Rub Lines. Habitat Plans. and. Knowledge of preferred buck rubbing locations can help you develop a habitat plan that enhances hunting success.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Rub Lines. Habitat Plans. and. Knowledge of preferred buck rubbing locations can help you develop a habitat plan that enhances hunting success."

Francis Cannon
6 years ago
Views:

Rub Lines robert smith, photobiologist.com and Habitat Plans Knowledge of preferred buck rubbing locations can help you develop a habitat plan that enhances hunting success.

Scouting for and deciphering rubs and rub-lines has been a technique used by hunters for many years.

But can knowledge of buck rubbing locations also help in developing more effective habitat plans?

1 Rub Lines robert smith, photobiologist.com and Habitat Plans Knowledge of preferred buck rubbing locations can help you develop a habitat plan that enhances hunting success. By Bryan Kinkel Hunters have always considered buck rubs an important feature of the hunting-season landscape. Scouting for and deciphering rubs and rub-lines has been a technique used by hunters for many years. Hunters have used rub-lines as not only a means for finding high-odds hunting locations but also as a learning tool; to understand more about how bucks travel across the landscape. But can knowledge of buck rubbing locations also help in developing more effective habitat plans? The science of habitat management is a process of understanding which habitat types are beneficial to wildlife, how much of each habitat type should be available in a given area, and addressing critical habitat needs that are missing from the area. The science side of habitat management is primarily a numbers and percentages process. However, the art of habitat management is more complicated. The art side is the process of understanding how the arrangement of different habitat types can 22 QUALITY WHITETAILS

harvest success by producing more predictable deer travel routes.

2 affect deer movement patterns, and arranging habitat to produce desired patterns. Producing desired deer movement patterns can benefit management effectiveness by helping to hold deer inside the boundaries of managed properties as well as improving the hunting experience and harvest success by producing more predictable deer travel routes. From years of running trail-camera surveys on individual managed properties, I ve become a firm believer that harvest success is often the greatest limiting factor to overall perceptions of Quality Deer Management success. It is one thing to produce a biologically successful program with an older buck age structure through proper management practices. It is a completely different matter for hunters to see tangible results from that successful program in the form of older bucks hanging on the meat pole. I don t think many hunters will argue with the assertion that mature bucks are not easy animals to successfully see and kill, even when they exist in greater numbers. Enhancing natural deer movement patterns through artful habitat management may just be the missing piece of a complete QDM puzzle. Buck Rubs and Travel Corridors Back to the original question: can knowledge of buck rubbing locations help develop more effective habitat plans plans that produce more predictable deer movement patterns? In 1995, my mentor, Dr. Grant Woods, suggested I duplicate a portion of his research concerning buck signpost rubbing behavior. Part of his research involved determining rub densities and distributions how many rubs bucks make per unit area and where those rubs are located. One of the focal points of Grant s research was the role habitat edges the defining line between two habitat types play in rub locations. Many species of wildlife, including white-tailed deer, are often considered creatures of the edge since they spend considerable amounts of time in close association with habitat edges. These habitat edges can be classic hard edges, like the transition from a canopied forest to open habitat such as a field, food plot or agricultural field. Or they can be more subtle soft edges, like transitions in forest species and/or timber age. Regardless of the edge type, deer often use habitat edges as concentration points and travel corridors. As the rut approaches, bucks produce rub lines along their travel corridors, and if they are incorporating habitat edges into their travel patterns, measurements of rub densities and distributions should find that rubs appear in higher concentrations near habitat edges. My study was designed to duplicate Grant s earlier work in assessing the role of habitat edges in buck rubbing behavior. The study design involved mapping all of the different habitat types of a study property and classifying them into a number of categories. The defining lines between categories were marked as habitat edges. To produce rub sampling areas, long transit lines, or datacollection lines, were randomly placed across the landscape. These transit lines were measured and the length of line crossing each habitat type, and the number and type of habitat edges crossed, were calculated. The percent of total transit line crossing each habitat type and the number and type of habitat edges crossed were compared against the percent of each habitat type and edge present in the study area to ensure proportional representation. Data for this project were collected each year in mid-winter, after the vast majority of rubbing activity had been completed for that year s breeding season, on a hunting property in west central Tennessee. Rub data were collected by walking each transit line and recording the number of rubs that were within 1 meters on either side of the transit line. This produced long, linear sample areas, 2 meters wide by hundreds or even thousands of meters long. The sample area covered 4 percent of the entire study property. As rubs within the sample area were documented, each rub was classified by the habitat type in which it was located. In addition, the distance from the rub to the nearest habitat edge was measured and the type of habitat edge recorded. Habitat Edges and Linear Features The study was run along the same transit lines for 1 years, from the winter following the 1995 hunting season through the winter following the 24 season (peak breeding in the study area is mid to late November). Analysis of the 1 years of data found strong relationships between habitat edges and rub densities. For all habitat edge types combined, the highest rub densities occurred within the thin parallel strips of ground within 5 meters of the actual habitat edge (average annual rub densities were 27.9 rubs per acre within these strips). Rub densities then declined with distance from habitat edges, with the strips 5 to 1 meters from habitat edges having average rub densities of 17. rubs per acre and the strips 1 to 2 meters from habitat edges having 7.7 rubs per acre. The edge affect appeared to end approximately 2 meters from habitat edges, as no differences in rub densities Rubs Per Acre Fig. 1 Rub Densities by Linear Feature 5 or less Habitat Edges Log-Skidder Trails Creeks plus Distance from Linear Feature in Meters existed beyond that distance (averaging 1.8 rubs per acre for areas more than 2 meters from habitat edges). In addition to habitat edges, other linear features also were analyzed, such as roads and creeks (see Figure 1 above). Both roads and creeks displayed some edge effect, but nowhere near as distinct or strong as habitat edges, with one exception. Old, abandoned log-skidder trails produce a fairly strong edge effect. Rub densities averaged 12.4 rubs per acre in the strips of ground within 5 meters of the trails and 5.5 rubs per acre within the Continued. AUGUST 28 23

Rubs Per Acre 4 35 3 25 2 1 5 Mature Hardwoods Fig.

3 Rubs Per Acre Mature Hardwoods Fig. 2 Rub Densities by Habitat Type Outside 2-meter edge zone Inside 2-meter edge zone Select-Cut Hardwoods Young Hardwoods Young Pines Sapling Thicket Mixed Tall-Grass/Saplings strips 5 to 1 meters from the skidder trails. When looking at the data from different types of roads, it appears that the less maintained a road is, the higher the rub densities near it, suggesting the less a road is used and maintained by people, the more often it is incorporated into buck travel patterns. Analysis of rub densities between habitat types revealed strong differences. Habitat that provides security cover and a combination of browse and cover produced the highest rub densities. However, from the standpoint of how rub densities can be used in habitat planning, what is most critical is that no matter the habitat type, rub densities were always much higher within 2 meters of the outer edge of each habitat type or near linear features such as skidder trails. In fact, some habitat types displayed nearly -fold increases in rub densities in the 2-meter zone bordering the outer edge of the habitat or paralleling other linear features (see Figure 2 on this page). These high rub densities near habitat edges and other linear features may be the result of bucks being influenced to make rubs every time they cross a habitat edge, but a majority of the rubs recorded in this study were parts of long rub-lines paralleling the habitat edges or were associated with staging areas into open food source habitat such as food plots. This suggests bucks are using these habitat edges as travel corridors or concentrated activity areas. Rub lines along the edge of or parallel to unmaintained roads or old skidder paths also were extremely common. For whatever reason, bucks appear to incorporate these linear features in their movement patterns. In addition, my detailed analysis of localized habitat diversity (the number of different habitat types in a given area) and hunter-collected deer observation rates display strong relationships. High localized habitat diversity usually goes hand-in-hand with high deer sighting rates by hunters. Highly diverse habitat also means many linear feet of habitat edge separating all those different habitat types. These results suggest hunting in locations with more habitat types and their associated edges has tangible benefit for hunters. Topography In addition to assessing the role habitat and other linear features play in buck rubbing activity, I wanted to look at any influence topography played in buck travels and rubbing behavior. The terrain of the study area, located in western middle Tennessee, is classified as ridge-and-hollow topography, consisting of long, narrow, meandering ridge-lines separated by steep-sided, narrow valleys. With terrain being such a prominent feature of the landscape, I was curious as to whether specific terrain features would display higher rub densities, suggesting more frequent buck travels along those topographic features. Before the rub study was first conducted, the terrain of the study area was classified into one of five categories: Hillsides, Ridges, Valleys, Primary Points and Secondary Points. The tops of all ridge-lines as well as any level upland plateau regions were classified as Ridges. Narrow valleys or any level bottomland areas were classified as Valleys. The slopes down off ridgelines or plateaus to the point where valleys or bottomlands begin were classified as Hillsides. However, two unique types of slopes received their own classification topographic points. To be classified as a topographic point, topographic contour lines had to produce a bend or corner with an angle of 9 degrees or sharper. Points that are the terminal ends of ridge-lines were classified as Primary Points, and small topographic points that descended from the side of a ridge-lines or upland plateau areas were classified as Secondary Points, just as fisherman use the terms (refer to the map on this page). The lengths of transit lines crossing each topographic classification were measured and checked for 24 QUALITY WHITETAILS

4 proportional representation. Rubs falling within the sample areas were categorized by the type of terrain feature in which they were found. Analysis of rub densities by topography found two types of terrain features displayed significantly higher rub densities. When removing all data from within habitat and linear feature edge zones, Valleys and Secondary Points both had rub densities 25 to 3 percent higher than the other three topographic features. Rubs Per Acre Fig. 3 Rub Densities by Topography Outside 2-meter edge zone Inside 2-meter edge zone Ridgeline Hillside Valley Point (Primary) Point (Secondary) Exactly why these features were used so heavily as rub-line locations is unknown, but with valley topography there was a strong correlation with good cover habitat and very high rub densities, while valleys consisting of open mature hardwoods displayed very low rub densities. In fact, cover habitat located in valleys and bottomlands displayed considerably higher rub densities than the same habitat located on other topographic features. Why were Secondary Points used more for buck rubbing activity compared to Primary Points? The answer may have to do with bucks using these slowly descending points dropping off the sides of ridges as ramps for easy access back and forth from valleys to uplands. When the effects of 2-meter edge zones are analyzed for topography, all topographic features display large increases in rub densities. The already higher rub densities for Secondary Points and Valleys were increased dramatically when edge zones were present (refer to Figure 3 on the previous page). Although I strongly believe that buck usage of habitat edges and other linear features as travel corridors is universal across the whitetail s range, how deer use specific terrain features is most likely regional. Deer will probably find different terrain features favorable in different geographic regions. Only critical analysis of rub concentrations as a factor of terrain will decipher which are the preferred topographic features in a given location. Habitat Planning So, bucks prefer to rub and potentially travel more frequently along habitat edges, certain linear features and specific terrain features. For the manager of a property, how can this knowledge assist in habitat planning? As mentioned previously, sometimes producing more predictable deer movement patterns can be more than half the battle toward total QDM success. Winning the biological battle producing a more balanced sex ratio, a herd density in balance with food resources, and a more advanced buck age structure may only be part of the management equation. Often producing these biological effects through harvest management is not as difficult as assumed. However, for a QDM program to be fully successful, hunters must benefit. Other than trail-camera pictures of older bucks using the property, the best tangible result of QDM success is what is hanging on the meat pole, and producing that type of success may be more difficult than the biological successes. As I ve found to be true with many QDM programs, growing older bucks can actually be a lot easier than successfully seeing and harvesting those bucks. Anything the landowner/manager can do with their management program to increase harvest success is generally well worth the effort. Long-term habitat plans shouldn t be developed haphazardly. With some forethought and knowledge of how the local buck population utilizes habitat and terrain, habitat plans can be developed to produce more predictable deer movement patterns. Considering that high rub densities occur along habitat edges and linear features, habitat edges can be designed to lie where you want the deer to go. And whenever possible, designing a habitat edge to run along favorable terrain features can further enhance the use of the edge as a rubbing location and travel corridor. A myriad of possibilities exist for utilizing this technique. One of the most successful I have seen is to design multiple habitat edges that all converge on an important section of habitat, such as a food plot or thick patch of bedding cover. These convergent edges not only enhance the use of that food or cover habitat, they can produce more predictable travel routes to and from those important habitat features. For bowhunters, hunting near or along the edge of large food plots can often be frustrating, as deer may enter or exit the food plots at any number of locations that are out of bow range. However, designing a habitat edge to intersect the food plot can be just what is needed to produce more predictable entrance routes into the open food source. If the intersecting habitat edge can be designed to run along favorable terrain, the use of this feature as a travel route to the food source can be enhanced. One of my favorite set-ups to create is a valley or bottomland food source with habitat edges running from adjacent uplands down descending secondary points and intersecting with the food-producing habitat. The combination of habitat edges in the valley/ bottomland area and the converging habitat edges running down the spine of secondary points can produce some real hunting hotspots. Conversely, producing habitat edges that run from thick cover in valleys/bottomlands up the spine of secondary points to a ridge-top/upland food plot can be equally if not more successful. As mentioned previously, cover habitat located in valleys and bottomlands produced some of the highest rub densities found in the study. In situations where a neighboring property consists of very thick cover, such as a heavily timbered area or an over-grown field, deer and especially bucks can be influenced to travel more predictably out of the neighbor s thicket and onto the managed property by creating habitat edges that run from the property border toward sections of high-quality habitat on the managed property. Any time those habitat edges can utilize favorable terrain is a real bonus. Even creating roads that run along favorable terrain features away from the neighbor s cover habitat and toward the center of the managed property can be useful, especially if those roads are left unmaintained over a period of years. Creating more predictable deer travel patterns may not be a matter of influencing deer to go anywhere in particular. Creative AUGUST 28 25

habitat design work can simply be used to produce more total hunting hot spots on a given property.

is hunters over-hunting a few locations on the property.

ridge-lines, creek and fence crossing spots, etc. These handful of obvious hot-spots then get over-hunted.

Mature animals are quite adept at picking up on heavy hunting pressure and will very quickly learn to avoid using those locations during daylight.

5 habitat design work can simply be used to produce more total hunting hot spots on a given property. When analyzing the observation data of properties that have been able to produce biological management success but are struggling to produce hunter harvest success, one the most common problems I see is hunters over-hunting a few locations on the property. When queried as to why they are hunting these locations so often, the answer is usually that the property only naturally has a few obvious hunting hot-spots, such as a habitat bottlenecks, saddles in ridge-lines, creek and fence crossing spots, etc. These handful of obvious hot-spots then get over-hunted. Heavy hunting pressure concentrated in a few locations greatly reduces the chance of seeing older deer. Mature animals are quite adept at picking up on heavy hunting pressure and will very quickly learn to avoid using those locations during daylight. In this type of situation, creative habitat planning can be used to produce more total hunting hot spots scattered more evenly across the property. This allows hunters to spread out more and put less pressure on individual hunting locations. Observation and harvest data from managed properties that are successful at harvesting older bucks strongly suggest that the oldest deer are usually harvested from stand locations that have experienced the least hunting pressure. Having more good hunting spots on a property, hence spreading hunting pressure between more locations, can produce better harvest results. Habitat management is both an art and a science. Both aspects of habitat planning can be used to increase the biological success of a program. However, the art of habitat design can also be used to increase the often forgotten key to total program success what is hanging on the meat pole. Whether used to influence deer to travel exactly where desired, funnel deer from adjacent areas onto the managed property, or simply produce more hunting locations to spread out hunting pressure, creative habitat plans involving smart placement of habitat edges and linear features along preferred terrain can be the final piece of the management success puzzle. Once you ve designed a plan to increase habitat transitions and sculpt travel corridors, a variety of techniques can be used to implement the plan. Prescribed fire (left), timber harvest (above) and hinge cutting (below) are good options. Others include road installation, old-field management, mowing, mulching, bark injection of herbicides in select trees, herbicide spraying, and more. About the Author: Bryan Kinkel of Nashville, Tennessee, is the owner of BSK Consulting, a wildlife and habitat consulting company. He specializes in small-land management, deer herd photo surveys, deer utilization of terrain and habitat, and digital mapping. Bryan is a Sponsor Member of QDMA and a regular contributor to Quality Whitetails. About This Article This article was published in Quality Whitetails magazine, the journal of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). To become a QDMA member and receive Quality Whitetails six times a year, use the form below. Join QDMA and receive Quality Whitetails bi-monthly. Name Street City, State, Zip Daytime Phone ( ) Yes, I would like to receive s about QDMA events, information and promotions. Fax this form to: yr NEW Adult Membership - $3 3-yr NEW Membership - $8 Or Mail to: QDMA, P.O. Box 16, Bogart, GA 3622 Phone Orders: Web Orders: Mastercard Visa AmEx Card # Exp. Date Check # Money Order # 26 QUALITY WHITETAILS

Implementing a Successful Deer Management Program. Kip Adams Certified Wildlife Biologist Dir. of Ed. & Outreach Quality Deer Management Association

Implementing a Successful Deer Management Program Kip Adams Certified Wildlife Biologist Dir. of Ed. & Outreach Quality Deer Management Association QDMA Deer Population Trends 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000