Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Regional Biodiversity Monitoring: Partnership Workshop

  Oregon's perspectives, differences, and objectives as they pertain to monitoring biodiversity. Presented at the Regional Biodiversity Monitoring: Partnership Workshop on May 18, 2006.

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Regional Biodiversity Monitoring: Partnership Workshop Author: Oregon. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Oregon's perspectives, differences, and objectives as they pertain to monitoring biodiversity. Presented at the Regional Biodiversity Monitoring: Partnership Workshop on May 18, 2006. Title: Regional Biodiversity Monitoring: Partnership Workshop Author: Oregon. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Oregon's perspectives, differences, and objectives as they pertain to monitoring biodiversity. Presented at the Regional Biodiversity Monitoring: Partnership Workshop on May 18, 2006. Close

• 2. [Article] Status of Oregon's Bull Trout. Distribution, Life History, Limiting Factors, Management Considerations, and Status

  The purpose of this document is to summarize the best scientific information presently available for bull trout (Salvelimus confluentus) throughout Oregon and to review their historical and current status. ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Status of Oregon's Bull Trout. Distribution, Life History, Limiting Factors, Management Considerations, and Status Author: Hooton, Robert M., Buchanan, David V., Hanson, Mary L., Oregon. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife The purpose of this document is to summarize the best scientific information presently available for bull trout (Salvelimus confluentus) throughout Oregon and to review their historical and current status. What started out as a relatively simple exercise to review and update the status report by Ratliff and Howell (1992) based on recent data collection efforts, soon mushroomed into a more comprehensive treatment of all available data on bull trout populations in Oregon, Thus the foundation laid in Ratliff and Howell (1992) has been expanded for that section of the bull trout's range that includes Oregon. A draft of this document received extensive review and additions from professionals within Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Chapter of The American Fisheries Society, Portland General Electric Company, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Plum Creek Timber Company, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Idaho, Department of Fish and Game, ,and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. One of the reviewers wanted to see 'more objective and numerical rating criteria' used to assess status. The authors agree that this is a useful 'next' step and that work should begin on developing the necessary quantitative criteria to evaluate status. Title: Status of Oregon's Bull Trout. Distribution, Life History, Limiting Factors, Management Considerations, and Status Author: Hooton, Robert M., Buchanan, David V., Hanson, Mary L., Oregon. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife The purpose of this document is to summarize the best scientific information presently available for bull trout (Salvelimus confluentus) throughout Oregon and to review their historical and current status. What started out as a relatively simple exercise to review and update the status report by Ratliff and Howell (1992) based on recent data collection efforts, soon mushroomed into a more comprehensive treatment of all available data on bull trout populations in Oregon, Thus the foundation laid in Ratliff and Howell (1992) has been expanded for that section of the bull trout's range that includes Oregon. A draft of this document received extensive review and additions from professionals within Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Chapter of The American Fisheries Society, Portland General Electric Company, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Plum Creek Timber Company, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Idaho, Department of Fish and Game, ,and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. One of the reviewers wanted to see 'more objective and numerical rating criteria' used to assess status. The authors agree that this is a useful 'next' step and that work should begin on developing the necessary quantitative criteria to evaluate status. Close