Deer Management Unit 122

Similar documents
Deer Management Unit 127

Deer Management Unit 255

Deer Management Unit 349

Deer Management Unit 249

Deer Management Unit 152

Deer Management Unit 252

021 Deer Management Unit

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

DMU 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit

DMU 452 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

DMU 038 Jackson County

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 487 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

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

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

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

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

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

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. Sand Plain Big Woods Goal Block

Kansas Deer Report Seasons

2009 Update. Introduction

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

2017 DEER HUNTING FORECAST

2012 MICHIGAN DEER HUNTING: STATUS AND PROSPECTS

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

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

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

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

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

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

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

Summary report on all harvested species on Patuxent Research Refuge from September 1 - January 31, 2017 Deer Harvest

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

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

NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

SUMMARY REPORT Managed Archery Program Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania. Submitted by Dr. Anthony J. DeNicola White Buffalo Inc.

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE AND HUNTING SEASONS

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

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

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

Saint John's Abbey Arboretum Controlled Deer Hunt 2013

Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion

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

Deer Season Report

MANAGED LANDS DEER PROGRAM INFORMATION. General Requirements

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN?

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

MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU-L17

A pheasant researcher notebook:

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

ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Mule Deer. Dennis D. Austin. Published by Utah State University Press. For additional information about this book. Accessed 3 May :46 GMT

Hunting for Sustainability Conservation and local, free-range protein. Keith Warnke WDNR

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

Introduced in August public meetings

New Changes to the Managed Lands Deer Program (MLDP)

Management History of the Edwards Plateau

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Predator and Furbearer Management. SPECIES: Predatory and Furbearing Mammals

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

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

NEW YORK STATE CONSERVATION COUNCIL, INC Resolutions. Crossbows

2010 Zone 3 Deer Season Recommendations

Findings of the Alaska Board of Game BOG

2018 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN

NEW HAMPSHIRE MOOSE UPDATE

Peace Region Wildlife Regulations Proposed Changes for Comment ( )

Findings of the Alaska Board of Game BOG

Transcription:

Deer Management Unit 122 Area Description DMU 122 is located in south Dickinson County and includes a small portion of west central Menominee County. It encompasses 163 sq. miles and has remained unchanged since 2002. Public land comprises 9% (15 sq. miles) of the unit. Private lands make up 91% of this unit. CFR lands comprise just 7% (11 sq. miles) of the privately-owned lands. This is one of two units, in the U.P., that has been managed under Quality Deer Management (QDM) regulations since 2001. Bucks must have at least three points on one side to be legal, in this unit. Land use and habitat quality for deer Agricultural damage complaints are common in this unit. DMU 122 is located primarily in the farm belt of southern Dickinson County. The combination of farms interspersed within quality forest lands and extensive private ownership, coupled with relatively mild winters, provides for excellent deer habitat. The towns of Iron Mountain, Kingsford, and Norway fall within the boundary of DMU 122 and provide a productive refuge. Typical winter weather, as related to deer DMU 122 falls in the low snowfall zone and winter weather is typically mild compared to most of the U.P. As a result, over-winter survival and fawn recruitment are usually high. Management Guidance Antlerless harvest opportunities are normally desirable in this unit for several reasons. Local farms are impacted by agricultural crop damage and antlerless licenses are a tool to address this problem. Secondly, forest managers believe antlerless harvesting helps to reduce deer browse impacts on forest regeneration. Lastly, the majority of sportsmen and landowners in this DMU supported continuation of their Quality Deer Management program. Current APR rules require hunters to bypass bucks with less than 3 points on a side to allow them to grow older. The issuance of antlerless licenses aids this harvest philosophy.

Deer Harvest Analysis DMU 122 regularly ranks as one of the top 3 units for buck harvest in the U.P. region, averaging about 5 bucks harvested per sq. mile between 2006 and 2015. This level of historic buck harvest indicates high deer densities compared to other units in the region. Buck harvest per sq. mile dropped significantly after the difficult winters of 2013, 2014 and 2015. An average harvest of 1.8 antlerless deer per sq. mile has been sustained during the past 3 years also ranking as one of the highest harvest rates, in the U.P. This harvest is reduced from the long-term average of 3 antlerless deer per sq. mile, due to difficult winter s impacts on deer densities, discontinuation of antlerless harvest using archery equipment and reductions in antlerless quotas within this unit. Figure 1: Graph of deer kill per square mile in DMU 122, 2006 2015, based on Michigan Deer Harvest Survey results. Deer sightings and hunter success/satisfaction trends DMU 122 hunters report observing 4 to 5 deer per hunter day when responding to the 2016 U.P. Deer Camp Survey (firearm season). This is the highest deer sighting rate in the U.P. region and corresponds with a fawn to doe ratio that is one of the highest reported in the region. Quality habitat and mild winters, compared to other areas in the U.P., make these high sighting rates possible. Although buck kill success averages a moderate 30%, this unit is among the leaders for bucks observed by hunters that did not result in a kill. Regulated by the unit s QDM harvest program, hunters opt to pass on smallracked bucks, therefore, harvesting a low percentage of bucks they observe.

DEER MANAGEMENT UNIT 122 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Camps 5 7 5 10 7 6 3 6 6 6 7 Hunters 22 35 27 37 34 23 9 27 26 25 25 % killing a buck 9% 34% 37% 11% 24% 22% 22% 26% 27% 16% 16% Deer seen per day 6 7.1 4.3 4.8 5.1 6.8 6.1 4.9 5.6 3.6 4.8 Fawns seen per 100 does 56 61 35 76 49 56 58 72 57 63 74 Does seen per buck 7 3 5 3 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 More deer than last year 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 50% 67% 0% 0% 0% 43% Same number deer 80% 80% 40% 30% 29% 17% 0% 17% 0% 50% 57% Fewer deer 20% 20% 60% 70% 57% 33% 33% 83% 100% 50% 0% Season good-to-excellen 40% 40% 60% 20% 43% 50% 33% 17% 33% 0% 57% Season fair-to-poor 60% 60% 40% 80% 57% 50% 67% 83% 67% 100% 43% Figure 2: Deer Camp Survey data in DMU 122. Research Results A research project focusing on the role of predators, winter weather, and habitat on deer fawn survival is being conducted in the western U.P. by Mississippi State University in cooperation with the DNR. Results of this research conducted in the low and moderate snowfall zones to date suggest the following: high pregnancy rate among adult females despite uneven buck to doe ratios; low fawn annual survival following harsh winters; under mild to moderate winter severity, the most important factor influencing the growth (positive or negative) of a deer population is the proportion of fawns surviving their first year and becoming potential breeders; under severe winter conditions substantial mortality of adult females can occur, replacing recruitment of fawns as the most important factor effecting the growth of a deer population, until the adult female segment of the population recovers; severe winter weather can have multi-year effects on deer recruitment and population trends; annually, winter severity and habitat conditions influence the amount of predation, which overall was the dominant source of mortality of adult females and fawns. This illustrates the importance of considering all potential limiting factors and their interactions. These results support results of other surveys suggesting that consecutive harsh winters that have occurred since 2008 have resulted in low deer populations in the region, including in this DMU. Agricultural Crop Damage During recent years, about 16 Deer Damage Control Permits have been issued to farms to address crop damage. This is a decline in requested permits, as lower deer densities have resulted in less crop damage in the DMU. The issuance of private land antlerless permits has also helped to reduce Deer Damage Control Permit requests. Deer Management Assistance Permits (DMAP s) have been used to address sylvicultural and crop damage, and urban deer issues. The cities of Iron Mountain and Kingsford have participated in an urban deer removal program, in recent years, in an attempt to reduce deer numbers, associated deer-vehicle accidents, and herbivory issues.

Forest Regeneration Concerns DNR and Corporate forest management personnel have expressed concerns about tree regeneration problems, in this DMU. Forest managers typically welcome antlerless deer harvest opportunities in this unit. Deer-Vehicle Collisions Reported deer-vehicle accidents, adjusted for traffic volume, have declined in the U.P. during the past decade. Figure 3: Deer-vehicle collisions in the U.P., 2006 2015. Deer Condition Data A sample of hunter-harvested deer is examined at check stations each fall. The diameter of antler beams, measured 1 inch above the pedicel, is measured on 1.5-year-old bucks as an index of physical condition. Antler beam diameters have varied little in the U.P. Region during the past decade.

Upper Peninsula Yearling Beam Diameters 18.50 Beam Diameters (mm) 18.00 17.50 17.00 16.50 16.00 15.50 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year Figure 4: U.P. Yearling Beam Diameters, 2006 2015. Deer Management Recommendations We recommend DMU 122 be open for the issuance of private antlerless licenses. Deer population indicators, such as buck kill per sq. mile and deer observed per hunter day are consistently among the highest in the U.P. region. The recent winters of 2013, 2014 and 2015 were consecutive difficult winters even in this unit where winters are typically mild. These winters impacted the unit s deer herd for the last several hunting seasons and resulted in lower antlerless license allotments. The winter of 2016 was exceptionally mild and resulted in excellent fawn recruitment and adult deer survival. If deer numbers continue to increase due to favorable winter conditions this year and next, antlerless licenses quotas may be increased. Increased antlerless quotas may provide additional opportunity while archery antlerless harvest is restricted.

Figure 5. Cover type map of DMU 122 in the Upper Peninsula Region.