DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit

Similar documents
DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

DMU 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit

DMU 038 Jackson County

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 152

Deer Management Unit 252

DMU 452 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

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

Deer Management Unit 122

021 Deer Management Unit

DMU 487 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 249

Deer Management Unit 127

Deer Management Unit 349

Deer Management Unit 255

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. Sand Plain Big Woods Goal Block

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

2017 DEER HUNTING FORECAST

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

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

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

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

Michigan Predator-Prey Project Phase 1 Preliminary Results and Management Recommendations. Study Background

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

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

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

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

Kansas Deer Report Seasons

Upper Dublin Township Deer Management Program (DMP)

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

NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

2012 MICHIGAN DEER HUNTING: STATUS AND PROSPECTS

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

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

make people aware of the department s actions for improving the deer population monitoring system,

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

DEER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LANDOWNER/LESSEE APPLICATION

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

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

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

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

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

ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

LEAPS BOUNDS. Growing up hunting as a kid in New Hampshire, I didn t. by Dan Bergeron

Comprehensive Deer Management Program Montgomery County, MD. Rob Gibbs Natural Resources Manager M-NCPPC, Montgomery Dept of Parks

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

San Juan Basin Elk Herd E-31 Data Analysis Unit Plan Game Management Units 75, 751, 77, 771, and 78

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

Quality Deer Management and Prescribed Fire Natural Partners in Wildlife and Habitat Conservation

Deer Census - How to Use It to Calculate Harvest

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

DRAFT ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS. Court File No. A Petitioners, Respondents.

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

Management History of the Edwards Plateau

BIG TWIN LAKE Kalkaska County (T28N, R05W, Section 18, and T28N, R06W, Section 13) Surveyed May 1999

2009 WMU 527 Moose, Mule Deer, and White tailed Deer

Deer Management in Maryland -Overview. Brian Eyler Deer Project Leader

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

2018 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Importance of Radio-collared Bears

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

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

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

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

Big Game Season Structure, Background and Context

BIG GAME SEASON STRUCTURE

Winter 2016 Hunting District 313 Elk survey (Gardiner to 6-Mile Creek) Date: Flight Duration: Weather/Survey Conditions: Survey Methods

SPOTLIGHT DEER SURVEY YO RANCHLANDS LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION ±10,400 ACRES KERR COUNTY

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

Chapter 8 3 MILLION REASONS TO HUNT IN THE ADIRONDACKS

Keywords: 7SI/Brown bear/harvest/harvest quota/hunting/malme/management/ mortality/population size/trend/ursus arctos

Spring 2012 Wild Turkey Harvest Report

ALABAMA HUNTING SURVEY

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

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

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN?

USDA APHIS WILDLIFE SERVICES ACTIVITIES SUMMARY REPORT 2013 WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOWNSHIP OF UPPER ST. CLAIR (September 2013)

2015 WILDLIFE HARVEST RECORD FOR THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

Mule and Black-tailed Deer

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

Twin Canyons Ranch 3,019+/- Acres Throckmorton County, Texas $4,211,505 ($1,395/acre)

Transcription:

DMU 43 Lake County Deer Management Unit Area Description Lake County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has approximately 2, acres of public land which is about half of the total acreage in the county. State land comprises approximately 6, acres, or about 17% of the total land area, and is concentrated to the east of M-37 and north of US-1 East. State land is primarily forested, with a high component of oak, red pine, jack pine, white pine, and considerable aspen acreage. Approximately 3 acres of alfalfa and rye plantings are actively maintained on state forest land by DNR staff. The remainder of land is in private ownership. Little agriculture exists in Lake County; however, there are some row crops, concentrated in the eastern portion of the county. Historically, Lake County supported large areas of oak and oak/pine barrens communities. The east border, and to a lesser extent the west border, of the county are characterized by irregular moraine topography with well drained sandy or sandy loam soils. Sandy, well drained outwash plains are interior, with pockets of poorly drained peat and muck. The latter soil types are where the Bear, Voss and Baldwin-Luther Swamps are found; all important winter deer yards. Major river corridors include the Pere Marquette, Little Manistee, and Pine which have steep, highly erodible banks. These river corridors provide routes of ingress and egress with regard to the large swamp complexes. Management Guidance The main goals that guide deer management in this DMU are: 1) impact management; and 2) hunting opportunities. Impact management refers to reduction of undesirable effects associated with deer overabundance. Crop damage, deer-vehicle collisions, and poor forest regeneration due to over-browsing are examples. In an effort to find a middle-ground in which deer numbers provide ample hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities and mitigate unwanted impacts, we review data from several sources to adjust the harvest strategy as needed. These data include deer harvest data from check stations and an annual hunter survey, the winter severity index, deer-vehicle collision data from the Michigan State Police, and deer-related information collected by regional wildlife biologists (e.g., hunter observations, number of Crop Damage Permits, habitat assessments, etc.). Population Assessment Factors Winter Severity In northern Michigan, winter severity has a direct impact on deer populations. While mild winters allow for better survival of deer, severe winters can cause high deer mortality. In addition, does may abort

fetuses during severe winters, which creates a lag effect into the following year. Does with poor nutrition tend to have smaller litter sizes and give birth to fawns with reduced birth weight. Figure 1: Traverse City Areas Winter Severity Index from 26 to 215 Winter severity over the last five years has been variable with most years below the 1-year-average for the Traverse City area. The notable exceptions were the winters of 213 and 214 where winter weather was both more severe and lasted longer than normal. Deer Harvest Analysis 1 8 Estimated Deer Harvest in Lake County Per Square Mile of Deer Range 6 4 2 Bucks Antlerless Figure 2: Deer harvest estimates per square mile. Note: for the years 28-215 this includes antlerless deer killed under crop damage management programs. The antlered and antlerless harvests indicate opposite population trends (Figure 2). This most likely indicates a stable population until 214 where both were reduced. Buck harvest has varied between 3 and 8 bucks harvested per square mile of deer range over the last decade. The fluctuations observed are

likely related to varying winter severities, hunter effort, fall food availability and, the Antler Point Restriction (APR) which went into effect in this county in 213. While it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what causes a population to increase, decrease, or stabilize, we can make predictions based on past trends and looking at several factors that can indicate changes in populations. Bucks Harvested per Hunter.5.45.4.35.3.25.2.15.1.5 Bucks per Hunter Figure 3: Bucks harvested per hunter in Lake County, all seasons combined. With the number of hunters changing year to year it can be helpful to look at the number of deer taken as it relates to hunters in each year (Figure 3). Lake County has seen a decreasing trajectory in the number of bucks taken per hunter. Other Harvest Deer Management Assistance Permits (DMAP) and Crop Damage Permits (CDP) are utilized to address deer overabundance issues in specific locations at specific times of the year. DMAPs may be applied for by any private landowner with deer damage, safety issues and other concerns such as forest regeneration. CDPs are not issued during the regular hunting seasons. Thereofore, agricultural producers who experience chronic deer damage will frequently request DMAPs to ensure they can harvest adequate numbers of antlerless deer in the fall. Lake County has minimal agriculture and a minimal number of deer taken through either of these programs. Deer-Vehicle Collisions Deer-vehicle collisions (DVC) are commonly used as a deer population trend index, the idea being that high rates of DVC are correlated with high deer populations, and vice versa. Research has shown that there are other factors that influence the rate of DVC. Habitat proximate to the roadway and highway characteristics can blur the relationship between the deer population and DVCs. However, DVC data can provide useful information if used as one part of a deer population assessment.

35 Reported Accidents 3 25 2 15 Reported Accidents 1 5 Figure 4: Number of deer vehicle collisions in Lake County. These data are provided by the Michigan State Police. Although changes may have occurred in law enforcement response and recording of DVC over time, we assume they have remained consistent enough to provide a reliable estimate of DVC rates. In Lake County, deer vehicle collisions range between 2-325 per year with yearly variations of up to 5. Antler Measurements In previous years, average antler measurement for one-and-a-half-year-old bucks was used to evaluate overall nutrition of the deer herd. This information is not being included this review because antler point restriction were implemented in 213. This change significantly reduced the number of yearling bucks in the harvest and sample sizes are longer adequate to provide confidence in these data. Deer Management Recommendation Since a direct count of the deer population is not possible, there are a number of indicators used to determine long term deer population trends in each DMU. The list of indicators described above are used together, as no single indicator provides enough information on its own. Though there isn t complete agreement in these indices, most indicators demonstrate population that has largely stabilized. With what appears to be a stabilized population, antlerless license quotas will remain as they have been. There will be no early or late antlerless seasons in Lake County.

Figure 5: Cover type map for Lake County.