DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

Similar documents
DMU 043 Lake 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 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

DMU 047 Livingston 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 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

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

Deer Management Unit 252

Deer Management Unit 152

021 Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 122

Deer Management Unit 255

DMU 452 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

DMU 487 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 127

Deer Management Unit 349

Deer Management Unit 249

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. Sand Plain Big Woods Goal Block

2017 DEER HUNTING FORECAST

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

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

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

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

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

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

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

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

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

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

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

2012 MICHIGAN DEER HUNTING: STATUS AND PROSPECTS

Kansas Deer Report Seasons

NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

DEER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LANDOWNER/LESSEE APPLICATION

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

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

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

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

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

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

Management History of the Edwards Plateau

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

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

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

2018 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

Deer Census - How to Use It to Calculate Harvest

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

DRAFT ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

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

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.

Full Spectrum Deer Management Services

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

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

Upper Dublin Township Deer Management Program (DMP)

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN?

Mule and Black-tailed Deer

Spring 2012 Wild Turkey Harvest Report

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

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

Deer and Deer Management in Central New York: Local Residents Interests and Concerns

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

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

Osceola County Hazard Mitigation Plan - Part 1 Community Profile

2009 Update. Introduction

CHECKS AND BALANCES. OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased

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

Big Game Season Structure, Background and Context

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

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

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT May 25, 2011

The Importance of Radio-collared Bears

MANAGED LANDS DEER PERMITS WHITE-TAILED DEER PROGRAM INFORMATION General Information

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

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SUMMARY OF COUGAR POPULATION MODEL AND EFFECTS OF LETHAL CONTROL

Mitigating Vehicle Collisions with Large Wildlife

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

Transcription:

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit Area Description Missaukee County Deer Management Unit is in the Northern Lower Peninsula Region (NLP). It has over 100,000 acres of state land, just over a third of the county, found to the north of M-55 and along the eastern border. Cover types on state land include northern hardwoods, oak, aspen, and lowland conifers. Approximately 26 acres of rye fields are actively maintained on state land. Generally state land is found along the outwash plains, but the county is a mosaic of these outwash plains, moraines, and small ice contact ridges, therefore topography varies throughout. Soils range from excessively well drained sands and loamy sands on moraine ridges to poorly drained peat and muck on the outwash plains. The northeast corner of the county is the location of the Deadstream Swamp consisting of over 11,000 acres of primarily northern white cedar. This is the largest deer yard in the northern Lower Peninsula. The Muskegon River headwaters are associated with the Deadstream Swamp, and as the river winds its way to the south along the eastern border of the county, the riparian floodplain gives rise to conifer and deciduous swamps, shrub thickets, and cattail marshes. This is a major movement corridor for deer and other species. There is no federal land in the county; the remainder of land is in private ownership. Agriculture is common in Missaukee County, and while it can be found throughout, it is mainly concentrated to the south of M-55. Livestock makes up a high percentage of farm revenue, and large dairy farms on the southern border of the county farm row crops for silage. 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 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 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 weight. Figure 1: Houghton Lake Area Winter Severity Index from 2006 to 2015 Winter severity over the last five years has been variable with most years below the 10-year-average. The notable exceptions were the winters of 2013 and 2014 where winter weather was both more severe and lasted longer than normal.

Deer Harvest Analysis 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Estimated Deer Harvest in Missaukee County Per Square Mile of Deer Range 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bucks Antlerless Figure 2: Deer harvest estimates per square mile. Note: for the years 2008-2015 this includes antlerless deer (between 0 and 0.4 per square mile each year) killed under crop damage management programs, see Other Harvest. Buck harvest has oscillated between 3 and 6 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, starting in 2013, the Antler Point Restriction (APR) which went into effect in this county. The antlerless harvest since 2012 continues to decrease even as antlerless license availability has remained the same. This most likely indicates population that is decreasing. 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. 0.35 Bucks Harvested per Hunter 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 Bucks per Hunter 0.1 0.05 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 3: Bucks harvested per hunter in Missaukee 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 a given year. Missaukee County has a decreasing trend in the number of bucks taken per hunter over the last ten years. Over the last five years the harvest has been stabilized. Other Harvest 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. 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. Missaukee County has some agriculture but only 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 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 the deer population and DVCs. However, DVC data can provide useful information if used as one part of a deer population assessment. 500 Reported Accidents in Missaukee County 400 300 200 Reported Accidents 100 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Figure 4: Number of deer vehicle collisions in Missaukee County. 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 a reliable estimate of DVC rates. In Missaukee County, deer vehicle collisions range between 350-450 per year with a stable to decreasing trend. 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 2013. 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 stable population. With a stable populaiton antlerless license quotas will remain as they have been and there will be no early or late antlerless seasons in Missaukee County.

Figure 5: Cover type map for Missaukee County.