DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

Similar documents
DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

DMU 082 Wayne 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 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

DMU 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 152

Deer Management Unit 252

DMU 452 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 255

DMU 487 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

021 Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 122

Deer Management Unit 249

Deer Management Unit 127

Deer Management Unit 349

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

2017 DEER HUNTING FORECAST

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. Sand Plain Big Woods Goal Block

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

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

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

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

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

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

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

DEER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LANDOWNER/LESSEE APPLICATION

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

2012 MICHIGAN DEER HUNTING: STATUS AND PROSPECTS

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

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

ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

Kansas Deer Report Seasons

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

DRAFT ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

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

Early History, Prehistory

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

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE HARVEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR HUNTING SEASONS

White-tailed Deer Management in Urban/Suburban Environments: Planning for Success

Deer Census - How to Use It to Calculate Harvest

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

Deer Season Report

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to the Olympic Peninsula

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

Big Game Season Structure, Background and Context

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

ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION STRATEGIC SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT PLAN

2018 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Spring 2012 Wild Turkey Harvest Report

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

Deer Management Program Proposal

ALABAMA HUNTING SURVEY

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

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

Upper Dublin Township Deer Management Program (DMP)

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

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

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

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

2018 Antlerless Harvest and Youth Season Recommendation

Management History of the Edwards Plateau

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN?

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

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

Coyotes. The coyote, considered by many as a symbol of the Old West, now resides

Making Sense of Selective Buck Harvest

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE AND HUNTING SEASONS

Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion

New Changes to the Managed Lands Deer Program (MLDP)

Transcription:

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit Area Description Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has roughly 99,000 acres of public land which is about 27% of the total acreage in the county. The remainder of land is in private ownership. Topography varies from rolling hills to flat outwash plains. Soil types consist mainly of sandy types that are well drained. The landscape consists of large blocks of state land and federal. The state land is concentrated in the northwest part of the County while the federal land is primarily in the north central and northeast regions. Those large blocks of land are dominated by forest land and provide excellent habitat for deer. Much of the state-owned land is located on sandy outwash plains in the northwest portion of the county and is dominated by jack pine forests. The private land consists of residential developments and agricultural land amongst forested habitat. The agricultural lands are concentrated in the southwest, southeast and central portions of the county. Many small inland lakes are scattered throughout the DMU which see heavy recreational use. Management Guidance Two main goals guide the deer management in this DMU: 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 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., number of Crop Damage Permits, residential property damage, Deer Management Assistance Permits, forest regeneration assessments, etc.).

Population Assessment Factors Deer Harvest Analysis Figure 1 Deer Harvest Estimates for DMU 065, Ogemaw County, Michigan Buck harvest has oscillated between 5 and 7 bucks harvested per square mile consistently over the last decade. The fluctuations observed are likely related to varying winter severities, hunter effort and fall food availability. Both the antlered and antlerless harvest indicates that the population is likely stable. 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. Winter Severity Index Figure 2 Winter Severity Index Measurements for DMU 065, Ogemaw County

In northern Michigan, winter severity has a direct impact on deer condition at the population level. Whereas mild winters allow for better survival of deer, severe winters can cause high deer mortality. In addition, does may abort fetuses to survive 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 weights. Winter severity over the last five years has been variable with most years below the 10-year-average for the Houghton Lake area. The notable exception was in 2013 when a late winter season cold spell resulted in a late spring in the Northern Lower Peninsula region. Antlerless harvest quotas in this DMU have been liberal on privately owned lands with the goal of reducing damage to crops on agricultural lands. On public lands, antlerless quotas have been more conservative due both to the amount of land available and the lower productivity of the public lands on the sandy outwash plains. Antlerless quotas were significantly reduced in this DMU from 2006-07 due to perceptions of lower deer numbers. However, during that same period the buck harvest was above average. From 2008 to the present, antlerless quotas have ranged between 6,700 and 8,000 permits available across both private and public lands. Deer Management Assistance and Crop Damage Permits Deer Management Assistance Permits (DMAP) and Crop Damage Permits (CDP or OOS) 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. Because CDPs are not typically issued during the regular hunting seasons, agricultural producers who experience chronic deer damage will frequently request DMAPs to ensure they can harvest adequate numbers of antlerless deer in the Fall. In Ogemaw County DMAP interest has grown over the last decade, but recently has tapered off due to the perception that adequate numbers of overthe-counter antlerless permits are available to ensure landowners can reach their deer management goals. CDPs are most frequently issued to agricultural producers during the spring and summer months to address damage to crops when they are most vulnerable to damage. Since the southern portions of Ogemaw County are heavy to agriculture, CDP demand typically ranges from 50-150 tags issued per year. Deer- Vehicle Collisions Deer-vehicle collisions (DVC) are commonly used as an index to the deer population trend, the idea being that high rates of DVCs are correlated with high deer populations, and vice versa. Research has shown that there are other factors that influence the rate of DVCs. Habitat proximate to the roadway and highway characteristics can blur the relationship between deer population and DVCs. However, DVC data can provide useful information if contextualized as one part of a deer population assessment.

Figure 3 DMU 065 Deer Vehicle Collisions These data are provided by the Michigan State Police. Although changes may have occurred in law enforcement response and recording of DVCs over time, we assume they have remained consistent enough to provide an accurate estimate of DVC rates relative to vehicle miles driven. DVCs in this DMU display a gradual long term decline but, appear to have stabilized around 400 collisions per year over since 2013. Deer Condition Data: Yearling main antler beam diameter, measured just above the burr, and number of points are useful for determining deer body condition. These measurements are recorded by MDNR as hunters voluntarily present harvested deer at check stations throughout the state. When aggregated by DMU, the average antler beam diameter and number of points for yearling bucks over multiple years is calculated. An upward trend indicates improving herd condition, whereas a downward trend points to declining herd condition. Generally, herd condition is a function of environmental and landscape factors. An abundance of highly nutritional food resources and good cover is beneficial for herd condition. Depletion of these resources through overpopulation leads to a decline in herd condition, observed as low yearling main beam diameters and antler points. In northern Michigan, winter severity is has a direct impact on deer condition at the population level. Other environmental factors may impact deer condition indirectly, though. A late frost or an especially rainy spring can negatively influence crop production which is a major source of nutrition in this DMU. Likewise, changes in land use practices can affect cover and food resources.

Figure 4 DMU 065 Beam Diameter Measurements for 1-year old Antlered Deer Beam diameters in DMU 065 have had little fluctuation over the last ten years indicating stability within the herd. What fluctuations have been observed can be attributed to environmental factors such as winter severity and food abundance such as mast production. Deer Management Recommendations: During the last 9-10 years the deer population in this DMU has been stable overall. Smaller year-to-year changes are evident and due to factors discussed above. Extremely severe winters can negatively affect deer populations and those effects can last for several years. The effects of severe winters in this DMU are somewhat moderated on agricultural lands as deer tend to congregate near dairy operations and associated feed storage areas. This frequently causes conflicts due to feed loss and concerns of disease transmission. Private land impact management within Ogemaw County is centered on working with landowners who are experiencing damage and providing permits as appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, maintaining liberal private land antlerless quotas is critical to keeping the deer population within biological and social carrying capacity. Public hunting opportunities abound within this DMU with extensive tracts of both State and Federal land open to hunting. The local economy is also highly dependent upon outdoor recreation. Upon public lands the main focus is to limit over browsing of forest regeneration, especially negative impacts to the oak resource which is important to deer and other game species for fall nutrition. The effects of the severe winter of 2013-2014 on the deer here were mitigated by a 16% reduction of antlerless permits over the following three years. That reduction did not appear to have a measurable effect on the antlerless harvest which annually is very close to the harvest levels of antlered deer. Consequently, no changes to the antlerless harvest quotas will be recommended for this DMU. Historically Ogemaw County has been closed to early and late antlerless hunting seasons and that closure is expected to remain the status quo.

Figure 5 DMU 065, Ogemaw County Land Cover Types