Lynx canadensis - Kerr, 1792
Canada Lynx
Other English Common Names: Canadian Lynx
Synonym(s): Felis canadensis ;Felis lynx canadensis ;Felis lynx
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Lynx canadensis Kerr, 1792 (TSN 180585)
French Common Names: lynx du Canada
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102126
Element Code: AMAJH03010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Mammals - Carnivores
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Mammalia Carnivora Felidae Lynx
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Concept Reference Code: B93WIL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Lynx canadensis
Taxonomic Comments: Placed in the genus Felis by some authors. Some authors regard L. lynx, L. canadensis, and L. pardinus as conspecific (see Tumlison 1987). Jones et al. (1992) treated L. canadensis and L. lynx as conspecific. Baker et al. (2003) amd Wozencraft (in Wilson and Reeder 1993, 2005) recognized L. canadensis (North America), L. lynx (Eurasia), and L. pardinus (Portugal, Spain) as separate species.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 04Apr2016
Global Status Last Changed: 19Nov1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Large range in northern North America; declines have occurred in some populations, but apparently still widespread and relatively abundant in most of historic range, though population data are lacking for many areas; habitat loss/fragmentation and susceptibility to overharvest are the major concerns.

In the contiguous U.S., overall numbers and range are substantially reduced from historical levels. At present, numbers have not recovered from overexploitation by both regulated and unregulated harvest that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. Forest management practices that result in the loss of diverse age structure, fragmentation, roading, urbanization, agriculture, recreational developments, and unnatural fire frequencies have altered suitable habitat in many areas. As a result, many states may have insufficient habitat quality and/or quantity to sustain lynx or their prey. Human access into habitat has increased dramatically over the last few decades contributing to direct and indirect mortality and displacement from suitable habitat. Although legal take is highly restricted, existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to protect small, remnant populations or to conserve habitat. Competition with bobcats and coyotes may be a concern in some areas.

Nation: United States
National Status: N4? (15Jan1997)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (30Dec2011)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alaska (S4), Colorado (S1), Idaho (S1), Indiana (SX), Maine (S2), Massachusetts (SX), Michigan (S1), Minnesota (SNR), Montana (S3), Nevada (SX), New Hampshire (S1), New York (SX), North Dakota (SU), Ohio (SX), Oregon (S1?), Pennsylvania (SX), Utah (S2), Vermont (S1), Washington (S1), Wyoming (S1)
Canada Alberta (S4), British Columbia (S4), Labrador (S4), Manitoba (S5), New Brunswick (S1), Newfoundland Island (S3S4), Northwest Territories (S5), Nova Scotia (S1), Nunavut (S4), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (SX), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S5), Yukon Territory (S5)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): PS:LT
Comments on USESA: USFWS (Federal Register, 26 August 1994) found that federal listing of the North American population may be warranted and initiated a formal status review. USFWS (Federal Register, 27 May 1997) determined that listing of the contiguous U.S. population is warranted but precluded by other higher priority actions. USFWS (Federal Register, 8 July 1998) proposed listing the U.S. lower 48 population segment as threatened. USFWS (Federal Register, 8 July 1999) extended for not more than six months a decision to list the contiguous United State population segment as a threatened species; this extension was made to allow time to resolve a dispute over the status of the U.S. lower 48 lynx population. USFWS (2000) determined threatened status for the contiguous U.S. distinct population segment of L. canadensis.

USFWS (2006) designated critical habitat for the contiguous U.S. distinct population segment. In total, approximately 1.841 square miles (4,768 square kilometers) fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation, in three units in the States of Minnesota, Montana and Washington (Federal Register, 9 November 2006).

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lead Region: R6 - Rocky Mountain
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Not at Risk (01May2001)
IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Protection Status (CITES): Appendix II

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Throughout Alaska and Canada (except arctic islands) south through the Rocky Mountains, northern Great Lakes region, and northern New England. Also northern Eurasia if regarded as conspecific with LYNX LYNX (=FELIS LYNX). See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1998) for information on distribution and relative abundance in the contiguous U.S. Considered historically resident in 16 states represented by five ecologically distinct regions: Cascade Range (Washington, Oregon), northern Rocky Mountains (northeastern Washington, southeastern Oregon, Idaho, Montana, western Wyoming, northern Utah), southern Rocky Mountains (southeastern Wyoming, Colorado), northern Great Lakes (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan ), and northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts). Resident populations currently exist only in Maine, Montana, Washington, and possibly Minnesota; considered extant but no longer sustaining self-support populations in Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado; may be extirpated from New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). See Stardom (1988 COSEWIC report) for information on distribution and relative abundance in Canada, where still widespread and relatively abundant in most of historic range. See USFWS (2000) for a state-by-state review of historical and current distribution.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Unknown, but numerous--Nearctic (or Holarctic) distribution.

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total population size is unknown, but it varies cyclically with availability of food; total probably is at least in the hundreds of thousands during population peaks, based on annual harvests in Canada that periodically exceed 50,000 (Nowak 1991). British Columbia population was estimated to vary between 200,000 and 250,000 (Goodchild and Munro 1980). See Stardom (1988 COSEWIC report) for information on status in Canada. In the contiguous U.S., total population size is unknown, but probably less than 2,000. Colorado: only 18 positive recordrds; none since 1973; proposing to reintroduce lynx (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1997). Idaho: less than 100 individuals (C. Harris, pers. comm., 1997). Maine: less than 200 individuals (C. McLaughlin, pers. comm., 1997). Oregon: perhaps fewer than 75 individuals (E. Gaines, pers. comm., 1997). Utah: very rare, few if any extant occurrences (G. Oliver, pers. comm., 1997). Montana: 740-1040 individuals (B. Giddings, pers. comm., 1998). Washington: 72-191 individuals (Washington Department of Wildlife 1993, Washington Department of Natural Resources 1996). Wyoming: less than 100 individuals (B. Oakleaf, pers. comm., 1998). Periodic increases in lynx numbers may be accentuated by dispersal of transient animals from Canadian populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). It has been suggested that, because lynx occurrence throughout much of the continguous U.S. is on the southern periphery of the species' range, the presence of lynx is solely a consequence of dispersal from Canada and that most of the U.S. may never have supported self-sustaining, resident populations over time (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).

Overall Threat Impact Comments: In determining threatened status for the contiguous U.S. distinct population segment, USFWS (2000) cited the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. "Current U.S. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans include programs, practices, and activities within the authority and jurisdiction of federal land management agencies that may threaten lynx or lynx habitat. The lack of protection for lynx in these plans render[s] them inadequate to protect the species" (USFWS 2000). Past extensive logging that eliminated habitat for lynx and snowshoe hare was detrimental. Habitat has been lost due to suppression of forest fires and ecological succession to habitats that no longer support snowshoe hare and lynx. Fragmentation, due to forestry, agriculture, and roads, and the subsequent isolation of suitable habitat is a concern. Lack of immigration from Canadian lynx populations is an important factor in some regions. Past excessive trapping of lynx (as recently as the 1970s and 1980s) depressed populations and may have been detrimental to local lynx populations in Washington (see U.S. Forest Service et al. 1993) and elsewhere (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Road construction causes habitat fragmentation and allows increased human access into lynx habitat; this may increase lynx mortality by facilitating access to hunters and trappers (although there is no legal harvest except for two lynx per year in Montana); incidental harvest of lynx in the course of legal trapping/hunting for other species may be a problem in some areas. Increased winter recreation (snowmobiles, ski area development) may be causing displacement and/or incidental mortality of lynx. Habitat changes and increased access into lynx habitats has resulted in increased competition and displacement of lynx by bobcat and coyote in some areas.

Short-term Trend Comments: Regionally variable. Local densities fluctuate with hare densities in core of range in Alaska and Canada; this has not been demonstrated for populations on the southern periphery of the range in the contiguous U.S. Periodic increases in lynx numbers in the contiguous United States may be accentuated by dispersal of transient animals from Canadian populations. USFWS (2000) presented a state by state review of status in the contiguous U.S.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Continue monitoring of populations.

Protection Needs: Protect from overharvest.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Throughout Alaska and Canada (except arctic islands) south through the Rocky Mountains, northern Great Lakes region, and northern New England. Also northern Eurasia if regarded as conspecific with LYNX LYNX (=FELIS LYNX). See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1998) for information on distribution and relative abundance in the contiguous U.S. Considered historically resident in 16 states represented by five ecologically distinct regions: Cascade Range (Washington, Oregon), northern Rocky Mountains (northeastern Washington, southeastern Oregon, Idaho, Montana, western Wyoming, northern Utah), southern Rocky Mountains (southeastern Wyoming, Colorado), northern Great Lakes (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan ), and northern New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts). Resident populations currently exist only in Maine, Montana, Washington, and possibly Minnesota; considered extant but no longer sustaining self-support populations in Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado; may be extirpated from New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). See Stardom (1988 COSEWIC report) for information on distribution and relative abundance in Canada, where still widespread and relatively abundant in most of historic range. See USFWS (2000) for a state-by-state review of historical and current distribution.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AK, CO, ID, INextirpated, MAextirpated, ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, NH, NVextirpated, NYextirpated, OHextirpated, OR, PAextirpated, UT, VT, WA, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, NU, ON, PEextirpated, QC, SK, YT

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: Sechrest, 2002


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CO Archuleta (08007)*, Chaffee (08015)*, Clear Creek (08019)*, Conejos (08021)*, Costilla (08023), Eagle (08037), Garfield (08045), Grand (08049)*, Gunnison (08051)*, Hinsdale (08053)*, Huerfano (08055), Jackson (08057)*, La Plata (08067)*, Lake (08065)*, Larimer (08069), Mineral (08079)*, Moffat (08081)*, Montezuma (08083), Ouray (08091)*, Park (08093)*, Pitkin (08097)*, Rio Blanco (08103)*, Routt (08107), San Juan (08111)*, Summit (08117)
ID Adams (16003), Bear Lake (16007)*, Blaine (16013), Boise (16015), Bonner (16017), Bonneville (16019), Boundary (16021), Butte (16023)*, Camas (16025), Caribou (16029), Clark (16033), Clearwater (16035), Custer (16037), Elmore (16039), Fremont (16043), Idaho (16049), Jerome (16053)*, Kootenai (16055)*, Latah (16057), Lemhi (16059), Lewis (16061)*, Nez Perce (16069), Oneida (16071)*, Power (16077), Shoshone (16079), Teton (16081), Twin Falls (16083)*, Valley (16085)
MI Keweenaw (26083)*, Mackinac (26097)*
MT Carbon (30009), Flathead (30029), Gallatin (30031), Granite (30039), Lincoln (30053), Missoula (30063), Park (30067), Powell (30077), Stillwater (30095), Sweet Grass (30097)
ND Foster (38031)*, Stutsman (38093)*
OR Grant (41023), Umatilla (41059)
PA Tioga (42117)*
UT Cache (49005), Daggett (49009)*, Emery (49015), Sanpete (49039), Sevier (49041), Summit (49043)*, Uintah (49047)*, Wasatch (49051)*
VT Essex (50009)
WA Chelan (53007)+, Ferry (53019)+, King (53033)+, Kittitas (53037)+, Klickitat (53039)+, Okanogan (53047)+, Pend Oreille (53051)+, Skagit (53057)+, Skamania (53059)+, Snohomish (53061)+, Spokane (53063)+, Stevens (53065)+, Whatcom (53073)+, Yakima (53077)+
WY Albany (56001), Big Horn (56003)*, Carbon (56007), Converse (56009)*, Fremont (56013), Johnson (56019)*, Lincoln (56023), Park (56029), Sheridan (56033)*, Sublette (56035), Sweetwater (56037)*, Teton (56039), Uinta (56041)*, Weston (56045)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Upper Connecticut (01080101)+
02 Pine (02050205)+*
04 Carp-Pine (04070002)+*, St. Francois River (04150500)+
09 Middle Sheyenne (09020203)+*
10 Madison (10020007)+, Gallatin (10020008)+, Yellowstone Headwaters (10070001)+, Upper Yellowstone (10070002)+, Stillwater (10070005)+, Clarks Fork Yellowstone (10070006)+, Upper Wind (10080001)+, Little Wind (10080002)+, Popo Agie (10080003)+, Muskrat (10080004)+*, Greybull (10080009)+*, Big Horn Lake (10080010)+*, North Fork Shoshone (10080012)+, Little Bighorn (10080016)+*, Upper Tongue (10090101)+*, Crazy Woman (10090205)+*, Clear (10090206)+*, Beaver (10120107)+*, James Headwaters (10160001)+*, North Platte Headwaters (10180001)+*, Upper North Platte (10180002)+, Medicine Bow (10180004)+, Glendo Reservoir (10180008)+*, Upper Laramie (10180010)+, South Platte Headwaters (10190001)+*, Upper South Platte (10190002)+*, Clear (10190004)+*, Cache La Poudre (10190007)+, Crow (10190009)+*
11 Arkansas Headwaters (11020001)+*, Huerfano (11020006)+
13 Alamosa-Trinchera (13010002)+, Conejos (13010005)+*, Rio Chama (13020102)+*
14 Colorado headwaters (14010001)+, Blue (14010002)+, Eagle (14010003)+, Roaring Fork (14010004)+*, Colorado headwaters-Plateau (14010005)+*, East-Taylor (14020001)+*, Upper Gunnison (14020002)+*, North Fork Gunnison (14020004)+*, Uncompahange (14020006)+*, Upper Dolores (14030002)+, Upper Green (14040101)+, New Fork (14040102)+, Upper Green-Slate (14040103)+*, Big Sandy (14040104)+*, Upper Green-Flaming Gorge Reservoir (14040106)+*, Blacks Fork (14040107)+, Muddy (14040108)+*, Upper Yampa (14050001)+, Little Snake (14050003)+, Upper White (14050005)+*, Ashley-Brush (14060002)+*, Strawberry (14060004)+*, San Rafael (14060009)+, Fremont (14070003)+, Upper San Juan (14080101)+*, Piedra (14080102)+*, Animas (14080104)+*, Middle San Juan (14080105)+*, Mancos (14080107)+*
16 Upper Bear (16010101)+*, Central Bear (16010102)+, Bear Lake (16010201)+*, Middle Bear (16010202)+, Lower Bear-Malad (16010204)+*, Upper Weber (16020101)+*, Provo (16020203)+*
17 Upper Kootenai (17010101)+, Fisher (17010102)+, Yaak (17010103)+, Lower Kootenai (17010104)+, Moyie (17010105)+, Elk (17010106)+, Upper Clark Fork (17010201)+, Flint-Rock (17010202)+, Blackfoot (17010203)+, North Fork Flathead (17010206)+, Flathead Lake (17010208)+, Stillwater (17010210)+, Lower Flathead (17010212)+, Lower Clark Fork (17010213)+, Pend Oreille Lake (17010214)+, Priest (17010215)+, Pend Oreille (17010216)+, Upper Coeur D'alene (17010301)+, Coeur D'alene Lake (17010303)+*, St. Joe (17010304)+, Upper Spokane (17010305), Little Spokane (17010308), Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (17020001), Kettle (17020002), Colville (17020003), Sanpoil (17020004), Chief Joseph (17020005), Okanogan (17020006), Similkameen (17020007), Methow (17020008), Lake Chelan (17020009), Upper Columbia-Entiat (17020010), Wenatchee (17020011), Upper Yakima (17030001), Naches (17030002), Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003), Snake headwaters (17040101)+, Gros Ventre (17040102)+, Greys-Hobock (17040103)+, Palisades (17040104)+, Salt (17040105)+, Upper Henrys (17040202)+, Lower Henrys (17040203)+, Teton (17040204)+, Blackfoot (17040207)+*, Lake Walcott (17040209)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+*, Beaver-Camas (17040214)+, Medicine Lodge (17040215)+, Little Lost (17040217)+*, Big Lost (17040218)+*, Big Wood (17040219)+, Little Wood (17040221)+*, North and Middle Forks Boise (17050111)+, South Fork Boise (17050113)+, South Fork Payette (17050120)+, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Brownlee Reservoir (17050201)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103)+, Upper Grande Ronde (17060104)+, Palouse (17060108)+*, Upper Salmon (17060201)+, Pahsimeroi (17060202)+, Middle Salmon-Panther (17060203)+, Lemhi (17060204)+, Upper Middle Fork Salmon (17060205)+, Lower Middle Fork Salmon (17060206)+, Middle Salmon-Chamberlain (17060207)+, South Fork Salmon (17060208)+*, Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Little Salmon (17060210)+*, Upper Selway (17060301)+*, Lochsa (17060303)+, Middle Fork Clearwater (17060304)+, South Fork Clearwater (17060305)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Upper North Fork Clearwater (17060307)+, Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105), North Fork John Day (17070202)+, Lewis (17080002), Upper Skagit (17110005), Sauk (17110006), Snoqualmie (17110010), Lake Washington (17110012)
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: A medium-sized cat.
Reproduction Comments: Breeds in late winter-early spring in North America. Gestation lasts 62-74 days. Litter size averages 3-4; adult females produce one litter every 1-2 years. Young stay with mother until next mating season or longer. Some females give birth as yearlings, but their pregnancy rate is lower than that of older females (Brainerd 1985). Prey scarcity suppresses breeding and may result in mortality of nearly all young (Brand and Keith 1979).
Ecology Comments: Home range increases, and individuals may become nomadic, when prey is scarce (Ward and Krebs 1985, Saunders 1963, Mech 1980). Range of male (average often about 15-30 sq km, but up to hundreds of sq km in Alaska and Minnesota) is larger than that of female. Spatial organization observed prior to low hare densities in Northwest Territories may be described as a land-tenure system, based on prior residency, and may have served to regulate density during peak prey levels (Poole 1995). Long distance dispersal movements of up to several hundred kilometers have been recorded.

Population density usually is less than 10 (locally up to 20) per 100 sq km, depending on prey availability. Mean densities range between 2 and 9 per 100 sq km (McCord and Cardoza 1982).

Usually solitary.

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Alpine, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Mixed, Tundra, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Standing snag/hollow tree
Habitat Comments: Generally occurs in boreal and montane regions dominated by coniferous or mixed forest with thick undergrowth, but also sometimes enters open forest, rocky areas, and tundra to forage for abundant prey. When inactive or birthing, occupies den typically in hollow tree, under stump, or in thick brush. Den sites tend to be in mature or old growth stands with a high density of logs (Koehler 1990, Koehler and Brittell 1990).

U.S. Forest Service et al. (1993) listed three primary habitat components for lynx in the Pacific Northwest: (1) foraging habitat (15-35-year-old lodgepole pine) to support snowshoe hare and provide hunting cover, (2) denning sites (patches of >200-year-old spruce and fir, generally less than 5 acres, and (3) dispersal/travel cover (variable in vegetation composition and structure).

Major limiting factor is abundance of snowshoe hare, which in turn is limited by availability of winter habitat (in the Pacific Northwest, primarily early successional lodgepole pine with trees at least 6 feet tall) (U.S. Forest Service et al. 1993).

Adult Food Habits: Carnivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore
Food Comments: Eats primarily small mammals and birds, particularly LEPUS AMERICANUS. Occasionally feeds on squirrels, small mammals, beaver, deer, moose, muskrat, and birds; some taken as carrion. May cache food for later use.
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Mainly nocturnal. Most active from 2 hours after sunset to one hour after sunrise (Banfield 1974).
Length: 107 centimeters
Weight: 18100 grams
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Management Requirements: Trapping may be major source of mortality; such mortality is in addition to natural mortality during times of low hare abundance and low recruitment (Brittell et al. 1989). Refugia not subject to trapping may be important in maintaining populations during periods of low recruitment (Ward and Krebs 1985).

For the Pacific Northwest, U.S. Forest Service et al. (1993) recommended the following actions within known lynx range: (1) minimizing road construction, closing unused roads, and maintaining roads to the minimum standard possible, (2) using prescribed fire to maintain forage for snowshoe hare in juxtaposition with hunting cover for lynx, (3) designating areas to be closed to kill trapping of any furbearer to avoid incidental lynx mortality to maintain population refugia for lynx in key areas, (4) planning for kill-trapping closure on a wider basis if data indicate a declining lynx population as a result of incidental trapping mortality, and (5) developing and implementing a credible survey and monitoring stretegy to determine the distribution of lynx throughout its potential range.

Management Research Needs: Develop accurate and reliable population size and trend indices.

Initiate intensive long-term studies of populations with known sex and age structure, reproductive activities, home ranges, habitat use, food habits, trends in prey species and interactions with other predators; such areas should then be tested with closely regulated harvest programs to determine optimal management strategies (McCord and Cardoza 1982).

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals in appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: None.
Alternate Separation Procedure: Occurrences generally should be based on major occupied physiographic or ecogeographic units that are separated along areas of relatively low lynx density or use (e.g., major urban areas, very rugged alpine ridges, very wide bodies of water). These units may be based on available lynx sightings/records or on movements of radio-tagged individuals, or they may be based on the subjective determinations by biologists familiar with lynx and their habitats. Where occupied habitat is exceptionally extensive and continuous, that habitat may be subdivided into multiple contiguous occurrences as long as that does not reduce the occurrence rank (i.e., do not split up an A occurrence into multiple occurrences that would be ranked less than A).
Separation Justification: Lynx are highly mobile and, during prey scarcity, may disperse 100 km or more. Populations and metapopulations tend to encompass large areas. Hence, meaningful occurrences should represent large occupied landscape units, but these often will not be demographically isolated from other occurrences.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 6 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Based on a home range of 30 square kilometers.
Date: 28Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G., and S. Cannings
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 17Feb2000
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Harris, C. E., E. W. West, F. Dirrigl, Jr., and G. Hammerson
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 13Sep1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Alvo, R. 1998. National status evaluation of 20 selected animal species inhabiting Canada's forests. Final Report prepared for the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Biodiversity Convention Office and the Canadian Forest Service. 328 pp.

  • Andersen, M.D. 2011. Maxent-based species distribution models. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Andersen, M.D. and B. Heidel. 2011. HUC-based species range maps. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for use in the pilot WISDOM application operational from inception to yet-to-be-determined date of update of tool.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des mammifères du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 5 pages.

  • BEAUVAIS, G.P. 1999. VERTEBRATES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ON THE PITCHFORK RANCH. Unpublished report for the Pitchfork Ranch by WYNDD-University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.

  • Bailey, T. N., E. E. Bangs, M. F. Portner, J. C. Malloy, and R. J. McAvinchey. 1986. An apparent overexploited lynx population on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:279-290.

  • Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan mammals. Michigan State University Press. 642 pp.

  • Baker, R. J., L. C. Bradley, R. D. Bradley, J. W. Dragoo, M. D. Engstrom, R. S. Hoffman, C. A. Jones, F. Reid, D. W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 229:1-23.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.

  • Banfield, A. W. F. 1977. Les Mammifères du Canada. Publié pour le Musée national des sciences naturelles, Musées nationaux du Canada, par les Presses de l'Université Laval. 406 p.

  • Beauvais, G. P. 1999. The status of rare vertebrates in the Bighorn landscape. Unpublished report prepared by WYNDD for the Wyoming Field Office of The Nature Conservancy.

  • Beauvais, Gary P., Douglas Keinath, and Jonathan Ratner. 2001. Habitat mapping and field surveys for Lynx (Lynx canadensis) on lands administered by the USDI Bureau of Land Management by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Beck, W.H. 1958. A guide to Saskatchewan mammals. Special Publication No. 1. Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Regina, Saskatchewan.

  • Bergerud, A. 1971. The population dynamics of Newfoundland caribou. Wildlife Monographs 25.

  • Bighorn National Forest. 1996. Endangered and Sensitive animal species of the Bighorn National Forest. Unpublished draft report on file at Bighorn NF Supervisor's Office, Sheridan, Wyoming.

  • Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: <http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf> (Accessed April 1, 2015)

  • Brainerd, S. M. 1985. Reproductive ecology of bobcats and lynx in western Montana. M.S. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 85 pp.

  • Brainerd, S. M. 1985. Reproductive ecology of bobcats and lynx in western Montana. M.S. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 85 pp.

  • Brand, C. J., L. B. Keith, and C. A. Fischer. 1976. Lynx responses to changing showshoe hare densities in central Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 40(3):416-428.

  • Brand, C. J., and L. B. Keith. 1979. Lynx demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:827-849.

  • Brand, C. J., and L. B. Keith. 1979. Lynx demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:827-849.

  • Brittell, J. D., R. J. Poelker, S. J. Sweeney, and G. M. Koehler. 1989. Native cats of Washington. Section III: Lynx. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia. 169 pp.

  • Brittell, J. D., R. J. Poelker, S. J. Sweeney, and G. M. Koehler. 1989. Native cats of Washington. Section III: Lynx. Unpublished report. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia. 169 pp.

  • Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986 (revised). Lynx: Canadian status report for the Committee on International Trade in Endangered Species.

  • Carbyn, L. N., and D. Patriquin. 1983. Observations on home range sizes, movements, and social organization of lynx (LYNX CANADENSIS), in Riding Mountain National Park. Canadian Field-Naturalist 97:262-267.

  • Chapman, J. A., and G. A. Feldhamer, editors. 1982. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

  • Clark, Tim W. and Mark R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas.

  • Dolbeer, R. A., and W. R. Clark. 1975. Population ecology of snowshoe hares in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 39:535-549.

  • Evers, D. C. 1992. A guide to Michigan's endangered wildlife. Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. viii + 103 pp.

  • Ewer, R. F. 1973. The carnivores. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. 494pp.

  • Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. General Technical Report RM-215. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 38 p.

  • Godin, A. J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 304 pp.

  • Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.

  • Hamilton, W. J., Jr., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.

  • Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 602 pp.

  • Honacki, J. H., et al., eds. 1982. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographical Reference. Allen Press, Inc. and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. 694 pp.

  • Jankovsky-Jones, M., G. Jones, and F. W. 1995. Ecological evaluation for the potential Threemile Research Natural Area within the Medicine Bow National Forest, Carbon County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Medicine Bow National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Jankovsky-Jones, M., G. Jones, and W. Fertig. 1995. Ecological evaluation for the potential Ribbon Forest Research Natural Area within the Medicine Bow National Forest, Carbon County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 40 pp.

  • Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.

  • Keinath, D.A. 2005. Supplementary mammal inventory of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Unpublished report prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Data Base for USDI National Park Service Greater Yellowstone Inventory and Monitoring Program Bozeman, Montana.

  • Kitchener, A. 1991. The natural history of the wild cats. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca. xxi + 280 pp.

  • Koehler, G. M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central Washington. Can. J. Zool. 68:845-851.

  • Koehler, G. M. 1990. Snowshoe hare, LEPUS AMERICANUS, use of forest successional stages and population changes during 1985-1989 in north-central Washington. Can. Field-Nat. 105:291-293.

  • Koehler, G. M. 1990a. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:845-851.

  • Koehler, G. M. 1990b. Snowshoe hare, Lepus americanus, use of forest successional stages and population changes during 1985-1989 in north-central Washington. Can. Field-Nat. 105:291-293.

  • Koehler, G. M., and K. B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. Pages 74-98 in Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores in the western United States: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-254.

  • Long, C.A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. Univ. of Kansas, Publ. Museum of Natural History 14: 493-758.

  • Madson, C. 1995. Lynx on the list? Wyoming Wildlife 59 (3): 24-31.

  • Madson, C. and Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. staff. 1995. Ferret future? Wyoming Wildlife 59(2): 30-35.

  • McCord, C. M., and J. E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat and lynx FELIS REFUS and F. LYNX. Pages 728-766 in Chapman, J. A., and G. A. Feldhamer, editors. 1982. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

  • Meaney, C. and G.P. Beauvais. 2004. Species assessment for Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) in Wyoming. Report prepared for USDI Wyoming Bureau of Land Management by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming.

  • Mech, L. D. 1980. Age, sex, reproduction, spatial organization of lynxes colonizing northeastern Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy 61:261-267.

  • Merrill, E.H., T.W. Kohley, and M.E. Herdendorf. 1996. Wyoming Gap Analysis terrestrial vertebrate species map atlas. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie WY. 982 pp. in 2 volumes.

  • Mills, S. and M. Neighbours. 1995. Intensive data gathering project (fine-filter analysis) for occurrences of rare, threatened, endangered and sensitive species in sections M331H and M331I, north central highlands and northern parks and ranges, in Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for Medicine Bow National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. 294 pp.

  • Murray, D. L., S. Boutin, and M. O'Donoghue. 1994. Winter habitat selection by lynx and coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare abundance. Canadian J. Zoology 72:1444-1451.

  • Nellis, C. H., S. P. Wetmore, and L. B. Keith. 1972. Lynx-prey interactions in central Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:320-329.

  • Novak, M., et al., editors. 1987. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.

  • Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. Fifth edition. Vols. I and II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. 1629 pp.

  • O'Donoghue, M., S. Boutin, C. J. Krebs, D. L. Murray, and E. J. Hofer. 1998a. Behavioural responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Oikos 82:169-183.

  • O'Donoghue, M., S. Boutin, C. J. Krebs, G. Zuleta, D. L. Murray, and E. J. Hofer. 1998b. Functional responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Ecology 79:1193-1208.

  • O'Donoghue, M., S. Boutin, C. J. Krebs, and E. J. Hofer. 1997. Numerical responses of coyotes and lynx to the snowshoe hare cycle. Oikos 80:150-162.

  • Oakleaf B., A. Cerovski, and B. Luce. 1997. Interim Completion Report -Sensitive Species Inventory. Wyoming Game & Fish Department, Lander, WY. 31pp.

  • Parker, G. R., J. W. Maxwell, L. D. Morton, and G.E.D. Smith. 1983. The ecology of lynx (LYNX CANADENSIS) on Cape Breton Island. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:770-786.

  • Parks Canada. 2000. Vertebrate Species Database. Ecosystems Branch, 25 Eddy St., Hull, PQ, K1A 0M5.

  • Poole, K. G. 1994. Characteristics of an unharvested lynx population during a snowshoe hare decline. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:608-618.

  • Poole, K. G. 1995. Spatial organization of a lynx population. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:632-641.

  • Poole, K. G. 1997. Dispersal patterns of lynx in the Northwest Territories. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:497-505.

  • Prescott J. et P. Richard. 2004.. Mammifères du Québec et de l'est du Canada. Editions Michel Quintin, 2ème édition. 399 pages.

  • Quin, N.W.S. and G. Parker. 1987. Lynx. pp. 682-694. in Novak, M., Baker, J.A., Obbard, M.E., and B. Malloch (eds). 1987. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto. 1150pp.

  • Quinn, N. W. S., and J. E. Thompson. 1987. Dynamics of an exploited Canada lynx population in Ontario. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:297-305.

  • Reeve, A., F. Lindzey, and S. Buskirk. 1986. Historic and recent distribution of the Lynx in Wyoming. Wyoming Cooperative Fishery and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, WY.

  • Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, editors. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores in the western United States: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-254.

  • Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubrey, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyor, and W.J. Zielinski. (Technical editors) 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. General technical report RM-254. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 184 p.

  • Runge, W. and D. Henry. 1988. Wild furbearers of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture, Booklet.

  • Saunders, J.K. 1963. Movements and activities of the lynx in Newfoundland. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 27(3):390-400.

  • Seidel, J., B. Andree, S. Berlinger, K. Buell, G. Byrne, B. Gill, D. Kenvin, and D. Reed. 1998. Draft strategy for the conservation and reestablishment of lynx and wolverine in the southern Rocky Mountains. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. 116 pp.

  • Slough, B. G., and G. Mowat. 1996. Lynx population dynamics in an untrapped refugium. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:946-961.

  • Thomas, J. W., Ward, J., Raphael, M.G., Anthony, R.G., Forsman, E.D., Gunderson, A.G., Holthausen, R.S., Marcot, B.G., Reeves, G.H., Sedell, J.R. and Solis, D.M. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. The report of the Scientific Analysis Team. USDA Forest Service, Spotted Owl EIS Team, Portland Oregon. 530 pp.

  • Tumlison, R. 1987. Felis lynx. Mammalian Species 269:1-8.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal notice of review. Federal Register 56(225):58804-58836. 50 CFR (17).

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 24 March 2000. Determination of threatened status for the contiguous U.S. distinct population segment of the Canada lynx and related rule. Federal Register 65(58):16052-16086.

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 8 July 1998. Proposal to list the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx as a threatened species; and the captive population of Canada lynx within the coterminous United States (lower 48 states) as threatened due to similarity of appearance, with a special rule. Federal Register 63:36994-37013.

  • U.S. Forest Service (USFS), et al. 1993. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Published separately is Appendix A: Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment (FEMAT Report).

  • Ward, R. M. P., and C. J. Krebs. 1985. Behavioural responses of lynx to declining snowshoe hare abundance. Can. J. Zool. 63:2817-2824.

  • Washington Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Lynx habitat management plan for DNR managed lands. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 180pp.

  • Washington Department of Wildlife. 1993. Status of the North American lynx (LYNX CANADENSIS). Unpublished report, Washington Department of Wildlife. 101 pp.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Crazy Woman Creek Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Johnson County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Dry Fork Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Sheridan County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential McLain Lake Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Big Horn and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Pheasant Creek Research Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Johnson County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Welp, L., W. Fertig, and G. Jones. 1998. Ecological evaluation of the potential Poison Creek Natural Area within the Bighorn National Forest, Johnson County, Wyoming. Unpublished report prepared for the Bighorn National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.

  • Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. Available online at: http://vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm

  • Wolff, J. O. 1980. The role of habitat patchiness in the population dynamics of snowshoe hares. Ecological Monographs 50:111-130.

  • Wolff, J. O. 1982. Refugia, dispersal, predation, and geographic variation in snowshoe hare cycles. Pages 441-449 in K. Myers and C. D. MacInnes, editors. Proceedings World Lagomorph Conference, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

  • Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1996. Nongame Bird and Mammal Plan, a plan for inventories and management of nongame birds and mammals in Wyoming. Prepared by B. Oakleaf, A.O. Cerovski, and B. Luce, Nongame Program Biological Services Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. 183 pp.

  • van Zyll de Jong. 1971. The status and management of the Canada lynx in Canada. Proc. Sympos. Native Cats of North America. Their status and management. U.S. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Region 3, v+139 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.