ACCESS TO HUNTING AREAS FROM MAJOR URBAN CENTRES AND BIG GAME KILLS IN QUEBEC

Transcription

1 ACCESS TO HUNTING AREAS FROM MAJOR URBAN CENTRES Abstract: AND BIG GAME KILLS IN QUEBEC J.R. Bider Macdonald Campus of McGill University Macdonald College 800, P.Q., Canada and D.H. Pimlott University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, canada. Both deer and moose hunt data of recent years are presented as percentages of peak harvest years. These data show that continual declines in the harvest of big game in Quebec have been inversely proportional to the distance from several large urban centres. While only the proximity of Montreal (pop. 2.4 million) seems to be related to the decline of deer north of Montreal, the proximity of smaller cities such as Quebec (pop. 400 thousand), and Hull (pop. 60 thousand) all seem to have had an impact on the moose harvest. Not only does the quality of major access routes radiating from these urban centres into deer and moose range seem to direct the flow of hunters, but the presence of large parks with control hunts on major highways seem to act as a partial barrier to hunters, thus causing more precipitous declines in the harvest between the parks and urban centres. Arguments were presented which rationalize the value of using kill statistics in management of herds which are for the most part inaccessable to hunters. Management techniques to avoid overkills in areas which become accessible to hunters are suggested.

2 The potential of hunting to control populations of biggame animals has been a much-debated topic in North America. In the united States white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were protected by buck laws in the majority of states where they occurred in hunt able numbers. subsequently, overpopulations developed in many areas including the northern tier of states and starvation was common in areas ranging from New York, Maine and Vermont to Wisconsin and Minnesota. The overpopulations and the overbrowsed range that existed during the period caused many deer managers to suggest the elimination of the buck law and the extension of hunting seasons. But, after the objectives were achieved there was much dissension between deer managers and hunters. In retrospect it appears that caution was warranted because it became evident that deer populations can be dramatically reduced by intensive hunting. It now appears that the buck law, and variations of it, can be a valuable aspect of the management of deer in the principal ranges in the central and eastern states. In Canada, the use of the buck law was not as widespread in the management of deer but a bull law was almost universally used in the case of moose (Alces alces). Most provinces dropped the buck, or bull, law in the 1950's. Subsequently game managers have been very reluctant to use even modifications of them in their management programs. The reluctance seems to

3 be based partly on a belief that they are not needed and partly on fear that if they are reintroduced political pressure will not allow them to be used in a flexible manner. In Quebec and ontario, where white-tailed deer are at the northern limit of their range, the consensus among biologists appears to be that winter habitat and snow conditions are far more important than hunting pressure in determining population levels. In the principal hunting areas of eastern Ontario, for example~ the two-week, any-deer season is never varied regardless of the fluctuation of the deer population. The use of dog and party-type hunting is permitted in most areas. western Quebec has never had a buck law; however, the use of dogs was discontinued in the 1930's. Deer populations declined in both Quebec and Ontario in the 1960's and early 1970's. This in spite of the fact that Ontario began to do habitat improvement work in the 1960's and Quebec has had shorter hunting seasons in many areas since 1968 (Stephenson 1973). Moose were regarded rather differently in terms of their capability to sustain hunting (pimlott 1959, 1961). However, as knowledge grew about population levels and the reproductive capability of the species, the bull law was discontinued (Ontario, 1950's; Quebec, 1964). ontario has found it necessary to adopt a pattern of an alternate closed season south of the Mattawa a.nd French Rivers in the southeastern part of the

4 Province However, neither province has reverted to the bull law or to any variant of it since it was discontinued. We were stimulated to rethink some aspects of the questions about hunting as a limiting factor and about the use of seasons and bag limits in the management of big game as a result of a contractual study on deer which Pimlott undertook for the Quebec Government in 1968 (Pimlott et al. 1968). The study was a rear-view mirror operation in which we attempted to determine what had caused a major decline in the deer kill in several counties north and west of Montreal (Fig. 1). The things we learned at that time stimulated us to examine the recent kill of moose in Quebec, which has shown a tendency to decline in the face of an increasing number of hunters and a constant hunting season. DEER IN QUEBEC statistics on the kill of deer were first collected in Quebec in We examined the data for the period from 1957 to The kill was relatively uniform for the period for all areas of the Province except for 9 counties northwest of Montreal. Between 1957 and 1961 these counties accounted for more than half the total kill of deer in the Province. In the 1962 season there was a marked increase in the kill in most parts of the province. The provincial total increased

5 PONTIAC I "'. 'y County line Major highway = Toll autoroute Major city Park boundary ;;;:"l!i!""' Approximate northern limit of deer range '1 W Figure 1. Major access routes into deer range north of Montreal. between Montreal and Ottawa is 115 road miles. The distance

6 from 9,212 in 1961 to 16,185 in 1962 and in the northern counties from 5,248 to 9,015. It dropped to a lower level after 1962 but over the range remained well above the level. through the 1965 hunting season. The northern counties provided between 55 and 60% of the registered kill between 1962 and However, the northern kill had dropped to 25% of the total by 1967 when 2,628 deer were registered for the area. There was no reliable data on the age structure of the kill. The number of licensed deer hunters in the province was approximately constant (102,000) between 1958 and The total increased to just over 117,000 in 1962 and to approximately 127,000 in 1964 through It decreased to 115,000 in 1967 and to 87,000 in There were no data that permitted the number of hunters to be related to specific areas of the range. The hunting seasons were somewhat variable during the period. They were almost two months long in the late 1950's and most commonly five or six weeks between 1960 and The 1962 season, when the highest kill occurred, was actually one of the shortest, extending from october 20 to November 18. The seasons for the next three years were extended to November 24, 30 and 28. On two of the three years there were early snows and deer were concentrated in wintering areas during the latter part of the hunting season.

7 In addition to our examination of the hunting data, we ~xamined range conditions in known wintering areas, the available snow data for western Quebec and eastern ontario, and the wolf bounty data, the only source of information on wolves. We also considered the possibility that changing logging practises might have influenced the balance between food and cover on the winter range. Data on the animals harvested were not available. Although our studies were entirely of an observational nature we concluded that range conditions were probably not a primary factor in the decline of deer. Browse conditions appeared to be reasonably good and in several areas there was evidence of improvement during the previous decade. In eastern ont~rio, snow records of the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests indicated that the winters of and ranged from severe to extreme over wide areas. The deer herd suffered heavy mortality during these two winters. The winter of was also considerably more severe than normal. However, the extent of mortality in the herd was not q termined. There were no comparable data for western Quebec, however, and we gonsidered that conditions were probably similar since distances between the areas are not great. It was very difficult to make any rearview assessment of the possible effect of wolf predation. The bounty system was discontinued in 1960 so no data were available from that source for the critical

8 period of the decline However, the fact that the decline had come earliest and been most severe in areas where wolves were scarce or absent seemed to rule out the possibility that predation had played an important role. Bider, who had lived, worked or hunted at the northern extremity of Terrebonne county since the 1950's considered that a marked change had occurred in the mobility of hunters and in the accessibility of areas to hunters. Through an analysis of the kill data we attempted to test the hypothesis that hunting pressure had been a primary factor in the decline of deer in the northern counties. The annual kill was plotted, by county, as a percentage of the 1962 kill. In retrospect, we believed that the kill in 1962 was greater than could have been sustained by the population. However, it was used as a base for the calculation because it represented a general phenomenon for the deer range of the province. Secondly, we postulated that the exceptional hunting success of 1962 would have tended to entice hunters back to the same hunting grounds in subsequent years but as the kill declined in successive years the hunters would have dispersed into those areas where other hunters were being more successful. The plotted data (Fig. 2) showed the following: The initial decline in 1963 was greatest in the counties that were closest to Montreal; the increase in 1964, over 1963,

9 W 80 <.9 <J: I Z W u 60 0:: W CL PO PO po~ : ~o" \...' '. ~.p., --\... '0 ' ~~,L \ \... ~e./><t. \;. --- "'" B \... PO \ " J \"- G '.... '" \ \ "'. B.' J~". \\" L "_ '...' "'" P_- \.. ',--- '.. ' '. 'A, '._ \ T /,M \.\. \" ~~"""'~"L _. p \ /',... "A '-... \ / ',... " ",,', "- M, " L " T... J~'", A M,, B~.... '.... "T... M YEAR COUNTY and KILL 1962 Pontiac 650 Gatineau 815 Papineau 2,458 Labelle 3,042 Argenteuil 872 Joliette 179 Berthier 105 Terrebonne 673 Montcalm \ -.J l Figure 2. Annual harvest of deer in counties north of Montreal expressed as a percentage of 1962 kill.

10 was not related to distance from Montreal; the rate of decline from 1965 to 1967 was less severe in counties close to Montreal. The more distant counties, Papineau, Gatineau and Pontiac had delayed peaks in the kill, the first two in 1964, the latter in There are three apparent exceptions to the general pattern: Joliette county (18% of the 1962 kill) did not have an increased kill in Gatineau, a major deer county, had a greater decline than papineau in 1963 and it showed a greater increase in 1964 and a slower decline than any other county over the subsequent period. (It is of interest that Gatineau also is the exception to the rule in the moose data which are discussed in the next section). There was a greater decline in Labelle than in Papineau county which geographically is closer to Montreal. It is explainable on the basis of Labelle being more accessible as a result of a central road system and of a modern auto route, completed in 1959, which extends to within 25 miles of the county line. In summation, we concluded that there was a strong possibility that the decline in the nine counties was relate~ directly to hunting pressure. We postulated that the high kills made during the 1962 to 1964 hunting seasons came from a population which had already been reduced by die-offs in the spring of 1959 and 1960 as a result of extreme snow conditions. The reason for the high kill in 1962 baffled us because there was very little snow during the hunting season and the season

11 was relatively short. However, we considered it likely that it represented an overkill. During the next three years, it seemed probable that an overkill was maintained as a result of the combination of heavy snowfalls in November, the extension of the hunting season until late in the month, and by the peak numbers of hunters in the field. The relationship of the wave-like effects, to the peaking and decline of the kills, to the Montreal area caused us to postulate that the hunters from the Montreal area constitute a relatively mobile, nomadic group which can respond rapidly to the availability of game and to change in the accessibility of hunting areas. MOOSE The distribution of moose in Quebec extends throughout the counties of north of the st. Lawrence River, somewhat beyond Sept Iles and throughout the Gaspe Peninsula (Fig. 3). Much of this area has been open to hunting for a long time; however, a bull law was in existence up to In 1964 there was a general liberalization of moose hunting regulations; in addition to the enactment of any-sex seasons, the length of the hunting season was extended from 10 to 24 days. The actions had several effects. The number of moose killed increased from 3,909 in 1963 to 8,857 in 1964 and the

12 !{... :: 1I11II I j '," I j226!...::;.. I.: 1025 ". ":"... :"... {::~.... jl... :;: II c:: -..J o -"-0- ) II!IIIllll C::J """'"'''' HARVEST % or less than 1964 harvest 25-50% of the 50-60% of the 60% or more than County boundary Major highways Provincial boundary Park boundary Figure 3. Differential depletion of moose stocks related to access and the mean moose harvest per county ( ). The number in the centre of each county represents the average annual kill (A.K.) between 1964 to 1970.

13 number of moose hunters increased from 24,870 to 42,542. The provincial kill of moose declined slowly to 7,190 in 1970 while the number of hunters rose to 55,666 and the length of the season remained constant. The decline of the kill over the seven-year period was only 19%. However, we felt that a geographic study of kill distributions would indicate whether they had been influenced by accessibility factors. The analytical procedures were simple. The kills were tabulated for all counties for the period and the mean harvest calculated for each county. We compared kill trends in the peripheral or northern counties with those in the south. We excluded the kill data from two parks in which the kill has been constant and managed on a quota basis. Finally, the annual kill for each county was calculated as a percentage of the 1964 kill (Table 1). The analysis showed that a disproportionate part of the decline in kill has occurred in the counties which are most accessible to the large urban centres and to Montreal in particular (Fig. 3, Table 1). The 1970 kill in seven peripheral counties north of the Gulf of st. Lawrence was approximately the same as the 1964 kill (3,449 vs 3,406). However, the kill in the remaining counties had declined to 52% of the 1964 kill (1,980 vs 3,781).

14 TABLE 1. COUNTY HARVEST ANNUAL HARVEST EXPRESSED AS % OF 1964 KILL MEAN HARVEST ( ) ABITIBI EST 1022* *** OUEST 183* BERTHIER BONAVENTURE CHICOUTIMI GASPE NORTH GASPE SOUTH GATINEAU JOLIETTE LABELLE LAVIOLETTE MASKINONGE 'I tv MATANE MATAPEDIA MONTCALM PONTIAC PORTNEUF QUEBEC ROBERVAL ROUYN-NORANDA SAGUENAY ~ ** TEMISCAMINGUE * MOOSE HARVEST FOR COUNTY DATA HAD BEEN COMBINED IN 1964 STATISTICS. ** SAGUENAY COUNTY KILL IN 1965 FOLLOWED BY ANNUAL HARVEST EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF 1965 KILL. *** MEAN HARVEST FIGURE CAN BE USED TO RELATE THIS DATA TO ITS GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, FIG. 3.

15 In five counties on the Gasp~ Peninsula the kill declined to 82% of the 1964 level which was consistent with the decline in the entire Province. However, if the kill in the two most accessible counties (Matapedia (average kill 171) and Bonaventure (132)) is compared with the kill in the three less accessible ones (Matane (218), Gaspe North (270) and Gaspe south (201)), the picture is slightly different. The kill in the former declined to 44% while that in the latter increased to 105% of the 1964 level. Again, as in the case of deer, it seems to us that there is a strong possibility that the decline in the kill of moose may be directly related to the accessibility of areas to hunters from urban centres. In the case of the Montreal area (pop. 2.4 million) most of the hunters probably hunt north of the st. Lawrence with few going to Gasp~. It would seem likely that many more of the hunters from Quebec city and especially the Sherbrooke areas (pop. roughly 75,000) would go toward the Gasp~ Peninsula particularly through the Matapedia Valley toward the south coast where accessibility, amenities and habitat are relatively good. However, it seems likely that the largest part of the Quebec (pop. 413,397), Three Rivers (pop. 60,000) and Hull (pop. 60,000) hunters would tend to hunt to the north since a major road is present in each area.

16 In terms of the influence of accessibility factors, the Gasp~ pattern appears to be a simple type example. The Peninsula consists of 5 counties (see Fig. 3) all of which can be considered prime moose habitat. The gateway to the Peninsula, Rimouski, has had a consistently low harvest (average kill 21 for 7 years), whereas the harvest of the Peninsula counties has been 10 times higher. In terms of access to the Peninsula, the better road cuts south across Matapedia County (average kill 171) and through Bonaventure (132). To be completely consistent, we would expect that Matapedia would have declined more quickly than Bonaventure. However, the latter county is quite intensively settled along the periphery of the county. It is possible that local hunters hunt interior areas, even though access is poor. The kill in Matane county (average kill 218) increased through this period while the two remaining counties, Gasp~ North (270) and Gaspe south (201) declined only slightly. The reason why Matane increased rather than decreased like the other counties can probably be attributed to the comparative lack of access into the interior of this county, and to the fact that the road has the reputation of being hazardous since it skirts the edges of precipitous cliffs and causeways along the shore of the st. Lawrence. Gaspe North is different in that a highway through the mining town of Murdochville provides a major access route to the interior of the county.

17 The decline in the kill in the areas most accessible from the Quebec-~ree Rivers area is intriguing in that at first it does not seem to follow the Gaspe pattern. study of access routes into the moose range suggests that two factors have created this pattern. The first is the close proximity of Laurentide Park in which only a controlled hunt is allowed. ~e second is the lack of roads into the adjacent moose habitat of Quebec (average kill 102) and Charlevoix (50) counties. It appears that the interaction of these two factors has put great pressure on the counties of Portneuf (231) and Laviolette (758) which provide good access within a 100-mile radius of both Quebec and Three Rivers. ~e pattern in the decline in the Montreal-Hull areas is for all practical purposes a composite of the patterns for the Gaspe and the Quebec-Three Rivers areas. In this case there is a Park (average kill 207) which has a managed hunt but it is located over a hundred miles from either city thus concentrating hunters between the Park and the cities where moose are available. Once outside the 100 mile fringe from the major northern access routes the hunting pressure on the moose population seems to decrease to a tolerable level. More detailed accounts of the decline of some of these counties are worthy of review. Gatineau (average kill 83) with a main access

18 route running through two thirds of the county was the most depleted. Labelle's (64) harvest had declined to 1968, but increased sharply in 1969 and remained constant in This can most easily be explained by the fact that the two counties to the south of Labelle had been closed to moose hunting in 1968 to prevent the temptation of poaching protected deer during the moose season. Montcalm (310) which is the next most accessible moose county to Montreal had the second greatest decline - 36%, while the counties outside the Montreal, Hull, Maniwaki highway triangle had declines of close to 50% (Berthier (average kill 207) 49%, Joliette (120) 46%, Pontiac (627), 58%). Finally the county of Saguenay (499) merits a word. The harvest increased in that county in 1965 then continually declined to a point where it was at 43% of 1964 level in 1969 and 53% in The cause of the decline in this area is probably related to the completion and improvement of the road from Tadoussac at the base of the Saguenay River through to Seven Islands and/or an overkill in the fringe of the moose range. DISCUSSION If moose and deer are being managed for a harvest then it would seem that the proportion of the herd which is most likely to be affected by the hunt should be given special

19 attention. In many counties in Quebec hunting is not uniform. and, therefore, results of aerial surveys or yard counts no matter how accurate they are thought to be, will not be likely to reflect small declines in the hunted portions of the herds. The theoretical model which leads to this conclusion is the following: during short hunting seasons when hunters are not very mobile and the probability of either deer or moose moving a great deal is remote, then the shorter the season the smaller the proportion of county harvested. During a long hunting season covering that period when animals move from summer to winter range, the hunt might more nearly represent a random harvest of the complete herd simply because of the higher probability of a greater number of different animals being seen by each hunter. Assuming that most adults tend to return to their individual summer range then with short seasons one can reasonably seriously overcrop a small huntable herd and yet a decline in a larger geographical area, including the smaller overcropped area, would not reflect the decline in the resource available to the hunter. If the popu tion in the county is near its carrying capacity then again the probability of young animals replacing harvested animals in the harvested portion of the county is relatively good. If, on the other hand, the total population is well below the carrying capacity, there is more likelihood that a precipitous decline in the

20 harvest could occur and go unnoticed in the census data until complaints from hunters draw attention to the decline. In this study we recognize that there are inherent dangers in drawing conclusions from kill data. Nevertheless, we consider that the apparent relationship which exists between the accessibility of major population centres and the declines in the kills of deer and moose warrants consideration. The tentative conclusions which we have drawn from the data are as follows: (1) The depletion of deer in the counties north of Montreal seem to have been affected primarily by the hunters from the large urban centre of Montreal. There was no evidence that small cities, such as Hull (pop. 60,000) and towns within the deer range, had much impact on local deer populations. (2) In the case of moose it would seem that the herds are even less tolerant of an influx of hunters from urban centres. Data indicates that smaller cities such as Hull, Three Rivers, Quebec, and Sherbrooke (pop. 60, ,000) probably all contributed to the decline of moose. (3) Our data suggest that it is the hunters who tend to hunt as close as possible to their homes and those who do not want to commit themselves to travelling an extra 100 miles (as exemplified by the barriers posed by the two provincial parks in Quebec) who place particularly heavy pressure on big game populations.

21 We consider that the impact of hunting warrants serious consideration by managers of deer and moose in Canada as well as in the United states. Regions where access into hunting areas is being improved should warrant particular care. We also consider that an experimental program should be undertaken to determine the extent to which the declines of deer and moose can be attributed to hunting. If more direct control of the kill is considered to be desirable, at least two approaches might be tried. One could be to disperse the hunters while the second one could be to increase production of the herd close to the carrying capacity of the range. could be to introduce a county quota system. The first approach Another might be the reintroduction of the buck or bull law (with a limited number of ANY-SEX permits to decrease the wasteful losses due to accidental killing of does and cows). We see no reason why a 3:1 female-to-male sex ratio should not be encouraged in areas where it appears that hunting can cause a decline in herds and consequently reduce future hunting opportunity.

22 LITERATURE CITED Pimlott, D.H Moose Harvests in Newfoundland and Fennoscandian Counties, Transactions of the Twenty-Fourth North American Wildlife conference. pp Pimlott, D.H The Ecology and Management of Moose in North America. La Terre et la Vie No.2. pp Pimlott, D.H., J.R. Bider and R.C. Passmore Investigation into the Decline of Deer in the Counties North of Montreal. Report in French and English to l'honourable C.E. Loubier, Ministre du Tourisme, de la Chasse et de la Peche, Quebec. 53 pp. stephenson, A.B Deer Management in the North-Montreal Region. Report to the Ministry of Tourism, Fish and Game and Ministry of Agriculture and colonization. Quebec. 126 pp.