#1853200 - 03/24/10 03:01 PM
Proceedings 2010 Southeastern Deer Study Group Mtg
|
BigGameGuy
TWRA Biologist
12 Point
Registered: 05/14/04
Posts: 6354
Loc: Nashville
|
Offline
|
|
*** Warning*** - Tons of reading!
I am posting some of the more interesting papers presented at this year's SEDSG meeting. I chose topics that get discussed here on TNDeer frequently. They are meant for discussion purposes only.
Remember, these are NOT peer reviewed papers so one must use critically thinking when reading these!
Enjoy!
Bias associated with baited camera sites for assessing population characteristics of white-tailed deer.
Clint McCoy and Stephen S. Ditchkoff – Auburn University School of Forestry and Wildlife Science
Abstract: Because of its ease of use and cost efficiency, remote photography seems to be increasing in its popularity as a tool for scientists and wildlife biologists. Camera surveys have been used to estimate population parameters among a variety of species, including white-tailed deer. However, this survey technique involves placing bait in front of the camera in order to capture animals more frequently, which could introduce biases in parameter estimates. From September 2008 to March 2009, we monitored cameras placed at random, along game trails, and at feed stations to determine if sex/age structure could be accurately assessed in a population of white-tailed deer. Since cameras placed at random should provide the least biased estimates of population structure, we compared estimates from feed stations and trail-based cameras to those from random sites to determine if they accurately assess population structure. Our results indicated that there was no single time period in which, both sex ratio and recruitment, estimates could be determined accurately from cameras placed at feed stations. Trail-based camera surveys provided population estimates very similar to those from random sites, and may provide a feasible alternative to using baited camera stations.
* * * * * * * * *
Effects of selective harvest on antler size in white-tailed deer: a modeling approach.
Stephen L. Webb – Hayden Wing Associates; Stephen Demarais and Bronson Strickland – Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University; Randy W. DeYoung – Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M – Kingsville; Brian Kinghorn – School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England; Kenneth L. Gee – Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Abstract: Selective harvesting in wild deer (Odocoileus spp.) populations is commonly practiced to increase antler size. However, response in free-ranging populations is difficult to quantify because antler response is influenced by environmental variation, population demographics, and harvest intensity. We used quantitative genetics models to determine how white-tailed deer (O. virginianus) antlers responded to selection and what variables (i.e., population size, age structure, mating ratio and heritability) were most influential in improving antler size. We validated genetics models by comparing modeled results with empirical data from a controlled deer breeding program; modeled antler points (AP) and Boone and Crockett score increased (2.2-4.3 AP and 19.1-38.5 in, respectively) after 8 years of selection, similar to observed increases in AP (3.2) and score (36.3 in) from a captive reference population. In modeled free-ranging populations, mating ratio, age structure and heritability were more important in influencing antler response than size of the population. However, response to selection in free-ranging populations was much less (0.1-0.9 AP) than breeding operations even after 20 years of selection. Our models demonstrate how selective harvesting of male white-tailed deer is an inefficient process for modifying population-level genetic characteristics related to antler size. Response of antlers in free-ranging deer will be lower because individual reproductive success is lower, breeding is done by a large group of males, dispersal maintains gene flow from populations with disparate management goals, and reproductive and survival rates are lower.
* * * * * * * * *
“Aging on the hoof”: fact or fantasy?
Kenneth L. Gee – Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation; John H. Holman – Fresh Tracts
Abstract: Use of physical characteristics to estimate age of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the field, commonly referred to as “aging on the hoof” (AOTH), is becoming increasingly popular as part of selective harvest management programs. There have been no scientific evaluations of this aging method to date. To determine practitioners’ levels of accuracy and proficiency applying the AOTH method, we developed an assessment consisting of a series of photographs of 70 wild, known-age deer from south-central Oklahoma ranging in age from 1.5 - >10.5 years. A preassessment questionnaire was developed to determine participants’ professional status, degree of use of technique, perceptions about the technique, etc. The pre-assessment questionnaire and the assessment were distributed to 2009 Southeast Deer Study Group registrants and other selected individuals. One hundred twenty-nine individuals completed the assessment, consisting of 107 professionals that use the technique, 16 professionals that had little experience with the technique, and 6 non-professionals. Considering only professionals that use the technique, the average percentage of correct age estimates was 36%, with a range of 16-56%. Percentages of estimates correct by age-class for professionals that use the technique were 62%, 43%, 25%, 30%, 25%,15%, 7%, 7%, 7%, and 2% for the 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4,5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, and 10.5 year-classes, respectively. Additional analyses emphasizing various age groupings and management and research
implications will be discussed.
* * * * * * * * *
Aging photographed male deer using morphometric ratios.
Jeremy J. Flinn, Stephen Demarais, Harry A. Jacobson, and P. D. Jones – Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science, Mississippi State University; Kenneth Gee – Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Abstract: Subjective methods for aging live male white-tailed deer based on a variety of physical characteristics are abundant in the technical and non-technical literature and their accuracy has been questioned. We evaluated accuracy of several quantitative measures of body features for assignment of age classes using pictures of 103 known-aged bucks taken September-October in pens and in the wild. We used logistic regression with a step-wise procedure to identify which morphometric ratios best assigned bucks to age classes using penned deer. The model used five ratios to correctly assign 71% of wild bucks to 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 year age classes. The same model correctly assigned 84% of wild bucks to 1, 2-3, and ≥4 year age classes. Additional analyses will include the effect of season.
* * * * * * * * *
Evaluating Accuracy of Estimating Gross Antler Scores Using Photographs.
Jeremy J. Flinn, Stephen Demarais, Bronson K. Strickland, and Stephen Webb – Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science, Mississippi State University; Kenneth Gee – Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
Abstract: Widespread use of infrared-triggered trail cameras has produced photographs of male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) with unknown antler dimensions. We developed a computer program to estimate selected antler measurements and a gross antler score, similar to Boone and Crockett’s gross non-typical score. We photographed 150 mounted antlers with known scores at three angles: 0°, 45°, and 90°. We placed a known-size, spherical object in the picture for scale and measured the photographed antlers in GIS. Using the GIS values and known values we constructed predictive equations to estimate three-dimensional scores from the two dimensional photographs. Using a known-size object to adjust scale, estimated gross antler scores for 50 known-score deer were produced with a mean error of 4.6% and 3.4% at 0° and 45°, respectively. We sampled several anatomical features from harvested and sedated deer to use as the known-size reference in freeranging deer pictures. Using average ear width as a scale and two pictures, 0° and 45°, yielded the most accurate estimate of gross antler score (4.5%) for live deer. This program provides a reasonably accurate estimate of gross antler score using photographs.
* * * * * * * * *
Does fawning habitat influence predation risk?
John C. Kilgo, Matthew J. Goode, Mark A. Vukovich, and Christopher E. Shaw, – USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station; H. Scott Ray – USDA Forest Service – Savannah River; Charles Ruth – South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Abstract: Recent research has demonstrated that predation on fawns by coyotes (Canis latrans) can have substantial impacts on some deer populations in the region. We hypothesized that predation risk may be affected by habitat conditions in areas where fawns are born and spend their first weeks. We compared the vegetation types and understory densities of habitats used by depredated fawns with those of surviving fawns. During 2007-2009 we radio-monitored 78 fawns on the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. We characterized the type and density of each fawn’s natal area at 15 locations, including its birth site and 4 radio-locations taken daily during its first two weeks of life. Does used hardwood stands as birth sites in greater proportion than their availability in the SRS landscape and pine stands in lesser proportion, and the understory surrounding birth sites was denser than that at random locations across the landscape. Fawn home ranges included greater proportions of hardwood and young pine stands and lesser proportions of mid-aged and mature pine stands than available in the landscape, and understory density within fawn home ranges was greater than that at random locations. However, neither the composition nor understory density in home ranges of depredated fawns differed from that of surviving fawns. We conclude that fawning habitat at SRS is characterized by hardwood forests with a dense understory but that within such areas, predation risk is not affected by habitat conditions. Thus, improving fawn survival through vegetation management to enhance fawning habitat may be difficult.
* * * * * * * * *
A summary of implementing telephone game checking in Arkansas.
Matt W. Hodges and Brad Miller – Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
Abstract: Deer harvest records provide state agencies with important information for management programs. Mandatory deer checking has been required in Arkansas since 1938 and has primarily consisted of hunters completing paper checksheets issued to county check stations or private deer hunting clubs enrolled in the game checking program. However, the delays in the process of paper checksheet collection and database entry greatly reduce the utility of traditional harvest data in crafting regulations for upcoming seasons. Internet checking of harvested game was added in 2001 and provided near real-time harvest data with minimal cost. However, those animals comprise only 26% of the total harvest. To improve data timeliness and quality, an automated telephone game checking system replacing paper checksheets was implemented for the 2009-10 deer season. As of November 23, 2009, a total of 111,493 white-tailed deer have been checked for the 2009-10 season. Of that total, approximately 59% of deer have been checked using the toll-free number. Calls to the automated toll-free number were successfully completed 76% of the time. All remaining calls were connected to a live operator to complete the checking procedure. Internet and mobile application checking (e.g., IPhone, Blackberry), were the other game check methods and comprised 37% and 4% of the remaining checked animals, respectively. Cost estimates for telephone game checking are approximately $210,000, compared to $173,800 for the former paper checksheet program. Although some future modifications to telephone checking are possible, the implementation of telephone game
checking has largely been successful in Arkansas.
* * * * * * * * *
Distance sampling using ground based thermal imagery – an effective deer management tool for state wildlife agencies.
Daryl R. Ratajczak and R. Gray Anderson – Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency; Robert E. Kissell Jr. – University of Arkansas
Abstract - State wildlife agencies are often limited in their ability to manage deer due to the lack of adequate data at the landscape level (i.e., county-wide level and up). Hunting regulations are often based on harvest data or other indices that may not reflect actual herd parameters. Population size and density can be measured using distance sampling, but its effectiveness has not been tested at the landscape-scale in the Southeast. The primary objective of this study was to determine deer densities at a scale appropriate for making regional management decisions. An eight-county study area in south-central Tennessee was defined and data were collected along 40 randomly selected road-based transects (471 total miles). Deer were observed using hand-held thermal imaging devices and distances were recorded with range-finders. Data were calculated for two cover types, open and forested, and analyzed using distance sampling. Analysis of the entire dataset without habitat stratification yielded a population estimate of 96,126 deer (95% C.I. = 67,218 – 137,466, CV = 0.182), however, analysis of AIC values suggested stratification by habitat type (open and forested) was warranted. Deer density in the open cover type was 24.8 deer/mi2 (95% C.I. = 16.1 – 38.2, CV = 0.219) while the forested cover type density was 21.7 deer/mi2 (95% C.I. = 12.2 – 38.8, CV = 0.298). This yielded a post-hunt deer population of 102,962 (23.6 deer/mi2) for the entire area (4,358 mi2). Our initial results yielded an estimate that may be used for management purposes. Cost analysis indicated that manpower and financial commitments were within the constraints of the agency budget.
* * * * * * * * *
A case study of an antler harvest restriction on a public hunting area.
David Synatzske, Morgan Richardson, and Daniel Walker – Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Abstract: The Chaparral WMA is a 15,000 acre research and demonstration area located in LaSalle and Dimmit counties in the heart of the South Texas brush country. Deer hunting on the area is by lottery permit drawing. The area has an abundance of mature bucks is noted for quality of its buck harvest. The area receives more than three times as many applications for either sex hunts than any other public hunting area in Texas. From 1991 to 1994, hunters were allowed to harvest one buck. Under these harvest regime hunters most often selected mature bucks exhibiting superior antler development or high grading of the deer herd. Regulations were modified in 1995 to increase the harvest of bucks with poor antler development. The bag limit was increased to two bucks and a buck harvest antler restriction was put in place. One of the two bucks must have less than 8-points and the other buck must have inside spread greater than ear width. Our objective was to increase the harvest of bucks exhibiting poor antler development: yearling spikes, and medium age and mature bucks with less than 7 antler points. Hunters were given a pre-hunt briefing explaining the objectives and the rationale behind the antler restriction. Hunters were encouraged to harvest spikes and mature bucks with less than 8 points. Under antler restrictions the harvest of bucks with poor antler development increased from less than 20% of the annual buck harvest to about 50%. A modest decrease (35% to 25%) in the percentage of % mature bucks in the herd has been observed as result of the increased harvest of spikes and other young cull bucks. The number of trophy bucks (> 140 Gross Boone & Crocket) harvested each year has remained stable. A trend of decreasing inside spread in mature bucks has been observed while average gross Boone & Crocket score for mature bucks has remained stable since the implementation of antler restrictions.
* * * * * * * * *
Hunter satisfaction and implementation of Quality Deer Management in west Tennessee.
Jared T. Beaver, Christopher E. Shaw, Allan E. Houston and Craig Harper – University of Tennessee
Abstract: Quality Deer Management (QDM) is increasingly practiced throughout the range of whitetailed deer. However, published data evaluating both hunter attitudes and effects of this management strategy are few. A QDM program was initiated at Ames Plantation in west Tennessee in 2004. We evaluated pre-season hunter surveys from 2004 – 2008 and harvest characteristics from 2002 – 2008. Pre-season hunter attitudes following implementation of QDM favored antlerless deer harvest (>90%) and restricting buck harvest to individuals at least 3.5 years old (>85%). Most hunters felt buck fawns should be protected (>79%). Maximum antler score expectations by hunters increased over time, as did the annual mean antler score of bucks harvested. Mean gross antler score by age class remained similar. Older age classes (>3.5 years) represented a greater proportion of the buck harvest following harvest restrictions (4 years old or 120 gross B&C score). Prior to QDM, bucks represented at least 50% of the harvest; after QDM, bucks represented less than 32% of the harvest. Average doe harvest per hunter following QDM implementation increased 44% over the pre-treatment average and remained consistent each year thereafter at greater than 1.5 does per hunter. Mature buck (>3.5 years) harvest per hunter steadily increased following implementation of harvest restrictions from a pre-treatment average of 0.05 to 0.30 in 2008. Total deer harvest remained similar since inception of the QDM program. Overall hunter satisfaction with Ames Plantation’s QDM program when compared to others was greater than 73%. Hunter satisfaction is critical for success of a QDM program. We recommend annual educational meetings for hunting groups to summarize and explain population, harvest, and habitat data, answer questions, and set realistic goals. Annual surveys should provide a means for hunters to provide feedback.
_________________________
If given the choice between education and regulation, I'll choose education every time.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1853211 - 03/24/10 03:23 PM
Re: Proceedings 2010 Southeastern Deer Study Group Mtg
[Re: BigGameGuy]
|
Beekeeper
Good ol' Boys "Team Buckcreek"
16 Point
Registered: 08/26/09
Posts: 10957
Loc: McMinn Co. Tennessee
|
|
Offline
|
|
This is good info! Thanks.
_________________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1853250 - 03/24/10 03:44 PM
Re: Proceedings 2010 Southeastern Deer Study Group Mtg
[Re: Double-D-Team]
|
Outdoor Enthusiast
6 Point
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 840
Loc: Nashville, TN
|
Online
|
|
Thanks for sharing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1853257 - 03/24/10 03:52 PM
Re: Proceedings 2010 Southeastern Deer Study Group Mtg
[Re: BigGameGuy]
|
Wes Parrish
16 Point
Registered: 06/12/02
Posts: 16993
Loc: Knoxville-Dover-Union City, TN
|
|
Offline
|
|
Daryl,
Thanks for posting this.
Sure wish I could have attended that 2010 meeting.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1853316 - 03/24/10 05:10 PM
Re: Proceedings 2010 Southeastern Deer Study Group Mtg
[Re: Wes Parrish]
|
Lee Creek22
6 Point
Registered: 09/10/08
Posts: 593
Loc: Ewtonville, TN
|
|
Offline
|
|
Good articles...Thanks for sharing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1853935 - 03/24/10 11:08 PM
Re: Proceedings 2010 Southeastern Deer Study Group Mtg
[Re: Lee Creek22]
|
bowriter
Non-Typical
Registered: 08/31/02
Posts: 40306
Loc: Lebanon,TN USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Now that should get it going.
_________________________
Constipation has ruined many a good day. Not as many as stupidity, though.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1854036 - 03/25/10 05:50 AM
Re: Proceedings 2010 Southeastern Deer Study Group Mtg
[Re: bowriter]
|
ghosthunter
10 Point
Registered: 11/30/04
Posts: 3446
Loc: chattanooga
|
|
Offline
|
|
Good stuff!
_________________________
it's a long way to the top if ya wanna rock 'n' roll
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1854104 - 03/25/10 07:23 AM
Re: Proceedings 2010 Southeastern Deer Study Group Mtg
[Re: Beekeeper]
|
MUP
Non-Typical
Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 36221
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town
|
|
Offline
|
|
"Our models demonstrate how selective harvesting of male white-tailed deer is an inefficient process for modifying population-level genetic characteristics related to antler size. Response of antlers in free-ranging deer will be lower because individual reproductive success is lower, breeding is done by a large group of males, dispersal maintains gene flow from populations with disparate management goals, and reproductive and survival rates are lower. "
wow.
_________________________
MUP
Amateurs: Built the Ark
Professionals: Built the Titanic
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1854155 - 03/25/10 08:05 AM
Re: Proceedings 2010 Southeastern Deer Study Group Mtg
[Re: BigGameGuy]
|
BSK
Jerkasourous of the non-typical kind
Non-Typical
Registered: 03/11/99
Posts: 59555
Loc: Nashville, TN
|
|
Offline
|
|
Bias associated with baited camera sites for assessing population characteristics of white-tailed deer.
Clint McCoy and Stephen S. Ditchkoff – Auburn University School of Forestry and Wildlife Science
Abstract: Because of its ease of use and cost efficiency, remote photography seems to be increasing in its popularity as a tool for scientists and wildlife biologists. Camera surveys have been used to estimate population parameters among a variety of species, including white-tailed deer. However, this survey technique involves placing bait in front of the camera in order to capture animals more frequently, which could introduce biases in parameter estimates. From September 2008 to March 2009, we monitored cameras placed at random, along game trails, and at feed stations to determine if sex/age structure could be accurately assessed in a population of white-tailed deer. Since cameras placed at random should provide the least biased estimates of population structure, we compared estimates from feed stations and trail-based cameras to those from random sites to determine if they accurately assess population structure. Our results indicated that there was no single time period in which, both sex ratio and recruitment, estimates could be determined accurately from cameras placed at feed stations. Trail-based camera surveys provided population estimates very similar to those from random sites, and may provide a feasible alternative to using baited camera stations.
* * * * * * * * *
I couldn't agree more.
I've been saying for several years now that I don't think baited photo censuses produce the desired results, for the very reason the above study indicates--too much bias in which deer use the bait and how often. I've seen this problem with both food source bait (corn) and salt/mineral licks. In some situations, females dominate the sites, over-representing them in the study. In other situations, males, or males of a speciic age-range, dominate the sites over-representing them in the study.
I fully agree that more "random" camera placement (not using something to draw deer in front of the camera) produces better herd dynamics numbers (sex ratio, buck age structure, and fawn recruitment numbers). The problem with this technique is the low number of photographs acquired versus a baited site and the knowledge of the best "semi-random" camera site locations for gaining photographs (which trails/deer traffic locations are best).
Honestly, I use cameras for one primary reason, and that is developing an inventory of the buck population. And most importantly, the buck population using a property during the hunting season. In essence, what I want to know is what bucks do hunters have the opportunity to harvest? A late-summer (pre-season) census may not tell you that, due to shifting seasonal ranges (some bucks picked up in summer will not be using the property during the hunting season, and some bucks that WILL BE using the proprty during hunting season do not use the property in late-summer).
In my opinion, to acquire the best buck inventory data during the hunting season, cameras placement should be focused on scrapes and highly attractive food sources, such as smaller food plots. I include the food plots because I believe some bucks do not work scrapes, and the food source cameras are needed to photo-capture these bucks.
_________________________
"Know where you stand, and stand there" --Jesuit Father Daniel Berrigan
"There is no reasoning someone out of a position he has not reasoned himself into." --Clive James
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: RUGER, Tennessee Todd, Unicam, Cuttin Caller, CBU93, stretch, Bobby G, Outdoor Lady, TurkeyBurd
|
12113 Members
38 Forums
116028 Topics
1412903 Posts
Max Online: 756 @ 11/20/12 09:10 AM
|
|
|
The TnDeer.Com Deer Talk Forum is for Tennessee Deer Hunters by Tennessee Deer Hunters. If you enjoy using our Talk Forum and would like to contribute to help in it's up-keep. Just submit your contribution by clicking on the DONATE button below and paying with PayPal or a major credit card. Any amount is much appreciated. Thanks for your support!
|
|
|
