|
Author
|
Topic: Kitt (Swift ) fox
|
Tim Behle
Administrator MacNeal Sector
Member # 209
|
posted October 28, 2006 05:16 AM
Can Kit fox howl?
I just had something howl from the edge of my drive way. It sounded like three very high pitched lone howls. Higher that even a coyote pup.
It sure fired up the dogs, and they took off.
--------------------
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take
an ass kickin'.
Posts: 3160 | From: Five Miles East of Vic, AZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rich Higgins
unknown comic
|
posted October 28, 2006 08:18 AM
Tim, Kit fox don't howl. The coyotes around your house do. On my video I devoted an entire clip to a coyote in a pack of seven that howled like a high pitched kazoo whistle. Darndest thing I ever heard.
IP: Logged
|
|
Tim Behle
Administrator MacNeal Sector
Member # 209
|
posted October 28, 2006 12:31 PM
That's a pretty close discription of what it sounded like.
But the coyotes don't normally come that close to the house. They usually set off 100-200 yards and fire up the dogs, but those little fox come in close, bark and then duck down a hole.
It was the dangest thing, I've never heard anything howl like that before.
--------------------
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take
an ass kickin'.
Posts: 3160 | From: Five Miles East of Vic, AZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TA17Rem
Hello, I'm the legendary Tim Anderson, Field Marshall, Southern Minneesota Sector
Member # 794
|
posted October 29, 2006 08:59 PM
Never heard kit fox howl, but i have heard red fox bark, they sound much like a small dog with a very bad cold.
--------------------
What if I told you, the left wing and right wing both belong to same bird!
Posts: 5064 | From: S.D. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tim Behle
Administrator MacNeal Sector
Member # 209
|
posted October 29, 2006 09:52 PM
Have you heard a grey fox? Sounds more like they are hacking up a hairball than trying to bark.
These Kit fox sound like a small dog. Two or three barks, then they haul ass to the other side of the house. It keeps the dogs running all night. Once in a while the dogs get one pinned in a hole with no exit, it takes them half of the morning before they dig him up and kill him.
--------------------
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take
an ass kickin'.
Posts: 3160 | From: Five Miles East of Vic, AZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
NASA
Knows what it's all about
Member # 177
|
posted October 30, 2006 09:26 AM
Not to sound like a pampass knowitall, but Kit's and Swifts are not the same. Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis) and Swift Fox (Vulpes velox), have been proven by DNA testing to be two distinct species.
The Swift fox is noticeably smaller than the Kit fox, and has a longer, narrower snout.
[ October 30, 2006, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: NASA ]
Posts: 1168 | From: Typical White Person | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Locohead
World Famous Smoke Dancer
Member # 15
|
posted October 30, 2006 10:02 AM
PROVE IT TOM!!!!! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I bet they are different the same way there are 17 or 19 or whatever different coyotes.
I can't tell a difference.
[ October 30, 2006, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Locohead ]
--------------------
I love my critters and chick!!!! :)
Posts: 2219 | From: CO | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted October 30, 2006 10:11 AM
I didn't know that, Tom? I can tell you this, though. Most people use the terms indiscriminately, and call kitt fox swift fox, and visa versa. And, it's because "most people" can't tell the difference, without "guidance" from our friends in the scientific community. Man, that just rubs me wrong when they tell us that they "proved" something with DNA. Whatever.
You know what I mean.
Good hunting. LB
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31462 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
NASA
Knows what it's all about
Member # 177
|
posted October 30, 2006 11:01 AM
The Swift only occurs east of the Rocky Mtns. (Bailey, Hoffmann, Pattie) and no further west than WY (Long, 1965). Both have overlapping territories in only CO, NM, and TX (Thornton & Creel, 1975). http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-122-0 1-0001.pdf
Electrophoretograms of serum protein and hemoglobin from V. Velox and V. Macrotis were compared by Thornton & Creel in 1975 and found to be clinically different. There is, however, a close similarity between the karyotypes of each species. DNA fragment analysis supports splitting these foxes into two separate species. There are also physical and dimensional differences such as tail to body length ratio, and skull morphology.
There are presently captive breeding programs for V. Velox with the intended goal of reintroducing them into their historical territories. DNA profiling was necessary to ensure only true V. Velox were being bred and not V. Macrotis, or some hybrid of the two.
DNA extraction and analysis was performed by CO State University under the supervision of faculty and staff from the Department of Evolutionary Biology, Zoological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
[ October 30, 2006, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: NASA ]
Posts: 1168 | From: Typical White Person | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
NASA
Knows what it's all about
Member # 177
|
posted October 30, 2006 01:51 PM
Danny, just like the coyote, the Kit Fox has several subspecies.
The San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) was formerly common in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Its range has shrunk and in 1990 the population was estimated at 7,000. It is considered to be endangered.
The Desert Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus) lives in the Mojave Desert.
The Southern California Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis macrotis) was a population of kit foxes native to desert regions of Southern California which became extinct in 1903.
The Swift fox has been identified as a northern subspecies (Vulpes velox hebes) and a southern subspecies (Vulpes velox velox).
Posts: 1168 | From: Typical White Person | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted October 30, 2006 02:12 PM
I'm not up on all this "clasification" stuff, but there are those that think it a stretch to use species and sub-species for such insignificant differences. Maybe it's like a Boxer and a Pit Bull being different species, rather than an accident of breeding.
So, exactly what/which kit fox is protected in California? If I see a Swift, can I kill him? Not that I would want to; but in the Texas Predator Pursuit video, I saw a number of kills that looked to be kit fox, and I have ignored these animals coming to the call for years? Seems bogus (to some people) to include kit fox in a predator video?
Good hunting. LB
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31462 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
NASA
Knows what it's all about
Member # 177
|
posted October 30, 2006 03:07 PM
Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) and any of it's subspecies, are a protected furbearing mammal in the State of CA.
Swift fox (Vulpes velox) are not native to CA and therefore are not listed/protected by the same statutes.
[ October 30, 2006, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: NASA ]
Posts: 1168 | From: Typical White Person | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tim Behle
Administrator MacNeal Sector
Member # 209
|
posted October 30, 2006 04:10 PM
I don't know what kind of little fox I have here on my 80 acres, but come Wednesday trapping season opens, and they are all endangered!
--------------------
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take
an ass kickin'.
Posts: 3160 | From: Five Miles East of Vic, AZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted October 30, 2006 04:46 PM
Sounds a bit like the advice about those black birds on the pole are protected ravens, but the dead ones on the ground are crows. Personally, I wouldn't waste a bullet on a swift or a kit fox; which are the same animal, by the way. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I have talked to a small, but significant number of locals in southern Utah, and they always seem to call the small foxes; Swifts. Hmmm? They look like kit fox, to me. Which side of the Rockies are they supposed to be? I forget?
Good hunting. LB
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31462 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
NASA
Knows what it's all about
Member # 177
|
posted October 30, 2006 05:05 PM
Tim, there are three species of foxes in Arizona-the red fox, kit fox, and gray fox. All are fair game in your State.
Oh, and by the way? Red and gray fox are the same, just different color phases. Kit fox are just a smaller version, anyway. They're all just fox. The genetic classifications and DNA differences are all just a bunch of hogwash, right LB? Science be dammed, lock 'n load! Kill 'em all and let the biologists sort them out. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ October 30, 2006, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: NASA ]
Posts: 1168 | From: Typical White Person | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted October 30, 2006 10:30 PM
Not science, it's the scientists that have besmerched the field. Dishonesty everywhere, and you know it, Bucko. Studies confirm, 50% are certifiable snake oil salesmen.
And, why not get ridiculous, already? Of course grays and reds are different. We can see the difference. We don't need a friggin' "scientist" to tell us which is which.
quote:
The genetic classifications and DNA differences are all just a bunch of hogwash, right LB?
Sadly, that may well be a true statement. Poke fun all you like, but you can't PROVE a damned thing by comparing DNA samples as if it were tea leaves.
It is about time that somebody admitted these questions hinge more on personal opinion than provable facts.
It is not so much, "science be damned", as it is the dishonest scientist, be ashamed.
Just to illustrate that your argument is fraying around the edges, I clearly stated that I wouldn't waste a bullet on a kit or a swift fox; yet you seem to suggest that my personal position is "Kill them all". Dishonest, and hardly persuasive, Tom.
Good hunting. LB
[ October 30, 2006, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31462 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tim Behle
Administrator MacNeal Sector
Member # 209
|
posted October 31, 2006 04:28 AM
NASA, You'd better recheck your stats. Red's and Grey's are NOT the same. Red fox do have many color phases, such as silver, cross and Artic, and are the base species for most Ranch fox and their hundreds of different color variations.
AZ is listed as the only State that is not home to red fox, ( But I don't think they are in Hawaii either ) however, a few pockets of Red have been found from time to time in for Northern AZ.
Grey fox hold the distinction of being the only canine species who can climb trees. Granted, there may be a few individuals of other species who have climbed a tree, but as a species, only the Grays can climb.
--------------------
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take
an ass kickin'.
Posts: 3160 | From: Five Miles East of Vic, AZ | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rich Higgins
unknown comic
|
posted October 31, 2006 06:31 AM
Tim, I saw a red fox in BloodyBasin about 25 years ago, the south central part of the state. Escapee? I've wondered about that since.
I saw a coyote jump up into the second fork of a burned mesquite skeleton. It went up fast and easy, like it had done it before. The caller with me shot it out of the tree seven or eight feet up.
Steve Criner told me that a coyote being chased by hounds was observed climbing up into a cedar tree and sitting tight as the hounds hauledass past it.
IP: Logged
|
|
NASA
Knows what it's all about
Member # 177
|
posted October 31, 2006 07:59 AM
quote:
NASA, You'd better recheck your stats. Red's and Grey's are NOT the same.
I know Tim. I was just being a smart-ass, and Leonard knows it. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But LB refutes science, especially genetic science. So the following is for his edification.
Erik Trinkaus, a professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis pointed out that genetic sublimation of one group into another happens all the time, even across mammals considered to be from wholly different species. For example, the North American black duck is being gradually subsumed and eliminated by interbreeding with the European mallard. As a result, the genetic code of mallards in Europe now contains significant DNA from the disappearing black duck. Similar blendings are also occurring between wolves and coyotes, and between domestic cats and wildcats, he said.
A process very much like this probably occurred over time between Neanderthals and early homosapiens. Scientists at Pennsylvania State University and elsewhere are working on reconstructing the Neanderthals' genetic code, using bits of DNA extracted from fossilized bone. DNA can be retrieved for study from blood, semen, skin, saliva, bone or hair.
All known cellular life contains DNA. DNA is responsible for the genetic propagation of most inherited traits. In humans, these traits range from hair color all the way to disease susceptibility. The genetic information encoded by an organism's DNA is called its genome. During cell division, DNA is replicated, and during reproduction is transmitted to offspring.
Bio-engineering, tissue culture (cloning), stemcell research, police DNA forensics, paternity testing, disease-resistant agriculture, and targeted gene restraint (RNAi) are just some of the every day products that would never have been possible without the advent of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiling, or genetic fingerprinting.
You cannot simply dismiss genetics as “weird science” simply because you do not understand it. http://www.genome.gov/
Posts: 1168 | From: Typical White Person | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted October 31, 2006 08:32 AM
You have missed my point, yet again. Sure, you can do much with a strand of DNA, alter it, free it from disease suseptability, or produce grapes without seeds.
What I am discussing here is examining a length of DNA from one animal and comparing it to another animal and PROVING that the two INDIVIDUALS are either different or related, as you wish. Even Higgins, a true believer mentioned a while back that a suspected sample of a wolf was sent to three different labs and the conclusions were completely different. I don't remember, exactly, but it was something like coyote wolf and domestic dog. If DNA comparasons are so foolproof and above suspicion, why the difference of opinion? And, that wouldn't be an isolated case, either.
Read my lips. All you can do is compare one strand against another to see if it came from the same animal. If it didn't, that's where the I.D. becomes guess work. Fortunately, these intrepid scientists are never shy about guess work. All you can say, with honesty, is that there is strong similarities in the sequences, which proves nothing. Double blind analysis would erase all doubt, but I won't hold my breath.
For many years, they have relied on taxonomic classifications to distinguish between birds and animals. Unfortunately, that's the best we have, since comparing ll0l00ll000l0l00l against ll0l00ll000lll00l only proves that the binary numbers has a few identical sequences.
I do not dispute that these animals might be slightly different and live in different geological areas. I think the differences are minute, and not justified in a sub species clasification.....and, I am only refering to kit fox and swift fox, Tom. I think grays and reds and crosses are distinct and observable and throwing them into your argument is dishonest.
When a scientist can prove his point, I can respect it. Taking his opinion as an article of faith is where the lay public has been mislead a number of times. The scientist must prove stuff, just like the rest of us. No free pass.
Good hunting. LB
Anybody heard about the distinguished research Scientist in South Korea that was caught with his pants down?
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31462 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andy L
HI, I'M THE NEW MODERATOR OF THE CENTRAL MISSOURI FORUM, PULL MY FINGER!
Member # 642
|
posted October 31, 2006 08:51 AM
magazines, clips, whatever....
Are the Red Fox in AZ the same as the ones we have here in MO? I didnt know they were all the same. There are distict differences between reds and greys here. Size, shape, color, behavior, ect.... No doubt.
Just curious.
--------------------
Andy
Posts: 2645 | From: Central Missouri | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
NASA
Knows what it's all about
Member # 177
|
posted October 31, 2006 09:12 AM
Leonard, like I mentioned to Tim, the remark about reds and grays was just sarcasm. I thought you caught that.
quote:
What I am discussing here is examining a length of DNA from one animal and comparing it to another animal and PROVING that the two INDIVIDUALS are either different or related
Well, you may not believe it can be done, but the civil and criminal court system certainly does! Thousands of rape cases have been proven or dismissed based on DNA testing. And an equal number of paternity law suits, as well.
Zoological scientists are developing a network of
DNA banks to collect and preserve DNA from at least 5,200 recognised species.
If your hypothesis were correct, none of this would be supportable or upheld by the legal system.
quote:
Anybody heard about the distinguished research Scientist in South Korea that was caught with his pants down?
Sure, and did you hear who caught him in his egotistical attempt at fame? His peers in the scientific community. Fake claims are quickly disproved by peer review. DNA traceability is a proven process.
Posts: 1168 | From: Typical White Person | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leonard
HMFIC
Member # 2
|
posted October 31, 2006 01:34 PM
quote:
Well, you may not believe it can be done, but the civil and criminal court system certainly does! Thousands of rape cases have been proven or dismissed based on DNA testing. And an equal number of paternity law suits, as well.
Zoological scientists are developing a network of
DNA banks to collect and preserve DNA from at least 5,200 recognised species.
If your hypothesis were correct, none of this would be supportable or upheld by the legal system.
Tom, I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension?
I know there is a firm basis for comparing strands of DNA, and matching, or proving that they don't match. It's just like finger prints. You cannot look at a finger print and say that it is similiar to another one; therefore, the two people must be related!!!!!!!!
Hey, if you have a sample from a rape victum, and a sample from a suspect, and they MATCH, well that is conclusive, and not a whole lot different from lifting a finger print from the murder weapon, and comparing it to others in a database.
MATCHES! MATCHES! MATCHES! Get it?
YES, DNA MATCHES are very helpful in the criminal courts. GRANTED! GRANTED! GRANTED!
That is quite different from comparing a sample from a Colorado fox, and a sample from a California fox and breathlessly anouncing...........not a match! Of course they won't match! AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. When there is no match, all you can say, (with certainty) that the two samples didn't come from the same animal. You cannot say that they are close therefore it means the animals are different, or that they are related. This is not MATCHING DNA, it calls for guesswork . ADMIT IT!
All of this crap about coyotes, and wolf and dog DNA is theory. Not my theory. Not foxes, either.
Do not attempt to prove relationships or distinctions in species or subspecies with junk science.
It is not to say that DNA analysis isn't a valuable tool. Sure it is! But do not throw that valuable tool into discredit by insisting that it can prove things that are unsupported by fact.
Now, pick something for your debate that addresses the question, for a change. I have said before, (a fact that I believe, taken on faith); in a billion or so sequences, the human and housefly genome are at least 95% identical. Now, if they ever get around to sequencing kit fox and swift fox genome, my GUESS is that they will likely turn out to be identical 99.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX%. At that point, who could say that the minescule difference is an individual's difference or a separate subspecies. When they can prove it to my satisfaction, I will stand corrected. Until then, it's TEA LEAVES!
Remember: It's not about "MATCHING" DNA, okay? This question does NOT involve MATCHING! It's about interpreting binary squences of great length.
Good hunting. LB
--------------------
EL BEE Knows It All and Done It All.
Don't piss me off!
Posts: 31462 | From: Upland, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andy L
HI, I'M THE NEW MODERATOR OF THE CENTRAL MISSOURI FORUM, PULL MY FINGER!
Member # 642
|
posted October 31, 2006 02:08 PM
I love this bar.....
--------------------
Andy
Posts: 2645 | From: Central Missouri | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
NASA
Knows what it's all about
Member # 177
|
posted October 31, 2006 03:09 PM
Of course it's about "matching", but it's a much more complicated process than just comparing human thumb prints. You have get a tissue sample from each animal, extract the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and then map the genes on that mtDNA molecule. If two animals have the same map, then they were related sometime in the past. The reason mtDNA is used is because it doesn't recombine with other DNA, the way nuclear DNA (the DNA in the nuclcus Of the cell) does.
Posts: 1168 | From: Typical White Person | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
