1 STATUS OF MINNESOTA BLACK BEARS,, 2012 Final Report to Bear Committee February 22, 2017 Dave Garshelis & Andy Tri All data contained herein are subject to revision, due to updated information, improved analysis techniques, and/or regrouping of data for analysis Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
2 Key points Overview: Permits, licenses, harvest, and success rates Table 1 & Fig. 1 Permit applications for bear licenses increased to nearly 20,000 (the highest in 14 years). Permit availability has remained fairly constant for the past 4 years. The low permit availability has driven up sales of no-quota licenses, which were the highest on record in, comprising 46% of total licenses purchased. The higher number of hunters combined with an usually high success rate resulted in the highest statewide harvest in 6 years. Hunting success is affected by numbers of hunters (i.e., competition), food supply (affecting bears attraction to baits), and density of bears. Quota zone permits and licenses Tables 2,3 & Fig. 2 In, Bear Management Unit (BMU) 26 was divided into 27 and 28, and BMU 44 was split into 46 and 47 (BMUs 28 and 47 comprise the Leech Lake Reservation). The number of available quota zone permits remained the same or declined slightly for all BMUs except BMUs 45 and 51, which were increased in response to a perceived increasing trend in bear numbers. This was the 6th year of a system whereby licenses for the quota zone that were not purchased by permittees selected in the lottery could be purchased later as surplus. All surplus licenses were purchased. Quota zone lottery Table 4 The low permit availability over the past 4 years has made it more difficult to draw a permit in the lottery. In 2011, some 1 st -year applicants (preference level 1) were drawn in all but 3 BMUs. But since 2014, 1 st -year applicants were drawn only in BMU 22 (BWCAW). In, preference level 2 hunters were drawn only in BMUs 22, 13, and 25. Drawing a permit in BMUs 28, 46 and 45 required a preference level of 4 or higher. Harvest by BMU Table 5 & Fig. 3 In, most BMUs had higher harvests than in BMU 45 had an especially high harvest. A record high harvest occurred in the no-quota zone. The percent of the total statewide harvest contained within the no-quota zone has increased with reduction of quota zone permits was notable for a record high male-biased harvest sex ratio; in, the sex ratio was more normal, except BMUs 25 and 26 (now 27/28), which had record high percent males, versus BMU 41, which had a female-dominated harvest.
3 Hunting success by BMU Table 6 Hunters in the quota zone had a record high (50%) success in. All quota zone BMUs (except 22, where unattended baiting is not allowed) had record high or near record high success. Success rate was more normal in the no-quota zone. However, estimating success in the 3 no-quota BMUs (Fig. 2) remains difficult, as it is based on where hunters indicated they planned to hunt when they purchased their license, and many of these hunters (>100) chose places within the quota zone (but most likely did not hunt there, as only 9 killed a bear in the quota zone with a no-quota license). Harvest by date Table 7 During years of normal fall food abundance, about 70% of the harvest occurs during the 1 st week of the bear season, and ~83% occurs by the end of the 2 nd week. The distribution of the harvest by date followed this normal pattern in, despite being a year with low abundance of fall foods (very unlike 2015, which also had low fall food abundance). Nuisance complaints and kills Tables 8 9 & Fig. 4 The total number of registered complaints in the past 2 years were the highest since institution of a new nuisance bear policy in (whereby DNR personnel handled most bear complaints by phone, and rarely translocated bears). Some hotspots of nuisance activity occurred at various locations across the state. There appears to be a general upward trend in complaints over the past decade, along with a disproportionate increase (doubling) in the number of nuisance bears killed (while the number of car-killed bears has remained low). Food abundance Tables & Fig 5 The composite range-wide, all-season abundance of natural foods (fruits and nuts) for bears in was lower than 2013 and 2014 (both good food years) and slightly above Statewide, crops of summer and fall foods, except for chokecherry and highbush cranberry, were at or below the 32-year average. Oak production was especially poor in the west-central and east-central parts of the bear range. Hazel was below average in the east-central and northeast, but above average in the northwest. The statewide fall food index (productivity of dogwood+oak+hazel), which predicts annual harvest after accounting for hunter effort, was the lowest since The fall food index was slightly lower than 2015, when hazelnuts were poor across the state but oaks were about average; in, the generally poor oak crop drove the low index. Fall food index values were higher in the Arrowhead region and in Lake of the Woods, northern Beltrami, and eastern Roseau and Marshall counties.
4 Predictions of harvest from food abundance Fig. 6 The statewide harvest was close to what was expected, based on regression of harvest as a function of hunter numbers and the fall food productivity index. This regression is particularly strong (and has accurately predicted previous harvests) when only the past 15 years are considered. Harvest sex ratios Fig. 7 Sex ratios of harvested bears reflect both the sex ratio of the living population (which varies with harvest pressure) as well as the relative vulnerability of the sexes to hunters (which varies with natural food conditions and hunter density). In general, harvest sex ratios favoring males (the more vulnerable sex, and hence the minority sex in the living population) provide more resilience to the population. Harvest sex ratios within BMUs varied considerably year-to-year over the past 2 decades. Three BMUs have shown a generally increasing trend in percent males in the harvest: BMU 25, 26, and 51. Harvest ages Figs Median age of harvested females increased in nearly all BMUs, and statewide, in. A long-term declining trend in median age of harvested females continues to be evident in BMU 25. Statewide, the proportion of the female harvest composed of 1 2 year-olds declined and 4 10 year-olds increased. Median ages of harvested males have been relatively stable for 2 decades. Submission of bear teeth for aging Figs Ages of harvested bears are now used as the principal means of monitoring population trends. Although hunters are required to submit a tooth from their harvested bear, historically >25% did not comply. Violation notices were sent to non-compliant hunters each year since 2014, which spurred a higher initial compliance in 2015 and (>80%), and a compliance after the reminder notice of ~90%. Since 2013, hunters could register by phone or internet, and pick up a tooth submission envelope later: tooth submission compliance by these hunters is less than for hunters who register their bear in person and pick up a tooth envelope at that time. No-quota zone hunters (BMUs 11, 10, 52) have the poorest rate of tooth submission.
5 Population trend Ages of harvested bears accumulated since 1980 were used to reconstruct minimum statewide population sizes through time (i.e., the size of the population that eventually died due to hunting) using a technique formulated by Downing. This was scaled upwards (to include bears that died of other causes), using 4 statewide tetracycline mark recapture estimates as a guide. Whereas both the tetracycline-based and reconstructed populations showed a humped trajectory, with an increase during the 1990s, followed by a decline during the s, the shapes of the 2 trajectories differed somewhat (the reconstructed population curves were less steep). Therefore, it was not possible to exactly match the curve from the reconstruction to all 4 tetbased estimates. Fig Downing population reconstruction assumes equal harvest pressure through time: as harvest pressure is diminished, and fewer bears are killed (as has been the trend since 2003), ensuing population estimates will be biased low, so it is possible that the curve for the most recent years should be higher. Harvests were intentionally reduced in the quota zone when it was surmised (in the mid-s) that the population was declining. Since 2013, quotas were maintained at a low level, although harvests varied with food. Population reconstruction does not provide reliable estimates for the 2 most recent years, and since the model provides pre-hunt estimates, the most recent estimate shows only the effects of the 2013 harvest (and not the low harvest of 2014, or unexpectedly high harvest of ). The no-quota zone has also shown a population decline during the s, but at a slower rate than in the quota zone. Again, though, model results following the record no-quota harvest in are not yet available. Trends in harvest rates Fig. 15 The sex ratio of harvested bears varies by age in accordance with the relative vulnerability of the sexes. With male bears being more vulnerable to harvest than females, males always predominate among harvested 1-year-olds (67 75%). They also predominate, but less strongly among 2 and 3-year-old harvested bears. However, older aged bears ( 7 years) are nearly always dominated by females, because, although old females continue to be less vulnerable, there are far more of them than old males. The age at which the line fitted to these proportions crosses the 50:50 sex ratio is approximately the inverse of the harvest rate. Segregating the data into time blocks showed harvest rates increasing from , then declining with reductions in hunter numbers (Table 1; Fig. 1). Harvest rates since 2010 have been, on average, less than what they were in the early 1980s, when the population was increasing (Fig. 13).
6 Table 1. Bear permits, licenses, hunters, harvests, and success rates, Permit applications a a a a a a a a a Permits available b Licenses purchased (total) Quota zone c Quota surplus/military c No-quota zone c h % Licenses bought Of permits available d Of permits issued d Estimated no. hunters e Harvest Harvest sex ratio (%M) f i 61 Success rate (%) Total harvest/hunters g Quota harvest/licenses j 50 j a Includes area 99, a designation to increase preference but not to obtain a license (2008 = 528, 2009 = 835; 2010 = 1194; 2011 = 1626; 2012 = 1907; 2013 = 2129; 2014=2377; 2015=2455; =2641). b Permits reduced because of a new procedure in 2011 that ensures that all available licenses are purchased (see Table 2). c Quota zone established in No-quota zone established in Surplus licenses from undersubscribed quota areas sold beginning in ; originally open only to unsuccessful permit applicants, but beginning in 2003, open to all. In 2011, surplus licenses offered for all lottery licenses not purchased by August 1. Free licenses for 10 and 11 year-olds were available beginning d Quota licenses bought (including surplus)/permits available, or licenses bought (prior to surplus)/permits issued. Beginning in 2008, some permits were issued for area 99; these are no-hunt permits, just to increase preference, and are not included in this calculation. In , all unpurchased licenses were put up for sale and were bought. e Number of licensed hunters x percent of license-holders hunting. Percent hunting is based on data from bear hunter surveys conducted during , 1998 (86.8%), 2001(93.9%) and 2009 (95.3%). The estimated no. of hunters in may be under-estimated because a large no. of people bought surplus licenses 1 month before the season, so they were more apt to hunt. f Sex ratio as reported by hunters; hunters classify about 10% of female bears as males, so the actual harvest has a lower %M than shown here. In good food years, the harvest is more male-biased. g Success rates in were calculated as number of successful hunters/total hunters, rather than bears killed/total hunters, because no-quota hunters could take 2 bears. After 2012, hunters could take 2 bears only if they bought 2 licenses (1 quota + 1 no-quota). In, 5 hunters killed 2 bears. h Record high number of no-quota zone licenses purchased (46% of total licenses purchased ). i Record high % males in statewide harvest. j : record high success rate. 2015: highest success rate since very poor food year of 1995.
7 Fig. 1. Relationship between licenses sold and hunting success (note inverted scale) in quota zone, 1987 (no-quota zone first partitioned out in 1987). Number of licenses explains 42% of variation in hunting success during this period (P = ). Large variation in hunting success is also attributable to food conditions. Quota licenses bought Quota hunting 20,000 10% 18,000 15% Quota licenses bought 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Hunting success (inverted scale) 2,000 45% %
8 Fig. 2. Bear management units (BMUs) within quota (white) and no-quota (gray) zones. Hunters in the quota zone are restricted to a single BMU, whereas no-quota hunters can hunt anywhere within that zone. In, BMU 26 was divided into 27 and 28, and BMU 44 was split into 46 and 47 (BMUs 28 and 47 comprise the Leech Lake Reservation). No Quota Area 11 No Quota Area 10 No Quota Area 52
9 Table 2. Number of bear hunting quota area permits available, Highlighted values show a change from the previous year. BMUs 26 and 44 were divided into 27/28 and 46/47, respectively, in. BMU Before reduction 2011 After reduction a Before BMU split b After BMU split Total a Beginning in 2011, all licenses not purchased by permittees were sold (Table 3). In order not to increase the number of hunters, 2011 permit allocations were reduced by the mean percentage of licenses that were purchased in each BMU in The table shows the permit allocation before and after this reduction. All subsequent allocations were based on the assumption that the quota would be filled (Table 3). b In, the Leech Lake Reservation was split from BMUs 26 and 44 to form BMUs 28 (north) and 47 (south), with the remaining area of BMU 26 renamed BMU 28 and remaining area of BMU 44 renamed BMU 46. The column shows permit allocation before the split in order to compare with previous years.
10 Table 3. Number of quota BMU permit applicants (Apps), licenses bought (after permits drawn) and surplus licenses bought, 2011 a. Shaded values indicate undersubscribed areas (applications < permits available). BMU Apps Bought license Surplus bought Apps Bought license Surplus bought Apps Bought license Surplus bought b Total c Apps Bought license Surplus bought Apps Bought license Surplus bought Apps Bought license Surplus bought a Beginning in 2011, all licenses not purchased by permittees were sold as surplus. In all cases but one (see footnote b), all of the surplus licenses were purchased. Surplus = Permits available (Table 2) minus Bought license (±4 to account for groups applying together). b Even after purchase of surplus licenses, this BMU remained undersubscribed. c Beginning in 2008, applicants could apply for area 99 in order to increase future preference, but not buy a license; these are not included in the total number of applications (unlike Table 1, where they are included).
11 Table 4. Percentage of quota BMU lottery applicants with preference level 1 (1 st -year applicants), 2, 3, and 4 who were drawn for a bear permit, Blank spaces signify 100% of applicants drawn. All preference level 2 applicants were drawn, except where 0 preference level 1 applicants were drawn. Likewise, all preference level 3 applicants were drawn, except where 0 preference level 2 applicants were drawn a BMU Pref 1 Pref 2 Pref 1 Pref 2 Pref 1 Pref 2 Pref 3 Pref 1 Pref 2 Pref 3 Pref 1 Pref 2 Pref 3 Pref 4 Pref 1 Pref 2 Pref 3 Pref b b a As an example: In BMU 12: in 2011, 2% of preference level 1 applicants were drawn and 100% of preference 2 applicants were drawn for a permit; by, no preference 1 or 2 applicants were drawn, 98% of preference 3 and 100% of preference 4 (and above) were drawn. In BMU 45: in, no preference 1 3 applicants were drawn, 63% of preference 3 were drawn, and 100% of 4 (and above) were drawn. b BMU 26 was split into 27/28 and BMU 44 was split into 46/47 in.
12 Table 5. Minnesota bear harvest tally for by Bear Management Unit (BMU) a and sex b compared to harvests during and record high and low harvests (since establishment of each BMU). BMU M (%M) F Total year mean Record low harvest (yr) Record high harvest (yr) Quota (69) d (14) 263 (01) (64) e (88) 258 (95) 22 3 (60) (03) 41 (89) (67) f (14) 288 (95) (65) m g (96) 584 (01) 26  (74) m   h (14) 513 (95) (75) (73) (64) (88) 697 (01) (44) n i (15) 201 (01) 44  (53)   (11) 643 (95) (53) (56) (50) p (11) 178 (01) (58) c (91) 895 (01) Total 1187 (61) c j (88) 4288 (01) No-Quota b (67) k (87) 351 (05) 10 9 (60) 6 15 q (12) (57) (02) 405 (12) Total 436 (62) q (87) 678 (95) State 1623 (61) c j (95) a Some tooth envelopes were received from hunters who did not register their bear. These were added to the harvest tally: 2011:13; 2012:7; 2013:6; 2014:3; 2015:6; :7. Some hunters with no-quota licenses hunted in the quota zone, and their kills were assigned to the BMU where they apparently hunted: 2011:14; 2012:8; 2013:11; 2014:4; 2015:12; :9. Some quota area hunters also apparently hunted in the wrong BMU, based on the block where they said they killed a bear, but these were recorded in the BMU where they were assigned (presuming most were misreported kill locations). b Sex recorded on tooth envelopes may differ from the registered sex. Sex shown on table is the registered sex because normally only ~70% of tooth envelopes are submitted. c Total includes 1 bear of unknown sex. Notable harvests : d Record low harvest since this area was established in e Lowest harvest since f Record low harvest since this area was established in g Lowest harvest since h Record low harvest since this area was established in i Record low harvest since this area was established in j Lowest harvest since 1988 (quota no-quota split in 1987). k Lowest harvest since Notable harvests : m Record (or tie record) high % males. n Second lowest % males (42% in 2014). p Highest harvest since q Record high harvest.
13 Fig. 3. Trends in statewide bear harvest and proportions of harvest in the no-quota zones, % Statewide harvest % Harvest in No-quota % Harvest in BMU % % Harvest % 10% % 0 0% % of Harvest
14 Table 6. Bear hunting success (%) by BMU, measured as the registered harvest divided by the number of licenses sold a, BMU Max success (yr) prior to Mean success (95) b d (95) b c (92) c (92) b 48 b (92) b (95) c (92) b 56 b (95) c (95) b f (14,15) b 36 c 36 c (13) b c Quota 42 (95) b e e e No Quota 32 (95) f Statewide 40 (95) a Registered harvest/licenses instead of harvest/hunters because BMU-year-specific estimates for the proportion of license-holders that hunted are unreliable. Statewide estimates of harvest/hunters are presented in Table 1. b Record high (or tied record high) success. c Second highest success. d Tied record lowest success. e Since 2013, an attempt was made to differentiate the number of no-quota (NQ) hunters by BMU in order to estimate success rates. When no-quota hunters bought licenses, they recorded the deer block where they anticipated hunting. A significant number chose blocks in the quota zone; those who did not harvest a bear in the quota zone were divided up into NQ-BMUs in proportion to those who chose blocks in or adjacent to NQ-BMUs. A few chose BMU 60 (SE Minnesota) but so far none have killed a bear there. Table shows % indicating where they planned to hunt: BMU (n) 0.4 (10) 0.6 (17) 0.2 (8) 0.4 (12) Quota zone (n) 4.5 (127) 2.1 (60) 3.1 (101) 3.2 (105)
15 Table 7. Cumulative bear harvest (% of total harvest) by date, Year Day of week for opener Aug 22/23 Aug 31 Sep 1 Sep 7 Sep 1 Sep 14 Sep 1 Sep Sun 56 a Mon Tue Wed Wed Wed Sun 57 a 69 a Mon Wed Thu Fri Sat Mon 58 a 71 a Tue Wed Thu Sat Sun Mon Tue 58 b Thu a The low proportion of total harvest taken during the opening week (<60%) reflects a high abundance of natural foods. b The slow start the first week was likely due to especially warm weather.
16 Table 8. Number of people participating in nuisance bear survey, Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct a a Electronic submission of monthly complaint tally beginning in 2001.
17 Table 9. Number of nuisance bear complaints registered by Conservation Officers and Wildlife Managers during 1996, including number of nuisance bears killed and translocated, and bears killed in vehicular collisions Number of personnel participating in survey a Complaints examined on site h Complaints handled by phone b h Total complaints received h % Handled by phone 74% 77% 77% 84% 85% 84% 88% 84% 87% 88% 88% 86% 88% 89% 88% 91% 86% 90% 88% 90% 87% Bears killed by: Private party or DNR h Hunter before season c from nuisance survey from registration file Hunter during/after season d Permittee e Bears translocated % bears translocated f Bears killed by cars g h
18 Table 9 footnotes: a Maximum number of people turning in a nuisance bear report each month (from Table 7). Monthly reports were required beginning in b If a complaint was handled by phone, it means a site visit was not made. c The discrepancy between the number recorded on the nuisance survey and the number registered before the opening of the season indicates incomplete data. Similarity between the two values does not necessarily mean the same bears were reported. d Data only from nuisance survey because registration data do not indicate whether bear was a nuisance. e A permit for non-landowners to take a nuisance bear before the bear season was officially implemented in 1992, but some COs individually implemented this program in Data are based on records from the nuisance survey, not directly from permit receipts. f Percent of on-site investigations resulting in a bear being captured and translocated. g Car kill data were reported on the monthly nuisance form for the first time in In all previous years, car kill data were from confiscation records. h Lowest since record-keeping began (1981 for on-site complaints, nuisance bears killed and car-kills). However, participation in this survey may have affected the results.
19 Fig. 4. Trends in nuisance bear complaints, and nuisance bears killed and moved, 1981, showing dramatic effect of change in nuisance bear policy, and increasing trend in recent years. Complaints examined on site (no bears killed or moved) Bears translocated Nuisance bears killed (by private parties, permittees, or DNR) Total complaints received Complaints, bears moved, bears killed Phase-in of new DNR nuisance bear policy Institution of new DNR nuisance bear policy
20 Table 10. Regional bear food indices a in Minnesota s bear range, Shaded blocks indicate particularly low (<45; pink) or high ( 70; green) values. Survey Area Year NW NC NE WC EC Entire Range NW a Each bear food index value represents the sum of the mean index values for 14 species, based on surveys conducted in that area. Range-wide mean is derived directly from all surveys conducted in the state (i.e., not by averaging survey area means). WC EC NC NE
21 Table 11. Regional mean index values a for bear food species in compared to the previous 32-year mean ( ) in Minnesota s bear range. Shading indicates particularly high (green) or low (pink) fruit abundance relative to average ( 1 point difference for individual foods; 5 points difference for totals). NW NC NE WC EC Entire Range FRUIT 32-yr mean n = 11 b 32-yr mean n = 8 32-yr mean n =3 32-yr mean n = yr mean n = 8 32-yr mean n =30 c SUMMER Sarsaparilla Pincherry Chokecherry Juneberry Elderberry Blueberry Raspberry Blackberry FALL Wild Plum HB Cranberry Dogwood Oak Mountain Ash Hazel TOTAL a Food abundance indices were calculated by multiplying species abundance ratings x fruit production ratings. b n = Number of surveys used to calculate area-specific means c Sample size for the entire range does not equal the sum of the sample sizes of 5 survey areas because some surveys were conducted on the border of 2 or more areas and were included in calculations for both.
22 Table 12. Regional productivity index a for important fall foods (oak + hazel + dogwood) in Minnesota s bear range, Shading indicates particularly low ( 5.0; yellow) or high ( 8.0; tan) values. Survey Area Year NW NC NE WC EC Entire Range b b b b b a Values represent the sum of mean production scores for hazel, oak, and dogwood, derived from surveys conducted in each survey area. Range-wide mean is for all surveys conducted in the state (i.e. not an average of survey area means). b Record low fall food score in survey area. NW WC EC NC NE
23 Fig 5. Map of fall bear foods (oak, hazel, and dogwood) across Minnesota,. Fall food index (oak, dogwood, and hazel)
24 Fig. 6. Number of bears harvested vs. number predicted to be harvested based on fall food production and the number of hunters statewide: top: 1984 ; bottom: Actual harvest Predicted harvest r 2 adjusted = Harvest Actual harvest Predicted harvest r 2 adjusted = Harvest
25 Fig 7. Sex ratios of harvested bears by BMU, Thick lines show increasing trends % Males in Harvest BMU % Males in Harvest BMU
26 % Males in Harvest BMU
27 Fig 8. Median ages of harvested female bears by BMU, Thick lines show declining trends. 9 8 Median age harvested females BMU Median age harvested females BMU
28 Median age harvested females BMU
29 Fig. 9. Statewide median ages (yrs) of harvested bears by sex, Females 5 Males Median age Fig. 10. Statewide harvest structure: proportion of each sex in age category, Trend lines are significant. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent in age category (within sex) 1-2 yr males 1-2 yr females 4-10 yr females >10 yr females >10 yr males
30 Fig. 11. Percent of hunters submitting useable bear teeth for aging (now vital for population monitoring, see Figs ). Cooperation levels exceeded 80% when registration stations were paid to extract teeth (this practice ended in 1993) and ~90% when non-compliant hunters were sent a reminder letter in December or January (2015 and ). 100% % teeth submitted after reminder letter 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Teeth submitted by hunters
31 Fig. 12. Percent of hunters who submitted a bear tooth in by method of registration (top panel) and by BMU (bottom panel; before and after reminder letter). Beginning in 2013, hunters could register their bear by phone or internet. 100% Number registered % Tooth submission (before reminder letter) 1400 % Tooth submission 80% 60% 40% 20% 81% 77% 89% No. bears registered 0% Phone Internet Registration station Registration method 0 Number registered % Tooth submission (initially) % Tooth submission (after reminder) 100% % 450 Statewide initial submission = 83% % Tooth submission 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% No. bears registered 0% BMU 0
32 Fig. 13. Statewide bear population trend (pre-hunt) derived from Downing reconstruction using the harvest age structures. Curves were scaled (elevated to account for non-harvest mortality) to various degrees to attempt to match the tetracyclinebased mark recapture estimates. Estimates beyond 2014 are unreliable Modeled population size (excluding cubs) Tetracycline-based population estimate and 95%CI
33 Fig. 14. Population trends during s derived from Downing reconstruction for quota and no-quota zones compared to respective harvests. Population curves were scaled (elevated to account for non-harvest mortality) using a multiplier midway between the two curves in Fig. 13 (i.e., the actual scale of the population estimates is not empirically-based) Quota population No-quota population Quota harvest NQ harvest Modeled population size Harvest
34 Fig. 15. Trends in proportion of male bears in statewide harvest at each age, 1 10 years, grouped in 5-year time blocks, 1980 (last interval is 7 years). Higher harvest rates result in steeper curves because males are reduced faster than females. Fitting a line to the data for each time block and predicting the age at which 50% of the harvest is male (dashed yellow line) yields approximately the inverse of the harvest rate (derived rates are shown in inset) Estimated harvest rate Proportion Males in Harvest Age
Minnesota s Wild Turkey Harvest - 2013 Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group Minnesota offers fall and spring turkey hunting seasons. The fall turkey season was 30 days in length
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
Minnesota s Wild Turkey Harvest 2016 This report summarizes the fall 2015 and spring 2016 Minnesota wild turkey harvest information. The fall turkey season was 30 days in length (October 3- November 1)
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
Minnesota s Wild Turkey Harvest 2015 This report summarizes the fall 2014 and spring 2015 Minnesota wild turkey harvest information. The fall turkey season was 30 days in length (October 4- November 2)
2012 Minnesota Wolf Season Report Dan Stark & John Erb July 5, 2013 All data contained herein are subject to revision, due to updated information, improved analysis techniques, and/or regrouping of data
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
Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science received 9/14/99 (2000), Volume 93, #2, pp. 165-173 accepted 1/16/00 Status and Distribution of the Bobcat (Lynx rufus) in Illinois Alan Woolf 1, Clayton
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
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
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
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
Assessment Summary Report Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper SEDAR 7 Stock Distribution: Red snapper are found throughout the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and from the U.S. Atlantic Coast to northern South
Population Parameters and Their Estimation Data should be collected with a clear purpose in mind. Not only a clear purpose, but a clear idea as to the precise way in which they will be analysed so as to
Minnesota Deer Population Goals Superior Uplands Arrowhead Goal Block Minnesota DNR Section of Wildlife, 2015 Final Deer Population Goals Block 1: Superior Uplands Arrowhead The following pages provide
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
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 2018 NEW HAMPSHIRE MOOSE HUNT * LOTTERY PHOTO JOHNNY ADOLPHSON@DREAMSTIME.COM *as proposed Information and Application Must be postmarked, or apply online, by midnight
Dear Volunteer: As part of our deliverables to the Government of Alberta under our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) we are required to design and test a log book for use amongst our trappers working on
Justification for Rainbow Trout stocking reduction in Lake Taneycomo Shane Bush Fisheries Management Biologist Missouri Department of Conservation December 14, 2017 Lake Taneycomo was formed by the construction
Fisheries Management on Lake Vermilion 214 Update Duane Williams Large Lake Specialist Tower DNR Fisheries Introduction Lake Vermilion is part of the statewide Large Lake Program, an intensive fisheries
CHAPTER 10 TOTAL RECREATIONAL FISHING DAMAGES AND CONCLUSIONS 10.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides the computation of the total value of recreational fishing service flow losses (damages) through time
LAKE ONTARIO FISHING AND FISH CONSUMPTION by Nancy A. Connelly, Research Specialist, Cornell University Department of Natural Resources and Diane Kuehn, Extension Specialist, New York Sea Grant INTRODUCTION
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
1 COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report for Grizzly Bear Western population (Ursus arctos) in Canada SUMMARY The COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report for grizzly bears assess the status of Western and Ungava
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
REPORT OF ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON STOCKS TO NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION NEAC Area CNL(14)8 Advice generated by ICES in response to terms of reference from NASCO
Tweedsmuir Caribou Modelling Project: Caribou Population Ecology Meeting Notes held March 5, 2008 Participants: Mark Williams, Debbie Cichowski, Don Morgan, Doug Steventon, Dave Daust Purpose: The purpose
Salmon age and size at maturity: Patterns and processes 1. Age Designation 2. Variation among populations 1. Latitude 2. Within regions 3. Within watersheds 3. Variation within populations 1. Smolt size
MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-1 Game Management Units 1, 2, 201 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Northwest Region By: Darby Finley Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Meeker,
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
ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA ANALYSIS UNIT D-55 Game Management Units 101 & 102 January 2006 Marty Stratman Colorado Division of Wildlife Terrestrial Biologist 122 E. Edison St. Brush, CO 80723
LOGAN MARTIN RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT REPORT 2008 Prepared by E. Daniel Catchings District Fisheries Supervisor Robert O. Andress District Fisheries Biologist Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Child Road Safety in Great Britain, 21-214 Bhavin Makwana March 216 Summary This short report looks at child road casualties in Great Britain between 21 and 214. It looks at how children travel, the geographical
NEVADA SLOT MACHINES: HISTORICAL HOLD PERCENTAGE VARIATIONS ANNUAL AND MONTHLY HOLD PERCENTAGES, 2004-2017 CENTER FOR GAMING RESEARCH, NOVEMBER 2017 Executive Summary Hold percentage the portion of money
Patuxent Research Refuge Harvest Report 2016-2017 1 Summary report on all harvested species on Patuxent Research Refuge from September 1 - January 31, 2017 Deer Harvest Central Tract Compound Crossboloader
BIG GAME S Prairie WMUs (100 Series & 732) Sunday hunting for big game is prohibited in Prairie WMUs (102 160). Archery Only Seasons are those where only a bow and arrow may be used to hunt. General Seasons
216 ANNUAL FISH TRAWL SURVEY REPORT The University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography The Graduate School of Oceanography (GSO) Fish trawl survey began weekly sampling two stations in Narragansett
Gulf of Maine Research Institute Responsibly Harvested Seafood from the Gulf of Maine Region Report on Atlantic Sea Scallops (Inshore Canada) The fishery is managed by a competent authority and has a management
Background Information The Pennsylvania Game Commission is a state agency charged with managing wildlife resources throughout Pennsylvania. An integral part of this job is managing the population of deer
Sean Parnell, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME November 4, 2011 DIVISION OF SPORT FISH 3298 Douglas Place Homer, AA 99603-8027 PHONE: (907) 235-8191 FAX: (907) 235-2448 and Douglas Island Center Bldg
2009 WMU 328 Moose and Elk Section Authors: Anne Hubbs and Shevenell Webb Suggested Citation: Hubbs, A. and S. Webb. 2009. WMU 328 Moose and Elk. Pages 40 44. In: N. Webb and R. Anderson. Delegated aerial
The 2001 Yellow Perch Report by Rick Kubb During the mid-to-late 1980s the yellow perch popula tions in Lake Erie were among the highest on record. Limit catches by fishermen were extremely common during
Overview of herring related findings of NCEAS Portfolio Effects Working Group Northwest Eric Ward, Rich Brenner email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org September 8, 2017 Acknowledgments Thanks to
NAVAJO NATION DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 2017-2018 Non-Navajo Fall Big Game Hunt Proclamation The following 2017-2018 Non-Navajo Big Game Permits will be sold beginning Monday, April 3, 2017. Deadline
Maritimes Region DFO Atlantic Fisheries Stock Status Report 96/117E Eastern and South Shore Nova Scotia Lobster LFAs 31-33 Background Lobsters first entering the fishery in LFAs 31, 32, and 33 are probably
For Immediate Release 2015FLNR0009-000152 February 6, 2015 NEWS RELEASE Harvest allocation ensures certainty for hunting sector VICTORIA Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Minister Steve Thomson
Recent Events in the Market for Canadian Snow Crab Overview The quantity of snow crab produced and exported by Canada increased dramatically through the late 1990s, but has levelled off and remained quite
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
CORRESPONDENCE/MEMORANDUM State of Wisconsin DATE: November 13, 2012 FILE REF: [Click here and type file ref.] TO: FROM: Mike Donofrio Harpt Lake File Steve Hogler SUBJECT: 2012 Harpt Lake Electrofishing
Deer Management in Maryland Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader Maryland DNR 301-842-0332 email@example.com General Behavior Social groups Social hierarchy Home range Nocturnal Bedding Food Habits Ruminants
INLAND LAKE MANAGEMENT REPORT FY 2008 Spring 2008 Prepared by Robert O. Andress District Fisheries Biologist E. Daniel Catchings District Fisheries Supervisor Kevin W. Baswell District Biologist Aide Department
THE OREGON PLAN for Salmon and Watersheds Assessment of Western Oregon Adult Winter Steelhead Redd Surveys 2013 Report Number: OPSW-ODFW-2013-09 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife prohibits discrimination
Michigan Predator-Prey Project Phase 1 Preliminary Results and Management Recommendations Study Background White-tailed deer are important ecologically, socially, and economically throughout their geographic
Environment and Climate Change Canada Public Consultation Document From February 22 to March 21, 2018 Canadian Wildlife Service PROPOSED SERVICE FEES FOR THE MIGRATORY GAME BIRD HUNTING PERMIT AND CANADIAN
NAFO Sci. Coun. Studies, 29: 23 29 A Combined Recruitment Index for Demersal Juvenile Cod in NAFO Divisions 3K and 3L David C. Schneider Ocean Sciences Centre, Memorial University St. John's, Newfoundland,
St. Lawrence River Discussion Paper FISH COMMUNITIES AND FISHERIES OF THE THOUSAND ISLANDS AND MIDDLE CORRIDOR Issues Below is a synopsis of fish community issues and proposed management approaches. More
REPORT ON RED-LIGHT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL MONITORING SYSTEMS Prepared by the New Jersey Department of Transportation November 2011 Executive Summary Public Law 2007, Chapter 348 (P.L. 2007, c.348), signed
AMENDMENT GUIDE 11/2/11 Reef Fish Amendment 32 Gag and Red Grouper Provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require regional fishery management councils to develop annual
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
349 AN INCIDENTAL TAKE PLAN FOR CANADA LYNX AND MINNESOTA S TRAPPING PROGRAM Glenn D. DelGiudice, Michael DonCarlos, and John Erb SUMMARY A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) has been developed in association
ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Northeast Atlantic Published 11 October 2016 9.3.17 Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic ICES stock advice ICES advises that when
Winter 215/216 - Halibut & Blackcod Market Bulletin The Seafood Market Information Service is funded by a portion of the seafood marketing assessment paid by Alaska seafood producers. McDowell Group provides
W E S T V I R G I N I A Big Game B U L L E T I N 2016 wvdnr.gov Presented by Certification Program For more information on the Big Buck Certification Program, contact your local District office or go to:
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
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
Survey of New Jersey s Recreational Blue Crab Fishery in Delaware Bay By Brandon W. Muffley* New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife Marine Fisheries Administration & Lynette Lurig New Jersey Division of
Deer Management in Maryland -Overview Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader Management History -Pre-colonial/Colonial Deer abundant Important to eastern tribes Legislatively protected in Maryland 1729 Nearly
LAKE OF THE WOODS and RAINY RIVER INFORMATION December 1, 2015 April 23, 2016 Lake of the Woods is a border water, shared with the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and Ontario. The Minnesota portion of Lake
THE MAGICAL PROPERTY OF 60 KM/H AS A SPEED LIMIT? JOHN LAMBERT, MIEAust, CPENG 180 785, B.Eng (Agric), ARMIT (Mech). John Lambert and Associates Pty Ltd ABSTRACT Kloeden et al (1997) found that in a 60
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: CC: City Constituents Leilani Schwarcz, Vision Zero Surveillance Epidemiologist, SFDPH Megan Wier, Co-Chair, San Francisco Vision Zero Task Force, SFDPH Commander Ann Mannix, Traffic
Florida stone crab, Menippe mercenaria, and gulf stone crab, M. adina Stone crabs are found from North Carolina south around peninsular Florida to the Yucatan Peninsula and Belize and throughout the Bahamas
City of Dubuque Deer Management Program A program designed to control excess deer within the city limits of Dubuque and the surrounding outlying area. September 14, 2013 January 19, 2014 MANAGEMENT GOAL
Transportation and Public Works 22 Annual Motor Vehicle Collision Report Table of Contents Table of Contents.. 2 Introduction.. 3 22 Collision Summary. 4 Demographics 5 Collisions by Severity.. 5 Personal
Crossbow Hunting Today Fish & Wildlife Board February 15, 2012 In History Likely originated in Asia, at least back to 400 BC. Reached zenith in Medieval Europe. In 1139, Pope Innocent II may have banned