NEW HAMPSHIRE MOOSE UPDATE

Similar documents
Consideration for Moose Management in Ontario Northern Ontario First Nations Environmental Conference

Deer Management Unit 255

Deer Management Unit 127

Deer Management Unit 122

Chronic Wasting Disease in Southeast Minnesota. Drs. Michelle Carstensen and Lou Cornicelli Preston Public Meeting December 18, 2018

Deer Management Unit 152

Deer Management Unit 252

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

Hunter use of public-access lands in the Rainwater Basin and beyond

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

021 Deer Management Unit

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

Management History of the Edwards Plateau

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

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

Life history Food Distribution Management... 98

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

2009 WMU 328 Moose and Elk

Summary of discussion

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 2018 NEW HAMPSHIRE MOOSE HUNT *

2008 WMU 359 moose, mule deer, and white tailed deer

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

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

Big Game Survey Results

2009 Update. Introduction

Deer Management Unit 249

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

REBOUND. on the. It was the winter of 2000/2001, and it seemed like the snow

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

2008 & 2009 Big Game Hunting Regulations Proposal Information

Mitigating Vehicle Collisions with Large Wildlife

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

Agenda Item 16 Chapter W-3 - Furbearers and Small Game, Except Migratory Birds

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

BIGHORN SHEEP IN IDAHO

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

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

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

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

DMU 038 Jackson County

Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Competition. Long history in ecology

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Annual Performance Report of Survey-Inventory Activities 1 July June IS 0 N

Deer Management Unit 349

WADE WEST INCENTIVE TAGS 2016 NDOW- REPORTING BIOLOGIST SCOTT ROBERTS

2019 Big Game Tag Application Seminar. Nevada Department of Wildlife

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

NATURAL CONTROLS OF POPULATIONS: 3 CASE STUDIES

WILDLIFE RESEARCH PERMIT APPLICATION MACKENZIE BISON POPULATION MONITORING

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

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

Agriculture Zone Winter Replicate Count 2007/08

Ecology and Environmental Impact of Javan Rusa Deer (Cervus timorensis russa) in the Royal National Park

WILD HOGS IN MISSISSIPPI

Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group

2008 WMU 360 moose, white tailed deer and mule deer. Section Authors: Robb Stavne, Dave Stepnisky and Mark Heckbert

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 510 moose

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

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

2016 and 2017 Big Game Tag Numbers and 2017 Hunting Regulations

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

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

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit

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

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

Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Mountain Caribou Recovery Implementation Plan. Predator/Prey Component. Terms of Reference

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

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

A pheasant researcher notebook:

Comparison of Documents Norton: FWS-WDC. 1. What is the Porcupine caribou herd's historic calving range?

MAYO MOOSE MANAGEMENT UNIT

Elk Restoration in the Northern Cumberland Plateau, Tennessee. Lisa Muller, Jason Kindall, Jason Lupardus University of Tennessee

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

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

DMU 452 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

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

LITTLE SALMON AND MAGUNDY RIVERS

Wildlife Introduction

DMU 487 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

By Kip Adams, Deer Project Leader, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department and Darrell Covell, UNH Wildlife Extension Specialist

BUFFALO PEAKS ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN EXTENSION

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

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

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

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

Deer-Elk Ecology Research Project

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016

MAYO MOOSE MANAGEMENT UNIT

JACKSON MOOSE HERD UNIT POPULATION OBJECTIVE REVIEW. Prepared by: Alyson Courtemanch, North Jackson Wildlife Biologist

2010 to Kootenay Elk Management Plan. Ministry of Environment Province of British Columbia Cranbrook, BC July 2010

DMU 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

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

Monitoring Population Trends of White-tailed Deer in Minnesota

Transcription:

NEW HAMPSHIRE MOOSE UPDATE

-Hunting since 1988-9 days starting 3 rd Oct Sat. -Lottery draw -Both either sex and antlerless only permits -Voluntary hunter seminars -mandatory carcass registration -ES success rates 90% - 20% - 30% cows & calves AO success rates 80% - 40%

2012 EST DEER/MOOSE DENSITY Regions Deer/Mi 2 Moose/ Mi 2 Ct Lakes 8 2.23 North 7 1.45 W. Mt.s 6 0.52 Central 11 0.32 S. West 16 0.25 S. East 24 0.14

DEER HUNTER MAIL SURVEY REGION GOAL CURRENT LEVEL* CT. LAKE 7.40 7.22 NORTH 6.00 4.74 W MTN 3.00 1.36 CENTRAL 1.50 0.99 SW 1.30 0.83 SE 0.50 0.37 * Moose seen per hundred hunter hrs, 2010-2012

Deer Hunter Mail Survey Data REGION Adult Bulls/ Cow % Calves CT. LAKE 0.68 17 NORTH 0.92 15 W MTN 0.55 21 CENTRAL 0.67 20 SW 0.62 19 SE 0.64 26

MORTALITY STUDY 2001-2006 - 92 collared animals - Adult cows and calves -A annual survival 0.87 -c annual survival 0.45 WINTER TICK 41% - 49% all mortalities 75% occurs in April 88% composed of calves

Problems Associated with Winter Tick Elevated spring mortality Lower body weights = lower herd fecundity. Influenced by moose density and weather Need early snow and late springs to reduce ticks loads

Brain Worm? -Statewide -See most often in Central region -Seen least in SE region

P. tenuis Life Cycle Moose are an incompatible host. Present in areas with moderate to high deer densities. Wet conditions that favor snails and other gastropods increase spread of the disease.

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean Ct. Lake; A1, A2 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1995-100/0 1997-70/55 2002-55/20 2004-90/20 2006-105/50 2008-40/40 2010-65/25 2012-25/20 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean North; B, C2, D1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1995-85/0 1997-90/10 2002-70/30 2004-110 2006-135/35 2008-65/25 2010-80/15 2012-45/10 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean W. Mtn.; C1, D2, E1, E2, E3, F 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1995-145 1997-170 2000-130 2002-100 2004-115 2006-145 2008-95/55 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT 2010-60/5 2012-45/10

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean Central; G,H1,I1,I2,J1,J2 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1995-100 2000-135 2002-140 2006-160 2010-110 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT 2012-45/40

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean SouthWest; H2N, H2S, K 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1995-30 1996-35 2004-30 2006-25 2008-20 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean SouthEast; L, M 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1995-30 1997-40 2000-60 2002-35 2004-20 2008-15 2010-20 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT

Age Structure as Percentage 40 35 30 25 20 15 1988-1992 2008-2012 10 5 0 0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5+

COW WEIGHT; CT LAKES 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 ADULT COW TWIN RATE YEARLING COW PREG RATE

Yearling Preg rate Yearling Twin rate Adult Preg rate Adult Twin rate 1988-1992 82 44 100 52 2008-2012 27 8 81 18

Stocking rate of commercial tree species acceptable in all regions % trees w/ severe damage in single digits with one exception growth rates were slower at higher moose densities. HABITAT Small mean annual home range (24.6 km 2 ), coupled with high overlap of seasonal HR and core areas, suggest habitat is not limiting. Lack of preferred habitat use and similar habitat use by barren and maternal cows suggest high habitat heterogeneity, quality & forage availability. HSI models suggest current estimated densities are below carrying capacity

????????????

THANK YOU!

CONCLUSIONS Severe browsing was site-specific (only 2.6% of clear-cuts) and likely influenced by proximity to winter habitat. Severe browsing may shift local species composition in favor of softwood. ** Interestingly, CT Lakes Timber is no longer the landowner! On average, commercial forests in New England now turn over in <10 years. Cooperative management programs are inherently more difficult.**

Age Class Stocking Of Dominant Commercial Trees Commercial Trees W/ Severe Damage Commercial Trees W/O Severe Damage Height 10 ft CT Lakes 0-5 49% 2% 47% N/A 6-10 77% 8% 69% 22% 11-15 78% 16% 61% 43% 16-20 87% 9% 78% 63% North 0-5 67% 3% 64% N/A 6-10 71% 4% 67% 39% 11-15 86% 1% 85% 69% 16-20 87% 2% 85% 70% White Mountain 0-5 53% 1% 52% N/A 6-10 73% 7% 67% 48% 11-15 79% 4% 75% 67% 16-20 85% 0% 84% 80%

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean SouthWest; H2N, H2S, K 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1995-30 1996-35 2004-30 2006-25 2008-20 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean SouthEast; L, M 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1995-30 1997-40 2000-60 2002-35 2004-20 2008-15 2010-20 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean Ct. Lake; A1, A2 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1995-100/0 1997-70/55 2002-55/20 2004-90/20 2006-105/50 2008-40/40 2010-65/25 2012-25/20 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean Central; G,H1,I1,I2,J1,J2 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1995-100 2000-135 2002-140 2006-160 2010-110 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT 2012-45/40

COW WEIGHT: W MTNS 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 ADULT COW TWIN RATE YEARLING COW PREG RATE

COW WEIGHT: CENTRAL 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 ADULT COW TWIN RATE YEARLING COW PREG RATE

Some Negative Factors Effecting New Hampshire s Moose Herd Parasites Winter Tick: Dermacentor albipictus Brain worm: Parelaphostrongylus tenuis Environmental stresses Heat Stress Begins in winter above 23 degrees F. Begins in summer above 57 degrees F. Active panting occurs at 68 degrees. Remain bedded, stop eating at 79 degrees Shorter winters

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean North; B, C2, D1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1995-85/0 1997-90/10 2002-70/30 2004-110 2006-135/35 2008-65/25 2010-80/15 2012-45/10 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT

COW WEIGHT: NORTH 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 ADULT COW TWIN RATE 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 YEARLING COW PREG RATE

OBSERVATION RATE reported as 3 year mean W. Mtn.; C1, D2, E1, E2, E3, F 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1995-145 1997-170 2000-130 2002-100 2004-115 2006-145 2008-95/55 YEAR & PERMIT ASSIGNMENT 2010-60/5 2012-45/10

COW CL CT LAKES 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1988 1990 2000 2010

A & Y preg & A tr: CT LAKES 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1988

2012/2013 MOOSE SEASON PROPOSAL 2012/2013 SEASON ES-AO 2013 PROPOSAL ES-AO Ct. Lakes 25-20 25 North 40-10 40 W. Mtns. 45-10 45 Central 45-40 45 S. West 20 20 S. East 20 20 Statewide Total 195-80 195

MINN NS ND ONT MI NY UTAH