Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Strategies in the Statewide Deer Management Plan
1. Continue to monitor all mule deer populations annually to evaluate fawn production, herd composition, and habitat use.
2. Implement a method to collect annual adult doe and fawn mortality estimates on representative units statewide.
3. Use standardized, reliable population models to evaluate herd size and population trends over time.
Specific Items Discussed
• How data are collected on individual units within a region
• What information, derived from field observations, goes into a population model
• Present a simplified deer model
What is the Herd Composition on a Given Unit?
1. Continue to monitor all mule deer populations annually to evaluate fawn production, herd composition, and habitat use.
• Classify deer when congregated on winter ranges (often during rut)
• Representative sample areas of entire unit• Consistent sampling year after year
La Sals
• Sampling areas
Methods
• Daily peaks of activity: 1-2 hours after dawn and 1-2 hours before dusk (no spotlight counts)
• 200 doe minimum (may vary by population size)
• Partial classifications discarded
Methods
• One count per area
• Avoid interference events (storms, full moons, weekend events)
• Consistent observers (fall / spring counts)
What are we Quantifying
• Post Season (November) – Buck:Doe ratios– Fawn:Doe ratios– Fawn:Adult ratios
• Spring Classification – Fawn:Adult ratios– Fawn survival estimate
Deer Classification Unit Subunit
Post-class Observer Year
Date Area Buck Doe Fawn Unclass Total 1 pt 2 pt 3 pt 4 pt >4 pt Hours Comments11/25 Old La Sal 7 82 62 151 3 1 1 2 1.512/3 Castle Valley 29 126 30 185 2 13 10 4 1.312/4 Kirk's Basin 8 12 6 26 1 3 1 3 1.012/8 Pack Creek 3 21 4 28 2 1 1.012/12 Buck Hollow 0 4 2 6 1.2
Slaughter Flat 0 5 512/16 Cottonwood Bench 0 13 9 22 1.512/19 East Coyote 7 41 28 76 3 3 1 1.6
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
Totals 54 304 141 0 499 9 22 14 9 0 9
Post-class Summaryn 499 880fawns / 100 does 46.4fawns / 100 adults 39.4 30.2 76.6bucks / 100 does 17.8% bucks > 3 pts 42.6deer / hour 54.8 107.3
Spring class Observer Year
Date Area Adult Fawn Unclass Total Hours Comments3/24 Castle Valley 265 45 310 1.73/30 Pack Creek 73 43 116 1.6 (Ketron classif.)3/31 East Coyote 87 28 115 1.64/1 Buck Hollow 42 14 56 1.7
Cottonwood Bench 99 29 128Black Ridge 56 16 72
4/21 Old La Sal 54 29 83 1.600000000
Totals 676 204 0 880 8.2
La Sal Mtns
deer / hour
Winter survival
La Sal
2009G. Wallace, D. Ketron
2008
Spring-class Summaryn
fawns / 100 adults
G. Wallace, D. Ketron
Deer Classification Unit Subunit
Post-class Observer Year
Date Area Buck Doe Fawn Unclass Total 1 pt 2 pt 3 pt 4 pt >4 pt Hours Comments11/25 Old La Sal 7 82 62 151 3 1 1 2 1.512/3 Castle Valley 29 126 30 185 2 13 10 4 1.312/4 Kirk's Basin 8 12 6 26 1 3 1 3 1.012/8 Pack Creek 3 21 4 28 2 1 1.012/12 Buck Hollow 0 4 2 6 1.2
Slaughter Flat 0 5 512/16 Cottonwood Bench 0 13 9 22 1.512/19 East Coyote 7 41 28 76 3 3 1 1.6
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
Totals 54 304 141 0 499 9 22 14 9 0 9
Post-class Summaryn 499 880fawns / 100 does 46.4fawns / 100 adults 39.4 30.2 76.6bucks / 100 does 17.8% bucks > 3 pts 42.6deer / hour 54.8 107.3
Spring class Observer Year
Date Area Adult Fawn Unclass Total Hours Comments3/24 Castle Valley 265 45 310 1.73/30 Pack Creek 73 43 116 1.6 (Ketron classif.)3/31 East Coyote 87 28 115 1.64/1 Buck Hollow 42 14 56 1.7
Cottonwood Bench 99 29 128Black Ridge 56 16 72
4/21 Old La Sal 54 29 83 1.600000000
Totals 676 204 0 880 8.2
La Sal Mtns
deer / hour
Winter survival
La Sal
2009G. Wallace, D. Ketron
2008
Spring-class Summaryn
fawns / 100 adults
G. Wallace, D. Ketron
Deer Classification Unit Subunit
Post-class Observer Year
Date Area Buck Doe Fawn Unclass Total 1 pt 2 pt 3 pt 4 pt >4 pt Hours Comments11/25 Old La Sal 7 82 62 151 3 1 1 2 1.512/3 Castle Valley 29 126 30 185 2 13 10 4 1.312/4 Kirk's Basin 8 12 6 26 1 3 1 3 1.012/8 Pack Creek 3 21 4 28 2 1 1.012/12 Buck Hollow 0 4 2 6 1.2
Slaughter Flat 0 5 512/16 Cottonwood Bench 0 13 9 22 1.512/19 East Coyote 7 41 28 76 3 3 1 1.6
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
Totals 54 304 141 0 499 9 22 14 9 0 9
Post-class Summaryn 499 880fawns / 100 does 46.4fawns / 100 adults 39.4 30.2 76.6bucks / 100 does 17.8% bucks > 3 pts 42.6deer / hour 54.8 107.3
Spring class Observer Year
Date Area Adult Fawn Unclass Total Hours Comments3/24 Castle Valley 265 45 310 1.73/30 Pack Creek 73 43 116 1.6 (Ketron classif.)3/31 East Coyote 87 28 115 1.64/1 Buck Hollow 42 14 56 1.7
Cottonwood Bench 99 29 128Black Ridge 56 16 72
4/21 Old La Sal 54 29 83 1.600000000
Totals 676 204 0 880 8.2
La Sal Mtns
deer / hour
Winter survival
La Sal
2009G. Wallace, D. Ketron
2008
Spring-class Summaryn
fawns / 100 adults
G. Wallace, D. Ketron
Deer Classification Unit Subunit
Post-class Observer Year
Date Area Buck Doe Fawn Unclass Total 1 pt 2 pt 3 pt 4 pt >4 pt Hours Comments11/25 Old La Sal 7 82 62 151 3 1 1 2 1.512/3 Castle Valley 29 126 30 185 2 13 10 4 1.312/4 Kirk's Basin 8 12 6 26 1 3 1 3 1.012/8 Pack Creek 3 21 4 28 2 1 1.012/12 Buck Hollow 0 4 2 6 1.2
Slaughter Flat 0 5 512/16 Cottonwood Bench 0 13 9 22 1.512/19 East Coyote 7 41 28 76 3 3 1 1.6
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
Totals 54 304 141 0 499 9 22 14 9 0 9
Post-class Summaryn 499 880fawns / 100 does 46.4fawns / 100 adults 39.4 30.2 76.6bucks / 100 does 17.8% bucks > 3 pts 42.6deer / hour 54.8 107.3
Spring class Observer Year
Date Area Adult Fawn Unclass Total Hours Comments3/24 Castle Valley 265 45 310 1.73/30 Pack Creek 73 43 116 1.6 (Ketron classif.)3/31 East Coyote 87 28 115 1.64/1 Buck Hollow 42 14 56 1.7
Cottonwood Bench 99 29 128Black Ridge 56 16 72
4/21 Old La Sal 54 29 83 1.600000000
Totals 676 204 0 880 8.2
La Sal Mtns
deer / hour
Winter survival
La Sal
2009G. Wallace, D. Ketron
2008
Spring-class Summaryn
fawns / 100 adults
G. Wallace, D. Ketron
Deer Classification Unit Subunit
Post-class Observer Year
Date Area Buck Doe Fawn Unclass Total 1 pt 2 pt 3 pt 4 pt >4 pt Hours Comments11/25 Old La Sal 7 82 62 151 3 1 1 2 1.512/3 Castle Valley 29 126 30 185 2 13 10 4 1.312/4 Kirk's Basin 8 12 6 26 1 3 1 3 1.012/8 Pack Creek 3 21 4 28 2 1 1.012/12 Buck Hollow 0 4 2 6 1.2
Slaughter Flat 0 5 512/16 Cottonwood Bench 0 13 9 22 1.512/19 East Coyote 7 41 28 76 3 3 1 1.6
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0
Totals 54 304 141 0 499 9 22 14 9 0 9
Post-class Summaryn 499 880fawns / 100 does 46.4fawns / 100 adults 39.4 30.2 76.6bucks / 100 does 17.8% bucks > 3 pts 42.6deer / hour 54.8 107.3
Spring class Observer Year
Date Area Adult Fawn Unclass Total Hours Comments3/24 Castle Valley 265 45 310 1.73/30 Pack Creek 73 43 116 1.6 (Ketron classif.)3/31 East Coyote 87 28 115 1.64/1 Buck Hollow 42 14 56 1.7
Cottonwood Bench 99 29 128Black Ridge 56 16 72
4/21 Old La Sal 54 29 83 1.600000000
Totals 676 204 0 880 8.2
La Sal Mtns
deer / hour
Winter survival
La Sal
2009G. Wallace, D. Ketron
2008
Spring-class Summaryn
fawns / 100 adults
G. Wallace, D. Ketron
Fawn Survival
2. Implement a method to collect annual adult doe and fawn mortality estimates on representative units statewide.
• Comparing (s) from collar data vs spring classification (preliminary)
– Within 6% on 2 units
How/When are Data Collected
• June, fawn production
• Fall, buck harvest
• Jan, population estimate
• April-May, survival estimates
Fall class – F:D ratio
Check stations, mandatory reporting, harvest surveys
All ratios collected in spring and fall
Collars, F:A ratios, range rides, habitat assessment
Data Used in Models
• All data used in models are derived from field observations from individual units– Fawn:Doe ratio’s– Survival rates of adult deer and fawns– Harvest of bucks and does
Unit SU Unit Subunit buck doe buck_hunters doe_hunters buck_day doe_day harvest hunters days
11 B Nine Mile Range Creek
286 36 835 32 2348 44
12 A San RafaelSan Rafael North
248 42 773 43 1777 105334 999 2162
12 B San RafaelSan Rafael South
44 0 183 0 280 0
13 A La Sal LaSal Mtn 458 0 1420 0 3665 0 475 1438 3737
13 B La SalDolores Triangle
17 0 18 0 72 0
14 A San Juan Abajo 982 89 2649 93 6354 249 1123 2798 6818
14 B San Juan Elk Ridge
45 7 50 6 201 14
15 A Henry MountainsHenryMountains
47 0 49 0 188 047 49 188
16 ACentral Mountains Nebo
918 107 3647 213 7414 14243440 14714 37340
16 BCentral Mountains North Manti
1021 56 4226 83 11309 196
16 CCentralMountains South Manti
1250 88 6477 68 16807 190
DATA USED FOR HUNT RECOMMENDATIONS
BUCK DEER3 year average buck/doe ratioage data on PLE units
ANTLERLESS DEERPopulation status relative to objective (model estimate), range condition, and depredation
Utah is not Unique in Data Collection
• Every western state collects:– Buck:Doe ratio– Fawn:Doe ratio– Abundance or population size
• Most states collect:– Fawn recruitment
Models Simplified
3. Use standardized, reliable population models to evaluate herd size and population trends over time.
• Population growth is driven by survival of adult does and production and survival of fawns
JAN. 2009 DEER MODEL 158 BUCKS (30B:100D) 526 DOES 316 FAWNS (60F:100D) 1,000 TOTAL
SPRING CLASSIFICATION 134 BUCKS (S=0.85) 447 DOES (S=0.85) 221 FAWNS (S=.70) 802 TOTAL
SUMMER RECRUITMENT 245 BUCKS 557 DOES PRODUCTION FAWNS 802 ADULTS + FAWNS
NOV. CLASSIFICATION31 B:100 D60 F:100 D46 F:100 A
HARVEST-75 BUCKS-10 DOES0 FAWNS-85 TOTAL
JAN. 2010 DEER MODEL170 BUCKS547 DOES328 FAWNS1,045 TOTAL DEER
Recommendations are a Year Round Process
• Every piece of data we collect revolves around what are we going to recommend in the future
• Biologists literally spend hundreds of hours geared towards recommendations and herd management for individual units
Models are Nothing More than Calculators
• They allow us to estimate populations quickly for individual units
• They are driven by data collected from the field (ratios, harvest, etc.)
• They get better with time
• They are exceptional at detecting and presenting trends in population status
SUMMARY
• Methods for data collection are sound and replicable
• Models are driven by data collected from the field
• All hunt recommendations must reflect action towards management plans
• Biologists are working hard to meet strategies in the management plan for mule deer
Thank You
