Pheasant Brood Survey Report 2016

Similar documents
Pheasant Brood Survey Report 2015

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

A pheasant researcher notebook:

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

28th ANNUAL FOOTBALL PLAY-OFFS DAKOTADOME - VERMILLION - NOVEMBER 13-15, State Class "B" 9-man Champions: Hanson Beavers

DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

DMU 038 Jackson County

34th ANNUAL FOOTBALL PLAY-OFFS DAKOTADOME - VERMILLION - NOVEMBER 13-15, State Class "B" 9-Man Champions Hamlin Chargers

021 Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 152

Deer Management Unit 255

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

2017 Minnesota August Roadside Survey

The Berggren Plan Nebraska s Plan to Improve Pheasant Hunting. John Laux, NGPC RWBJV Informational Seminar February 2, 2017

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 249

Deer Management Unit 122

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

36th ANNUAL FOOTBALL PLAY-OFFS DAKOTADOME - VERMILLION - NOVEMBER 10-12, 2016

Deer Management Unit 349

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

37th ANNUAL FOOTBALL PLAY-OFFS DAKOTADOME - VERMILLION - NOVEMBER 9-11, 2017

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

Deer Management Unit 252

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group

Spring 2012 Wild Turkey Harvest Report

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit

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

NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

DMU 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

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

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

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

The Department's Upland Game Bird Specialist Tests Your Knowledge Of the Wily Ring-Neck

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

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

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

Kenai River Sockeye Escapement Goals. United Cook Inlet Drift Association

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

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 127

Alberta Conservation Association 2018/19 Project Summary Report. Project Name: Upland Gamebird Studies Upland Gamebird Productivity Surveys

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

Biological Review of the 2014 Texas Closure

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

2018 South Dakota State Fair 4-H Division Official Market Meat Goat Results

CORRESPONDENCE/MEMORANDUM

Proposed Upland Game Bird Regulations

Volume I, Issue No. 2 Fall 2016 Hot Springs, South Dakota

FISH COMMUNITIES AND FISHERIES OF THE THOUSAND ISLANDS AND MIDDLE CORRIDOR

Rice Yield And Dangue Haemorrhagic Fever(DHF) Condition depend upon Climate Data

South Willow Creek Pasture Musselshell County Roundup, Montana

Alberta Conservation Association 2016/17 Project Summary Report

ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION STRATEGIC SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT PLAN

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

Agenda Item Summary BACKGROUND. Public Involvement ISSUE ANALYSIS. Attachment 1

ROCKWALL CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT

Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota,

2009 Update. Introduction

2015 Forest Grouse Parts Collection Summary

Tennessee Black Bear Public Opinion Survey

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE AND HUNTING SEASONS

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

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Incorporating the New Goal

MDWFP Aerial Waterfowl Survey Report. November 13-16, 2017

Mark Malone, P.E. SD DOT

The week of October, 6 th Serving People, Managing Wildlife

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

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

August 3, Prepared by Rob Cheshire 1 & Joe O Hop 2. Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research Beaufort, NC

In each summer issue of Lake

Dauphin Lake Fishery. Status of Walleye Stocks and Conservation Measures

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

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE STATEWIDE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

SP-472 AUGUST Feral Hog Population Growth, Density and Harvest in Texas

DRAFT ARIKAREE DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

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

2014 Forest Grouse Parts Collection Summary

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

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Paul Telander, Wildlife Chief January 15, 2016 Wildlife Roundtable

Proposed Upland Game Bird Regulations

Status and Distribution of the Bobcat (Lynx rufus) in Illinois

Western Great Lakes Region

MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU-L17

SOUTH PLATTE RIVER DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

MDWFP Aerial Waterfowl Survey Report. December 18-23, 2018

Transcription:

Pheasant Brood Survey Report 2016 Prepared by: Travis J. Runia Senior Upland Game Biologist Department Secretary Kelly Hepler Division Director Tony Leif Terrestrial Wildlife Chief Tom Kirschenmann Terrestrial Wildlife Administrator Chad Switzer

SOUTH DAKOTA PHEASANT BROOD SURVEYS 2016 REPORT SD Game, Fish and Parks conducts pheasant brood surveys each summer to evaluate the status of pheasant populations and predict pheasant population levels relative to previous years. This information, when combined with other factors such as status of the agricultural harvest and historical hunting pressure, can be used to predict hunter success and satisfaction for geographical areas of the state. Densities of pheasants alone do not infer high or low hunter success and satisfaction. Access to hunting opportunities is equally, if not more important to densities of pheasants in evaluating potential hunter success and ultimately, hunter satisfaction. In 2016, survey indices were derived from 110, 30-mile pheasant brood routes that are distributed across South Dakota where pheasants are found in sufficient number for surveying. Routes are surveyed from 25 July through 15 August each year using standardized methods on mornings when weather conditions are optimal for observing pheasants. Also, pheasant brood members are opportunistically counted throughout the survey period to estimate an average number of young per brood. Pheasants per mile (PPM) estimates are calculated by summing the product of mean brood sizes and broods observed with numbers of cocks and hens observed on each route. PPM estimates for 2015 and the average of the previous 10 years are compared with the 2016 survey results. Results are compared within local areas with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests which take into account the direction (up or down) and magnitude of change for each route. Since PPM estimates are relative density estimates, comparisons are valid only between years within each local area. County brood survey routes are allocated to local area analyses as follows: Chamberlain: Brule, Buffalo, Charles Mix (north route), Gregory (north route), Hyde, Lyman, Tripp (north route), and Aurora. Winner: Tripp, Gregory, Lyman (south route), Jones (south route), Mellette, and Todd. Pierre: Hughes, Jones, Lyman, Potter (south route), Stanley, Hand (south route only), Hyde, and Sully. Mobridge: Campbell, Corson, Dewey, Potter (north and central routes), and Walworth. Aberdeen: Brown, Marshall, Day, Edmunds, Faulk, Spink (north and central routes), and McPherson. Huron: Hand (north and central routes), Beadle, Jerauld, Kingsbury, Sanborn, Miner, Clark (south route only), and Spink (south and central routes). Mitchell: Davison, Hanson, Charles Mix (central route), Douglas, Aurora, Hutchinson (north and west routes), Jerauld, McCook, Miner, and Sanborn. Yankton: Yankton, Charles Mix (south route), Bon Homme, Clay, Turner/Hutchinson (west and south routes), and Union. Sioux Falls: Minnehaha, Turner/Hutchinson (north route), Lake, Lincoln, McCook, and Moody. Brookings: Brookings, Deuel (south route), and Hamlin (south and central routes), Kingsbury, Lake (north route), and Moody. Watertown: Codington, Clark, Deuel, Grant, and Hamlin. Sisseton: Grant, Day (north route), Marshall, and Roberts. Western SD: Bennett, Haakon, Perkins, Butte and Fall River.

SURVEY RESULTS Overview The statewide Pheasants Per Mile (PPM) index for the 2016 pheasant brood survey decreased 20% (3.83 to 3.05) compared to the 2015 statewide index (Table 1, Figure 1). In comparison to the 10-year average, this year s index is 41% lower (2016 = 3.05, 10-year average = 5.16). Compared to 2015, fewer roosters, hens and broods were counted throughout the 110 survey routes. Statewide, 38 routes of the 110 surveyed showed an increase in PPM from 2015. Adult Bird and Brood Data The number of roosters counted decreased 14% from last year (905 vs. 1051). The number of hens counted decreased 19% from last year (1,502 vs. 1,854). Total broods counted decreased by 18% (1,289 vs. 1,571), while the statewide average brood size decreased by 4.2% (5.91 vs. 6.17). Average brood sizes increased in the southeast, but declined in the northeast, central, and western parts of the state (Figure 2). The statewide average brood size for 2016 (5.91) is slightly below the 10-year average (6.11). Local Area 2016 vs. 2015 PPM All local area PPM indices decreased from 2015 (Table 1, Figure 3 and 4). The decrease was significant for the Chamberlain, Winner, Aberdeen, Huron, Mitchell, Yankton, and Sioux Falls local areas (Table 1). 2016 vs. 10-Year Average PPM All local areas are below the 10-year average (Table 1, Figure 3 and 4). The difference was significant for the Chamberlain, Winner, Pierre, Aberdeen, Huron, Mitchell, Brookings, and Watertown local areas. Survey Weather Conditions This survey relies on very specific weather conditions to maximize pheasant observability. Pheasants are most visible during mornings with clear skies, heavy dew, and light winds. Under these prime survey conditions, pheasants congregate in open areas such as roadways to dry their feathers in the warm morning sun. It is the goal to conduct all surveys under prime conditions so results are comparable from year to year. This year, 88 of the 110 survey routes were conducted at least 1 time during prime conditions. Many routes were surveyed more than once in an attempt to get at least one survey completed under primary conditions. Final results show 66 of the highest counts for the 110 routes coincided with prime conditions. Cold morning temperatures may also lower pheasant observability during otherwise prime conditions. Morning temperatures were less than or equal to 55 F for 21 high-count surveys. Last year, 96 survey routes were conducted at least one time under primary conditions. INTERPRETATIONS & DISCUSSION After two consecutive years of substantial increases in the statewide PPM index, a slight retreat was observed in 2016. This year s index is twice as high as the 2013 index and higher than the 2.7 PPM observed in 2014 when hunters harvested 1.2 million roosters.

Annual changes in pheasant abundance are highly influenced by weather conditions while habitat availability shapes long-term trends. To help understand the causes of annual change in pheasant abundance, a weather model is used to project annual change based on biologically important weather parameters (Figure 5). The decline in PPM was expected in southern South Dakota (Figure 5), especially in the far southeast where above normal winter snowfall (40 50 inches) and greater than optimal spring rains occurred (9 10 inches). Adult pheasant survival is known to decline with increased winter snowfall. During April and May, ideal conditions include adequate moisture to grow concealment cover for nests and young chicks, but not too much rain which can reduce nest and chick survival. Optimal April May rainfall is approximately 5 6 inches, similar to what was observed in the northeastern part of the state (Figure 5). The decline in pheasant abundance in northeastern South Dakota was contradictory with model predictions of growth based upon favorable environment conditions. The pheasant index remained nearly unchanged in western South Dakota even though drought conditions were widespread. Drought can result in poor chick survival due to reduced insect availability and reduced vegetative cover. Bennett and Perkins counties will again be the primary destinations in the western portion of the state. It has been 10 years since expirations of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands began outpacing enrollment (Figure 6 and 7). The 10-year trend in PPM shows a general decline for all city areas and the statewide average. During a decade of declining CRP acreage, it is no surprise that all city area PPM indices are below their 10-year mean. Quantity of this premier pheasant habitat could be half the 2007 acreage by 2020 (Figure 7). There is a clear correlation between the availability of undisturbed grassland nesting habitat and pheasant abundance dating all the way back to 1950. Future pheasant population expectations should be tempered by the reality of declining habitat quantity. It is possible that poor survey weather conditions influenced the 2016 PPM index. For this reason, it may be particularly important for hunters to visit with those in their traditional hunting areas about local pheasant abundance and habitat conditions. This will be especially important in northeastern South Dakota where survey results were lower, but weather conditions were favorable for pheasant survival and reproduction during the past year. With 1.1 million acres of public hunting land within the heart of SD s pheasant range, opportunities remain for high quality pheasant hunting. The annual hunting atlas and a webbased interactive map of public lands and private lands leased for public hunting can be found at http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/areas. In addition to printed and interactive maps, hunters can utilize GPS downloads and smartphone applications to locate public hunting lands throughout the state. Hunters are again asked to hunt safely and ethically, respect private landowners and those public hunting areas scattered across the state, and enjoy the South Dakota tradition of hunting pheasants with family and friends this fall.

Table 1. Pheasants Per Mile (PPM) index values comparing 2016 to 2015 and 10-year averages. Note: Comparisons are valid only between years within each local area. Local Area Routes Pheasants Per Mile (PPM) 2016 2015 10-yr ave Difference of 2016 PPM with 2015 10-year ave Chamberlain 11 7.01 8.58 12.23-18%* -43%* Winner 8 4.88 5.97 7.04-18%* -31%* Pierre 13 6.44 7.26 8.62-11% ns -25%* Mobridge 8 5.01 5.02 6.63 0% ns -25% ns Aberdeen 14 1.84 3.22 5.24-43%* -65%* Huron 17 3.10 4.02 6.24-23%* -50%* Mitchell 16 3.78 4.55 5.31-17%* -29%* Yankton 10 1.39 2.06 1.47-33%* -5% ns Sioux Falls 13 1.51 2.11 1.89-28%* -20% ns Brookings 11 1.63 1.71 3.03-4% ns -46%* Watertown 12 1.78 2.01 3.73-12% ns -52%* Sisseton 5 1.22 1.30 1.71-7% ns -29% ns Western SD 5 2.43 2.44 2.57-1% ns -5% ns STATEWIDE 110 3.05 3.83 5.16-20%* -41%* ns Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank test not significant (P > 0.10) * Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank test significant (P < 0.10)

Figure 1. Statewide Pheasants Per Mile (PPM) index for South Dakota, 2002 2016. Figure 2. State map with brood size comparisons for 2015 and 2016.

Figure 3. City area Pheasant Per Mile (PPM) indices over the past 10 years.

Figure 4. Pheasants Per Mile comparison among local areas for 2016, 2015, and the ten-year average.

Figure 5. Results of a weather model used to predict annual change in Pheasants Per Mile (PPM) population index based on winter snowfall, April-May precipitation, and April- May temperature compared to the actual change in PPM (weather data source - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatologynetwork-ghcn). Analysis Region Nov-Mar Inches Snow Apr-May Inches Precip. Apr-May Average Temp. PPM Predicted % Change from 2015 PPM Actual % Change from 2015 1 29.1 5.4 51.6 27-24 2 30.3 7.0 51.3 15-7 3 40.2 9.7 52.9-22 -20 4 50.0 9.3 53.6-25 -26

Figure 6. Statewide Pheasants Per Mile index in relation to Conservation Reserve Program and Soil Bank Program enrollment 1949-2016. Figure 7. Conservation Reserve Program acreage 2004-2016 with maximum projected loss 2017 2020 (red bars).