Deer Management Unit 127

Similar documents
Deer Management Unit 122

Deer Management Unit 249

Deer Management Unit 152

Deer Management Unit 349

Deer Management Unit 252

Deer Management Unit 255

021 Deer Management Unit

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

DMU 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit

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

DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

DMU 038 Jackson County

DMU 452 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

DMU 487 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

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

2015 Deer Population Goal Setting

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

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

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

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

Minnesota Deer Population Goals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009 Update. Introduction

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

2012 MICHIGAN DEER HUNTING: STATUS AND PROSPECTS

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

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

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

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

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

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

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Findings of the Alaska Board of Game BOG

2017 DEER HUNTING FORECAST

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

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016

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

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

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

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

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. Sand Plain Big Woods Goal Block

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

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

Mule deer in the Boundary Region: Proposed research and discussion

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

2018 Antlerless Harvest and Youth Season Recommendation

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

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

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

Wyoming Range Mule Deer Project. Summer 2017 Update

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

Mule and Black-tailed Deer

A pheasant researcher notebook:

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

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

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

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

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

NEW YORK STATE CONSERVATION COUNCIL, INC Resolutions. Crossbows

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN?

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

Kansas Deer Report Seasons

2018 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

NORTH TABLELANDS DEER HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN

New Changes to the Managed Lands Deer Program (MLDP)

Rangewide Status of Black-tailed and Mule Deer

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

NATURAL CONTROLS OF POPULATIONS: 3 CASE STUDIES

Life history Food Distribution Management... 98

Findings and Guidelines Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Page 1

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

Kootenay (Region 4) Mule Deer: Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

Transcription:

Deer Management Unit 127 Area Description Deer Management Unit (DMU) 127 is 328 sq. miles in size and is found in far western Gogebic County surrounding Ironwood, Bessemer and adjacent rural communities. This unit has significant Lake Superior shoreline and therefore is heavily influenced by Lake Superior weather / winter severity and snow depths. The bulk of this unit is (65%) privately owned. However, much of this is owned by Gogebic County and is managed as a working forest which is also accessible to the public. Land use and habitat quality for deer DMU 127 is heavily influenced by industrial forest, county forest and Ottawa National Forest land management practices. Agricultural influence is very limited and primarily only a factor a near traditional rural communities along M-28 and US-2. However deer feeding across much of this unit plays an increasing role in deer herd distribution and dynamics. Typical winter weather, as related to deer Winter weather can be extremely difficult for deer in DMU 127. Snow fall often exceeds 300 inches each year and is highly influenced by Lake Superior. Many of the deer in this DMU receive supplemental food throughout the winter months. Despite this supplemental feeding fawn recruitment and overwinter survival still tends to be low in this DMU during even normal winters. Management Guidance Deer densities across DMU 127 are very low and have not recovered from two consecutive bad winters in 2008 and 2009 and then again in 2013 and 2014. Because of these very low deer densities antlerless permits have not been available in DMU 127 since 2009. There is relatively little agricultural activity in this area and consequently the level of deer crop damage is extremely low. Outside of the deer wintering complexes deer browse has not impacted tree regeneration. Deer population indices have generally been low during this period across the region, although some indicators are suggesting numbers are starting to rebound. Deer damage complaints are low and state forest and commercial managers have expressed little concern about forest regeneration outside of deer wintering areas. There has been little support for antlerless harvest opportunities in recent years by local sportsmen s groups. In fact, many groups seemed to favor elimination of the ability to harvest an antlerless deer during archery season when that was implemented in 2015. Deer Harvest Analysis Bucks harvest per square mile in DMU 127 has averaged 2.0 bucks from 2006-2015, and was significantly lower during the 2015 hunting season of 0.2 bucks per square mile (Fig.1). This harvest density is one of the lowest in the U.P. The average buck kill per square mile from 2013 2015 across the U.P. region is 1.5 per square mile. Relatively low buck kill rates have been experienced since 2009 when two consecutive harsh winters in 2008 and 2009 impacted the deer herd. Buck kill per square mile reached

lows in 2014 and 2015 after another round of consecutive harsh winters with above-average snow depths from 2013 2015; the population has not recovered to pre-2009 densities. Figure 1: Graph of deer kill per square mile in DMU 127, 2006 2015, based on Michigan Deer Harvest Survey results. Deer sightings and hunter success/satisfaction trends Participation in the U.P. Camp Survey has remained fairly low in DMU 127 over the past few years (Table 1). The number of deer seen by hunters per day in DMU 127 was 0.7 in 2016 which is up from the previous year but below the 10 year average for DMU 127 of 2.1 deer/day, which is similar to the U.P. wide average for the same time period (2.2 deer/day). The number of hunters that were successful at killing a buck in DMU 127 was average for the DMU in the camp survey but below average the Mail Survey however they follow the same general declining trend.

Figure 2: Deer Camp Survey data in DMU 127. 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. The Predator-Prey research 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, especially in DMU 127. Agricultural Crop Damage Reported agricultural damage resulting from deer has been low, and ranks low among DMU s. No outof-season shooting permits have been issued to address crop damage issues in each of the past 3 years. A total of 2 does were taken under Deer Management Assistance Permits last year and the number of permits issued and does taken under permits is down 38% from the previous 3 years. Forest Regeneration Concerns No issues have been raised by DNR Forest Resources Division or other agencies.

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. 18.50 Upper Peninsula Yearling Beam Diameters 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 127 be closed for the issuance of antlerless licenses. Deer population indicators, such as buck kill per square mile and deer observed per hunter day are very low. There is little support for antlerless licenses from sportsmen s groups in the area. We anticipate that the impacts of the winters of 2013 2015 will continue to be seen in deer seasons over the next few years, and any increase in the herd will be influenced by current and future winters. Figure 5: Cover types for DMU 127.