Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book. Accessed 3 May :46 GMT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book. Accessed 3 May :46 GMT"

Transcription

1 Mule Deer Dennis D. Austin Published by Utah State University Press Austin, D.. Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Logan: Utah State University Press, Project MUSE., For additional information about this book Accessed 3 May :46 GMT

2 112 Mule Deer habitat. However, few if any units will ever secure the habitat acreage required to maintain optimum deer populations. For example, on the Cache unit, to secure the optimum potential for future mule deer populations, I suggest that the following minimum acreage of winter range would need to be secured with conservation easements or acquisition purchases from private landowners. On the east foothill benches between Logan Canyon and the Utah-Idaho state line, 10,000 acres or about 15 sections would be the optimum acreage. On the benches between Logan and Blacksmith Fork canyons, along Blacksmith Fork Canyon, and around Hardware Ranch, large deer populations would need 8,000 acres or about 12 sections. Around the Wellsville and Clarkston mountains, 10,000 acres or about 15 sections would maintain optimum deer populations, as would 2,000 acres or about three sections along Woodruff Creek and east of Randolph. In addition, on the east side of Bear Lake and around the Crawford Mountains, where migrating mule deer herds from Idaho and Wyoming winter, an additional 10,000 acres or 15 sections are needed to secure these herds. A total of 50,000 acres of rangeland is needed to secure the optimum future for mule deer and associated wildlife species on just the Cache unit! Economics make obtaining this massive amount of acreage an impossible task. However, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has acquired seven wildlife management areas containing mule deer winter range on the Cache unit up through These wildlife management areas total 23,800 acres and include Hardware Ranch at 16,000 acres, Millville Face, Richmond, and Woodruff all at 2,000 acres, Cold Water Canyon at 1,000, Swan Creek at 600 acres, and Mule Deer Research at 200. Since 1928, white-tailed deer populations have been uniquely studied on the Michigan George Reserve deer herd (McCullough 1979). The population dynamics of white-tail deer are very similar to mule deer. The 464 hectare, 1,146 acre area is completely enclosed by an 11.7-foot-high deerproof fence. Many of the concepts in deer population dynamics come from studies on the Reserve. No comparable studies on mule deer have been conducted, although in the 1940s Utah established a similar reserve in central part of the state to conduct research. Unfortunately, the entire

3 Understanding Population Dynamics 113 area, including fence lines, burned the year following construction and the research effort was abandoned. In 1928, four female and two male adult white-tailed deer were introduced in the George Reserve. After seven years of no hunting, the herd had grown to 222 deer! This experiment was repeated in 1975 when the herd was reduced to 10 deer, mostly fawns, and after six years the herd numbered 212. In both experiments yearly growth rates were about 0.51, or a doubling of the population in less than two years. One important finding was that the maximum rate of population growth was a doubling every two years. Perhaps the most important finding of the experiments was that population growth rates decreased as the population increased. Stated differently, when resources per individual deer were more abundant, reproductive success and survival were higher. Maximum sustained yield (MSY) is defined as the highest number of deer which can be harvested yearly on a sustained basis. MSY is limited by habitat quality and quantity, and is determined by using the post-hunting season s residual population. MSY does not occur at low populations because the number of reproducing does is too low, even though population growth and recruitment rates are likely near maximum. Similarly, but perhaps surprisingly, MSY does not occur at high populations because population growth and recruitment rates decrease. On the George Reserve MSY occurred at a post-hunt population of 99 and a harvest of 48 bucks plus antlerless deer. Post-hunt deer density was calculated at about 9 deer per 100 acres (57 deer per square mile) with a harvest rate of about 4 deer harvested per 100 acres (26 deer per square mile). When the post-hunt population was decreased from 99, the harvest declined, even though reproduction and recruitment rates increased. The harvest also declined when the post-hunt population was allowed to increase above 99, but the reproduction and recruitment rates decreased. Because of the bell-shaped curve of deer population dynamics, the same harvest can be obtained at two population points, on the high and low sides of the MSY point. The same harvest could occur at slightly below MSY, or under carrying capacity on the up-slope of the bell-curve, or slightly above MSY, or over carrying capacity on the down-slope of the curve. Mule deer managers generally agree with the bell-shaped curve of deer dynamics, but most believe that the curve is somewhat different from that of the white-tailed deer. The rather even bell-shaped curve for the

4 114 Mule Deer white-tailed deer has a short MSY plateau with gradual slopes from both sides of the plateau. The mule deer curve has a much broader MSY plateau, an even gradual up-slope on the low population side, but importantly, a much more rapid decline in the slope when populations become excessive. The major advantage in managing deer populations on the low population side of MSY is that the deer population has low potential for habitat destruction during harsh winters compared to higher populations. However, hunter effort per deer harvested is increased at the lower population level. The major advantage of managing populations at higher levels above MSY is that hunters and other observers will see more deer, which is a major factor in hunter satisfaction. On the other hand, managing deer at the lower population side of MSY increases the size of bucks harvested. Larger bucks were harvested on the George Reserve during periods of low population density (Haverstrom and Cambrum 1950). Simply stated, more resources are available for individual deer at low populations. Most conscientious managers try to manage deer population on the low side of MSY, whereas most hunters and other wildlife observers, without the knowledge of population dynamics or habitat balance, prefer the higher population. A common question regarding MSY is whether a shift in sex ratios can increase harvest. Many hunters and some managers believe that by having a low buck-to-doe ratio in the post-season population, more fawns will be recruited and an increase in harvest will follow. The fact is, even though recruitment is determined by the number of females and no relationship exists between recruitment and the number of males, MSY cannot be increased by adjustment of the sex ratio due to femaleto-female competition for habitat resources. Nonetheless, at low population levels where female-to-female competition is greatly decreased or is not a factor, population increase may be accelerated if the sex ratio were adjusted in favor of females. Utah data support these findings. During 13 years ( ) of either-sex hunting in Utah, 64,719 bucks were annually harvested when the post-hunt buck-to-doe ratio was moderate (15 to 20 bucks per 100 does). Similarly, during 13 years of buck-only hunts ( ) 63,339 bucks were harvested annually when the post-hunt buck-to-doe ratio was much lower (5 to 10 bucks per 100 does). In Colorado, one study showed no change in the harvest of bucks with either 0 or 15 percent harvest of adult does (Bartman et al. 1992).

5 Understanding Population Dynamics 115 Because harvest at MSY cannot be increased by sex ratio adjustment, once a population reaches the point of MSY, there is no advantage in hunting discrimination between the sexes. Thus the harvest of antlerless deer where populations are at MSY is necessary to achieve maximum harvest. For example, in Utah between 1961 and 1973, under either-sex hunting, hunters harvested 37,796 antlerless deer yearly, compared to 6,088 antlerless deer under buck-only hunting with control permits during Even at very low populations, from the viewpoint of deer population dynamics, complete closure of hunting has little justification. Buckonly hunting is almost always preferable to hunters and useful to mule deer population recovery when populations are low compared to available habitat and below maximum sustained yield. Nonetheless, managers who wish to decrease illegal antlerless kill, which aids in population recovery, or to increase the size of harvested bucks during the following season may choose to close some units. When hunting is restricted to buck-only, deer numbers will usually increase unless other mortality factors have significant effects. Illegal kill and crippling losses, highway mortality, predators, poaching, disease, and accidents; mortality factors can be significant and tend to maintain population size. However, despite these mortality factors, under buckonly hunting, many populations remain high and often above carrying capacity. When populations exceed carrying capacity and MSY, mortality factors are usually beneficial and can increase the sustained harvest of bucks as well as keep herd numbers below the habitat destruction level. Between about 1999 and 2005, the western states and southwestern Canada experienced many years of drought. These drought years reduced the potential MSY due to reduced forage availability and habitat quality. Throughout the West mule deer numbers declined. In addition to the drought clearly affecting population dynamics, other mortality factors have also become more salient and important. The increase in vehicular traffic and highway speed has accelerated the number of deer killed on highways. It is estimated that on some units, highway mortality exceeds hunter harvest, and most of the highway mortality is the reproductive female segment of the herd. The highway factor cannot be ignored. Other

6 116 Mule Deer Photo by Mark Elzey A deer is pictured in the shade of rich aspen habitat. Summer ranges provide the high quality forage needed to build fat stores necessary for winter survival. factors acting negatively on population dynamics include the continual urbanization of winter ranges, increased human harassment in summer, long and continuous hunting seasons in fall and winter, increased use of snow machines and other human activities on upper winter ranges, increased restrictions on predator control, problems associated with depredation, wildfires decimating winter ranges, lack of planned livestock grazing on winter ranges, and many others. These combined factors leading to increased mortality and decreased natality, even under buck-only hunting with zero legal antlerless harvest, appear to me on many Utah units to be curtailing and controlling population growth since about To allow deer populations to return to MSY, managers need to initiate aggressive programs that will greatly reduce the mortality factors and enhance natality.

7

8 Mature does that are healthy in the fall have very high overwinter survival rates. Photo by Dick Spencer

9 More than 90 percent of Utah resident deer hunters are male, over half (55 percent) are between 25 and 44 years of age, and the majority (61 percent) have 11 or more years of experience as licensed Utah deer hunters. Except for the youngest age class (14 to 25 years) the percentage of participating hunters decreases with increasing age. That is, as a hunter cohort ages, fewer hunters continue hunting. However, most hunters who are active at age 25 continue hunting at least until their mid 40s. After age 45, participation percentage in the Utah deer hunt rapidly decreases. Since most hunters begin hunting before age 25, the youngest age class would be expected to have the highest percentage of hunter participation (Decker and Connolly 1989). However, in recent years this age class was not the highest, and the data suggest that a declining percentage of young people will hunt. The mean age of Utah deer hunters is about 40 and increasing (Austin et al. 1992). The number of Utah deer hunters remained somewhat constant between 1994 and 2008 after Utah limited the number of buck hunter permits during the general rifle season to 97,000. That number was reduced to 95,000 in 2005, but the reduction had only minor effects on the number of Utah deer hunters. Prior to 1994, buck permit sales were not limited. Annual and continuous participation by hunters indicated by the number of years of deer hunting experience represents the sustained interests and continued activity of most veteran deer hunters. However, many younger hunters quit deer hunting after only a few seasons. Indeed 119

10 120 Mule Deer more than one-fifth, or an estimated 22 percent, of Utah hunters who had hunted deer over a period of 1 to 15 years had quit hunting before the sixth year of field experience. The loss of interest is likely due to lack of success as a young hunter, accompanied with a change in motivation and competition with other recreational activities. Since wildlife management is supported mostly by the license buyer, it is important for wildlife agencies to recruit new hunters during the later teenage years and retain the activity of these hunters for at least 10 years. After 10 years of experience, hunters are considered veterans, and the hunter drop-out rate is much lower. Most hunters, almost 70 percent, had household incomes of less than $50,000 per year and about 15 percent had incomes of less than $20,000 per year in the early 1990s (Krannich et al. 1991). Although income levels have increased considerably in recent years, hunters continue to come from mainstream citizens. Hunters as a group generally have incomes slightly lower than the average for their location. Regardless of income level, deer hunting is very important to most hunters, especially to those who have 10 or more years of experience (Austin and Jordan 1989). Very few hunters, especially veterans, would be eliminated because of increased license fees. One study determined that about 80 percent of these hunters would continue to hunt even if license fees were doubled (Keith et al. 1991). In my work with hunting groups, it is apparent that relative income levels and interest in deer hunting, especially for veteran hunters, has not changed. Almost all nonresident hunters, more than 95 percent, are male; combined with the similar percentage of male resident hunters, these data support the idea that hunting is only moderately important to women (Krannich et al. 1991; Austin et al. 1992). Conversely, in recent years a slight increase in the number of female hunters has been linked with higher social and economic classes of some participating women. Age classes of nonresidents followed the same pattern as for resident hunters. However few nonresident hunters, less than 10 percent, were represented by the youngest age class. Compared with resident hunters, more nonresident hunters were represented by the older age classes, 45 years and older. These differences between resident and nonresident

11 Profiles and Prefernces of Hunters 121 hunters are probably in part due to higher monetary and time costs associated with nonresident hunting. Participation by experience classes is very different between resident and nonresident hunters. An amazingly high percentage, almost 60 percent, of nonresidents had only one to five years of Utah deer hunting experience. This finding suggests that important reasons cause nonresidents to discontinue hunting in Utah, including travel costs, hunting opportunities in other states, low success in the Utah deer hunts, high hunter density, and interests in alternative outdoor activities. Since the older experience classes with six years or more experience were about the same between resident and nonresident hunters, a much lower rate of nonresident hunters quit hunting after five years of deer hunting experience in Utah. Any combination of hunting regulations which does not drive the deer population toward extinction or toward excessive overpopulation is generally biologically acceptable. These are the outside boundaries for regulations. Simply stated, as a result of hunting neither the species nor the habitat is endangered. Annual overkill of deer herds in excess of the annual recruitment, including hunting and all other mortality factors and partly caused by excessive hunter pressure and liberal regulations, will gradually eliminate populations. However, no known populations of free-ranging mule deer have been extirpated through hunting. Nevertheless it is well-documented that many local populations of gray wolves, grizzly bears, river otters, beaver, pine marten, elk, and other species have been extirpated by unregulated or excessive harvest. Conversely, excessive overpopulations of mule deer, resulting from a reduction in the sum of the mortality factors, including hunting, have been periodically problematic on most of Utah s deer units. To be successful from both the hunter and the manager perspective, hunter management must meet the harvest objectives as well as the post-season residual population expectations of the management plan. If both criteria are not met, the management plan or the harvest must be adjusted. Because of high reproductive rates and habitat adaptability by mule deer, management plans have wide flexibility, and deer populations can rapidly adjust to any changes. For example, in 1973 and 1974

12 122 Mule Deer deer populations in Utah were greatly reduced due to a combination of several factors, including over-harvest and weather. The resulting Utah buck harvest of 43,734 in 1975 was the lowest since However, following two years of normal recruitment, under buck-only hunting and with very limited antlerless permits, by 1977 most deer herds had recovered and the buck harvest returned to the pre-1973 level. Only two years were needed for Utah s buck harvest to fully recover from the lowest buck harvest recorded in almost three decades! Nonetheless a few deer herds in southern Utah recovered much more slowly, probably as a reaction to drought and other factors increasing fawn mortality. In Utah, rifle hunting seasons were first established in 1894 and re-established in 1914, archery hunting seasons were first authorized in 1942, and muzzleloader hunts in Both archery and muzzleloader hunts were established in response to hunters desiring a hunt using improved primitive weapons. Archers harvest deer in late August and early September, the muzzleloader hunt currently occurs in late September and early October, and the rifle hunt occurs in late October and begins on the Saturday closest to October 20. Requests for other separate deer hunting seasons, such as those limited to pistol, crossbow, live and kill trapping, use of dogs, deadfalls, blow-gun, poison baiting, spear-throwing, and voodoo have been denied by the Wildlife Board. Generally primitive weapons require increased hunter skills and result in lower success rates. In Utah during the 1980s, archery hunters had a success rate for buck deer of about 11 percent, muzzleloaders about 22 percent and rifle hunters about 33 percent. Rifle hunters were about three times more likely to harvest a buck than archers, and muzzleloaders were about twice as successful as archers. In terms of harvest, only about four percent of bucks were harvested by archers, four percent by muzzleloaders, and most bucks, about 92 percent, were harvested by rifle hunters (Utah DWR ). Since the muzzleloader season was moved to the late September through early October season, and with the improvements in technical efficiencies in archery bows and muzzleloader firearms, those success ratios have significantly shifted. Between about 2000 and 2005 hunter success rates for the general season rifle hunt have average about 30

13 Profiles and Prefernces of Hunters 123 percent, for the muzzleloader hunt about 40 percent, and for the archery hunt approaching 20 percent. Although these success rates are variable, the success rates for archers and especially muzzleloader hunters have increased. The increase in success for muzzleloaders can be attributed to moving the muzzleloader season before the rifle hunt, thereby allowing muzzleloader hunters the opportunity to hunt before deer are significantly harassed by rifle hunters. Because of the lower success rate with archery weapons, managers trying to reduce buck harvest often recommend regulations which encourage more hunters to use archery equipment. Conversely, an increased harvest would be obtained by encouraging the number of rifle or muzzleloader hunters. In Utah before 1993, hunters could generally hunt during all three seasons with the same Utah deer license. The philosophy to maximize hunter opportunity had been in place since at least However, with undesirable hunter crowding and yearling bucks comprising the large majority of the harvest, the management philosophy changed to reduce some hunting opportunity and to provide a higher quality hunt. A major change in wildlife management policy began in 1993 when hunters were restricted to hunting during only one season. Utah has had four basic rifle hunts since 1951, with each hunt type having a variable number of antlerless permits. Either-sex hunts dominated from 1951 to 1973 and buck-only hunts dominated from 1974 to 2008, as well as before From 1985 to 1990 hunts restricting the number of hunters (limited entry and high country) were adopted, and from 1984 to 1989 antler-restrictive hunts (three point and better) were established on some units. Limited-entry hunts have continued on some units through Either-sex Hunts During 23 years of either-sex hunting ( ), the statewide total buck harvest averaged 66,992 and the antlerless harvest was 39,228. Using the estimated mean for unretrieved deer (eight deer per 100 hunters) and the mean number of rifle hunters afield (153,666) the yearly loss of unretrieved deer comes to 12,293, bringing the mean total annual hunting

14 124 Mule Deer mortality to 118,513 (Austin et al. 1989; Stapley 1970). Hunter preference for buck-only versus either-sex hunting has never been addressed. Antler-restrictive Hunts Three-point-and-better antler restrictive hunts were available on some units between 1984 and In comparison with buck-only hunts, three-point-and-better hunts showed a reduction in hunters afield, buck harvest, and hunter success (Utah DWR ; Utah DWR memo 1990). These hunts also showed a small increase in the post-season total buck-to-doe ratios but a large decrease in the number of post-season mature bucks counted. On these areas, they also showed a large decrease in the small buck (two point or less) to doe ratio between pre-season and post-season classification counts. Small bucks (two point or less) were killed illegally during the hunts. Questionnaire surveys confirmed those negative results with the highest number of unretrieved deer, reported at 39.6 deer per 100 hunters. The 39.6 deer included 21.7 bucks (Austin and Jordan 1989; Austin et al. 1990, 1991, 1992). This number of bucks, mostly two point and less, can be compared to 4.6 unretrieved bucks per 100 hunters on buck-only areas. However, hunters on antler-restrictive areas were moderately satisfied with mean index of 4.8 on a 0-to-10-point scale, and mean hunting party success of 55.6 percent suggests that a large number of hunters per party participated on these hunts. During 1989, the last year of three-point-andbetter hunts, 40 percent of Utah resident hunters had hunted at least once on a three point and better hunt, but only 27 percent of them preferred to continue this type of hunt. Indeed, less than half, 48 percent, of hunters who chose to hunt these units in 1989 preferred to continue them. Even though antler-restrictive hunts were not successful over entire deer management units, on private lands and ranches selection of conscientious hunters to avoid high unretrieved deer losses may lead to successful antler-restrictive management. In such situations, management could adopt incentive or penalty options for hunters who may mistakenly shoot small bucks restricted by the private land management plan. Also because of phenotypic selectivity by hunters and potential negative effects on deer size, the best restriction may be to harvest three-pointand-better as well as spike bucks. If antler restriction hunts are adopted in the future or by private ranchers, I would recommend to occasionally hunt 2x2 point bucks to remove those old but genetically small bucks

15 Profiles and Prefernces of Hunters 125 from the breeding population. Consequently, at least once every three to five years only 2x2 and smaller bucks should be hunted. For a case in point, at the East Canyon Resort (10,000 acres) in northern Utah, where a restricting harvest of 2x2 point bucks with voluntary fines for mistakes was implemented, the mean number of total antler tines prior to restrictions ( ) was 4.5 with more than 60 percent of the harvested bucks being 2x2 or smaller. In the three years ( ) of restrictions, the mean number of total antler tines increased to 6.1 per buck, and only 35 percent of the harvest was 2x2 and smaller bucks. During the three years before restriction, none of the bucks checked were larger than 4x4, compared to eight large bucks checked under restrictions. Hunter-number-restrictive Hunts Limited-entry hunts have been in place on some units since In comparison with buck-only hunts, they provide higher hunter success and satisfaction, but no difference in percentage of unretrieved deer, averaging about 18 unretrieved deer per 100 hunters with about nine buck and nine antlerless deer. Hunting party success is much higher and usually exceeds 50 percent. By 1989, 23 percent of resident hunters had hunted deer on limited-entry areas, and most, 66 percent, agreed the increased fee was fair. While most hunters favored the same or increased number of limited-entry units, hunter preferences for various draw options for permits and landowner hunting opportunities are unclear. The largest problems associated with limited-entry hunts are the shifting of additional hunters to areas open to general hunting and the loss of hunting opportunity on limited-entry units due to a reduced number of hunters. Also, the loss of opportunity for landowners to hunt on the unit in which they own lands can be a negative factor if the landowners fail to draw permits. A second type of hunter-number-restrictive hunt was the highcountry hunt. This uncrowded, high-quality hunt, which harvested bucks that consequently were not then available during the October rifle hunt, surprisingly received positive support from most, 60 percent, of Utah hunters. Buck-only Hunts Between 1974 and 1990, total buck harvest in Utah averaged 63,250 per year with 8,633 antlerless harvest and 181,235 hunters afield. The number

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book Mule Deer Dennis D. Austin Published by Utah State University Press Austin, D.. Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2010. Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.

More information

ALTERNATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS. 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 45A, 45B, 45C, and White-tailed Deer Units

ALTERNATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS. 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 45A, 45B, 45C, and White-tailed Deer Units ALTERNATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 45A, 45B, 45C, and White-tailed Deer Units Arizona Game and Fish Department April 4, 2006 Alternative Deer Management

More information

Deer Management Unit 152

Deer Management Unit 152 Deer Management Unit 152 Geographic Location: Deer Management Unit (DMU) 152 is 386 miles 2 in size and is primarily in southwestern Marquette County. This DMU falls within the moderate snowfall zone and

More information

Deer Management Unit 127

Deer Management Unit 127 Deer Management Unit 127 Area Description Deer Management Unit (DMU) 127 is 328 sq. miles in size and is found in far western Gogebic County surrounding Ironwood, Bessemer and adjacent rural communities.

More information

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit DMU 8 Barry County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Barry County Deer Management Unit (DMU) 8 is in the Southwest Region and was once part of the Bellevue deer management unit 38. Bellevue DMU

More information

Deer Management Unit 122

Deer Management Unit 122 Deer Management Unit 122 Area Description DMU 122 is located in south Dickinson County and includes a small portion of west central Menominee County. It encompasses 163 sq. miles and has remained unchanged

More information

DMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties

DMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties DMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties Area Description The Fremont Deer Management Unit (DMU 361) was established in 2013. It lies within the Southwest Region and covers

More information

Deer Management Unit 252

Deer Management Unit 252 Deer Management Unit 252 Geographic Location: Deer Management Unit (DMU) 252 is 297 miles 2 in size and is primarily in southeastern Marquette, southwestern Alger and northwestern Delta County. This DMU

More information

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Livingston Deer Management Unit (DMU) lies in the Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP) region and covers only Livingston County. Most public

More information

AN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY DEER HUNTER OPINION ON EXPANDING ANTLER POINT RESTRICTION (APR) REGULATIONS IN DEER MANAGEMENT ZONES 28, 30, 31, 34 AND 47

AN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY DEER HUNTER OPINION ON EXPANDING ANTLER POINT RESTRICTION (APR) REGULATIONS IN DEER MANAGEMENT ZONES 28, 30, 31, 34 AND 47 AN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY DEER HUNTER OPINION ON EXPANDING ANTLER POINT RESTRICTION (APR) REGULATIONS IN DEER MANAGEMENT ZONES 28, 30, 31, 34 AND 47 Survey mailed: April 2010 Data analyzed: June 2010

More information

DMU 038 Jackson County

DMU 038 Jackson County DMU 038 Jackson County Area Description The Jackson Deer Management Unit (DMU), or DMU 038, lies in the Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP) region and covers Jackson County. The DMU consists of five percent

More information

Deer Management Unit 249

Deer Management Unit 249 Deer Management Unit 249 Geographic Location: DMU 249 lies along the Lake Michigan shoreline and is comprised largely of Mackinac and Chippewa counties with a small portion of southeastern Luce County

More information

Deer Management Unit 349

Deer Management Unit 349 Deer Management Unit 349 Geographic Location: DMU 349 lies along the lake Michigan shoreline and is largely comprised of western Mackinac county with small portions of southern Luce county and southeastern

More information

Full summaries of all proposed rule changes, including DMU boundary descriptions, are included in the additional background material.

Full summaries of all proposed rule changes, including DMU boundary descriptions, are included in the additional background material. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) implemented a public outreach and input process in 2013 and 2014 in management Zones A, B and C. The goal of this process was to present the

More information

Recommendations for Pennsylvania's Deer Management Program and The 2010 Deer Hunting Season

Recommendations for Pennsylvania's Deer Management Program and The 2010 Deer Hunting Season Recommendations for Pennsylvania's Deer Management Program and The 2010 Deer Hunting Season March 7, 2010 Prepared for The Pennsylvania Game Commission Board of Commissioners By John Eveland RECOMMENDATIONS

More information

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 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

More information

Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results Table of Contents Public Surveys for Deer Goal Setting... 1 Methods... 1 Hunter Survey... 2 Demographics... 2 Population

More information

IN PROGRESS BIG GAME HARVEST REPORTS FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH Energy and Resource Development

IN PROGRESS BIG GAME HARVEST REPORTS FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH Energy and Resource Development BIG GAME HARVEST REPORTS 217 IN PROGRESS FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH Energy and Resource Development http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/erd.html MOOSE HARVEST REPORT 217 Summary Each year, moose

More information

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit Area Description Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 99,000 acres of public land which is about

More information

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results Table of Contents Public Surveys for Deer Goal Setting... 1 Methods... 1 Hunter Survey... 2 Demographics... 2 Population

More information

Deer Management Unit 255

Deer Management Unit 255 Deer Management Unit 255 Area Description DMU 255 is located primarily in northern Menominee County, but also extends into a small portion of Dickinson, Marquette, and Delta counties. It has totaled 463

More information

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion Job Title:, Subsection B Goal: Manage the mountain lion population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona s fauna and to provide mountain lion hunting recreation opportunity while

More information

021 Deer Management Unit

021 Deer Management Unit 021 Deer Management Unit Geographic Location: Deer Management Unit (DMU) 021 is 1,464 square miles in size and is located in the central Upper Peninsula (UP). This DMU is dominated by publicly owned land

More information

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Lenawee Deer Management Unit (DMU), or DMU 046, lies in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula (SLP) region and covers Lenawee County. The majority

More information

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book Mule Deer Dennis D. Austin Published by Utah State University Press Austin, D.. Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2010. Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.

More information

Kansas Deer Report Seasons

Kansas Deer Report Seasons Kansas Deer Report 215-16 Seasons I. Current Harvest Hunter harvest of deer during the 215-16 seasons was estimated to be 95,813, 2.% more than the 93,94 deer taken in 214-15 (see table below for breakdown

More information

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK 2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK A collaborative survey by the Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group Report Prepared by: Karen Loveless, Montana Fish Wildlife

More information

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion SPECIES: Goal: Manage the mountain lion population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona s fauna and to provide mountain lion hunting recreation opportunity while maintaining existing

More information

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Wayne Deer Management Unit (DMU 082) lies in the Southeast Region and borders Lake Erie to the East and includes Celeron and Stony Islands

More information

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit (DMU 040) is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP) (Figure 1). It has roughly 170,000 acres

More information

DEER HUNT RESULTS ON ALABAMA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS ANNUAL REPORT, CHRISTOPHER W. COOK STUDY LEADER MAY, 2006

DEER HUNT RESULTS ON ALABAMA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS ANNUAL REPORT, CHRISTOPHER W. COOK STUDY LEADER MAY, 2006 DEER HUNT RESULTS ON ALABAMA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS ANNUAL REPORT, 2005-2006 CHRISTOPHER W. COOK STUDY LEADER MAY, 2006 ALABAMA DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES Federal Aid Project funded

More information

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit Area Description Roscommon County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 205,000 acres of public land which is

More information

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 216 FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT www.gnb.ca/erd/naturalresources MOOSE HARVEST REPORT 216 Summary Each year, moose licence quotas are

More information

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion SPECIES: Goal: Manage the mountain lion population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona s fauna and to provide mountain lion hunting recreation opportunity while maintaining existing

More information

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ December 6 th, 217 Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ What are current white-tailed deer management objectives in the Kootenay

More information

Management History of the Edwards Plateau

Management History of the Edwards Plateau Management History of the Edwards Plateau Eco regions of Texas Edwards Plateau 24,000,000 acres About 15,000 years ago, the Edwards Plateau was much cooler and was more forested than today. Pollen counts

More information

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit Area Description Antrim County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 74 square miles (47,451 acres) of public land

More information

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Leelanau County Deer Management Unit (DMU 045) is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 7,100 acres of State Forest

More information

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book Mule Deer Dennis D. Austin Published by Utah State University Press Austin, D.. Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2010. Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.

More information

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HUNTING SEASONS

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HUNTING SEASONS NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HUNTING SEASONS Draft Page 2 of 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS Schedule for formulating harvest management guidelines..............................................

More information

DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit

DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit Area Description The Greenleaf Deer Management Unit (DMU 332) lies in the Southeast Region of the Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP) and covers

More information

Biologist s Answer: What are your goals? Deer Management. Define goals, objectives. Manager s Question: Should I cull or shoot spikes?

Biologist s Answer: What are your goals? Deer Management. Define goals, objectives. Manager s Question: Should I cull or shoot spikes? Manager s Question: Should I cull or shoot spikes? Manager s Question: Should I cull or shoot spikes? Biologist s Answer: What are your goals? How futile it is to passively follow a recipe without understanding

More information

Cariboo-Chilcotin (Region 5) Mule Deer: Frequently Asked Questions

Cariboo-Chilcotin (Region 5) Mule Deer: Frequently Asked Questions Harvest Cariboo-Chilcotin (Region 5) Mule Deer: Frequently Asked Questions A number of questions and concerns have been expressed from resident hunters about the change in the mule deer hunting regulations

More information

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE BEN H. KOERTH, Institute for White-tailed Deer Management and Research, Box 6109, Arthur Temple College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State

More information

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Arenac County Deer Management Unit (DMU) 006 is in the Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP) Region. It has roughly 248,320 acres and consists of

More information

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit 5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Otsego County Deer Management Unit (DMU 069) is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 159 Square miles (101,800

More information

DMU 419 Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Ionia, and Shiawassee Counties

DMU 419 Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Ionia, and Shiawassee Counties DMU 419 Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Ionia, and Shiawassee Counties Area Description Deer Management Unit (DMU) 419 is in the Southern Lower Peninsula Region (SLP). It consists of Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Ionia,

More information

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit Area Description Emmet County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 126 square miles (80,371 acres) of public land

More information

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast RANCHING Wildlife Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast During most summers, I take a short break and head to Colorado, Wyoming, or somewhere out west to enjoy a respite from the hot South Texas

More information

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit Area Description The Midland County Deer Management Unit (DMU) 056 is in the Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP) Region. It has roughly 333, 440 acres and consists

More information

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book Mule Deer Dennis D. Austin Published by Utah State University Press Austin, D.. Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2010. Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.

More information

Monitoring Population Trends of White-tailed Deer in Minnesota Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group

Monitoring Population Trends of White-tailed Deer in Minnesota Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group Monitoring Population Trends of White-tailed Deer in Minnesota - 2014 Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group INTRODUCTION White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) represent one

More information

RYAN WALKER, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, P. O. Box 1145, Raton, NM 87740, (575) ,

RYAN WALKER, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, P. O. Box 1145, Raton, NM 87740, (575) , State Status Reports RYAN WALKER, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, P. O. Box 1145, Raton, NM 87740, (575) 445-2311, ryan.walker@state.nm.us Abstract: Overall population estimates for all deer species

More information

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016 Terry Steinwand, Director North Dakota Game and Fish Department 100 N. Bismarck Expressway Bismarck, ND 58501 NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016 2016 Deer Season Set North Dakota s 2016 deer season is

More information

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2018

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2018 Terry Steinwand, Director North Dakota Game and Fish Department 100 N. Bismarck Expressway Bismarck, ND 58501 NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2018 Deer Season Set North Dakota s 2018 deer season is set

More information

Splitting seasons into multiple, shorter ones is preferable to long, crowded seasons.

Splitting seasons into multiple, shorter ones is preferable to long, crowded seasons. COMMENTS FROM TOWN HALL MEETINGS ON HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR NEVADA HUNTING SEASONS PUBLIC Reno 31 in attendance comments Avoid overlapping seasons with differing weapon types. For example, rifle

More information

CHECKS AND BALANCES. OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased

CHECKS AND BALANCES. OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased CHECKS AND BALANCES 5 OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased activity. BACKGROUND White Tailed Deer White-tailed deer have always been a part of the forest

More information

Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota,

Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota, Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report No. 507-S January 2003 Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota, 2001-2002 Dean A. Bangsund and F. Larry Leistritz*

More information

NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA ANALYSIS UNIT D-5 Game Management Units 87, 88, 89, 90, & 95 November 2007 Marty Stratman Colorado Division of Wildlife Terrestrial Biologist 122 E. Edison

More information

White-tailed Deer: A Review of the 2010 Provincially Coordinated Hunting Regulation

White-tailed Deer: A Review of the 2010 Provincially Coordinated Hunting Regulation Population Estimate White-tailed Deer: A Review of the 21 Provincially Coordinated Hunting Regulation White-tailed deer in BC were managed using a combination of General Open Season (GOS) and Limited Entry

More information

Findings of the Alaska Board of Game BOG

Findings of the Alaska Board of Game BOG Findings of the Alaska Board of Game 2004-148-BOG Authorizing Predator Control in the Western Cook Inlet Area in Unit 16B with Airborne or Same Day Airborne Shooting March 10, 2004 Purpose This action

More information

Introduction to Pennsylvania s Deer Management Program. Christopher S. Rosenberry Deer and Elk Section Bureau of Wildlife Management

Introduction to Pennsylvania s Deer Management Program. Christopher S. Rosenberry Deer and Elk Section Bureau of Wildlife Management Introduction to Pennsylvania s Deer Management Program Christopher S. Rosenberry Deer and Elk Section Bureau of Wildlife Management To anyone who has carefully studied the situation it is evident that

More information

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE AND HUNTING SEASONS

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE AND HUNTING SEASONS ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE 2016-2017 AND 2017-2018 HUNTING SEASONS As proposed by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Schedule for formulating 2016-2017 and

More information

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book Mule Deer Dennis D. Austin Published by Utah State University Press Austin, D.. Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2010. Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.

More information

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to the Olympic Peninsula

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to the Olympic Peninsula EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to the Olympic Peninsula Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Office Introduction Historical records indicate

More information

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting Deer advisory team recommendations Block 4: East Central Uplands The following pages represent deer population goals recommended by the 2015 deer advisory team for Block 4: East Central Uplands (permit

More information

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife As Required by 12 Section 10107-A White-tailed Deer Population Management Written By: Wildlife Management Staff, Inland Fisheries

More information

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion SPECIES: Goal: Manage the mountain lion population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona s fauna and to provide mountain lion hunting recreation opportunity while maintaining existing

More information

Colorado West Slope Mule Deer Strategy Public Engagement Report

Colorado West Slope Mule Deer Strategy Public Engagement Report Colorado West Slope Mule Deer Strategy Public Engagement Report S U M M A R Y P R E S E N T A T I O N T O C O L O R A D O P A R K S A N D W I L D L I F E C O M M I S S I O N P R E S E N T E D BY T H E

More information

Deer Season Report

Deer Season Report 2014-2015 Deer Season Report Fort Benning, Georgia Prepared by: Conservation Branch, IMBE-PWE-C 5 March 2015 Abstract The 2014-2015 Deer Season on Fort Benning included a significant change in management

More information

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN?

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN? ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN? By E. W. Grimes, Former Director/President, Maryland State Chapter of the Quality Deer Management Association I ve tried in the past when writing articles to be positive with

More information

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT May 25, 2011

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT May 25, 2011 Terry Steinwand, Director North Dakota Game and Fish Department 100 N. Bismarck Expressway Bismarck, ND 58501 NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT May 25, 2011 Idle-Speed-Only Zone Established on Missouri River The

More information

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block Minnesota Deer Population Goals East Central Uplands Goal Block Minnesota DNR Section of Wildlife, 2015 Final Deer Population Goals Block 4: East Central Uplands The following pages provide a description

More information

Stakeholder Activity

Stakeholder Activity Stakeholder Activity Stakeholder Group: Wilderness Advocates For the stakeholder meeting, your group will represent Wilderness Advocates. Your job is to put yourself in the Wilderness Advocate s shoes

More information

Enclosed, please find the 2018 Spotlight Deer Survey Report and Recommendations that we have prepared for your review and records.

Enclosed, please find the 2018 Spotlight Deer Survey Report and Recommendations that we have prepared for your review and records. July 26, 2018 YO Ranchlands Landowner Association 1323 Whispering Pines Houston, TX 77055 To the Wildlife Committee: Enclosed, please find the 2018 Spotlight Deer Survey Report and Recommendations that

More information

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit Area Description Missaukee County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has over 100,000 acres of state land, just over

More information

The Role and Economic Importance of Private Lands in Providing Habitat for Wyoming s Big Game

The Role and Economic Importance of Private Lands in Providing Habitat for Wyoming s Big Game March 2004 B-1150 The Role and Economic Importance of Private Lands in Providing Habitat for Wyoming s Big Game By Roger Coupal, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics; Gary Beauvais, Wyoming

More information

DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit

DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit DMU 43 Lake County Deer Management Unit Area Description Lake County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has approximately 2, acres of public land which is about half

More information

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

Minnesota Deer Population Goals This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp Minnesota Deer Population

More information

Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion

Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion Sophie Gilbert, U. of Idaho Adam Ford, UBC Okanagan Jesse Zeman, BC Wildlife Federation The Boundary Deer Herd (it is) difficult to cast

More information

Saguache Mule Deer Herd Data Analysis Unit D-26 Game Management Units 68, 681 and 682 March 2008

Saguache Mule Deer Herd Data Analysis Unit D-26 Game Management Units 68, 681 and 682 March 2008 Saguache Mule Deer Herd Data Analysis Unit D-26 Game Management Units 68, 681 and 682 March 2008 Colorado Division of Wildlife 0722 S Co Rd 1 E Monte Vista, CO 81144 Revised by Brad Weinmeister Terrestrial

More information

2010 Zone 3 Deer Season Recommendations

2010 Zone 3 Deer Season Recommendations 2010 Zone 3 Deer Season Recommendations Prepared by: Lou Cornicelli Big Game Program Coordinator Marrett D. Grund Farmland Deer Project Leader Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish

More information

1) Increase the deer population to 475,000 (mule, 150,000;

1) Increase the deer population to 475,000 (mule, 150,000; British Columbia Deer Status Report forthe 1987 Western ~ tates~cinces Deer workshop - 1. Attending Representative: Ian Hatter Wildlife Branch Ministry of Environment and Parks Victoria, British Columbia

More information

Archery Gun Muzzleloader Total Bull Cow Bull Cow Bull Cow Bull Cow

Archery Gun Muzzleloader Total Bull Cow Bull Cow Bull Cow Bull Cow DAVE MCGOWEN/RPS2017 In 2016-17, elk harvest totaled 315 bulls and cows, an increase of five over the previous year. ELK Elk seasons on private lands ran concurrently with established deer seasons, except

More information

Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group 2012 Annual Report (October 1, 2012-September 30, 2012) Member Agencies

Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group 2012 Annual Report (October 1, 2012-September 30, 2012) Member Agencies Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Wildlife Working Group 2012 Annual Report (October 1, 2012-September 30, 2012) Member Agencies Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks National Park Service, Yellowstone National

More information

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit Area Description Mason County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP) on the Lake Michigan coast. Only 17% of the land base is public

More information

Controlled Take (Special Status Game Mammal Chapter)

Controlled Take (Special Status Game Mammal Chapter) Controlled Take (Special Status Game Mammal Chapter) Background of issue: The current Plan contains standards including the use of controlled take as a management response tool to assist in some situations

More information

The 2009 Montana Wolf Hunting Season

The 2009 Montana Wolf Hunting Season The 2009 Montana Wolf Hunting Season SUMMARY The 2009 wolf hunting season was the first fair chase hunting season in Montana s history. Historically, private citizen efforts to kill wolves occurred under

More information

Kootenay (Region 4) Mule Deer: Frequently Asked Questions

Kootenay (Region 4) Mule Deer: Frequently Asked Questions 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Kills/100 hunter days Kootenay (Region 4) Mule Deer: Frequently Asked Questions

More information

CHARLES H. WILLEY PHOTO. 8 November/December 2006 WILDLIFE JOURNAL

CHARLES H. WILLEY PHOTO. 8 November/December 2006 WILDLIFE JOURNAL CHARLES H. WILLEY PHOTO 8 November/December 2006 WILDLIFE JOURNAL The hunter harvest is a rich source of management information for wildlife biologists. BY KENT GUSTAFSON Each fall, hunters enjoy their

More information

April Nisga a Fisheries & Wildlife Department

April Nisga a Fisheries & Wildlife Department April 2013 Nisga a Fisheries & Wildlife Department Nass Wildlife Committee created by the Nisga a Final Agreement Only wildlife co-management body in B.C. First Nass Wildlife Management Plan 2001 Annual

More information

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations For Immediate Release 2015FLNR0004-000035 January 15, 2015 INFORMATION BULLETIN Government acting to save endangered caribou VICTORIA - The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is

More information

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book Mule Deer Dennis D. Austin Published by Utah State University Press Austin, D.. Mule Deer: A Handbook for Utah Hunters and Landowners. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2010. Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.

More information

Mule and Black-tailed Deer

Mule and Black-tailed Deer Mule and Black-tailed Deer Mule and Black-tailed Deer: Because mule deer are closely tied to the history, development, and future of the West, this species has become one of the true barometers of environmental

More information

This game has been adapted from SECONDARY PROJECT WILD 1983, 1985

This game has been adapted from SECONDARY PROJECT WILD 1983, 1985 CHECKS AND BALANCES GAME This game has been adapted from SECONDARY PROJECT WILD 1983, 1985 It is advisable to run the card sets in different colors. This makes it easier for the students to follow the

More information

ALBERTA FISH & GAME ASSOCIATION 2015 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING PASSED RESOLUTIONS FEBRUARY 21, 2015

ALBERTA FISH & GAME ASSOCIATION 2015 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING PASSED RESOLUTIONS FEBRUARY 21, 2015 ALBERTA FISH & GAME ASSOCIATION 2015 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING PASSED RESOLUTIONS FEBRUARY 21, 2015 GENERAL RESOLUTION NUMBER G-1-2015 and Sustainable Resource Development permit the use of crossbows during

More information

Status Report on the Yellowstone Bison Population, August 2016 Chris Geremia 1, Rick Wallen, and P.J. White August 17, 2016

Status Report on the Yellowstone Bison Population, August 2016 Chris Geremia 1, Rick Wallen, and P.J. White August 17, 2016 Summary: Status Report on the Yellowstone Bison Population, August 2016 Chris Geremia 1, Rick Wallen, and P.J. White August 17, 2016 The bison population is estimated near 5,500 (range = 5,200-5,800),

More information

COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD TO MANAGE WILDLIFE 2019 BIG GAME SEASONS RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD TO MANAGE WILDLIFE 2019 BIG GAME SEASONS RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD TO MANAGE WILDLIFE 2019 BIG GAME SEASONS RECOMMENDATIONS Please check the appropriate blanks and list any exceptions below each hunt. 1. Resident and Nonresident Black Bear Either

More information

2009 Update. Introduction

2009 Update. Introduction 29 Update Introduction The Wyoming Game & Fish Department, the University of Wyoming, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service initiated the Absaroka Elk Ecology Project in January 27. Objectives of this project

More information

Deer Management in Maryland. Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader Maryland DNR

Deer Management in Maryland. Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader Maryland DNR Deer Management in Maryland Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader Maryland DNR 301-842-0332 beyler@dnr.state.md.us General Behavior Social groups Social hierarchy Home range Nocturnal Bedding Food Habits Ruminants

More information