Census of California Sea Lions on Southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia

1973 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Bigg
2018 ◽  
Vol 603 ◽  
pp. 189-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
WD Halliday ◽  
MK Pine ◽  
APH Bose ◽  
S Balshine ◽  
F Juanes

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. D. HERNANDEZ-VELAZQUEZ ◽  
C. E. GALINDO-SANCHEZ ◽  
M. I. TAYLOR ◽  
J. DE LA ROSA-VELEZ ◽  
I. M. COTE ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 101 (49) ◽  
pp. 17258-17263 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. E. Kidd ◽  
F. Hagen ◽  
R. L. Tscharke ◽  
M. Huynh ◽  
K. H. Bartlett ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 1080-1087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J Orr ◽  
James T Harvey

The purpose of this study was to quantify the errors associated with using fecal samples to determine the diet of the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Fishes and squids of known size and number were fed to five sea lions held in enclosures with seawater-filled pools. Enclosures were washed and pools were drained periodically so that sea lion feces could be collected using a 0.5 mm mesh bag. Fish otoliths and squid beaks were collected from feces and used to estimate number and size of prey eaten. An average of 50.7% (SE = 6.4%) of 430 fishes and 73.5% (SE = 12.0%) of 49 cephalopods fed to sea lions were represented by otoliths and beaks in feces, respectively. Estimated lengths of fish from feces were less than lengths of fish fed to sea lions by an average of 30.1% (SE = 2.8%). Beaks were not digested significantly; estimated lengths of squid were underestimated by an average of only 3.3% (SE = 1.5%) relative to actual lengths. Passage rates of otoliths varied, but more than 70% were recovered within 48 h after the fish was consumed. Passage rates of beaks were generally less than those of otoliths; six beaks (11%) were collected in feces 4 days after the squid were eaten. Correction factors were created to more reliably estimate the number and size of fishes and cephalopods eaten by California sea lions.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 272-276
Author(s):  
Jérôme de Hemptinne

In times of war, the first instinct is to relieve the suffering of human beings. Environmental and animal interests are always pushed into the background. However, warfare strongly affects natural resources, including animals, which makes animal issues a matter of great concern. Certain species have been vanishing at a rapid rate because of wars, often with disastrous effects on the food chain and on the ecological balance. Indeed, belligerents rarely take into account the adverse consequences of their military operations on animals. They even take advantage of the chaotic circumstances of war in order to poach protected species and to engage in the trafficking of expensive animal products. While generating billions of dollars each year, such poaching and trafficking allows armed groups to grow and to reinforce their authority over disputed territory. States have also trained, and continue to train, certain animals—principally marine mammals such as bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions—to perform military tasks, like ship and harbor protection, or mine detection and clearance. Millions of horses, mules, donkeys, camels, dogs, and birds are obliged to serve on various fronts (transport, logistics, or communications) and become particularly vulnerable targets.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document