ed for by a precipitous .^4'7r decline in the num- 

 ber of bats counted in Missouri. A more favor- 

 able pattern has been noted in Indiana, where 

 numbers have increased, and in Kentucky, 

 where the population has remained relatively 

 stable. 



Recovery efforts have included placing gates 

 or fences across cave entrances to eliminate dis- 

 turbances to hibernating bats. These exclusion 

 devices have not halted population declines, 

 suggesting that other factors are negatively 

 influencing bat populations. 



Another potential threat is the loss of habitat 

 used by maternity colonies. Maternity roost 

 sites in dead trees exposed to sunlight and locat- 

 ed in upland forests and near streams are partic- 

 ularly important. Losses of these sites through 

 streamside deforestation and stream channeliza- 

 tion pose significant threats to population 

 recovery. 



Pesticides and other en\ ironmenial contami- 

 nants represent additional hazards. Indiana bats 

 are exposed to lingering residues of chlorinated 

 hydrocarbon pesticides such as aldiln and hep- 

 tachlor. These products have been banned since 

 the l97(J"s. but persist in the soil and in insects 

 upon which bats feed. Potential detrimental 

 effects of the new generation of pesticides, 

 including organophosphates, are unknown. 



The long-term prognosis for Indiana bat 

 populations is uncertain. The fact that wintering 

 populations appear to be increasing in Indiana 

 and are remaining relatively stable in Kentucky 

 provides the basis for some optimism. A better 

 understanding of their summer habitat require- 

 ments and factors affecting survival and repro- 

 duction is needed so that more effective recov- 

 ery efforts can be fomiulated. It is important to 

 recognize, however, that even if the factors that 

 are negatively influencing Indiana bat popula- 

 tions are removed, recovery will occur slowly 

 because this species has a low reproductive rate. 



References 



Brady. J.T.. R.K, LaVal. TH. Kunz. M.D. Turtle. D.E. 

 Wilson, and R.L. Clawson. \9H^. Recovery plan for the 

 Indiana bat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington. 

 DC. 94 pp. 



Callahan. E.V. 194.^ Indiana bat summer habitat require- 

 ments. M.S. thesis. Uni\ersity of Missouri. Columbia. 74 

 pp. 



Gardner, J.E.. J.D. Gamer, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991. 

 Summer roost selection and roosting behavior of Myotis 

 sdiliilis (Indiana bat) in Illinois. Final report. Illinois 

 Natural History Survey. Illinois Department of 

 Conservation. Champaign. 56 pp. 



Humphrey, S.R.. A. R. Richter. and J.B. Cope. 1977. 

 Summer habitat and ecology of the endangered Indiana 

 bat. Myotis soJulis. Journal of Mammalogy 58:334-.^46. 



Kurta. A., D. King. J. A. Teramino, J.M. Stnbley, and K.J. 

 Williams. 1993. Summer roosts of the endangered 

 Indiana bat [Myoris sotlalis) on the northern edge of its 

 range. American Midland Naturalist 129:132-138. 



Missouri Department of Conservation. 1991. Endangered 

 bats and their management in Missouri. Missouri 

 Department of Conservation. Jefferson City. 8 pp. 



Gray Wolves 



by 



L. David Mech 



National Biological Service 



Daniel H. Fleischer 



University of Montana 



Clifford J. Martiiika 



National Biological Service 



The gray wolf (G//;/.v lupus) originally occu- 

 pied all habitats in North America north of 

 about 20° north latitude (in Mexico), except for 

 the southeastern United States, where the red 

 wolf (C. rufus) lived. By I960 the wolf was 

 exterminated by federal and state governments 

 from all of the United States except Alaska and 

 northern Minnesota. Until recently. 24 sub- 

 species of the gray wolf were recognized for 

 North America, including 8 in the contiguous 

 48 states. After the gray wolf was listed as an 

 endangered species in 1967, recovery plans 

 were developed for the eastern timber wolf (C./. 

 lycaon). the northern Rocky Mountain wolf 

 (C.l. irremotus). and the Mexican wolf (C/. bcii- 

 le}i). The other subspecies in the contiguous 

 United States were considered extinct. 



The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan 

 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992) set as cri- 

 teria for recovery the following conditions: a 

 viable wolf population in Minnesota consisting 

 of at least 200 animals, and either a population 

 of at least 100 wolves in the United States with- 

 in 160 km (100 tni) of the Minnesota popula- 



tion, or a population of at least 200 wolves if 

 farther than 160 km (100 mi) from the 

 Minnesota population. The Northern Rocky 

 Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service 1987) defined recovery as 

 when at least 10 breeding pairs of wolves inhab- 

 it each of three specified areas in the noilhern 

 Rockies for 3 successive years. The Mexican 

 Wolf Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service 1982) called for a self-sustaining popu- 

 lation of at least 100 Mexican wolves in a 

 12,800-kni- (4,941-mi-) range. 



A recent revision of wolf subspecies in 

 North America (Nowak 1994), however, 

 reduced the number of subspecies originally 

 occupying the contiguous 48 states from eight 

 to four. It classified the wolf currently inhabit- 

 ing northern Montana as being C.l. occidental- 

 is. primarily a Canadian and Alaskan wolf. It 

 considered C.l. nuhilus to be the wolf remaining 

 in most of the range of the former northern 

 Rocky Mountain wolf and the present range of 

 the eastern timber wolf: this leaves the eastern 

 timber wolf extinct in its former U.S. range, sur- 



