The wildlife values area and site datasets represent the consolidation of 13 wildlife data classes collected by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The data estimates locations used by wildlife for various reasons, including: * breeding * calving and fawning * denning * feeding * staging * nesting * wintering * general habitat areas * nurseries * travel corridors Locations are represented as points (site) or polygons (area) and may be related to a specific species or described more generally. Wildlife values data is most often used to support policy and legislation associated with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The data may also be used to inform a wide range of resource management activities and decisions. There are additional sensitive features related to provincially tracked species and species at risk that are not available as part of the open data package. Sensitive features are subject to licensing and approvals and may be requested by contacting [geospatial@ontario.ca](geospatial@ontario.ca).

The wildlife values area and site datasets represent the consolidation of 13 wildlife data classes collected by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The data estimates locations used by wildlife for various reasons, including: * breeding * calving and fawning * denning * feeding * staging * nesting * wintering * general habitat areas * nurseries * travel corridors Locations are represented as points (site) or polygons (area) and may be related to a specific species or described more generally. Wildlife values data is most often used to support policy and legislation associated with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. The data may also be used to inform a wide range of resource management activities and decisions. There are additional sensitive features related to provincially tracked species and species at risk that are not available as part of the open data package. Sensitive features are subject to licensing and approvals and may be requested by contacting [geospatial@ontario.ca](geospatial@ontario.ca).

This table contains information about 11 animal types associated with assigned cases in the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program.This table contains information about animal types, grouped into 11 categories, associated with assigned cases in the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program for each year, starting in 2016, to the most recent quarter. This data is populated by the Provincial Animal Welfare Database for the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program. It is displayed in the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program – Animal Types chart. The table is updated on a quarterly basis. Fields included [Alias (Field Name): Field description] SpeciesStatsGrouping (SpeciesStatsGrouping): Includes one of the possible 11 animal type groups associated with each assigned case (e.g., Avian, Bison, Bovine) Year (Year): Includes the year, beginning in 2016, to the current year (e.g., 2016, 2017, 2018) Month (Month): Includes the numeric value of all months in a calendar year (e.g., 1, 2, 3) Quarter (Quarter): Includes the numeric values of all quarters in a calendar year (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4), where quarter 1 corresponds with January, February and March, quarter 2 corresponds with April, May and June, quarter 3 corresponds with July, August and September and quarter 4 corresponds with October, November and December YQ (YQ): Includes the year and quarter of the most recent 12 quarters (e.g., 2021 Q1, 2021 Q2 )

This dataset displays the Canadian geographic ranges of the priority species identified under the Pan-Canadian Approach for Transforming Species at Risk Conservation in Canada (“Pan-Canadian Approach”). These species include Barren-ground Caribou (including the Dolphin and Union population); Greater Sage-Grouse; Peary Caribou; Wood Bison; Caribou, Boreal population (“Boreal Caribou”); and Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (“Southern Mountain Caribou”). The priority species were chosen following a number of criteria and considerations in collaboration with federal, provincial, and territorial partners. These include, but were not limited to, the species' ecological role on a regional or national scale, their conservation status and achievability of conservation outcomes, their social and cultural value (particularly to Indigenous peoples), and the leadership/partnership opportunities that they present. Delivering conservation outcomes for targeted priority species can have significant co-benefits for other species at risk, and wildlife in general. For more information on the Pan-Canadian Approach and the priority species, see https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/wildlife-plants-species/species-risk/pan-canadian-approach.html.This dataset includes: 1) the range for the Boreal Caribou (see https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/consultations/2253); 2) the local populations for the Southern Mountain Caribou (see https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/consultations/1309); 3) the range for the Greater Sage-Grouse (see https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/consultations/1458); 4) local populations for the Peary Caribou (see https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/consultations/3657); 5) range for the Barren-ground Caribou (see https://www.maps.geomatics.gov.nt.ca/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=NWT_SHV English only); 6) range for the Barren-ground Caribou, Dolphin and Union population (https://www.maps.geomatics.gov.nt.ca/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=NWT_SHV English only); 7) range for the Wood Bison (see https://species-registry.canada.ca/index-en.html#/consultations/2914).

Broad management guidance is applied across each Cervid Ecological Zone (CEZ) to help set local population and habitat objectives. CEZs reflect the overarching cervid management intent at the landscape level. The foundation for CEZs is Ontario’s Ecological Land Classification, with consideration given to: * cervid species ranges * landscape level variations in habitat and climate CEZs build on the existing Wildlife Management Unit network while recognizing that species and habitat ranges fluctuate over time.

To support the surveillance of key macroalgae and non-indigenous species in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, five quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays were designed and tested at 111 sites in 2022-2023 targeting the following non-indigenous macroalgal species: Antithamnion sparsum, Bonnemaisonia hamifera, Codium fragile, Dasysiphonia japonica, Fucus serratus. All assays were developed in 2022 by the Center for Environmental Genomics Applications (CEGA, Newfoundland, Canada) except Antithamnion sparsum, for which an assay was developed in 2023 by the Aquatic Biotechnology Laboratory (ABL) at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. All amplification was performed by the ABL in 2022-2023. The assay developed for Fucus serratus was later determined to be non-specific, and amplifies both F. serratus and Fucus distichus.Cite this data as: Krumhansl K, Brooks C, Lowen B, DiBacco C, (2025). Quantitative PCR (qPCR) of Key Macroalgal Non-Indigenous Species in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Waters. Version 1.5. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Samplingevent dataset. https://ipt.iobis.org/obiscanada/resource?r=quantitative_qpcr_macroalgal_nonindigenous_species_novascotia_newbrunswick_2022_2023&v=1.5For additional information please see:LeBlanc F., Belliveau V., Watson E., Coomber C., Simard N., DiBacco C., Bernier R., Gagné N. 2020. Environment DNA (eDNA) detection of marine aquatic invasive species (AIS) in Eastern Canada using a targeted species-specific qPCR approach. Management of Biological Invasions 11(2):201-217Krumhansl K.A., Brooks C.M., Lowen B., O’Brien J., Wong M., DiBacco C. Loss, resilience and recovery of kelp forests in a region of rapid ocean warming. Annals of Botany 2024 Mar 8; 133(1):73-92Brooks C.M., Krumhansl K.A. 2023. First record of the Asian Antithamnion sparsum Tokida, 1932 (Ceramiales, Rhodophyta) in Nova Scotia, Canada. BioInvasions Records 12(3):745-725.

The Wildlife Management Unit Biologist Contact Boundaries dataset is comprised of all the polygons that represent the Wildlife Management Unit Biologist Contact Boundaries within the Province of Alberta. The dataset is to help determine which Biologist is responsible for each Wildlife Management Unit. Please refer to the metadata included with the data for full entity attribute information.

Wildlife Management Units are used for a number of wildlife management purposes, like indicating the areas of Ontario where hunting open seasons and harvest quotas apply. Wildlife Management Unit boundaries are regulated under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act - Ontario Regulation 663/98, Part 6 as amended.

Amalgamations of Wildlife Management Units which share similar ecological characteristics and hunter harvest patterns, and thus provide a suitable geographical framework for implementing population management strategies

Delineates the administrative units used by the NB Department of Natural Resources and Energy Development (DNRED) to manage populations and harvest of deer, moose, bear and furbearer species. Examples of furbearer species are beaver, muskrat, otter, mink, fox, and raccoon.Wildlife Management Zones were first established by Fish & Wildlife Branch in the early 1990s by combining climate, topography, geology and soils layers to identify unique zones with differences in basic landscape features relevant to wildlife. These were adjusted to boundaries easily recognized by the public. Most boundaries follow roads, rivers, lakes, streams or railroads.Do not confuse Wildlife Management Zones with Wildlife Management Areas and Wildlife Refuges (in the Wildlife Refuge GIS layer).