Otter Status Paper - Furbearer Management
Transcript of Otter Status Paper - Furbearer Management
Surveys
River Otter Status, Management, and Distribution in theUnited States: Evidence of Large-Scale PopulationIncrease and Range ExpansionNathan M. Roberts,* Matthew J. Lovallo, Shawn M. Crimmins
N.M. RobertsOffice of Applied Science, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 107 Sutliff Avenue, Rhinelander, Wisconsin54501
M.J. LovalloBureau of Wildlife Management, Pennsylvania Game Commission, 2001 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania16875
S.M. CrimminsCollege of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, Wisconsin54481
Present address of S.M. Crimmins: U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Universityof Alaska Fairbanks, 2140 Koyukuk Drive, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Abstract
River otter Lontra canadensis populations in the United States have expanded during the past 50 y as a result ofimprovements in habitat quality and effective management programs implemented by state and federal agencies andnative tribes. Periodic assessments of river otter status, population trends, and geographic distribution are needed todetect changes in populations, assess management approaches, and to identify and prioritize conservation efforts. Wesurveyed state wildlife agency experts to assess the current population and regulatory status of river otters in theirjurisdictions. River otters were legally harvested in 40 states as of 2016. Twenty-two states reported increasingpopulations while 25 reported stable populations. Most states used multiple methods to monitor river otterpopulations including harvest-based surveys, presence–absence surveys, and empirically derived population modelpredictions; harvest-based surveys were the most commonly used monitoring approach. As populations haveexpanded, river otter reintroduction efforts have become less frequent; two additional states had conductedreintroductions since 1998 and only one state had conducted a reintroduction since 2010. We estimated that riverotter distribution increased by 10.2% in the continental United States and by 13.7% in the contiguous United Statesduring an 18-y period. Although populations may continue to increase numerically, river otters may be approachingtheir potential maximum geographic distribution in the United States.
Keywords: distribution; harvest; Lontra canadensis; management; restoration; river otter; United States
Received: October 4, 2018; Accepted: January 3, 2020; Published Online Early: January 2020; Published: June 2020
Citation: Roberts NM, Lovallo MJ, Crimmins SM. 2020. River otter status, management, and distribution in the UnitedStates: evidence of large-scale population increase and range expansion. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management11(1):279–286; e1944-687X. https://doi.org/10.3996/102018-JFWM-093
Copyright: All material appearing in the Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is in the public domain and may bereproduced or copied without permission unless specifically noted with the copyright symbol &. Citation of thesource, as given above, is requested.
* Corresponding author: [email protected]
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management | www.fwspubs.org June 2020 | Volume 11 | Issue 1 | 279
Dow
nloaded from http://m
eridian.allenpress.com/jfw
m/article-pdf/11/1/279/2507380/i1944-687x-11-1-279.pdf by guest on 11 June 2020
Introduction
The river otter Lontra canadensis is an elusive speciesthat can serve an important role in aquatic ecosystems asa top predator of fish and crayfish. River otters are alsovalued as a game species and furbearer (Melquist et al.2003). River otters historically inhabited every majorwatershed in the contiguous United States and wereextirpated from much of their historical range as a resultof multiple factors including habitat degradation anddestruction as well as unregulated harvest (Anderson1977). By the early 1900s river otters had beencompletely extirpated from 11 states and had experi-enced severe population declines in 9 other states(Deems and Pursley 1978). The river otter was includedas an Appendix II species under the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Faunaand Flora in 1977 as a result of concern that endangeredotter species, such as Pteronura brasiliensis, could bemisidentified as river otter because of a similar superficialappearance, which could lead to unintentional trade ofendangered species; however, it is important to notethat the river otter itself has never been considered aglobally threatened or endangered species (Greenwalt1977). Since inclusion under Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through the Division ofScientific Authority, housed in the International AffairsProgram, has routinely determined that the export ofriver otter pelts and products from the United States hasnot been detrimental to their viability, thus satisfying theconditions of the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora agreement(Bowman et al. 2010).
Deems and Pursley (1978), estimated that river ottersoccupied 71% of their historical range during 1977; by1998, river otter populations had expanded and werethought to occupy 90% of their prior range (Melquist etal. 2003). This continued numeric and geographicexpansion was fostered by conservation managementprograms by state and federal agencies, natural dispersaland expansion of existing populations into increasinglysuitable habitats, and reintroduction efforts by statewildlife agencies and conservation partnerships (Raesly2001). Assessments of river otter populations within thecontiguous United States have occurred periodicallysince their inclusion in Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (e.g.,Polechla 1990, Raesly 2001, Melquist et al. 2003). Wesurveyed state wildlife agency experts regarding 1) thelegal status of river otters in their state, 2) the statewideriver otter population trend, 3) the results of reintroduc-tion efforts (if applicable), 4) the population status ofriver otters since reintroduction efforts, 5) the method(s)of river otter population monitoring, 6) how frequentlyadjustments are made to harvest regulations (if applica-ble), 7) and the geographic distribution of river otters intheir state. Herein we provide an updated account, as of2016, of river otter population status and distribution inthe United States and discuss conservation priorities.
Methods
We contacted wildlife management agencies from allstates in the contiguous United States during 2016 viaemail (Figure S1, Supplemental Material), and Alaska viaphone, targeting agency personnel that were responsi-ble for river otter management. We asked each agencyexpert to report 1) the legal status of river otters in theirstate, 2) the statewide river otter population trend, 3) theresults of reintroduction efforts (if applicable), 4) thepopulation status of river otters since reintroductionefforts, 5) the method(s) of river otter populationmonitoring, 6) how frequently adjustments are madeto harvest regulations (if applicable), 7) and thegeographic distribution of river otters in their state.Potential responses concerning legal status includedregulated harvest, no harvest, state threatened, or stateendangered. Responses for population trends includedincreasing, stable, or decreasing (although we did notspecify the timeframe). Questions concerning river otterreintroductions assessed the purpose(s) (e.g., reestablishextirpated populations, bolster existing populations, orexpand river otter range beyond current distributions)and outcomes (e.g., expanding, stagnant or geograph-ically restrained, decreasing, or unknown) of reintroduc-tion efforts. Methods of population monitoring includedbridge surveys (presence vs. absence track surveysconducted at bridge crossings), harvest surveys, bow-hunter surveys, camera surveys, winter track surveys,population models from harvest data, harvest effort, andagency field questionnaires (for detailed descriptions ofthese methods, we direct readers to Chilelli et al. [1996],Roberts et al. [2008], and Roberts [2010]). We categorizedthe frequencies of regulatory review within stateagencies into the following: never, every 4–5 y, every2–3 y, annually, and immediately as needed. We talliedresponses to these questions and reported frequency ofresponses. We assessed geographic distribution in eachstate based on a county basis; Alaska does not havecounty jurisdictions, so we gathered information via aphone interview to assess geographic distribution(Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal com-munication). When river otter presence was unknown ina county, which could occur where there is no harvest ormonitoring effort (i.e., arid or remote regions), werecorded presence in those counties as ‘unknown.’ Whenestimating occupied range area or river otters, we onlysummed the area of the counties with known presenceand excluded those counties that are listed as unknown(Table S1, Supplemental Material). To compare estimatesof occupied area in 1998 with our survey results, wedigitized published maps depicting river otter distribu-tion during 1998 (Melquist et al. 2003) using ArcMap(ESRI 2011).
Results
We received responses from all 48 contiguous statesand interviewed agency personnel in Alaska; not allresponses were complete (Table S1). Based on this 2016survey, 22 states reported increasing populations, 25
River Otter Status in the United States N.M. Roberts et al.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management | www.fwspubs.org June 2020 | Volume 11 | Issue 1 | 280
Dow
nloaded from http://m
eridian.allenpress.com/jfw
m/article-pdf/11/1/279/2507380/i1944-687x-11-1-279.pdf by guest on 11 June 2020
states reported stable populations, and 2 states (Arizonaand Washington) reported an uncertain population trend(Table 1). River otters were legally harvested in 40 states,while closed harvest seasons existed in 9 states; Arizona,California, Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, RhodeIsland, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (Table 1).
States reported a variety of methods that were used tomonitor river otter populations. Most (n ¼ 31, 63.3%)states used multiple methods to monitor river otterpopulations. Harvest-based surveys were the mostcommonly used monitoring approach, being used by35 states (Table 1). Catch-per-unit effort, populationmodels, and presence vs. absence indices, such asbowhunter surveys and track surveys, were used lessfrequently (Table 1). Only four states—Nevada, RhodeIsland, Utah, and Wyoming—did not report any moni-toring efforts.
As of 2016, 23 states had conducted river otterreintroductions. Ten states indicated that they hadreintroduced river otters to establish populations thathad been extirpated (Table 1). The remaining statesindicated that they reintroduced river otters to expandpopulations in their state beyond their current range,including three states that indicated that reintroductionswere also used to reestablish extirpated populations andseven states that used reintroductions to bolsterpopulations where they already existed (Table 1). Onlyone state, Utah, had conducted river otter reintroduc-tions since 2010. Twenty-one of the 23 states (91.3%)that implemented reintroductions reported that popula-tions were increasing or had reached population goals,and 2 states (Minnesota and North Dakota) indicatedthat populations were stagnant or geographicallyrestrained (Table 1).
Harvest regulations are reviewed frequently by moststates that allow harvest (Table 1). Only three states(Illinois, Kentucky, and North Dakota) did not provide aresponse to our question about regulation reviewfrequency (Table 1). Of the remaining 37 states; 24states reviewed regulations ‘‘promptly’’ or annually and10 states reviewed harvest regulations in cycles of 2–3 y;Michigan reported that regulations are reviewed ‘‘every2 to 3 years’’ and ‘‘promptly as needed’’ (Table 1). Twostates (Connecticut and Tennessee) reported that regu-lations are reviewed ‘‘every 4 to 5 years.’’ South Carolinaand Texas reported that harvest regulations are ‘‘never’’reviewed.
We estimated the county-level geographic distributionoccupied by river otters in the continental United Statesduring 2016 to be approximately 7,422,120 km2—75% ofthe total land area and 94% of the available total waterarea. Within the contiguous United States, we estimatedthat the county-level geographic distribution occupiedby river otters to be approximately 5,686,140 km2—70%of the total land area and 90% of the total water area.(Figure 1). River otters were reported to be ubiquitousthroughout Alaska south of the Brooks Range (AlaskaDepartment of Fish and Game, personal communica-tion). Based on maps published by Melquist et al. (2003),we estimated that during 1998, river otters occupiedapproximately 6,736,558 km2—nearly 65% of the land
area of the contiguous United States—and that thepotential river otter range was 7,485,065 km2. Similarly,we estimated that river otters occupied approximately5,000,550 km2—nearly 63% of the land area of thecontiguous United States—and that the potential riverotter range was approaching 5,556,200 km2. Compari-sons between our survey and published reports from1998 (Melquist et al. 2003) indicated that changes in riverotter distribution occurred primarily in the contiguousUnited States and that river otters had expanded theirrange by approximately 13.7% during an 18-y period(Table 2). We estimated that river otter range in thecontinental United States expanded by 10.2% during thisperiod (Table 3).
Discussion
As per the North American Model of wildlife conser-vation, river otters are held in the public trust by the‘‘government’’ and are managed by state and federalagencies as well as by native tribes (Mahoney and Geist2019). Agency-enforced regulations include restrictionson harvest, harvest season length, harvest methods, andbag limits. Based on our survey, river otters wereharvested in 40 states during 2016. Within states thatharvested otters, regulations concerning river otterharvest seasons were reviewed and adjusted regularly.The continued expansion of river otter populationswhere they are managed by regulated harvest is likelyenhanced by the frequency of these regulatory reviews.
River otter reintroductions were widespread duringthe late 20th century (Raesly 2001). As of 2016, .4,000river otters have been translocated to 23 states in one ofthe most ambitious and extensive carnivore restorationefforts in history (Erb et al. 2018). Our survey indicatedthat ,50% of the river otter reintroductions implement-ed in the United States were in areas where otters hadbeen extirpated. Other restoration efforts were conduct-ed to bolster existing river otter populations and toexpand otter distributions and provide connectivitywithin states that had existing, but not ubiquitous, riverotter populations (Table 1). The majority of theseprojects were implemented in the mid-1980s and werecompleted by the late 1990s; only two states (New Yorkand Pennsylvania) were actively engaged in reintroduc-tions during 1998 (Raesly 2001). As of 2016, only twoadditional states had conducted reintroductions (NewMexico and North Dakota) since Raesly’s (2001) previousassessment and Utah was the only state that hadreintroduced river otters since 2010. The cessation ofwide-scale reintroduction activities may suggest that themajority of suitable habitats are currently occupied byestablished river otter populations. Raesly (2001) deter-mined that, although it is preferable to acquire riverotters from proximal populations to maximize geneticsimilarity and retain subspecies integrity, most jurisdic-tions used the most easily obtained river otters, oftenfrom Louisiana, during reintroduction projects. Theoverall impacts, or extent, of genetic infusion fromdistant populations that were sourced for these reintro-
River Otter Status in the United States N.M. Roberts et al.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management | www.fwspubs.org June 2020 | Volume 11 | Issue 1 | 281
Dow
nloaded from http://m
eridian.allenpress.com/jfw
m/article-pdf/11/1/279/2507380/i1944-687x-11-1-279.pdf by guest on 11 June 2020
Ta
ble
1.
Riv
er
ott
er
Lon
tra
can
ad
ensi
sp
op
ula
tio
nan
dre
gu
lato
ryst
atu
s,p
op
ula
tio
nm
on
ito
rin
gm
eth
od
su
sed
,in
ten
tan
do
utc
om
eo
fre
intr
od
uct
ion
eff
ort
s,an
dfr
eq
ue
ncy
of
har
vest
reg
ula
tio
nre
vie
ws
in4
9st
ate
s(H
awai
ie
xclu
de
d)
wit
hin
the
Un
ite
dSt
ate
sin
20
16
.
Sta
te
Po
pu
lati
on
tre
nd
Ha
rve
stst
atu
s
Po
pu
lati
on
mo
nit
ori
ng
me
tho
d(s
)u
sed
Inte
nt
of
rein
tro
du
ctio
n
Su
cce
sso
f
rein
tro
du
ctio
n
Fre
qu
en
cyo
fh
arv
est
reg
ula
tio
ns
rev
iew
Ala
bam
aIn
cre
asin
gR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,R
oad
-kill
surv
eys
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
An
nu
ally
Ala
ska
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
po
pu
lati
on
mo
del
s
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Ad
just
me
nts
mad
ep
rom
ptl
yas
ne
ed
ed
Ari
zon
aU
nce
rtai
nN
otr
app
ing
seas
on
Latr
ine
-sit
esu
rve
ys,
nu
isan
ce
rep
ort
s
Re
est
ablis
han
ext
irp
ate
d
po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
No
tap
plic
able
Ark
ansa
sSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
An
nu
ally
Cal
ifo
rnia
Stab
leN
otr
app
ing
seas
on
Cam
era
surv
eys
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Co
lora
do
Incr
eas
ing
No
trap
pin
gse
aso
nT
rack
surv
eys
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
No
tap
plic
able
Co
nn
ecti
cut
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
leFo
ur
tofi
veye
ars
De
law
are
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Ad
just
me
nts
mad
ep
rom
ptl
yas
ne
ed
ed
Flo
rid
aSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
eff
ort
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Ad
just
me
nts
mad
ep
rom
ptl
yas
ne
ed
ed
Ge
org
iaSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Tw
oto
thre
eye
ars
Idah
oSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
eff
ort
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Tw
oto
thre
eye
ars
Illin
ois
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,p
op
ula
tio
n
mo
del
s
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
and
bo
lste
r
exi
stin
gp
op
ula
tio
ns
Go
alfu
llym
et
No
resp
on
se
Ind
ian
aIn
cre
asin
gR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
bo
wh
un
ter
surv
eys
Re
est
ablis
han
ext
irp
ate
d
po
pu
lati
on
Go
alfu
llym
et
An
nu
ally
Iow
aSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,p
op
ula
tio
n
mo
del
s,b
ow
hu
nte
rsu
rve
ys
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
and
bo
lste
r
exi
stin
gp
op
ula
tio
ns
Go
alfu
llym
et
An
nu
ally
Kan
sas
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
bo
wh
un
ter
surv
eys
Re
est
ablis
han
ext
irp
ate
d
po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
An
nu
ally
Ke
ntu
cky
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
reg
istr
atio
no
nly
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
No
resp
on
se
Lou
isia
na
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
An
nu
ally
Mai
ne
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,p
op
ula
tio
n
mo
del
s
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
An
nu
ally
;A
dju
stm
en
tsm
ade
pro
mp
tly
asn
ee
de
d
Mar
ylan
dIn
cre
asin
gR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,p
op
ula
tio
n
mo
del
s,b
ow
hu
nte
rsu
rve
ys
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
Go
alfu
llym
et
Tw
oto
thre
eye
ars
Mas
sach
use
tts
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
leA
dju
stm
en
tsm
ade
pro
mp
tly
as
ne
ed
ed
Mic
hig
anSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
leT
wo
toth
ree
year
s;A
dju
stm
en
ts
mad
ep
rom
ptl
yas
ne
ed
ed
River Otter Status in the United States N.M. Roberts et al.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management | www.fwspubs.org June 2020 | Volume 11 | Issue 1 | 282
Dow
nloaded from http://m
eridian.allenpress.com/jfw
m/article-pdf/11/1/279/2507380/i1944-687x-11-1-279.pdf by guest on 11 June 2020
Ta
ble
1.
Co
nti
nu
ed
.
Sta
te
Po
pu
lati
on
tre
nd
Ha
rve
stst
atu
s
Po
pu
lati
on
mo
nit
ori
ng
me
tho
d(s
)u
sed
Inte
nt
of
rein
tro
du
ctio
n
Su
cce
sso
f
rein
tro
du
ctio
n
Fre
qu
en
cyo
fh
arv
est
reg
ula
tio
ns
rev
iew
Min
ne
sota
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
po
pu
lati
on
mo
de
ls,
win
ter
trac
k
surv
eys
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
Po
pu
lati
on
stag
nan
to
r
ge
og
rap
hic
ally
con
stra
ine
d
An
nu
ally
Mis
siss
ipp
iSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
An
nu
ally
Mis
sou
riSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
po
pu
lati
on
mo
de
ls,
bo
wh
un
ter
surv
eys
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
and
bo
lste
r
exi
stin
gp
op
ula
tio
ns
Go
alfu
llym
et
Ad
just
me
nts
mad
ep
rom
ptl
yas
ne
ed
ed
Mo
nta
na
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
leA
nn
ual
ly
Ne
bra
ska
Incr
eas
ing
No
trap
pin
gse
aso
nB
rid
ge
surv
eys
,ca
me
rasu
rve
ysR
ee
stab
lish
ane
xtir
pat
ed
po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
No
tap
plic
able
Ne
vad
aSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
No
mo
nit
ori
ng
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Tw
oto
thre
eye
ars
Ne
wH
amp
shir
eSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
leT
wo
toth
ree
year
s
Ne
wJe
rse
ySt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
leT
wo
toth
ree
year
s
Ne
wM
exic
oIn
cre
asin
gN
otr
app
ing
seas
on
Cam
era
surv
eys
Re
est
ablis
han
ext
irp
ate
d
po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
No
tap
plic
able
Ne
wY
ork
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
po
pu
lati
on
mo
de
ls,
bri
dg
esu
rve
ys,
win
ter
trac
ksu
rve
ys
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
and
bo
lste
r
exi
stin
gp
op
ula
tio
ns
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
Ad
just
me
nts
mad
ep
rom
ptl
yas
ne
ed
ed
No
rth
Car
olin
aIn
cre
asin
gR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtEs
tab
lish
inu
no
ccu
pie
d
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
and
bo
lste
r
exi
stin
gp
op
ula
tio
ns
Go
alfu
llym
et
Ad
just
me
nts
mad
ep
rom
ptl
yas
ne
ed
ed
No
rth
Dak
ota
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
His
tori
cally
use
dca
me
rasu
rve
ys,
win
ter
trac
ksu
rve
ys,
po
pu
lati
on
mo
de
ling
Re
est
ablis
han
ext
irp
ate
d
po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
stag
nan
to
r
ge
og
rap
hic
ally
con
stra
ine
d
No
resp
on
se
Oh
ioIn
cre
asin
gR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
bo
wh
un
ter
surv
eys
,b
rid
ge
surv
eys
,ca
me
rasu
rve
ys
Re
est
ablis
han
ext
irp
ate
d
po
pu
lati
on
Go
alfu
llym
et
An
nu
ally
Okl
aho
ma
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
bo
wh
un
ter
surv
eys
Re
est
ablis
han
ext
irp
ate
d
po
pu
lati
on
Go
alfu
llym
et
An
nu
ally
Ore
go
nSt
able
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
leT
wo
toth
ree
year
s
Pe
nn
sylv
ania
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,p
op
ula
tio
n
mo
de
ls
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
Go
alfu
llym
et
An
nu
ally
Rh
od
eIs
lan
dSt
able
No
trap
pin
gse
aso
nN
on
ere
po
rte
dN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
le
Sou
thC
aro
lina
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Ne
ver
Sou
thD
ako
taIn
cre
asin
gN
otr
app
ing
seas
on
Inci
de
nta
lh
arve
stan
dro
ad-k
ill
surv
eys
Re
est
ablis
han
ext
irp
ate
d
po
pu
lati
on
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
No
tap
plic
able
Te
nn
esse
eIn
cre
asin
gR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
Fou
rto
five
year
s
River Otter Status in the United States N.M. Roberts et al.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management | www.fwspubs.org June 2020 | Volume 11 | Issue 1 | 283
Dow
nloaded from http://m
eridian.allenpress.com/jfw
m/article-pdf/11/1/279/2507380/i1944-687x-11-1-279.pdf by guest on 11 June 2020
duction efforts are unknown, but our results suggest thatrange expansion has occurred nevertheless.
River otters are challenging to monitor because oftheir secretive nature and the fact that they naturallyoccur at relatively low densities on the landscape.Although state wildlife-management agencies use avariety of techniques to monitor changes in river otterpopulation size and distribution, regulated harvest-management programs provide the foundation for themuch of the population monitoring that occurs. Of the40 states that incorporate harvest management pro-grams, the majority used data from regulated harvestseasons (e.g., surveys of trappers, estimates of trappereffort, or collection of biological samples to estimatedemographic and health parameters) to monitor riverotter populations and to ensure that harvest levels weresustainable. For many furbearers, including river otter,harvest-based data are the only information availablewith sufficient sample sizes large enough for robustanalyses (White et al. 2015). Chilelli et al. (1996)encouraged jurisdictions to standardize monitoringmethodology. Two decades later, there is still consider-able variation in monitoring methods and effort acrossjurisdictions. Some variation is to be expected becauseeach jurisdiction has different resources and priorities forwildlife programs. As populations grow and expand, it isreasonable to assume that some jurisdictions may shiftmonitoring resources toward less secure species. Juris-dictions that have harvest are afforded more monitoringopportunities through harvest-dependent data sources,such as catch-per-unit effort, distribution of harvests, andsex and age-structure of harvests. We reiterate Chilelli etal. (1996) and suggest that jurisdictions that allowharvest should collect information on the distributionof harvest, some measure of participation or effort, and,ideally, some estimate of age-structure of the harvest.These harvest-dependent data can be synthesized inappropriate population models to yield a wealth ofinformation on population status and trends (Roberts2010). In the absence of harvest-dependent data,presence–absence data (such as track surveys), canindicate population distribution and trajectories (Robertset al. 2008).
Ta
ble
1.
Co
nti
nu
ed
.
Sta
te
Po
pu
lati
on
tre
nd
Ha
rve
stst
atu
s
Po
pu
lati
on
mo
nit
ori
ng
me
tho
d(s
)u
sed
Inte
nt
of
rein
tro
du
ctio
n
Su
cce
sso
f
rein
tro
du
ctio
n
Fre
qu
en
cyo
fh
arv
est
reg
ula
tio
ns
rev
iew
Te
xas
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Ne
ver
Uta
hSt
able
No
trap
pin
gse
aso
nN
ocu
rre
nt
mo
nit
ori
ng
Esta
blis
hin
un
occ
up
ied
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
and
bo
lste
r
exi
stin
gp
op
ula
tio
ns
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
No
tap
plic
able
Ve
rmo
nt
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
po
pu
lati
on
mo
del
s
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Ad
just
me
nts
mad
ep
rom
ptl
yas
ne
ed
ed
Vir
gin
iaIn
cre
asin
gR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtEs
tab
lish
inu
no
ccu
pie
d
po
rtio
no
fst
ate
and
bo
lste
r
exi
stin
gp
op
ula
tio
ns
Po
pu
lati
on
incr
eas
ing
Tw
oto
thre
eye
ars
Was
hin
gto
nU
nce
rtai
nR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rtN
ot
app
licab
leN
ot
app
licab
leT
wo
toth
ree
year
s
We
stV
irg
inia
Stab
leR
eg
ula
ted
trap
pin
g
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,p
op
ula
tio
n
mo
de
ls,
bri
dg
esu
rve
ys
Re
est
ablis
han
ext
irp
ate
d
po
pu
lati
on
Go
alfu
llym
et
An
nu
ally
Wis
con
sin
Incr
eas
ing
Re
gu
late
dtr
app
ing
seas
on
Har
vest
surv
eys
,h
arve
ste
ffo
rt,
po
pu
lati
on
mo
del
s,b
ow
hu
nte
r
surv
eys
,b
rid
ge
surv
eys
,ca
me
ra
surv
eys
,w
inte
rtr
ack
surv
eys
,fi
eld
-
staf
fq
ue
stio
nn
aire
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
An
nu
ally
Wyo
min
gIn
cre
asin
gN
otr
app
ing
seas
on
No
syst
em
atic
mo
nit
ori
ng
eff
ort
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
No
tap
plic
able
Table 2. Estimated range of river otters Lontra canadensis in theUnited States during 2016 compared with 1998 (estimatedfrom Melquist et al. 2003), excluding Alaska.
Year Estimated range
1998 5,000,550 km2
2016 5,686,140 km2
Percent change 13.7
Table 3. Estimated range of river otters Lontra canadensis in theUnited States during 2016 compared with 1998 (estimatedfrom Melquist et al. 2003).
Year Estimated range
1998 6,736,558 km2
2016 7,422,120 km2
Percent change 10.2
River Otter Status in the United States N.M. Roberts et al.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management | www.fwspubs.org June 2020 | Volume 11 | Issue 1 | 284
Dow
nloaded from http://m
eridian.allenpress.com/jfw
m/article-pdf/11/1/279/2507380/i1944-687x-11-1-279.pdf by guest on 11 June 2020
Results from this 2016 assessment provide the mostrecent account of river otter status and distribution inUnited States to our knowledge. We found that riverotters have expanded their range significantly in thecontiguous United States since the last assessment in1998 (Melquist et al. 2003). Although methodologies andsampling scales differed from the approach used in ourassessment, comparisons of land areas occupied duringeach period provided a coarse-scale basis for estimatesof population expansion or retraction during an 18-yperiod. Given the large extent of the species’ range, wewere limited to county-level inference. Although isunlikely that river otters inhabit the entire county, webelieve this to be a sufficient and consistent with otherspecies assessments. It is also possible that we underes-timated the geographic extent of the range given thatpresence is unknown in some counties, particularly inarid regions, and these areas were excluded from ourestimate. Similarly, it is possible that false-negativesoccurred, particularly at lower population densities.Nevertheless, these results provide an empirical, albeitcoarse, contemporary estimate of river otter range in theUnited States. Melquist et al. (2003) suggested that in1998, as a result of wetland conservation and restorationefforts, river otters had expanded and inhabited approx-imately 90% of their former range. Our area estimates ofriver otter distribution in the contiguous United Statesduring 2016 (e.g., 5,686,140 km2) were strikingly similar(i.e., only 2.3% greater) to what Melquist et al. (2003)suggested as ‘potential’ range in their 1998 assessment
of 5,556,200 km2. This expansion was facilitated byrestoration programs as well as natural dispersal andexpansion of established populations.
River otters have a high dispersal capacity and arecapable of extensive long-distance movements overland, including mountainous terrain and across water-sheds (Magoun and Valkenburg 1977, Melquist andHornocker 1983). Although populations may continue toincrease numerically, river otters may be approachingtheir potential geographic distribution in the UnitedStates. Continued monitoring of the population statusand distribution at state and national levels would likelydetect any significant changes should they occur.
Supplemental Material
Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Managementis not responsible for the content or functionality of anysupplemental material. Queries should be directed to thecorresponding author for the article.
Figure S1. Example questionnaire distributed to statewildlife agencies in 2006.
Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/102018-JFWM-093.S1 (599 KB PDF).
Table S1. River otter Lontra canadensis status andmanagement questionnaire responses by state agencies
Figure 1. County-level distribution of river otter Lontra canadensis in the United States estimated by state wildlife agencies in in2016 (Alaska does not have county-level data and there is no occurrence in Hawaii).
River Otter Status in the United States N.M. Roberts et al.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management | www.fwspubs.org June 2020 | Volume 11 | Issue 1 | 285
Dow
nloaded from http://m
eridian.allenpress.com/jfw
m/article-pdf/11/1/279/2507380/i1944-687x-11-1-279.pdf by guest on 11 June 2020
in the United States during 2016 (Hawaii excluded).Description of metadata is included.
Found at DOI: https://doi.org/10.3996/102018-JFWM-093.S2 (38 KB XLSX).
Acknowledgments
We thank the many state natural resource agencies fortheir responses and cooperation. We also thank theAssociation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for logisticalassistance. T. Peltier, N. Forman, and W. Dodge alsoassisted with several aspects of this effort. We would alsolike to thank the Associate Editor and anonymousreviewers for constructive and value suggestions andcomments that improved the quality of this manuscript.
Any use of trade, product, website, or firm names inthis publication is for descriptive purposes only and doesnot imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
References
Anderson S. 1977. Geographic ranges of North Americanterrestrial mammals. American Museum Novitates2629:1–15.
Bowman M, Davies P, Redgwell C. 2010. Lyster’sinternational wildlife law. England: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
Chilelli ME, Griffith B, DJ Harrison. 1996. Interstatecomparisons of river otter harvest data. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 24:238–246.
Deems EF Jr, Pursley D. 1978. North American furbearers,their management, research, and harvest status in1976. International Association of Fish and WildlifeAgencies, USA.
[ESRI] Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2011.ArcGIS Desktop: release 10. Redlands, California:Environmental Systems Research Institute.
Erb J, Roberts NM, Dwyer C. 2018. An otterly successfulconservation story—the return of North American
river otters. The Wildlife Professional (May/June):45–49.
Greenwalt LA. 1977. International trade in endangeredspecies of wild fauna and flora. Federal Register42:10462–10488.
Magoun AJ, Valkenburg P. 1977. The river otter (Lutracanadensis) on the north slope of the Brooks Range,Alaska. Canadian Field Naturalist 91:303–305.
Mahoney SP, Geist V. 2019. The North American model ofwildlife conservation. Baltimore, Maryland: JohnsHopkins University Press.
Melquist WE, Hornocker MG. 1983. Ecology of river ottersin West Central Idaho. Wildlife Monographs 83.
Melquist WE, Polechla PJ Jr, Toweill D. 2003. River otter(Lontra canadensis). Pages 708–734 in Feldhamer GA,Thomspon BC, Chapman JA, editors. Wild mammals ofNorth America: biology, management and conserva-tion. Second edition. Baltimore, Maryland: JohnsHopkins University Press.
Polechla P. 1990. Action plan for North American otters.Pages 74–79 in Foster-Turley P, Macdonald S, Mason C,editors. Otters: an action plan for their conservation.Broadview, Illinois: Kelvyn Press.
Raesly EJ. 2001. Status of river otter reintroductionprojects in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin29:856–862.
Roberts N. 2010. Enhancing furbearer management inNew York State. Doctoral dissertation. Ithaca, NewYork: Cornell University.
Roberts NM, Crimmins SM, Hamilton DA, Gallagher E.2008. An evaluation of bridge-sign surveys to monitorriver otter (Lontra canadensis) populations. AmericanMidland Naturalist 160:358–363.
White BH, Decker T, O’Brien MJ, Organ JF, Roberts NM.2015. Trapping and furbearer management in NorthAmerican wildlife conservation. International Journalof Environmental Studies 72:756–769.
River Otter Status in the United States N.M. Roberts et al.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management | www.fwspubs.org June 2020 | Volume 11 | Issue 1 | 286
Dow
nloaded from http://m
eridian.allenpress.com/jfw
m/article-pdf/11/1/279/2507380/i1944-687x-11-1-279.pdf by guest on 11 June 2020