Assessing strategies to improve bowhunting as an urban deer management tool

Transcription

1 ASSESSING BOWHUNTING STRATEGIES 1177 Assessing strategies to improve bowhunting as an urban deer management tool Howard J. Kilpatrick, Andrew M. LaBonte, John S. Barclay, and Glenn Warner Abstract Firearms hunting often is limited as a deer (Odocoileus spp.) management tool in urban and suburban areas due to firearms discharge ordinances, restrictive hunting laws, or public perception about firearms safety. Many states use bowhunters to manage overabundant deer populations in urban suburban areas. Little information exists on the effectiveness of bowhunting as a deer management tool in developed areas. Our objectives were to evaluate the potential for bowhunting to manage deer populations in urban suburban areas and identify important variables influencing hunt effectiveness. We estimated deer population size and herd composition using aerial deer surveys and spotlight counts. Nonhunting mortality was determined from radiotelemetry data. We mailed a 9-page survey to bowhunters who hunted in a residential community with high deer densities to determine harvest rates, hunter success rates, willingness to harvest additional antlerless deer, and interest in employing aggressive deer management strategies. Of 159 surveys mailed, 71% were completed and returned. We conducted model simulations using Program STELLA (High Performance Systems Inc., Lebanon, N.H.) to determine which management strategies would contribute most to stabilizing deer population growth. Sunday hunting provided 41% fewer hunting days, yet was more effective at reducing deer population growth than a January extension. Harvesting antlerless deer that hunters were passing up had the greatest relative effect in reducing deer population size. Incentive programs for hunters to harvest antlerless deer are needed. Combining multiple hunt strategies (i.e., January and Sunday hunting) may be more effective than implementing individual hunt strategies. A special crossbow season outside the existing archery season may be an effective deer management tool in urban areas. Key words harvest strategies, Odocoileus virginianus, population modeling, STELLA, white-tailed deer Hunting is the principal tool for managing freeranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations. However, in urban and suburban areas, firearms hunting often is limited due to firearm discharge ordinances, restrictive hunting laws, or public perceptions about firearm safety (Jones and Witham 1995,Kuser 1995,Mayer et al.1995,kilpatrick et al. 1997). Large deer populations combined with limited firearms use in urban and suburban areas create challenges for wildlife managers. Natural resource managers have liberalized deer hunting seasons (e.g., extending season length and Address for Howard J. Kilpatrick and Andrew M. LaBonte: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, 391 Route 32, North Franklin, CT 06254, USA for Kilpatrick: Howard.Kilpatrick@po.state.ct.us. Address for John S. Barclay: Wildlife Conservation Research Center, University of Connecticut, 1376 Storrs Road, Unit 4087, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. Address for Glenn Warner: University of Connecticut, 1376 Storrs Road, Unit 4087, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2004, 32(4): Peer refereed

2 1178 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2004, 32(4): bag limits) to increase deer harvest rates (Ferrigno et al. 2002, Kilpatrick et al. 2002b). In addition, incentive programs for hunters to harvest additional antlerless deer were established to increase hunter efficiency and harvest rates (Ferrigno et al. 2002, Kilpatrick et al. 2002b, Suchy et al. 2002). Archery hunting has been used to reduce urban and suburban deer populations with variable success (McAninch 1993, Kuser 1995, Kilpatrick and Walter 1999). Differences in hunter density, season length, bag limit, and site characteristics make it difficult to compare results among studies. Innovative archery hunting programs have been used to manage deer populations in urban suburban areas (McAninch 1993, Kilpatrick and Walter 1999). Understanding how different hunt strategies may affect harvest and which variables contribute most to maximizing the deer harvest is important for developing effective deer management programs. No studies evaluated the effectiveness of hunt strategies to reduce deer populations in urban suburban areas. Our objectives were to evaluate the potential for bowhunting to control deer populations in urban suburban areas and identify the relative effectiveness of increasing available hunting days, hunter numbers, success rates, and hunter willingness to harvest antlerless deer and participate in harvest incentive programs. Study area The study site was the town of Greenwich, located in Fairfield County in the southwest corner of Connecticut, about 48 km from New York City. The 124-km 2 town was bounded on the south by Long Island Sound, on the east by the city of Stamford, and on the north and west by Westchester County, New York. The human population in Greenwich was about 58,000 ( census data). Europeans settled Greenwich in 1640, creating several village centers along the shoreline and primarily farmland to the north. Over time, farms were replaced by residential estates, and large parcels of land were turned into smaller estates, subdivisions, golf courses, schools, other public facilities, nature preserves, and open space. Only 17 parcels totaling 147 ha of farmland remain (Planning and Zoning Commission 1998). Reported archery deer harvest in Greenwich comprised 92% of total deer harvest from 2000 to 2001 (Kilpatrick et al. 2001, 2002a). Mean number of deer reportedly killed by motor vehicles was 72 Incentives to harvest at least a portion of the antlerless deer that archery hunters reported passing up would be the most effective harvest strategy. from 2000 to 2001 (Kilpatrick et al. 2001, 2002a). Reported number of deer killed by motor vehicles was conservative; it is likely the actual figure was 2 or 3 times higher (Kilpatrick et al. 1999). Only 11% of the town potentially could be open to firearms hunting because of a law prohibiting hunting within 152 m of a house. However, homeowners may sign a written waiver to allow firearms hunting within 152 m. Using the 2002 deer-hunting-season framework, each bowhunter in Greenwich could harvest 2 bucks and unlimited antlerless deer (no cost for additional antlerless deer tags) in any order during a 91-day archery deer-hunting season (15 Sep 31 Dec). Hunting on Sundays was prohibited. Deer hunters were required to have written permission from the landowner. No minimum property size or minimum distance was required to discharge a bow. Methods Bowhunter survey We used a 9-page survey of bowhunters to assess harvest rates, hunter activity and behavior, and hunter willingness to employ aggressive harvest strategies (hunting over bait, use of crossbows, doeharvest incentives). We mailed the survey to all bowhunters who reported harvesting >1 deer over a 3-year period ( ) in Greenwich (successful hunters). We also mailed surveys to all Greenwich residents who purchased archery deer permits in 2001 (successful and unsuccessful resident hunters). We cross-referenced both lists to prevent duplicate mailings. We mailed surveys to

3 bowhunters in January 2002 and mailed follow-up surveys to nonrespondents every 4 5 weeks. After 4 mailings, we contacted nonrespondents by phone and requested that surveys be completed and returned. Assessing bowhunting strategies Kilpatrick et al Deer-herd characteristics We conducted an aerial deer survey, weekly field observations, and night spotlight counts to estimate size and composition of the deer herd. We conducted aerial surveys from a Robinson-22 helicopter (Robinson Helicopter Company,Torrance,Calif.) in February 2001 along stratified transects oriented in a north south direction. Surveys were flown during complete snowcover conditions at about 200 m above-ground at a speed of about 20 km/hour. We recorded weekly field observations (night and day) of does and fawns in September and October 2002 to develop fawn-to-doe ratios. We also conducted spotlight counts in January 2003 to generate fawn-to-doe ratios. Counts were conducted 1 hour after sunset from the back of a pickup truck along roads that accessed the study area. Two persons using 1,000,000-candlepower spotlights observed deer, and one person drove the vehicle and recorded data. Fawn-to-doe ratios were used to estimate fawn recruitment rate in the model to predict deer population growth. We used a bowhunter survey, kill report cards, and radiotelemetry data to estimate mortality. We estimated harvest rates and age (fawn or adult) and sex of harvested deer in Greenwich ( ) using mandatory kill report cards issued by the State Wildlife Agency and a comprehensive bowhunter survey. We estimated unrecovered hunting losses using a harvest adjustment factor of 0.38 (Kilpatrick and Walter 1999). We estimated nonhunting mortality rates of female deer using radiotelemetry data. We captured deer in February and March 2002 and equipped them with radiocollars and ear tags. We equipped 25 of 50 radiocollars with mortality sensors. We immobilized adult does using a dart gun (model 171c, Pneu-Dart Inc.,Williamsport, Pa.) equipped with a 4-power scope, laser sight (Emerging Technologies, Inc., Little Rock, Ark.), and disposable 2-cc, wire-barbed darts equipped with radiotransmitters (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, Minn.). Night capture was conducted with the aid of night-vision goggles. Darts contained 280 Combining multiple hunt strategies such as Sunday hunting and January hunting (when snow is more likely to be available) may be more effective than implementing individual strategies. mg of ketamine hydrochloride and 225 mg of xylazine hydrochloride. We used a 6-mg intravenous injection of yohimbine hydrochloride as a reversal agent for xylazine hydrochloride. We triangulated deer locations 2 times each week using a hand-held 3-element Yagi antenna and portable receiver (model TR-2, Telonics, Inc., Mesa, Ariz.). Potential mortality was investigated if collared deer were consistently found in the same location or if mortality sensors were activated. Personnel trained by a wildlife veterinarian in humane capture and chemical restraint methods conducted this project. The University of Connecticut Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC No. B ) reviewed and approved capture and handling procedures. Model simulations We used program STELLA (High Performance Systems Inc., Lebanon, N.H.) to model the current population dynamics of the Greenwich deer herd. Etter and VanDeelen (2004) also used STELLA to develop an empirical suburban deer population

4 1180 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2004, 32(4): model. Our model focused only on the female segment of the population because manipulating the harvest of female deer would have the greatest impact on deer population growth. We developed an empirical model of the dynamics of a suburban deer population using site-specific data. Population dynamics were modeled using the current huntingseason framework and associated harvest, age sex characteristics of the deer herd, fawn recruitment rate, and hunting and nonhunting mortality rates. Sources of mortality for the model included harvest and unrecovered deer losses from hunting and nonhunting mortality (i.e., roadkills, suspected nuisance kills). We added harvest management strategies to the model to estimate relative impact on population growth. We used bowhunter responses to a survey and harvest data to predict relative effects of different harvest management strategies (Tables 1 and 2). Strategies included increase hunter success and hunter numbers, extend seasons, add Sunday hunting or a January season, combine Sunday hunting with a January season, and harvest all or a portion of antlerless deer currently being passed up by hunters. We compared relative effects of individual and combined management strategies. Under the current hunting-season framework, we performed model simulations to estimate changes needed in hunter numbers, season length, and hunter success rate to stabilize population growth. Results Bowhunter survey We censored 4 of 159 surveys because hunters no longer resided at the same address and left no forwarding address (n=3) or residents purchased a hunting license to support the state wildlife agency but did not hunt (n=1). Completed surveys were returned from 110 of 155 bowhunters (71.4%). We summarized mean harvest, hunter effort, and opportunities to harvest a buck or doe that hunters passed up from hunter survey data (Table 1). Bowhunters were willing to employ most hunt strategies to increase the effectiveness of bowhunting (Table 2). Bowhunter willingness to support use of crossbows increased (82%) if established outside the existing archery hunting season. Only 16% of bowhunters opposed hunting over bait. All hunters were interested in Sunday hunting (100%). If a fund were available to cover the cost of processing, hunter willingness to donate venison Table 1. Input variables used in model to project deer harvest rates expected from various management strategies based on hunter survey and field data in Greenwich, Connecticut, Input variable All hunters Source Number of hunters 259 Survey/permit issued Bucks passed/hunter 3.5 Survey Antlerless deer passed/hunter 4.1 Survey Deer harvested/hunter 1.63 Survey Days hunted/deer harvested 19.3 Survey Days hunted/mo/hunter 8.9 Survey Mean potential Sundays (n = 16)/hunter 12.1 Survey Correction factor: Unrecovered hunting losses 0.38 Kilpatrick and Walter 1999 Nonhunting mortality (%) 11.0 Radiotelemetry data Fawn recruitment rate (fawns per doe) 0.88 Observation data Fawn sex ratio 0.5 Assumed Adult sex ratio (buck:doe) 1:2 Roadkill data would increase from 45 to 95%. If a convenient method existed, most bowhunters (95%) were willing to donate venison to food charities and were willing to harvest a mean of 9.9 deer per hunter to donate. The ability to earn a bonus buck tag was relatively important to most bowhunters (81%) and very important to 53% of the hunters as an incentive to harvest additional antlerless deer. Estimated mean annual deer harvest from the hunter survey was 421 ( ). Deer-herd characteristics We counted 275 deer while conducting an aerial survey along 124 km of transects that sampled Table 2. Hunter responses (n = 107) to survey questions to assess hunter willingness to participate in potential strategies to increase the effectiveness of bowhunting deer in Greenwich, Connecticut, Hunt strategy Yes (%) No (%) Unsure (%) Harvest additional antlerless deer, if convenient to donate Relative importance to earn bonus buck tag by harvesting additional antlerless deer Use crossbows during existing archery season Use crossbows outside existing archery season Hunt on Sundays Use bait

5 Assessing bowhunting strategies Kilpatrick et al about 25% of the town. Extrapolating the sample and using a visibility correction factor of 1.95 to correct for deer not observed while flying (Kilpatrick et al. 2001), the estimated deer population size was 2,566. We observed 73 deer during 8 weekly observation periods and 53 deer during 1 night spotlight count. Mean fawn recruitment rate was 0.88 fawns per doe using night spotlight counts and weekly field observations. Age sex composition of the archery deer harvest reported on mandatory kill report cards (n = 124) in 1999 and 2000 was 39% adult males, 45% adult females, 7% fawn males, and 9% fawn females. Of 50 deer that were captured and marked with radiocollars, 6 were censored due to lost signals or slipped collars. Of the remaining 44 deer, 5 died from nonhunting mortality (11%) during the first year. Model simulations Model simulations estimated annual deer population growth at 4% and 5-year population growth at 34% under the current hunting-season framework (Table 3). If hunting mortality was eliminated, estimated annual deer population growth would be 23% and 5-year population growth would be 193%. We simulated 9 hunt strategies to evaluate relative effects on population growth (Tables 3 and 4). Adding the extended archery season reduced annual population growth to 1.4%, and Sunday hunting reduced annual growth to 1.4%. Implementing both a January season and Sunday hunting resulted in annual population growth of 4%. If hunters harvested all antlerless deer (4.1 per hunter) or a portion of antlerless deer (1 of 4 antlerless deer) that they reportedly passed up while hunting, deer population growth would decrease by 60 and 13% in 1 year. Population stabilization was achieved in the Table 3. Projected growth rate of white-tailed deer population under different hunt strategies in Greenwich Connecticut over a 5-year period ( ). Relative Relative change in annual change in 5-year Hunt strategy growth (%) growth (%) Current January extension Sunday hunting Combo: January and Sunday Harvest 1/4 of antlerless deer passed by hunters (1.1) Harvest all antlerless deer passed up by hunters (4.1) Table 4. Estimated changes in hunter numbers, season length, and hunter success needed to stabilize deer population growth under the current deer hunting season framework in Greenwich, Connecticut, Needed to Variables Currently stabilize Increase Number of hunters % Season extension (hunting days/mo) 8.9 a 14.1 b 6-7 weeks (42%) Hunter success (deer killed /hunter) % a 4.3 for nonresidents. b 6.8 for nonresidents. model by increasing hunter numbers from 259 to 314, extending the archery hunting seasons by 6 7 weeks, or increasing hunter success from 1.63 to 1.97 deer harvested per hunter (Table 4). Discussion Although model simulations are simplistic representations of complex systems and may not account for all complex interactions in a real hunting scenario, they are meaningful for comparing the relative effectiveness of different hunt strategies at reducing deer population growth. Population simulations under the current archery deer-hunting season framework suggested that the deer population would continue increasing at a slow rate. However, hunter willingness to harvest antlerless deer,hunter incentives,and hunter availability were important factors in increasing the potential effectiveness of bowhunting. Projected annual population growth would be almost 6 times greater if no hunting occurred. Allowing Sunday hunting would provide 16 additional hunting days during the current 15-week archery deer season. January hunting would provide 27 additional hunting days when snow may be available to aid in hunting. Sunday hunting would provide 41% fewer hunting days than the January extension, yet would be more effective at reducing deer population growth. Hunters would take advantage of additional weekend days more often than additional weekdays. Adding Sunday hunting to the current season framework would be more effective than a January extension. Initially, strategies such as Sunday hunting would reduce deer population growth and herd size. However, if herd health improved at reduced deer densities, fawn recruitment rates might increase

6 1182 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2004, 32(4): (Verme 1969). Although hunt strategy initially would reduce deer population size, fawn recruitment rates eventually might increase or hunter success and participation might decrease, resulting in population growth stabilization at lower deer densities. Combining 2 hunt strategies (January and Sunday hunting) was more effective than individually adding the effects of both strategies. This suggests that implementing several hunt strategies simultaneously would be more effective than slowly phasing in different strategies to achieve population stabilization. Harvesting antlerless deer that hunters were passing up had the greatest relative effect in reducing deer population size. Even if hunters harvested only 1 in 4 antlerless deer they passed on, the relative effect would be 3 times greater than implementing both Sunday hunting and a January extension. Opportunities to remove additional antlerless deer already exist. Incentives to encourage hunters to harvest antlerless deer rather than pass up harvest opportunities are needed. Most hunters indicated on the survey that they would be willing to shoot additional antlerless deer if they could earn a bonus buck tag. A program in which hunters were rewarded for harvesting a specified number of antlerless deer may provide the needed incentive. For example, a program that allowed hunters to earn bonus buck tags after harvesting 3 antlerless deer may provide the needed harvest to stabilize population growth. Establishment of a fund to cover the cost of processing meat also would provide incentives for hunters to harvest additional antlerless deer. Recently, Maryland passed legislation to create a fund to support endeavors such as the Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry (FHFH) program in which hunters can donate venison for people in need (Winand 2003). In Maryland allocations from each license sale cover the entire cost of processing donated deer (Winand 2003). Bowhunters indicated that they would be willing to shoot 10 deer each year on average if there was a convenient method to donate deer. Gun hunters in New York were willing to harvest 2 additional deer if an opportunity existed to donate unneeded meat to food shelters (Lauber and Brown 2000). Differences in willingness to donate venison between the 2 groups may be due to number of deer observed while hunting, length of available hunting seasons, or hunter perceptions of cost or convenience of donating venison. Extending season length was the least effective of 9 hunt strategies. Increasing hunter success rates or hunter numbers by about 21% over the 15-week archery season would result in stabilizing population growth. This suggested that tools such as crossbows or hunting over bait were important and might contribute to increased hunter success. However, lack of support by bowhunters for using crossbows during the archery season could limit the value of crossbows as a management tool. Bowhunter support for initiating a crossbow season almost doubled if that season was established outside the existing archery season. A separate crossbow season outside the existing archery season received greater support by bowhunters and might encourage firearms hunters to participate in archery hunting. Tonkovich and Cartwright (2002) concluded that a crossbow season contributed to hunter recruitment and retention and provided additional days of hunting opportunities. Establishing a special crossbow season outside the regular archery season might have a combined effect of increasing hunter support, hunter numbers, and harvest success rate while extending season length. In Ohio and Arkansas,the proportion of deer harvested by crossbows was greater in urban counties than rural counties (Tonkovich and Cartwright 2002). Crossbows may be an effective tool to stabilize population growth in urban areas where firearms hunting is limited. Recruiting firearms hunters into the archery seasons in areas where firearms hunting opportunities are limited may increase opportunities to harvest additional antlerless deer. Model simulations are insightful, but it is important to remember that short-term trends in deer population growth likely would not remain constant as deer densities are reduced. With reduced deer densities, variables in the model such as fawn recruitment rate, number of days to harvest a deer, and number of deer passed up by hunters likely would change. In addition, because Connecticut hunters need written permission to hunt on private property, access to deer on private land is not evenly distributed. With some areas closed to hunting, refugia containing relatively high deer densities likely would persist. This points to the importance not only of developing effective hunt strategies but also of educating the public about the need to manage deer populations. Conclusions Under the current archery hunting season framework, the deer population will continue to

7 Assessing bowhunting strategies Kilpatrick et al increase. Hunter incentives to harvest at least a portion of the antlerless deer they reported passing up would be the most effective harvest strategy. Programs providing incentives for hunters to harvest antlerless deer are needed. Hunters were willing to donate a mean of 10 deer but were passing up these opportunities to harvest antlerless deer. Also, the addition of hunting days in which more hunters could take advantage (i.e., Sundays) was more important than longer seasons with lower participation rates. Combining multiple hunt strategies (i.e., January and Sunday hunting) may be more effective than implementing individual strategies. Establishment of a special crossbow season outside the existing archery season may be an effective management tool in urban areas. Acknowledgments. We thank P. Curtis, D. Kane, S. Weber, and 2 anonymous reviewers for reviewing drafts of this manuscript; K. McCaffery, R. Peyton, and I. Ortega for reviewing the bowhunter survey; and R. Cabral-Riggs and R. Lemieux for helping to administer the bowhunter survey. This project was supported by the Town of Greenwich and Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,Wildlife Division. Literature cited ETTER, D. R., AND T. R. VANDEELEN An empirical model for predicting suburban deer populations. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, USA. Available online at (accessed 18 November 2003). FERRIGNO, D. M., S. F. MARTKA, J. POWERS, AND D. ROBERTS Results of an experimental earn-a-buck regulation in New Jersey s agricultural and suburban deer management zones. Pages in R. J. Warren, editor. Proceedings of the First National Bowhunting Conference. Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization, February 2002, Comfrey, Minnesota, USA. JONES, J. M., AND J. H. WITHAM Urban deer problem solving in northeast Illinois: an overview. Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium. North Central Section of The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. KILPATRICK, H. J., M. A. GREGONIS, M. K. ORRELL,W.A. STOBER, AND A. GORMLEY Connecticut deer program summary Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, Hartford, USA. KILPATRICK, H. J., M.A. GREGONIS, J. SEYMOUR,A. LABONTE,AND R. RIGGS. 2002a. Connecticut deer program summary Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, Hartford, USA. KILPATRICK, H. J., M.A. GREGONIS, J. SEYMOUR,A. LABONTE, R. RIGGS,AND J.TRAYLOR Connecticut deer program summary Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, Hartford, USA. KILPATRICK, H. J., A. M. LABONTE, AND M. A. GREGONIS. 2002b. Approaches to managing urban deer with bowhunters in Connecticut. Pages in R. J.Warren, editor. Proceedings of the first National Bowhunting Conference. Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization, February 2002, Comfrey, Minnesota, USA. KILPATRICK, H. J., S. M. SPHOR,AND G. C. CHASKO A controlled deer hunt on a state-owned coastal reserve in Connecticut: controversies,strategies,and results. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: KILPATRICK, H. J., AND W. D. WALTER A controlled archery deer hunt in a residential community: cost, effectiveness, and deer recovery rates. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: KUSER, J. E Deer and people in Princeton, New Jersey, Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium. North Central Section of The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. LAUBER,T. B.,AND T. L. BROWN Deer hunting and deer hunting trends in New York State. Human Dimensions Research Unit Series No Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. MAYER, K. E., J. E. DIDONATO, AND D. R. MCCULLOUGH California urban deer management: two case studies. Pages in J. B. McAninch, editor. Urban deer: a manageable resource? Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium. North Central Section of The Wildlife Society, December 1993, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. MCANINCH, J. B Use of bowhunting in deer population management programs in Minnesota. Pages in D. E. Guynn and D. E. Samuel, editors. Proceedings of the Western Bowhunting Conference, May 1993, Bozeman, Montana, USA. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Town of Greenwich plan of conservation and development. Miscellaneous Report. The Paper Mill, Greenwich, Connecticut, USA. SUCHY,W. J., D. L GARNER, AND W. R. CLARK Using bowhunting to successfully reduce deer numbers in an urban area in Iowa. Pages in R. J.Warren, editor. Proceedings of the First National Bowhunting Conference. Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization, February 2002, Comfrey, Minnesota, USA. TONKOVICH, M. J., AND M. E. CARTWRIGHT Evaluation of the use of crossbows for deer hunting in Ohio and Arkansas. Pages in R. J. Warren, editor. Proceedings of the First National Bowhunting Conference. Archery Manufacturers and Merchants Organization, February 2002, Comfrey, Minnesota, USA. VERME, L. J Reproductive patterns of white-tailed deer related to nutritional plane. Journal of Wildlife Management 33: WINAND, C. J Farmers and hunters feeding the hungry: returning hunters to their heritage as food providers. Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry. Available at: [Date accessed 3 September 2004]. Howard J. Kilpatrick (center right) is a supervising wildlife biologist with the Connecticut Wildlife Division. He received a B.S. in fisheries and wildlife biology from the University of

8 1184 Wildlife Society Bulletin 2004, 32(4): Massachusetts, an M.S. in wildlife ecology from the University of New Hampshire, and is pursuing a Ph.D. at the University of Connecticut. Howard has been a member of The Wildlife Society since 1986 and became project leader for the Connecticut Wildlife Division s Deer Management Program in His current research activities focus on the population dynamics of urban deer herds. Andrew M. LaBonte (left) is a wildlife technician with the University of Connecticut s Wildlife Conservation Resource Center. He received a B.S. in wildlife biology from Unity College, Unity, Maine. Andrew has been a member of The Wildlife Society since 1998 and is a certified Associate Wildlife Biologist. Current research activities focus on the population dynamics of urban deer herds and human dimensions of wildlife management. John S. Barclay (center left) is an associate professor of wildlife at the University of Connecticut and Director of the Wildlife Conservation Research Center at the University of Connecticut. He received a B.S. in wildlife management from the University of Maine, an M.S in forest resources/wildlife from Penn State University, and a Ph.D. in wildlife ecology from Ohio State University. Current research activities include investigation of contaminants in migratory birds. Glenn Warner (right) is an associate professor of water resources at the University of Connecticut. He received a B.S. from Iowa State, and an M.S and Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in agricultural engineering. His research interests deal with water and chemical movement in the landscape, instream flow related to ground water surface water interactions, and modeling runoff processes. He teaches courses showing how to model dynamic natural resource systems using mathematical models. Associate editor: Nilon