The year 2002 marked the largest outbreak to date in the world as the virus rapidly spread across the U.S. Maricopa County has been spared the burden of widespread WNV-illness thus far, however the area is home to a viable mosquito population, many species of migratory birds and a large human populace with a propensity for outdoor activities making arrival of the virus inevitable and advanced preparations invaluable.

Wildlife 20/20 provides broad strategic guidance for all department programs. It is intended to be a living document that conveys policy direction that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission has provided to the department to guide its work into the future. It will be complemented by additional plans designed to provide more specific direction, as needed.

A descriptive report of invasive Haemophilus influenzae cases as reported to the Maricopa County Department of Public Health. The purpose of this report is twofold: first to define the illness and its trends in Maricopa County during this time period and second to identify potential areas of improvement in data quality.

This study provides useful information for the Office of Epidemiology on reporting, investigating, and data completeness. Reporting of cases occurred ≥ 3 days in about 50% of the cases, despite a 24 hour reporting mandate for cases or suspect cases. Data can be analyzed on a yearly basis using this study as a model. Future analyses can reassess the epidemiologic trends noted in this study and assess the effect of routine meningococcal vaccination in Maricopa County.

This document contains laws related to wildlife in Arizona, from statehood in 1912 through 1962. This is a supplement to “Bringing Back the Game: Arizona Wildlife Management, 1912–1962,” a book of wildlife management history published by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in 2012.

Included are those bills passed by the Arizona State Legislature between 1912 and 1962, signed by the governor and incorporated as “Game and Fish Law” under the Arizona Revised Statutes. Other initiatives, referenda, and statutes pertaining to wildlife (including predatory and noxious animals) are also included, thereby providing an accessible resource for those interested in the history of Arizona’s wildlife laws.

This document is neither exhaustive nor complete. Some bills that are arcane or repetitive, or that served a housekeeping purpose, are not included. Some legislation is summarized with annotations by the author and not presented verbatim. The purpose is illustrative only and not intended to either replace the actual laws, or be taken as current law.

Apache trout is a federally threatened salmonid native to headwaters of the Little Colorado, Black, and White rivers in east-central Arizona. Decline of Apache trout to threatened status was attributed to over-fishing, habitat degradation and negative interactions (predation, competition and hybridization) with introduced nonnative salmonids. Although over-fishing is no longer considered a threat, habitat degradation and negative interactions with nonnative salmonids continue to threaten Apache trout, and it is towards these threats that recovery actions are directed. While barrier construction began in 1979 and livestock exclusion began in the mid-1980s, the efficacy of these recovery actions at increasing Apache trout abundance and improving habitat condition had not been evaluated. We therefore initiated a study to evaluate the efficacy of riparian fencing and barriers.

This project consisted of multiple activities: Fish salvage, fish holding and repatriation, stream renovation, fish barrier construction and watershed stock tank renovations. Fish salvage and restocking operations were done in coordination and in conjunction with USFWS and a larger research project being conducted by NAU through separate funding. Brief information on methods and results from those efforts are provided. The Department, utilizing resources provided directly by USBR and via a grant from the FWS, implemented holding facility construction and operation. The Department coordinated the stream renovation with planning and implementation assistance provided by all the aforementioned partners. The USBR conducted all activities related to the fish barrier design and construction, details of which will not be included in this report.