Kootenay Mule Deer Composition Surveys:

Transcription

1 : Winter 2010 Patrick Stent Ministry of Natural Resource Operations Nelson BC March 2011

2 Executive Summary The Ministry of Natural Resource Operations (MNRO) introduced a 30 day any-buck general open season in the Kootenay Region in Objectives of the season were to increase hunting opportunity and to align regulations with other regions. Mule deer composition surveys were conducted in portions of Management Units (MUs) 4-06, 4-07 (Creston area), 4-03, 4-21, 4-22 and 4-02 (East Kootenay) during November and December 2010 to measure buck ratios following implementation of this season. Surveys followed general standards for aerial inventories (RISC 2002). We observed 842 mule deer, including 514 does, 157 fawns, 34 4-point bucks and 115 <4-point bucks over 12 hours and 45 minutes survey time. Raw buck:doe ratios (no sightability correction) were 33:100 in MUs 4-06 and 4-07 combined (90% CI: 22-39), 23:100 in MU 4-21 (CI: 17-30), 41:100 in MU 4-02 (CI: 34-48), 45:100 in MU 4-22 (CI: 37-52) and 5:100 in MU 4-03 (CI: 1-9). There was a significant decrease in buck ratios from 2009/10 ratios in MU 4-21, while buck ratios increased significantly in MU 4-02 and 4-22, although 2009/10 buck ratios were likely underestimated in the former survey as it occurred in late December and early January when bucks are usually wintering in bachelor groups in remote habitat and more difficult to detect. Similarly MUs 4-03, 4-06 and 4-07 were surveyed post-rut in 2010 and bucks could be underrepresented in samples from these MUs. Fawn ratios were significantly higher in MU 4-21 (42:100 [90% CI: 35-50]) than MU 4-02 (24:100 does [CI: 18-30] and MU 4-22 (24:100 does [CI:17-31]) but did not differ significantly from fawn:doe ratios calculated in MUs 4-06/4-07 (33:100 does [CI: 25-42]) and 4-03 (30:100 does [CI: 22-39]). Buck ratio data suggest high escapement from the new any-buck season in areas surveyed in MUs 4-02 and 4-22, while buck harvest was likely high in MU 4-21 and I suspect poor road access limited mule deer harvest in the areas we surveyed in MUs 4-02 and 4-22, while good road access resulted in high buck harvest in the surveyed areas in MU 4-03 and MU We surveyed portions of MUs 4-06, 4-07 and 4-03 post-rut (i.e., December) and observed 52% of bucks with does, while 92% of bucks were observed with does in MUs surveyed during the rut. Analysis of vegetation cover and group size data suggest buck ratios would increase in MUs 4-06 and 4-07 if differences in sightability of bucks and does were accounted for, as bucks were observed in heavier vegetation cover and smaller group sizes than does. I recommend mule deer surveys be conducted during the rut when bucks are mixed in with doe groups to minimize sightability bias. Ministry of Natural Resource Operation 2011 ii

3 Acknowledgements We thank W. Maki of Kootenay Helicopters for his exceptional piloting skills and enthusiasm for wildlife surveys. Technical assistance for navigation and GIS mapping was provided by A. Chirico. I would also like to thank the enthusiastic observers who helped out with the surveys: J. Conatty, T. Szkorupa, M. Neufeld, A. DeBoon and P. Johnstone. Insightful comments were provided on the draft version of this report by T. Szkorupa and G. Mowat. Funding for the survey was provided by the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation (HCTF) and the MNRO. Ministry of Natural Resource Operation 2011 iii

4 Table of Contents Executive Summary... ii Acknowledgements... iii List of Figures... v List of Tables... v Introduction... 1 Study Area... 1 East Kootenay... 1 Creston... 2 Methods... 3 Survey Area Selection... 3 Survey Procedures... 4 Classification... 5 Ground Surveys... 5 Data Analysis... 5 Results... 6 East Kootenay North... 6 MU MU East Kootenay South... 8 MU MU West Kootenay MUs 4-06 and Ground Surveys Discussion Survey Methods Recommendations Literature Cited Ministry of Natural Resource Operation 2011 iv

5 List of Figures Figure 1: Map showing areas surveyed for mule deer (green polygons) during composition surveys, November and December Figure 3: Map showing areas surveyed (green polygons) and mule deer observations scaled to group size for Management Units 4-21 and 4-22 (East Kootenay), surveyed November 22 nd, Figure 4: Map showing areas surveyed (green polygons) and mule deer observations scaled to group size for Management Units 4-22, 4-02 and 4-03 (East Kootenay), surveyed November 23 rd and December 22nd, Figure 4: Map showing areas surveyed (green polygons) and mule deer observations scaled to group size for Management Units 4-06 and 4-07 (West Kootenay), surveyed December 15 th, List of Tables Table 1: Mule deer observations by Management Unit for composition surveys, November and December Table 2: Mule deer population demographics for Management Unit 4-21, East Kootenay from mule deer composition surveys, November 22 nd, Table 3: Mule deer population demographics for Management Unit 4-22, East Kootenay from mule deer composition surveys, November 23 rd, Table 4: Mule deer population demographics for Management Unit 4-02, East Kootenay. Data are from mule deer composition surveys, November 23 rd, Table 5: Mule deer population demographics for Management Unit 4-03, East Kootenay. Data are from mule deer composition surveys, December 22 nd, Table 6: Mule deer population demographics for Management Units 4-06 and 4-07, West Kootenay, from mule deer composition surveys, December 15 th, Table 7: Timing of mule deer composition surveys and percent of mule deer bucks observed with does for the Okanagan and Kootenay Regions, Table 8: Median group size and average vegetation cover for mule deer observed during composition surveys, November and December Ministry of Natural Resource Operation 2011 v

6 Introduction In 2010, the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations (MNRO) introduced a 30 day any buck general open season for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in the Kootenay Region of British Columbia (BC), preceded and followed by 4-point and greater seasons. Objectives of the any buck season were to increase hunting opportunity and to align regulations with other regions. Prior to 2010, mule deer were managed under 3 different hunting regimes in the Kootenay Region; the East Kootenay used a 65 day 4-point or greater season, while the West Kootenay used a 60 day 4-point or greater season and a 10 day any buck season. The Revelstoke area has the lowest mule deer densities in the region and used a very liberal 90 day any buck season. I conducted helicopter surveys on mule deer winter ranges in Management Units (MUs) 4-06, 4-07 in the Creston area and 4-02, 4-03, 4-21 and 4-22 in the East Kootenay during November and December Surveys followed general aerial survey protocol outlined in RISC standards (2002). Objectives of mule deer composition surveys were to collect sex and age class data to assess the impact of the new any-buck season on mule deer demographics. This report summarizes findings from the 1 st year of composition surveys following the regulation change. Pre-regulation change mule deer composition data were collected in winter 2009/10 and summarized in Stent (2010). The MNRO s management objectives are to increase hunting opportunity for mule deer, offer a diversity of hunting opportunities and maintain buck ratios of at least 20 bucks:100 does. Study Area East Kootenay The areas surveyed in the East Kootenay included portions of MUs 4-21, 4-22, 4-02 and 4-03 (Figure 1). In MU 4-21 we surveyed Premier Ridge and the base of the Rocky Mountains to the east, from Staples Creek south to the Wild Horse River and a small area north of Ram Creek. In MU 4-22 we surveyed Sand Creek, Burton Creek, Pickering Hills and the lower Bull River. The MU 4-02 survey included the lower Wigwam River up to Lodgepole Creek as well as Donald, Raymond, Maguire and Red Canyon Creeks in the Galton Range. In MU 4-03, the banks of the Kootenay River and open hillsides north of Newgate were surveyed as well as several south-facing, timbered hillsides west of Gold Creek. Areas surveyed in the East Kootenay occur within the dry climatic region and included the Kootenay Dry Mild Interior Douglas Fir variant (IDF dm2) and the Dry Cool Montane Spruce (MS dk) biogeoclimatic (BEC) subzones. The IDF dm2 subzone occurs along the slopes of the Rocky Mountains, typically between 800 and 1200 m elevation. Douglas fir is the climax tree species in the Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

7 IDF dm2 subzone; however due to past fire activity, mixed seral stands of Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesi), Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), Western larch (Larix occidentalis) and Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) were common. We also encountered open, bunchgrass-dominated hillsides at low elevations in the Pickering Hills, Newgate and Premier Ridge areas within the IDF dm2 subzone. The MSdk subzone occurs above the IDFdm2 zone, typically between 1200 and 1650 m. Dominant tree species in the MS dk subzone include Hybrid white spruce (Picea englemanii x glauca), Balsam fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and Lodgepole pine. On occasion we also surveyed into the Engleman Spruce Subalpine Fir (ESSF dk) subzone, which occurs above the MS dk subzone (typically m on south aspects). Tree species adapted to short growing seasons (i.e., Englemann spruce [P. englemanii] and Balsam fir) occur in the ESSF dk subzone. Creston In the Creston area we surveyed portions of MU 4-06 and In MU 4-07, Corn Creek and Topaz Face (located above Summit Creek) were surveyed, while the MU 4-06 survey area included Kitchener Mountain, Sanca Creek and south-facing hillsides above Sirdar and Kuskanook (Figure 1). The surveyed portions of MU 4-06 and 4-07 occur in the moist climatic region and include the Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) very warm (xw) and ICH dry warm (dw) subzones (Braumandl and Curran 2002). The ICH xw occurs at low elevations ( m) on warm aspects in this area and is characterized by mixed seral stands of Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa) and climax stands of Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). The ICH dw subzone also occurs at low elevations ( m) in the area but on cooler sites than the ICH xw and stands typically includes a greater diversity of tree species in mixed seral stands (Douglas fir, Paper birch [Betula papyrifera], Western larch and White pine [P. strobus]). Shrub-dominated hillsides created from past fire events (especially ungulate enhancement burns) were common on south-facing hillsides throughout the areas surveyed. Other ungulates occurring in survey areas include Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis), whitetailed deer (O. virginianus), moose (Alces americanus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus). Potential predators of mule deer in these areas include cougars (Felis concolor), wolves (Canis lupus), coyotes (C. latrans), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and black bears (U. americanus). Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

8 Figure 1: Map showing areas surveyed for mule deer (green polygons) during composition surveys, November and December Methods Survey Area Selection Mule deer observations from the 2009/2010 composition surveys were used to identify survey areas where mule deer were expected to occur in high density in the early winter (Stent 2010). We used survey units (i.e., blocks) established in the previous survey to guide us to potential high use areas but we frequently surveyed outside blocks if we saw other areas that looked like suitable mule deer habitat from the air. We preferentially selected open areas identified from the air (i.e., shrub-dominated hillsides) in the Creston area as much of the habitat was heavily forested. In the East Kootenay we considered aspect more than terrain openness to select areas from the air, although many of the south-facing hillsides we surveyed were also quite open. Heavy snowfall in mid November 2010 allowed us to survey earlier in the winter (Nov. 22 nd -Dec.22 nd ) than the 2009/2010 surveys (Dec. 31 st - Jan. 7 th ). The accuracy of mule deer composition data is suggested to Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

9 decline if surveys are conducted later than November as mule deer are no longer rutting and bucks segregate from doe and fawn groups, making them more difficult to detect (MNRO, unpublished data). Survey Procedures Surveys were conducted in a Bell 206B Jet Ranger helicopter equipped with front and rear bubble windows. Surveys followed general standards for aerial inventories (RISC 2002), although this manual did not provide specific detail for composition surveys. We flew contours (i.e., transects) along winter ranges (usually steep hillsides), m above tree tops at km/hr. We avoided flying flat terrain at the base of hillsides and usually started our first transect along the lowest portion of the hillside and then worked our way upslope, spacing transects approximately 400 m apart in open terrain and 200 m apart in forested terrain. We repeated transects up the hillside until we no longer saw deer tracks. All surveys were conducted with 3 observers (plus the pilot). The data recorder sat behind the pilot, which allowed us to have 2 people classifying animals from the same side of the machine. The observer in the front of the machine was also responsible for navigating, which was assisted using ArcPad mobile GPS (Version U; Environmental Systems Research Institute) on a laptop computer. The ArcPad program was connected to a Garmin Bluetooth Global Positioning System (GPS) so we could track our position in real-time. Flight paths were recorded on the digital map using the tracklog function. Our classification approach differed with the size of the deer group encountered and vegetative cover. Small groups in open habitat could usually be classified by completing a single tight circle back over the group. Small groups encountered in forested habitat often had to be circled multiple times as deer had a tendency of dispersing into heavy cover and hiding under trees. When we encountered a large group of deer (>15 animals) in heavy cover, we attempted to haze the group into an opening and backed the machine off to a distance where deer were not spooked. We attempted to count the group and classify fawns from this distance and then flew a close pass by the group to classify bucks and verify fawn numbers. On this pass, one observer counted fawns while the other observer counted and classified bucks. Numerous deer encountered in heavy cover could not be classified to sex or age and were recorded as unclassified. We recorded percent oblique vegetation cover around the initial location where the deer group was observed. We used sketches showing examples of animals in different cover classes (5%-90%) to help us decide vegetation cover percent for each observation. When possible, deer groups were photographed using a Nikon D-90 camera with a mm Vibration Resistant lens. Photographs were used to verify buck classifications, fawn numbers and total counts. We photographed bucks Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

10 at a close distance with a longer focal length so small antler points could be detected, while group photos for total counts and fawn numbers were usually taken at a further distance with a shorter focal length so all animals in the group would be in the picture. Classification Mule deer bucks were classified as either 4-points or greater or less than 4-points. I used the definition for a 4-point or greater buck provided in the BC Hunting Regulations (i.e., any buck having at least 4-points [ 1 inch], excluding the brow tine [point on main beam closest to head] on one antler; I defined 4-point as any buck having fewer than 4-points on both antlers, excluding the brow tine. Antlerless deer were classified as either does (females >1.5 years old), fawns (young of the year) or unclassified bucks (i.e., bucks that had shed their antlers). We classified moose observed in MUs 4-06 and 4-07 so data could be used to supplement moose antler architecture data being collected by the MNRO. Moose were not classified in MUs 4-21, 4-22 and 4-02 as moose occurred in very low densities in the surveyed areas in these MUs. We recorded a tally of elk, white-tailed deer and bighorn sheep observations on data sheets but did not attempt to classify these species to sex or age. Ground Surveys Mule deer ground classification counts were also conducted in the Burton Creek and Wild Horse River winter ranges in the East Kootenay on November 24 th, For ground surveys, a single observer used a spotting scope to classify mule deer in relatively open habitats from fixed locations. The purpose of ground surveys was to test whether representative population data could be collected from the ground by comparing ground survey data to data we collected from the air. Data Analysis Raw population ratios (no sightability correction) were calculated for bucks and fawns and expressed as the total number per 100 does for each MU. No sightability correction was applied to observation data as the only mule deer model available was developed in Southern Idaho and is poorly suited to habitats found in the Kootenays (Stent 2010). Population ratio data are compared to raw ratios from the 2009/10 composition surveys. Binomial confidence intervals (90%) are presented for all population ratios. I determined elevation of mule deer by uploading and plotting UTM coordinates in ArcGIS and joining points to nearest 20 m contour lines. Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

11 Results The MU 4-21, 4-22 and 4-02 surveys were conducted November 22 nd and 23 rd, 2010, while the Creston and Newgate surveys were conducted December 15 th and 22 nd, respectively. Snow conditions were good for the November surveys but were marginal for the December surveys, due to a period of warm weather in December that caused snow melt at low elevations. The high elevation snowpack measured at Moyie Mountain (49 15 W, ; 1830 m) indicated snow levels were within 5% of the 39 year average (Ministry of Environment River Forecast Centre: when surveys were conducted. We observed 842 mule deer during surveys, including 514 does, 157 fawns, 34 4-point bucks and 115 <4-point bucks. Total survey time for all MUs combined was 12 hours and 45 minutes. There were 9 bucks observed that could not be classified based on antler architecture and 13 deer that could not be classified to sex or age class (Table 1). Mule deer detection rates were highest in East Kootenay MUs 4-02 (112 deer per hour), 4-21 (85 deer per hour), 4-22 (71 deer per hour) and 4-03 (61 deer per hour) but substantially lower in the Creston area (33 deer per hour). Table 1: Mule deer observations by Management Unit for composition surveys, November and December MU Total Does Fawns 4 points <4 points Unclassified Bucks / Total East Kootenay North MU 4-21 Premier Ridge, Ram Creek and Wild Horse River winter ranges were surveyed on November 22 nd, Total survey time was 2 hours and 12 minutes. We observed 188 mule deer in MU 4-21, including 111 does, 47 fawns, 2 4-point bucks and 22 <4-point bucks (Table 1). More than half of the observations for MU 4-21 were from Premier Ridge (Figure 2). I calculated ratios of 42 fawns:100 does and 23 bucks:100 does, including 20 <4-point bucks:100 does (CI: 14-26) and 2 4- points:100 does (CI: 0-4;Table 2). Buck ratios were lower on Premier Ridge (17:100 does) than other portions of the MU surveyed (26:100 does). Buck ratios decreased significantly from ratios Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

12 calculated in 2009/10 (44:100 does [CI: 37-52]; Table 2). Bucks were observed at the highest average elevation (1168 m), followed by fawns (1134 m) and does (1070 m). There was no significant difference in elevation of bucks versus does in MU 4-21 (t=1.54, df= 33, 1-sided p=0.066). Table 2: Mule deer population demographics for Management Unit 4-21, East Kootenay, November 2010 and January MU /10 90% Binomial Confidence Interval % Binomial Confidence Interval Fawns/100 does Bucks/100 does <4-point Bucks/100 does point Bucks/100 does MU 4-22 We surveyed winter ranges in the lower Bull River, Pickering Hills, Sand and Burton Creeks on November 22 nd. Total survey time was 2 hours and 36 minutes. We observed 185 mule deer, including 108 does, 26 fawns, 8 4-point bucks and 38 <4-point bucks (Table 2). We conducted 1 pass over Sheep Mountain and decided not to survey this area intensively as we encountered very little snow on this winter range. I calculated ratios of 24 fawns:100 does (CI:17-31) and 45 bucks:100 does (CI: 37-52), including 35 <4-point bucks:100 does (CI: 28-43) and 7 4-point bucks:100 does for MU 4-22 (Table 3). Bucks were observed at the highest average elevation (1273 m), followed by does (1248 m) and fawns (1201 m). Overall, bucks were observed at significantly higher elevation than does (t=1.78, df=102, 1-sided p=0.043). Table 3: Mule deer population demographics for Management Unit 4-22, East Kootenay, November 2010 and January MU /10 90% Binomial Confidence Interval % Binomial Confidence Interval Fawns/100 does Bucks/100 does <4-point Bucks/100 does point Bucks/100 does Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

13 Figure 2: Map showing areas surveyed (green polygons) and mule deer observations scaled to group size for Management Units 4-21 and 4-22 (East Kootenay), surveyed November 22 nd, East Kootenay South MU 4-02 We surveyed the Wigwam River and Galton winter ranges on November 23 rd, Total survey time was 2 hours. We observed 223 mule deer in MU 4-02, including 132 does, 32 fawns, points and 39 <4-points. I calculated fawn ratios of 24:100 does (CI: 18-30) and buck ratios of 41:100 does (CI: 34-48), including 30 <4-points:100 does (CI: 23-36) and 9 4-points:100 does (CI: 5-13; Table 4). Average elevation was 1383 m for bucks, 1322 m for does and 1316 m for fawns. Bucks were observed at significantly higher elevation than does (t=2.46, df=95, 1-sided p= ). Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

14 Table 4: Mule deer population demographics for Management Unit 4-02, East Kootenay, November 2010 and January MU /10 90% Binomial Confidence Interval % Binomial Confidence Interval Fawns/100 does Bucks/100 does <4-point Bucks/100 does point Bucks/100 does MU 4-03 We surveyed winter ranges along the Kootenay River and Gold Creek on December 22 nd, Total survey time was 1 hour and 50 minutes. The majority of survey effort was expended at low elevation winter range where we encountered large groups of does and fawns but very few bucks. We observed 111 mule deer, including 82 does, 25 fawns, 1 4-point buck and 2 <4-point bucks. I calculate ratios of 30 fawns: 100 does (CI: 22-39) and 5 bucks:100 does (CI: 1-9), including 3 <4- points:100 does (CI: 0-6) and 1 4-points:100 does (CI: 0-3; Table 5). Deer were observed at relatively low elevation in MU 4-03 (mean: 866 m) and there was no significant difference in elevation of bucks versus does (t=0.89, df=8, 1-sided p=0.199). Table 5: Mule deer population demographics for Management Unit 4-03, East Kootenay, December 2010 and January MU % Binomial Confidence Interval Fawns/100 does Bucks/100 does <4-point Bucks/100 does point Bucks/100 does Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

15 Figure 3: Map showing areas surveyed (green polygons) and mule deer observations scaled to group size for Management Units 4-22, 4-02 and 4-03 (East Kootenay), surveyed November 23 rd and December 22nd, West Kootenay MUs 4-06 and 4-07 We surveyed Corn, Topaz, Kuskanook, Sirdar, Sanca and Kitchener Creek winter ranges on December 15 th, 2010 (Figure 4). Total survey time for MUs 4-06 and 4-07 combined was 4 hours and 7 minutes. We observed 135 mule deer, including 81 does, 27 fawns, 11 4-points and 14 <4- points. I calculated ratios of 33 fawns:100 does CI: 25-42), 31 l bucks:100 does (CI: 22-39), including 17 <4-point bucks:100 does (CI: 10-24) and 14 4-point bucks:100 does (CI: 7-20). There was no significant change in buck ratios from 2009 (Table 6). Average elevation was 1183 m for does, 1140 m for fawns and 1383 m for bucks. Bucks were observed at significantly higher elevation than does (t= -4.15, df=38, 1-sided p<0.001). Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

16 Table 6: Mule deer population demographics for Management Units 4-06 and 4-07, West Kootenay, December 2010 and MUs 4-06 and /10 90% Binomial Confidence Interval % Binomial Confidence Interval Fawns/100 does Bucks/100 does <4-point Bucks/100 does point Bucks/100 does Figure 4: Map showing areas surveyed (green polygons) and mule deer observations scaled to group size for Management Units 4-06 and 4-07 (West Kootenay), surveyed December 15 th, Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

17 Ground Surveys I counted 58 mule deer between Burton Creek and Wild Horse River winter ranges on November 24 th. Total time spent surveying winter ranges from the ground was approximately 4 hours. The sample consisted of 28 does, 22 fawns, 2 <4-point bucks, 3 4-point bucks and 1 unclassified deer. Buck ratios were calculated as 17:100 does (CI: 6-30) using the ground survey data, which is more than twice as low as the buck ratio calculated from the aerial survey data for these areas. Discussion Overall buck ratios for East Kootenay MUs combined were 30:100 does (CI: 26-33), similar to 2009/10 ratios (29:100 does [CI: 14-44]). Both point estimates exceed buck ratios calculated between 1977 and 1997 in the East Kootenay (14 bucks:100 does; Mowat and Kuzyk 2009), although buck ratios from the data are likely conservative as surveys were conducted post-rut and bucks were likely underrepresented in these samples. Buck ratios exceeded provincial objectives for post-hunting season buck ratios (20-25 bucks:100 does) in all MUs except MU 4-03, where buck ratios were well below this management objective (5 bucks:100 does). There was also a significant decrease in buck ratios in MU 4-21 from 2009/10 and the lower 90% confidence limit falls below 20 bucks:100 does. The majority of mule deer observed in these MUs were at relatively low elevation in open habitat with good road access and likely experienced high harvest in the 2010 hunting season. Previous mule deer composition surveys occurred in early January 2010 for MUs 4-21, 4-02 and 4-22 and buck ratios were significantly higher in the latter 2 MUs in 2010 when mule deer were hunted on more liberal seasons. This result suggests buck ratios may have been biased low in the 2009/10 sample because surveys occurred post-rut. Composition surveys are not recommended to occur later than early December as bucks are less likely to be mixed with groups of does and fawns and have lower detectability (MNRO unpublished data). I calculated the proportion of bucks observed with 1 doe for composition surveys conducted in November, December and January in the Kootenay and Okanagan for 2009 and 2010 (Reid 2011; Stent 2010) and found that the proportion of bucks wintering with does generally decreased after November in most areas (Table 7). Data for the 2009/10 surveys show more than two thirds of the bucks were wintering with does in late December and early January in the Kootenays. However this sample likely includes a greater proportion of yearling bucks, given <4-point bucks were not hunted in 2009 and yearling bucks are more likely associated with doe groups outside of the rut. Overall the survey timing data suggest bucks could have been underrepresented in the 2010 samples for MU 4-06/4-07 and 4-03 as these MUs were surveyed in mid December. Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

18 Table 7: Timing of mule deer composition surveys and percent of mule deer bucks observed with does for the Okanagan and Kootenay Regions, MU Survey Year Survey Dates % of bucks with does Sample Size 4-02, 4-21 and Nov. 22nd and 23rd Dec. 2nd and 3rd , 4-06 and Dec. 15th and 22nd , 8-14 and Dec. 10th, 11th and 15th and Dec. 31st Jan. 6th , 4-21 and Jan. 6th and 7th Low proportions of 4-point bucks in most MUs could be explained by high harvest in the 4-point or greater and any-buck seasons; however natural (non-hunting) mortality can also limit recruitment of >2.5 year old bucks. Yearling bucks in mulit-predator ecosystems suffer higher mortality rates than does in the absence of hunting, with substantive mortality occurring during the spring and summer when yearlings are forced away from maternal does (Pac and White 2007). This study found non-hunting mortality (predation and accidental deaths) was higher than hunting mortality in areas where the hunting season included yearling bucks. Bucks >1.5 years old expend substantial energy during the rut and may also be more susceptible to winter mortality than does. Fawn ratios were significantly higher in MU 4-21 than MU 4-22 and MU 4-02, but did not differ significantly from fawn ratios in MU 4-06/4-07 and MU There was no significant difference in fawn ratios between 2009/10 and 2010 surveys in MUs surveyed both years. In the East Kootenay, I suspect fawn survival is higher for more gregarious populations that select open, low-elevation habitat (i.e., Premier Ridge and Newgate) year round, although this hypothesis has not been tested on mule deer. Voller and McNay (1995) suggest higher predation in non-migratory black-tailed deer populations on Vancouver Island, although winter ranges are assumed to be more densely vegetated. No sightability correction was applied to observation data as the only mule deer model available was developed in Southern Idaho and is poorly suited to habitats found in the Kootenays (Stent 2010). Without using a sightability model, we assume that there is no visibility bias for bucks and does. I analysed vegetation cover and group size for bucks and does in all MUs and predicted buck ratios would change very little with sightability correction in MUs 4-21 and 4-03 as group size and vegetation cover was similar for bucks and does (Table 8). Buck ratios would have likely increased in MUs 4-06/4-07 and 4-22 with sightability correction, while MU 4-02 buck ratios would have decreased slightly. These data suggest only minor differences in sightability of bucks and does in the 2010 surveys; however low buck ratios reported from the 2009/10 surveys suggest a large number of bucks can be missed and buck ratios can be missed if surveys occur post-rut (Stent 2010). Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

19 Table 8: Median group size and average vegetation cover for mule deer observed during composition surveys, November and December Median Group Size Average Vegetation Cover MU Bucks Does Fawns Bucks Does Fawns 4-06 and A substantial number of deer were observed in remote and rugged habitat in MUs 4-22 and 4-02 and I suspect poor road access limits buck harvest in these MUs, which would explain the high posthunting season buck ratios in these areas. These MUs also have significant areas protected by road closures, which further limit access and protect bucks from harvest. Snowfall was average in the Kootenays during October and November 2010 and I suspect heavier snowfall would further increase harvest, especially in MUs with good road access. We did not survey Pickering Hills and the hillside south of Elko intensively as there was very little evidence of use on both winter ranges, suggesting mule deer had not yet migrated to these winter ranges. There were also substantially fewer deer observed on the lower Bull River this winter and I suspect mule deer migrate to this area later in the winter. Conversely, mule deer were using low elevation winter ranges in MU 4-21 and 4-03 intensively during surveys and these populations likely migrate to lower elevations earlier in the season or remain at low-elevations year round. These populations are likely to experience higher buck harvest than populations where bucks remain at higher elevations until later in the winter. Survey Methods Bucks occurred at significantly higher elevations than does in 3 of the 5 survey areas. This finding suggests it is important that winter ranges are surveyed up to an elevation where tracks are no longer present so that bucks are not underrepresented in samples. I expect the elevation difference between bucks and does to be greatest post-rut, when bucks are more segregated from does. Stent (2010) found a significant difference in elevation of bucks and does in the 2009/10 composition surveys when buck and doe observations were pooled across all surveyed MUs. Data from 2009 and 2010 ground surveys imply that it will be difficult to acquire representative population ratios for mule deer from the ground, even if surveys are conducted during the rut. Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

20 Photographs were used to verify buck classification recorded from the air and we identified 5 bucks that were misclassified from the air. I recommend photographing every buck larger than a 2-point in future surveys so classifications recorded from the air can be verified. The camera should be set to take maximum resolution photographs and shutter release mode can be set to high so the camera takes multiple photographs while the shutter release button is held down. To maximize visibility of antler points in photographs, animals should be photographed at relatively close distances with their heads pointing forwards (i.e., not looking at the camera). Shooting photographs against a background of snow maximizes contrast of antlers, making small points more visible. Photographs of small deer groups are useful for verifying fawn classification data recorded from the air, providing deer are in open habitat and are photographed from relatively close distances against a background of snow and are not facing the camera. Fawn classification from photographs of large groups was difficult and in these circumstances it may be most effective to classify fawns from the air. The most effective approach was to back the machine off to a distance where animals were not scattering and then classify does and fawns. A close pass was then conducted to verify fawn counts and classify bucks. Recommendations Conduct surveys in November providing snow cover is complete (i.e., 100%) on early winter ranges. Conduct ground surveys during the rut so that bucks are not underrepresented in the sample. Data from 2010 suggest Burton Creek is a suitable site to conduct ground surveys as habitat is relatively open. Include the Wigwam River, Sand Creek and Iron Creek winter ranges in future composition surveys conducted in the early winter. The Pickering Hills, lower Bull River and Elko winter ranges are suitable survey areas for the late winter but are not used intensively by mule deer in the early winter. The remaining East Kootenay winter ranges, with the exception of Ram Creek, had high detection rates, suggesting they are suitable survey areas for the early winter. Identify higher elevation mule deer winter range in MU 4-21 so the sample is not biased towards deer occurring at low elevations (i.e., Premier Ridge). Identify more areas in MUs 4-06 and 4-07 that are likely to have high mule deer detection rates in the early winter. Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

21 Re-survey MU 4-03 in November to see if there are more bucks amongst the large doe and fawn groups encountered at low elevations. Photograph all bucks larger than 2-points so buck classification data recorded from the air can be verified. Bucks should be photographed from relatively close distances with a long focal length and the camera should be set to take highest resolution photographs. Bucks should be photographed with their heads facing the camera and against a background of snow (versus vegetation) to maximize contrast of the antlers. Literature Cited Braumandl, T. F., and M. P. Curran A field guide for site identification for the Nelson Forest Region. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. McNay, R.S. and J.M. Voller Mortality causes and survival estimates for adult female Columbian black-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 59 (1): Mowat, G. and G. Kuzyk Mule deer and white-tailed deer population review for the Kootenay region of British Columbia. Unpublished report for Ministry of Environment, Nelson B.C., 29 pp. Pac, D. and G. White Survival and cause-specific mortality of male mule deer under different hunting regulations in the Bridger Mountains, Montana. J. Wild. Manage. 71 (3): Reid, A Shuswap and Boundary Mule Deer Composition Surveys: December Report prepared for the BC Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, Thompson/Okanagan Region. Penticton, B.C. RISC (Resources Information Standards Committee) Aerial-based inventory methods for selected ungulates: bison, mountain goat, mountain sheep, moose, elk, deer and caribou. Standards for components of British Columbia s biodiversity No. 32. Version 2.0. Resources Inventory Committee, B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, British Columbia. Robinson, H. and R. Clarke Ungulate aerial survey analysis and summary 200, 2004 and 2007 in the South Selkirk Mountains of southeastern British Columbia. Report for Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, B.C. Ministry of Natural Resource Operation

22 Robinson, H.S., R.B. Wielgus and J.C. Gwilliam Cougar predation and population growth of sympatric mule deer and white-tailed deer. Can. J. Zool. 50: Stent, P Kootenay mule deer composition surveys: Winter 2009/10. Report prepared for the Ministry of Environment, Nelson B.C., 26 pp. Stent, P Mule deer inventory in Bull River, Pickering Hills, Wigwam River and Kitchener Mountain survey units. Unpublished report for Ministry of Environment, Environmental Stewardship, Nelson B.C., 23 pp. Unsworth, J. W., F. A. Leboan, E. O. Garton, D. J. Leptich, and P. Zager Aerial survey: user s manual. Electronic edition. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Ministry of Natural Resource Operation