Comparison of Techniques for Capturing Mountain Goats

Author(s): Chester B. Rideout

Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Jul., 1974), pp. 573-575
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3800897
Accessed: 07-09-2017 20:59 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wildlife Society, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Journal of Wildlife Management

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.29 on Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:59:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND COMMENTS 573

Table 1 summarizes the fecal pellet pH

differences mentioned by Nagy and Gilbert
data for each species. Although the pellet
are important factors affecting the pH of
pH values of the two species overlap, 92 pellets in ungulates. With these ap-
fecal
percent of the pellets collected in whitetail
parent regional differences in fecal pellet
range had pH readings below 7.0 while 86
pH within species, game biologists in the
percent of the pellets collected in mulevarious
deer parts of mule-whitetail range should
range were above 7.0. Student t-test develop their own identification points on
showed significance (P < 0.01). the pH scale.
Utilizing 7.0 as the dividing point be- Acknowledgment.-We acknowledge the
tween the species, determination of species
assistance given by D. E. Atkinson in the
presence in overlap areas through pH sam-
collection and dating of fecal groups.
ples can be easily established with litmus
paper. The pH means of both species are Paul R. Krausman and Ernest D. Ables,
higher than the highest means reported forCollege of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sci-
mule deer by Howard (1967) and Nagyences, University of Idaho, Moscow 83843;
and Gilbert (1968) which are 6.07 and 6.14 Curtis M. McGinnis, Environmental Sys-
respectively. This fact suggests that intra-tems, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78238.
specific differences in the chemistry of the
digestive tracts as well as the interspecific Accepted 8 January 1974.

COMPARISON OF TECHNIQUES FOR CAPTURING MOUNTAIN GOATS

From 1970-73 I attempted to capture 1. Clover Trap. A Clover deer trap

mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) (Clover
in 1956) was used in the summer of
the Sapphire Mountains of western Mon- 1970 without success. It was seldom en-
tered by goats, although they examined it
tana to study their ecology and movements
by radiotelemetry. The trapping site, closely
a and licked the soil nearby. On a
few occasions goats entered the trap but
barren ridge at an altitude of 8,450 feet
(2575.6 m) on Dome Shaped Mountain, is not caught due to failure of the trip-
were
used as a salt lick during the summer ping mechanism. Clover traps were used
months by mountain goats, elk (Cervus to capture mountain goats in Washington
canadensis), and mule deer (Odocoileus (Wadkins 1967) and Idaho (Rogers 1960)
hemionus). Mountain goats were attractedsuccessfully, and portable traps with rope
mesh sides were used in British Columbia
to a central point on the ridge by supple-
menting the natural lick with block (Hebert
salt et al. 1971). Clover traps have
and human urine. Because the lick was 4 also been used for goats in the Black Hills,
although several traps were needed for a
miles from the nearest road, capture tech-
niques requiring a minimum of equipment successful operation (Charles 1961), and
were attempted first. they worked more effectively if left in place

J. Wildl. Manage. 38 (3):1974

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.29 on Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:59:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
574 NOTES AND COMMENTS

over the winter (Richardson 1971). We

trap ends from the Clover trap, was dropped
by pulling a release string from outside
made use of only one trap for one summer,
which most likely explains our lack the of
trap. The goats appeared reluctant to
success. enter because of the solid appearance of
2. Darting. In 1971 a Cap-Chur Gun
the trap, was
and only one animal was captured.
used to attempt capture of three
Frequentlymountain
they would approach to within
a few feet of the door
goats. Darts containing phencyclidine hy-and then turn and
drochloride (Sernylan) and bolt to a distance
promazine hy-of 100 feet (30.5 m)
away
drochloride (Sparine), both or more.
drugs at Occasionally
con- a goat would
centrations of 0.5 mg/lb (1.104 repeat this
mg/kg)
procedure
ofseveral times before
body weight, were shot from a distance of
leaving the trap area.
40 feet (12.2 m) while goats were
The nettingat the
and extra posts were then
salt lick. Although the delivery replaced withsystem
three layers of woven wire
appeared to be satisfactory,fencing, and the
the goats trap was enlarged by
fled
when darted and could not be relocated. adding an extra pole, making it a five-sided
One goat was observed with a dart stillenclosure.
in The drop door was replaced by
his flank the day after darting, anda ap- hinged door to lessen the chance of in-
peared in good health. Mountain goats juring an animal, and it was pulled shut
have been immobilized with drugs inby Al-a stone suspended over the trap. The
berta (E. A. DeBock, personal communi- release mechanism was activated either by
the animal or by hand.
cation). They were darted from a helicopter
during the winter, using Sernylan in con-Mountain goats tried to dig their way
junction with a tranquilizer. out if left in the trap for several hours, but
escape was prevented by stapling the
3. Dropnet. A 12- by 18-foot (3.7- x 5.5-
m) dropnet was also constructed in 1971;
fencing to logs lying on the ground. Elk
it was suspended from six posts at a mini-
and deer were able to jump over the fence,
mum height of 4 feet (1.2 m), and the but the goats remained in the trap. One
corners were weighted with rocks. The goat
net escaped by climbing out after elk had
pushed down the fencing, and a female
dropped when a release string was pulled
and a kid escaped by climbing up the
from a knoll 100 yards (91.4 m) from the
diagonal of the door and jumping out.
trap. The goats went under the suspended
Several animals cut their noses by colliding
netting readily, but were able to free them-
selves from the fallen net by bucking re- the wire, and one adult female with
with
peatedly. Other disadvantages were that an injured horn lost the horn sheath during
two men had to be on hand at all times,capture.
and
the netted goats were dangerous because Trapped goats were usually noosed, ex-
they were on their feet and could not befor a few which were immobilized by
cept
noosed. pinning them against the trap wall with
4. Pen Trap. We finally constructed ropea netting. Goats were hog-tied and
pen trap 12 feet (3.7 m) square withblindfolded
6- during handling, and no drugs
foot-high (1.8-m) sides of cotton netting were used. Total handling time was 30-45
and manilla rope netting. The cotton net- minutes, during which goats were mea-
ting proved too weak to hold a goat sured, and weighed, and equipped with radio
had to be reinforced with additional ver- collars or marking collars, ear tags, and
tical posts. The door, consisting of two dye markings.

J. Wildl. Manage. 38 (3) :1974

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.29 on Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:59:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES AND COMMENTS 575

LITERATURE
Woven-wire pen traps have been used in CITED
previous studies (Cooney 1946, McDowell
CASEBEER, R. L., M. J. RUGNRUD, AND S. M.
1949, Casebeer et al. 1950, Lentfer 1955,BRANDBORG. 1950. Rocky Mountain goats
Stockstad 1959), although traps were de- in Montana. Montana Fish Game Dept. P-R
scribed in only two cases, and techniquesProj. l-R, Bull. 5. 107pp.
CHARLES, G. 1961. Trapped . . . but not for
for immobilizing animals in the trap werelong. South Dakota Conserv. Digest 28(4):
not discussed. One of these traps (Case- 4-6.
CLOVER, M. R. 1956. Single-gate deer trap.
beer et al. 1950) was 12 x 16 feet (3.7 xCalifornia Fish Game 42(3):199-201.
4.9 m) and 8 feet high (2.4 m), whileCOONEY,
the R. F. 1946. Trapping and transplanting
mountain goats. Proc. Western Assoc. State
other (Cooney 1946) was 25 x 45 feet (7.6 x
Game and Fish Commissioners. 26:106-109.
13.7 m) with 11 foot (3.4 m) sides. The
HEBERT, D. M., AND I. McT. COWAN. 1971. White
woven-wire pen trap was more successful muscle disease in the mountain goat. J.
than any other capture method tested dur-Wildl. Manage. 35(4):752-756.
LENTFER, J. W. 1955. A two-year study of the
ing this study; 28 animals were captured,
Rocky Mountain goat in the Crazy Mountains,
measured, marked, and released, with no Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 19(4):417-429.
casualties. McDOWELL, L. 1949. Rocky Mountain goat
trapping. Montana Fish Game Comm. Wildl.
Acknowledgments.-The Palmer Chem-
Rest. Div. Proj. 5-D-7. 14pp.
ical and Equipment Company supplied a RICHARDSON, A. H. 1971. The Rocky Moun-
powder Cap-Chur Gun and darts, and the tain goat in the Black Hills. South Dakota
Colorado Division of Wildlife provided a Dept. Game, Fish, and Parks, Bull. 2. 25pp.
ROGERS, R. 1960. Idaho mountain goats moved
Clover deer trap. I am indebted to G. D. to new homes. Idaho Wildl. Rev. 13(3):
Maclean, P. M. Smith, and J. T. Watkins 6-7.

for assistance, and to C. Smith, MontanaSTOCKSTAD, D. 1959. Montana's high flying

goats. Montana Sports Outdoors 4(1):11-14.
Fish and Game Department, for advice WADKINS, L. 1967. Goat management study.
and supplies. This study was supported by Washington State Dept. Game Proj. W66-R-6,
the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Fund, Job 2. 19pp.
the Watkins Fund, the National Science
Chester B. Rideout, Department of Biol-
Foundation, the National Aeronautics and
ogy, Indiana University Northwest, 3400
Space Administration, the Montana Fish
Broadway, Gary 46408.
and Game Commission, and the National
Rifle Association. Accepted 14 November 1973.

RECORDED BODY WEIGHTS OF TWO CALIFORNIA BIGHORN RAMS

were reintroduced to Hart Mountain from

California bighorns (Ovis canadensis
californiana Douglas) were native the Williams Lake area, British Columbia,
to the
4 November 1954, through a cooperative
Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge
effort
vicinity in southeast Oregon but were ex- by the Oregon State Game Com-
mission, British Columbia Game Depart-
terminated by 1912. California bighorns

J. Wildl. Manage. 38 (3):1974

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.29 on Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:59:09 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms