Predation a. Bury power lines planned within 2 mi of occupied habitat, measured from the lek (LPC). BLM, Participating Cooperators Continuous Participating Cooperators
Predation. Some farm and ranch operations can increase opportunities for avian and mammalian predation of sage- grouse and their nests. Avoid locating new garbage and dead piles closer than 0.6- mile from occupied leks, or within nesting or brood-rearing habitat. Relocate existing garbage and dead piles within 0.6- mile of occupied leks, nesting, or brood-rearing habitat. Limit access to leks, nesting, or brood-rearing habitat by domestic pets. Reduces direct mortality to individuals and broods Describe any measures taken to avoid predation. Install raptor perch deterrents on existing structures (e.g., power poles).
Predation. Excessive mortality due to predation. NEC population decline. Increase habitat quality or quantity to build resiliency of local populations to predation. Remove predator perches or dens. Open land to trapping. Reduce secondary food sources available to predators (e.g., dropped apples, proper disposal of dead livestock). No take of NEC is expected to result from this activity. Decrease predator densities. Increased NEC survival and numbers Occupancy of habitat by eastern cottontails (EC). Replacement or establishment of EC in a patch that would otherwise be suitable for NEC. Use of live traps to facilitate the removal of EC. Following this activity NEC may be transported to the site for release or allowed to colonize through natural dispersal processes. Prior to the initiation of EC removal, protocols that minimize take of NEC must be developed and implemented. Occupancy of additional habitats by NEC. In the future, new information may identify additional threats, necessitating modification of conservation measures specified in a cooperative agreement or implementation of additional conservation measures. In this event, changes will be made in accordance with sections 9 and 14 of this CCAA.
Predation. The number of killer whales visiting the upper inlet appears to be small. However, they may prey upon CI beluga whales. NMFS has received reports of killer whales in Turnagain and Knik Arms, between Fire Island and Tyonek, and near 1This estimate includes 44 beluga whale carcasses found along the shoreline which had been harvested for subsistence. the mouth of the Susitna River. Native hunters have recently reported killer whales along the tide rip that extends from Fire Island to Tyonek (Huntington, 1999) and in Kachemak Bay. No quantitative data exist on the level of removals from this population due to killer whale predation or its impact; however, killer whale pods prey selectively on salmon or marine mammals, including beluga whales, in Cook Inlet. During a killer whale stranding in Turnagain Arm in August 1993, one observer reported that a killer whale regurgitated pieces of beluga flesh. A potential dietary shift may account for some of the more recent sightings of killer whales in Cook Inlet. On the other hand, pods of killer whales also feed on salmon, a prey of beluga whales. Therefore, seeing killer whales near beluga whales in the inlet does not necessarily imply that they are searching for beluga whales. Assessing the impact of predation by killer whales on CI beluga whales is difficult. Anecdotal reports often highlight the more sensational, mortalities on beluga whales due to killer whales, thereby overemphasizing their impact. Further, these reports are from the early 1980s when beluga whales were more abundant. Consequently, they are of minimal value in evaluating current impacts to the population of beluga whales in Cook Inlet.
Predation. The number of killer whales visiting the upper Inlet appears to be small. However, they are known to prey upon CI beluga whales. NMFS has received reports of killer whales in Turnagain and Knik Arms, between Fire Island and Tyonek, and near the mouth of the Susitna River. Native hunters have recently reported killer whales along the tide rip that extends from Fire Island to Tyonek (Huntington, 1999) and in Kachemak Bay. No quantitative data exist on the level of removals from this population due to killer whale predation or its impact. During a killer whale stranding in Turnagain Arm, upper CI in August 1993, a killer whale regurgitated a large piece of beluga muktuk. In September 2000, a NMFS enforcement agent witnessed at least three killer whales attack a beluga whale pod in Turnagain Arm. Two lactating female belugas later stranded with lethal injuries consistent with a killer whale attack. In October 2000, an eyewitness reported that at least three killer whales attacked a juvenile beluga in the Kenai River. A potential dietary shift may account for some of the more recent sightings of killer whales in CI.
Predation. Predation is a potential threat where other predaceous fish occupy the same habitat area as BCT, especially to early life stages. This is not a factor in BCT conservation populations in Nevada, which are managed for the historic assemblage of aquatic species.
Predation. Predation was studied in two systematic efforts. A study of bull trout food habits was conducted to better define the relationship between this predator species and its prey species, especially kokanee (Xxxxxx et al. 1997; Xxxxxxxxx and Van Tassell 2001). The food habits of littoral fish species (northern pikeminnow, smallmouth bass, xxxxx trout, and rainbow trout) have also been studied (Xxxxx 1999). Additional predator studies are planned as part of the Testing and Verification efforts to be conducted during the Interim phase of the fish passage program, when sufficient numbers of smolts will be available to allow evaluation of predation in Xxxx Xxxxx Chinook. Planned components and timing of the predation studies are discussed under the Interim Passage Phase, section IV.B.3 of this Fish Passage Plan.
Predation. Predators and predation occur naturally within GSG populations. Medium sized (meso) mammalian and avian predators routinely predate GSG adults, nests, and chicks. Larger species of predators, including coyote (Canis latrans) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) prey on the Covered Species, but also predate smaller Covered Species predators, such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Avian and mammalian predators and scavengers are considered an integral part of Ranch ecosystems. Evidence suggests that predators such as coyotes and golden eagles may help to control the abundance of smaller predators and small herbivores in a positive way with respect to Covered Species (Xxxxxx 2002, Mezquida et al. 2006). Over-abundant small mammal populations may negatively affect GSG by increasing avian predator populations (Xxxxxx 2002, Mezquida et al. 2006, Xxxxxx and Delehanty 2010). Meso-predators may negatively affect GSG nesting success through egg predation. Although brucellosis (Brucella abortus) has not been detected in Ranch cattle or elk herds, the presence of predators and scavengers is desirable in low-elevation and mid- elevation areas in late winter and early spring to scavenge any aborted elk calves, minimizing the spread of this disease. Ravens (Corvus corax) have always been present on the Ranch; however, in about 2010, they were observed nesting for the first time. It appears that the raven population is increasing due to anthropogenic features on or near the Ranch. This may decrease GSG nesting success and chick survival rates in the future. If the breeding raven population becomes a concern to the Parties, raven control measures may be taken (following consultation with UDWR and USFWS and in cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services). Targeted coyote management activities currently occur on the Ranch, primarily to increase mule deer survival and to manage domestic sheep depredation. Predator control for conservation and recovery of the Covered Species is permitted when determined necessary. Predators, however, like all other species on the Ranch, are assessed relative to their impact on the entire Ranch ecosystem and managed accordingly as conditions dictate.
Predation. The capture and consumption of one animal by another, which applies to all life stages of the organism.
Predation. In its landmark AKZO judgment, the ECJ took a very strict line as regards below-‐cost pricing, also known as ‘predation’. The Court suggested that such conduct is abusive per se if the prices are lower than average variable costs (AVC),633 as a dominant undertaking could have no interest in such pricing behaviour other than to seek the elimination of competitors.634 I disagree that an unrebuttable presumption for pricing below AVC is the right approach. A blanket prohibition has a notable problem of attaching too little weight to the surrounding context. There are several circumstances in which such conduct should be justified nonetheless. The sale below AVC may simply be a cost-‐minimizing strategy, for example if the relevant goods lose their value (such as perishable goods, news-‐related content or obsolete products) or if they cause substantial running expenses (such as storage costs). In addition, in two-‐sided markets companies routinely sell one service at a loss to make another service (more) attractive. The Google search engine is a case in point: it offers a free and attractive service at no charge (so by definition below AVC), attracting advertisers to earn money. There is no clear reason why competition law should a priori ban business models that are likely to be pro-‐competitive and enhance welfare. So even though the wording of AKZO suggests a per se prohibition, it is preferable to allow the dominant firm to rebut the presumption of illegality if the prices are not anti-‐competitive after all; for instance because such prices do not have any exclusionary effect, or because a justification applies. Although the EU Courts have regularly confirmed the precedent in 632 See e.g. Case 40/70 Sirena v Eda [1971] ECR 69, para 17. Particularly high prices can, under certain circumstances, be justified by ‘objective criteria’. 633 See, similarly, the approach by XX Xxxxxxx in Tetra Pak II (ECJ), supra note 353. 634 AKZO, supra note 351, para 71. Kingston (2009, supra note 516, at 214) notes that below-‐cost pricing may also follow from environmental concerns, for example if the dominant firm wishes to provide a price incentive for customers to adopt a new and environmentally friendlier product. AKZO,635 more recent cases do suggest a shift in the ECJ’s approach.636 In Wanadoo, the ECJ held that prices below AVC are ‘prima facie abusive’.637 In Post Danmark, it observed that such prices should ‘in principle, be regarded as abusive [italics added...
