WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
WHITE-TAILED DEER POPULATIONMANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND DATABASEJuly 2007Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeWildlife DivisionWildlife Resource Assessment SectionMammal Group
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemTABLE OF CONTENTSPagePART I. DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM . 7INTRODUCTION. 8REGULATORY AUTHORITY. 12MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . 15MANAGEMENT DECISION PROCESS. 29EVALUATION OF SYSTEM INPUTS. 46WMDs . 46YABD . 47HARPOP. 57BKI . 60WSI . 63CHRONOLOGY OF DEER REGULATORY MANAGEMENT . 67RECOMMENDATIONS . 69LITERATURE CITED . 70PART II. DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT DATABASE AND DATA COLLECTIONSUMMARY. 71INTRODUCTION. 72DEER HARVEST REGISTRATION DATA . 73DEER HARVEST BIOLOGICAL DATA . 75WINTER SEVERITY INDEX . 81POPULATION TREND DATA . 84HUNTING EFFORT DATA . 86FOREST RESURVEY DATA . 87HUNTING ZONES, WMUS, DMDS, AND WMDS. 88LITERATURE CITED . 93PART III. APPENDICES. 94APPENDIX 1. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR DEER MANAGEMENT. 95APPENDIX 2. DEER HUNTING PARTICIPATION, EFFORT ANDSUCCESS . 111APPENDIX 3. HARVEST-DERIVED POPULATION MODEL . 133APPENDIX 4. ADJUSTMENT OF ANY-DEER PERMIT ALLOCATIONSFOR WINTER SEVERITY. . 158APPENDIX 5. DOE REMOVAL RATE LOOK-UP (example using YMF of25%) . 170APPENDIX 6. DEAD DEER SURVEY . 171APPENDIX 7. REPRODUCTIVE DATA . 174APPENDIX 8. PELLET GROUP SURVEYS. 179May 20072
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemLIST OF FIGURESFIGURE 1.LOCATION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN MAINE. 9FIGURE 2.MORTALITY/RECRUITMENT BALANCES TYPICAL OF“AVERAGE” WINTERS FOR THE REGION. 34FIGURE 3.MORTALITY/RECRUITMENT BALANCES TYPICAL OF “SEVERE”WINTERS FOR THE REGION . 37FIGURE 4.PERCENT OF K CARRYING CAPACITY AS PREDICTED FROMMEAN YABD OF YEARLING BUCKS . 49FIGURE 5.MEAN YABD BY YEAR, RELATIVE TO YABD THRESHOLDS THATPREDICT 50 TO 60% OF MSP . 56FIGURE 6.STATEWIDE TREND IN MAINE’S DEER POPULATION. 59FIGURE 7.TREND IN THE BUCK KILL INDEX. 61FIGURE 8.GENERALIZED SUSTAINED YIELD CURVE FOR WHITE-TAILEDDEER. 64FIGURE 9.LOCATION OF THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD WHICHDIVIDES MAINE’S NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN HUNTINGUNITS (1973-82), IN RELATION TO WILDLIFE MANAGEMENTUNIT BOUNDARIES. 90FIGURE 10. MAINE’S DEER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS. 91FIGURE 11. MAINE’S 30 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, 1997-2005 . 92FIGURE 12. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUCK HUNTING SUCCESS ANDDEER POPULATION DENSITY IN MAINE, 1987-2001 . 126FIGURE 13. HUNTER-DAYS EXPENDED PURSUING DEER WITHIN THENORTH MAINE WOODS AREA . 129FIGURE 14. BUCK HARVEST VS. KILL PER THOUSAND HUNTER-DAYS INTHE NORTH MAINE WOODS AREA OF MAINE, 1977-2003. 130FIGURE 15. THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADULT MORTALITYRATE AND LONGEVITY IN WHITE-TAILED DEER. 143May 20073
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemFIGURE 16. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YEARLING BUCK FREQUENCY INTHE REGISTERED HARVEST AND ALL-CAUSE MORTALITYRATES OF YEARLING AND OLDER BUCKS, AS CALCULATEDFROM POPULATION RECONSTRUCTION DURING 1978-82 BYWMU’S IN MAINE. 144FIGURE 17. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YEARLING BUCK FREQUENCY ANDDEER HUNTING PRESSURE IN MAINE DURING 1978-82 VS.1992-96. 150FIGURE 18. PREDICTION OF HUNTING MORTALITY AS A PERCENT OF ALLCAUSE MORTALITY (HPT) FOR MAINE WMU’S 1978-82. . 151FIGURE 19. LOCATION OF DEER PELLET GROUP SURVEY AREAS, 19761988. 184May 20074
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemLIST OF TABLESTABLE 1.SYNOPSIS OF STATUTORY VS. RULEMAKING AUTHORITYGRANTED TO MDIFW FROM THE MAINE LEGISLATURE. 13TABLE 2.WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT GOALS ANDOBJECTIVES, 2000-2015. . 16TABLE 3.CURRENT VS. OBJECTIVE DEER POPULATIONS SPECIFIEDFOR THE 2000-2015 PLANNING PERIOD, BY WILDLIFEMANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN MAINE. 26TABLE 4.DECISION PROCESS USED TO DETERMINE ANNUAL DOEHARVESTS NEEDED TO ATTAIN DEER POPULATIONOBJECTIVES. . 30TABLE 5.RULES-OF-THUMB THAT GUIDE RESPONSES TOQUESTIONS REGARDING DEER POPULATION STATUSPOSED IN TABLE 2. . 31TABLE 6.EXAMPLE WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING ANY-DEERPERMITS. 43TABLE 7.CHRONOLOGY OF DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENTSYSTEM ACTIVITIES. 68TABLE 8.AGE-SPECIFIC REPRODUCTIVE RATE PREDICTED FROMYABD STATEWIDE IN MAINE DURING 1954-2005. . 77TABLE 9.CALCULATION OF THE LACTATION-EMBRYO INDEX. . 80TABLE 10.DEER HUNTING SEASONS AND OTHER DEER CONTROLACTIVITIES CURRENTLY UTILIZED IN MAINE. 97TABLE 11.VARIOUS PERMITS ALLOWING THE TAKING OF DEER TOSUPPORT DEER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN MAINE. 99TABLE 12.SOURCE AND AVAILABILITY OF VARIOUS MEASURES OFDEER HUNTING PARTICIPATION IN MAINE, 1968 TO 2003. . 112TABLE 13.SALES OF LICENSES THAT PERMIT DEER HUNTING IN MAINE,1970 TO 2003. 114TABLE 14.SUMMARY OF DEER HARVEST AND EFFORT DATASTATEWIDE IN MAINE DURING 1919 TO 2003. . 115May 20075
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemTABLE 15.DEER HUNTING PARTICIPATION AND EFFORT FOR 3 LEVELSOF REGIONAL CHARACTERIZATIONA OF MAINE BETWEEN1984 AND 2001. . 119TABLE 16.ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN DEERHUNTING BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN MAINE,1998 TO 2003. 120TABLE 17.PREHUNT DEER POPULATIONS AND HUNTING REMOVALSBY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNITS, 1978-82. . 136TABLE 18.COHORT SIZE (% OF TOTAL YEARLING AND OLDER DEERPOPULATION), GIVEN VARIOUS ALL-CAUSE ANNUALMORTALITY RATES. . 142TABLE 19.MORTALITY RATES, YEARLING BUCK FREQUENCY, ANDDEER HUNTING EFFORT AMONG WILDLIFE MANAGEMENTUNITS IN MAINE DURING 1978-82. . 149TABLE 20.WSI STATIONS AS GROUPED TO COMPUTE WSI VALUES BYWILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 2005-06. . 166TABLE 21.ESTIMATES OF WINTER MORTALITY RATES (WMR) OF DEERIN MAINE AT SELECTED VALUES FOR WINTER SEVERITYINDICES (WSI). . 167TABLE 22.THRESHOLD WSI AND ASSOCIATED ESTIMATES OF WINTERMORTALITY RATE BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS INMAINE DURING THE 1990-1991 TO 2004-05 PERIOD. . 168TABLE 23.ESTIMATED HUNTING REMOVAL RATE OF YEARLING ANDOLDER DOES GIVEN VARYING POPULATION AND HARVESTSEX RATIOS AND A HARVEST YEARLING FREQUENCY1 OF50%. 169TABLE 24.ESTIMATED HUNTING REMOVAL RATE OF YEARLING ANDOLDER DOES GIVEN VARYING POPULATION AND HARVESTSEX RATIOS AND A HARVEST YEARLING BUCK FREQUENCY1OF 25%. 170TABLE 25.SUMMARY OF DEER PELLET GROUP SURVEYS CONDUCTEDIN MAINE DURING 1988. 185TABLE 26.COMPARISON OF POSTHUNT DEER DENSITY ESTIMATES BYDMD AS DERIVED FROM HARPOP, PELLET GROUP SURVEYSAND EXTRAPOLATIONS BASED ON THE RELATIVE MAGNITUDEOF BUCK HARVEST ON PELLET GROUP SURVEY AREAS VSDMD’S AS A WHOLE. . 186May 20076
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemPART I. DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMMay 20077
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemINTRODUCTIONThis document describes the system being used by Maine Department of InlandFisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) biologists to make recommendations for white-taileddeer population management. Included are the processes to translate available datainto management decisions (Part I) and an evaluation of the techniques for estimatingdeer population attributes used in the decision process (Part II). Supporting informationis provided in various appendices. There is a separate management system that guidesdecisions regarding protection and enhancement of deer wintering habitat in Maine(Lavigne 1991a).Management direction for white-tailed deer in Maine is accomplished through a strategicplanning process. At intervals of 10 to 15 years, population status, habitat,management, and use of the deer resource are assessed and reviewed in a publicprocess involving representative stakeholders. Following review, stakeholdersrecommend specific goals and objectives for deer populations. The Commissioner andhis Advisory Council provide final authorization of recommended goals and objectivesafter internal review. Once approved, these population goals and objectives providedirection for deer management for the next 15 years. The current deer assessment(Lavigne 1999), goals and objectives, and resulting management strategies cover 2000to 2015. Goals and objectives were established individually for our 30 WildlifeManagement Districts (WMDs; Figure 1). In 2006 the Wildlife Management Districtswere changed to form 29 Wildlife Management Districts; this modification will bediscussed later in this document.May 20078
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeMay 2007Deer Population Management System9
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemDeer population management decisions relate primarily to regulating doe mortality as ameans of attaining strategic planning goals and objectives. We accomplish this usingrecreational hunting in most areas, although other types of deer removals are employedwhere access or safety concerns limit the effectiveness of recreational deer huntingseasons. These non-traditional deer control methods currently include controlled hunts,depredation permits, and professional sharpshooting; they are employed sparingly andat limited land scales. Decisions concerning implementation of non-traditionaltechniques for deer control are guided by Department policy (MDIFW 2002; Appendix1).Maine offers 5 recreational hunting seasons for deer. A statewide 25-day firearmsseason that spans the rutting period in November draws the greatest number ofparticipants ( 170,000 hunters). A special muzzleloader season follows the firearmsseason; 10,000 hunters participate in this 6 to 12-day (depending on location) season.We offer a 26-day statewide archery season during late September and October inwhich 10,000 bowhunters annually pursue deer of either sex. Youths between theages of 10 to 15 years can pursue deer of either-sex statewide during a 1-day hunt inOctober just prior to the firearms season; 12,000 youths participate. The limit on deeris one per hunter in aggregate for the above hunting seasons. We established an 83day expanded archery season that attracts 5,000 participants in areas whereresidential sprawl precludes effective firearms hunting. Hunters are allowed topurchase an unlimited number of permits ( 32 for bucks, 12 for antlerless deer, in2006) to kill deer in areas open to this season.May 200710
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemControlling the direction and magnitude of deer population change requires regulatingdoe losses. Preferably, doe losses are controlled using a method that offers flexibility toaccount for annual and spatial changes in deer population dynamics, including nonhunting mortality. Hunting mortality is often additive to other deer losses in Maine andhence, manipulation of the doe harvest can influence all-cause mortality rates.We do not currently regulate the magnitude of doe harvests resulting from the expandedarchery, statewide archery, or youth day deer seasons. However, we do regulateparticipation in antlerless deer hunting during the regular firearms and muzzleloaderseasons. Give the current situation in Maine it would be highly unlikely that we wouldneed the hunting effort of all of Maine’s 170,000 deer hunters to achieve neededharvests of antlerless deer. Consequently, we limit participation in antlerless deerhunting during the firearms and muzzleloader seasons using variable quota deerpermits or “any-deer” permits. This document details how any-deer permits arecalculated to regulate overall doe harvest and annual mortality in our efforts to attainMaine’s deer population goals and objectives.This is a technical report and it does not address social, political, or economic issuesrelated to deer management in Maine. These issues were addressed earlier in theWhite-tailed Deer Assessment and Strategic Plan (Lavigne 1999).May 200711
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemREGULATORY AUTHORITYAs with all wildlife in Maine, white-tailed deer are a publicly owned resource that is heldin trust for the benefit of all Maine people. The Maine Legislature has charged MDIFWwith the responsibility to “preserve, protect, and enhance the inland fisheries and wildliferesources of the State; to encourage the wise use of these resources; to ensurecoordinated planning for the future use and preservation of these resources, and toprovide for effective management of these resources.” The Wildlife Division within theBureau of Resource Management is responsible for the Department’s wildlifemanagement programs. The Maine Legislature has defined “Wildlife Management” as“the art and science of producing wild animals and birds and/or improving wildlifeconditions in the State”. According to the State’s definition of wildlife management, itspecifically includes the regulation of hunting. Authority for regulation of deerpopulations is conferred to the Department by statute (State of Maine Inland Fisheriesand Wildlife Laws 12 MRSA Part 10). In addition, MDIFW is authorized to promulgaterules under the Administrative Procedures Act to fine-tune regulations that may need tochange annually or in various locations in Maine. Although most statutes and ruleslisted here apply to deer hunting, MDIFW is also empowered to address excessivepredation on deer by coyotes and depredation losses to dogs through its AnimalDamage Control Program and wildlife depredation statutes.A synopsis of the various statutes and rulemaking activities that provide the context fordeer harvest management in Maine is presented in Table 1. The statutes themselvesMay 200712
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemTable 1. Synopsis of statutory vs. rulemaking authority granted to MDIFW from theMaine Legislature.STATUTORY AUTHORITYRULEMAKING AUTHORITYTime frame established within which all deerseasons must occur (early Sept. to mid-Dec)Five distinct hunting seasons are authorized,i.e. regular firearms, muzzleloader, youth day,statewide archery, and expanded archerySeason length and starting dates maybe adjusted annuallySeasons may be closed on emergency basisState may be divided into hunting zones ormanagement districtsExpanded archery zones and WMDboundaries may be adjusted as neededCommissioner may regulate the sex/agecomposition of deer harvest during regularfirearms and muzzleloader seasons. Deer ofeither sex legal for statewide archeryAny-deer and bonus any-deer permitsare adjusted annually by WMD. Deerof either sex allowed during youth day.Bag limit on deer fixed at one deer in aggregatefor regular firearms, muzzleloader, youth day,and statewide archery seasons. Bag limit isseparate and may vary for expanded archeryNo bag limit on deer taken in expandedarchery season. Hunters mustpurchase permit for each deer prior tohuntCommissioner may initiate special huntingseasons to address deer overabundanceDetails (timing, permits, bag limits,locations) established on a case bycase basisCommissioner may implement depredationRulemaking not requiredhunts, sharpshooting, trap and transfer, orfertility control to address deer overabundanceGame wardens may issue depredation permitsto qualifying landowners to relieve deer damageto certain agricultural cropsLandowners may kill deer while causingsubstantial damage to their propertyHunters required to be licensed and to registerharvested deer, enabling Dept. to monitorhunter participation and harvestVarious statutes address safety, fair chase,prohibited actsMay 200713
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management Systemare detailed in Appendix 1. Overall, the Department now has considerable authorityand flexibility to address deer harvest management needs ranging from extremescarcity to overabundance and at landscales varying from individual landownerships toaggregates of WMDs. The ability to regulate antlerless harvests using the any-deerpermit system and the various types of controlled hunts and special seasons enhancesour ability to attain deer population goals and objectives. Since most harvest authorityresides within the Department, we are able to react quickly when major changes in nonharvest mortality (e.g., abnormally severe or mild winters) alter deermortality/recruitment balances.Despite ample regulatory authority to manage deer populations our efforts are to anincreasing degree hampered by limited access for deer hunting. Land posting,municipal firearm discharge bans, and residential sprawl limit our ability to attain deerpopulation objectives at local and more extensive landscales. This problem wasidentified during the assessment process; some strategies to deal with the accessproblem are being pursued.May 200714
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemMANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVESDeer population goals and objectives established for 2000 to 2015 (Table 2) are bestinterpreted in the context of those previously established. During the previous planningera (1985 to 1999) we sought to increase deer populations in all WMDs (Lavigne 1986).Deer populations had been declining since the late 1960s in response to severe winters,loss of wintering habitat, increased predation, and inadequate regulation of deerharvests. With more deer hunters (214,000) than deer (160,000) in Maine during theearly 1980s there was a considerable unfulfilled demand for more huntable andwatchable deer in most parts of the state. The only exceptions at that time wereMaine’s coastal islands and some urban/suburban environments where firearm huntingwas precluded.During the 1985-1999 planning era, deer population objectives were similar for allWMDs, i.e., to increase deer populations to 50% to 60% of maximum supportablepopulation (MSP) and then maintain the herd at that level. MSP is defined as themaximum number of deer that can be supported without incurring starvation lossesgiven current amounts of wintering habitat. MSP differs from “K” carrying capacitywhenever the amount of wintering habitat prevents attainment of deer densities thatcould be supported on summer range alone. The probability that deer density at MSPwill differ from density at K increases with increasing winter severity for deer.May 200715
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemTable 2. White-tailed Deer Management Goals and Objectives, 2000-2015.Wildlife Management Districts 1-11Short-term Goal:Provide hunting and viewing opportunity for white-taileddeer, while preventing over-browsing of deer winteringhabitat.Short-term Objective:Bring the deer population to 50% to 60% of the carryingcapacity of the wintering habitat by the year 2004, thenmaintain at that level.Long-term Goal:Increase hunting and viewing opportunity for white-taileddeer, while preventing over-browsing of deer winteringhabitat.Long-term Objective:Increase deer wintering habitat to 8% of the land base toensure sufficient wintering habitat to accommodate a posthunt population of 10 deer/mi2 by the year 2030 (or sooner),and then maintain as for the short-term objective.Wildlife Management Districts 12, 13, 14 and 18Short-term Goal:Provide hunting and viewing opportunity for white-taileddeer, while preventing over-browsing of deer winteringhabitat.Short-term Objective:Bring the deer population to 50% to 60% of the carryingcapacity of the wintering habitat by the year 2004, thenmaintain at that level.Long-term Goal:Increase hunting and viewing opportunity for white-taileddeer, while preventing over-browsing of deer winteringhabitat.Long-term Objective:Increase deer wintering habitat to 9 to10% of the land baseto ensure sufficient wintering habitat to accommodate a posthunt population of 15 deer/mi2 (when on summer range) bythe year 2030 (or sooner), and then maintain as for theshort-term objective.May 200716
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemTable 2. White-tailed Deer Management Goals and Objectives, 2000-2015 (cont.)Wildlife Management Districts 19, 27, and 28Short-term Goal:Provide hunting and viewing opportunity for white-taileddeer, while preventing over-browsing of deer winteringhabitat.Short-term Objective:Bring the deer population to 50 to 60% of the carryingcapacity of the wintering habitat by the year 2004, thenmaintain at that level.Long-term Goal:Increase hunting and viewing opportunity for white-taileddeer, while preventing over-browsing of deer winteringhabitat.Long-term Objective:Increase deer wintering habitat to 9 to10% of the land baseto ensure sufficient wintering habitat to accommodate a posthunt population of 15 deer/mi2 (when on summer range) bythe year 2030 (or sooner), and then maintain as for theshort-term objective.Wildlife Management Districts 16, 17, 22, 23, and 26Goal:Balance the desire for deer hunting and viewing opportunity with the needto reduce negative impacts of deer from browsing damage, collisions withmotor vehicles, and potential risk of Lyme disease.Objective:Bring the post hunt deer population to 20 deer/mi2 (or no higher than 60%of Maximum Supportable Population) by 2004, then maintain.Wildlife Management Districts 15, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 29Goal:Balance the desire for deer hunting and viewing opportunity with the needto reduce negative impacts of deer from browsing damage, collisions withmotor vehicles, and potential risk of Lyme disease.Objective:Bring the post hunt deer population to 15 deer/mi2 (or no higher than 60%of Maximum Supportable Population) by 2004, then maintain.May 200717
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemDeer population objectives for 1985-1999 were set at only 50% to 60% of MSP toassure that deer remained in good physical condition, were reasonably productive, andwere less likely to over-utilize forage in either winter or summer habitat. At the outset,we anticipated that deer in central and southern Maine WMDs could attain higherdensities at 50 to 60% MSP than deer in eastern and northern Maine WMDs because ofmore favorable wintering conditions (less reliance on deer wintering areas or DWAs),greater availability of DWAs, and higher recruitment rates (Lavigne 1986). In addition,we anticipated greater responsiveness of deer populations to changes in doe harvestamong central and southern Maine WMDs because hunting mortality there was agreater contributor to all-cause annual losses.Between 1985 and 1999 we attempted to increase deer populations by reducing doeharvests using the any-deer permit system. In most areas, we actually began curtailingdoe harvests in 1983, using a combination of bucks-only and either-sex days. Duringthe 1980s and 1990s we reduced doe harvests by 50% relative to harvests attainedunder deer of either-sex regulations during 1978-82 (Lavigne 1999). In eastern andnorthern Maine WMDs even greater reductions in doe harvest were achieved; buck-onlyregulations were nearly constantly implemented in eastern WMDs.By the late 1990s we had succeeded in increasing the statewide herd from its nadir of160,000 wintering deer during 1978-82, to nearly 300,000 deer during 1997-99.May 200718
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemAs expected, central and southern Maine WMDs exhibited the greatest response toconservative doe harvesting, helped along by moderating wintering conditions. Amongcentral and southern WMDs, we had attained wintering densities of 15 deer/mi2 to 35deer/mi2 by 1999; up from 5 deer/mi2 to 20 deer/mi2 in the early 1980s. Yet despitethese population gains, deer populations in central and southern Maine WMDs had notyet attained 50-60% MSP. Recent estimates of MSP in central and southern Mainerange between 40 and 60 deer/mi2 (Lavigne 1999).During the 1980s and 1990s the impacts of growing deer herds were becomingincreasingly apparent. Deer sightings and buck hunting yield increased in proportion toregional herd increase. However, so too did collisions with motor vehicles andcomplaints about browsing damage to crops and ornamental plantings. In areas thatwere favorable for survival of deer ticks, increasing deer populations were linked toincreased human risk of contracting Lyme disease (Rand et al 2003).During the 1980s and 1990s development for residential housing intensified in manylocations within central and southern Maine (Lavigne 1999). This had the simultaneouseffects of increasing potential conflicts between people and deer and of impeding effortsto control deer populations using recreational hunting with firearms. Overcomingobstacles to deer control posed by municipal firearms discharge bans, land postedagainst hunting, and safety zones in developed areas, has received increasing attentionby MDIFW during the past 10 to 15 years.May 200719
ME Dept. of Inland Fisheries & WildlifeDeer Population Management SystemAt the statewide level there has been an ongoing change in hunter demographics thathas the potential to affect deer management strategies. Since 1992, Maine hasexperienced a net loss of 46,000 deer hunters (Lavigne 1999) caused primarily byinadequate recruitment of new hunters to replace the loss of older hunters. Thisdecline in hunter participation has been gradual. Although this trend may satisfysociety’s demand for more deer per hunter, it also poses challenges to our ability toachieve the deer harvests that are required to control populations. This latter factnecessitates greater flexibility and innovation i
need the hunting effort of all of Maine’s 170,000 deer hunters to achieve needed harvests of antlerless deer. Consequently, we limit participation in antlerless deer hunting during the firearms and muzzleloader seasons using variable quota deer permits or “any-deer” permits. This document details how any-deer permits are
12 Chapter 1 Introduction to the Whitetails of North America 13 1. O. v. virginianus – Virginia Whitetailed deer or Southern white-tailed deer 2. O. v. acapulcensis – Acapulco white-tailed deer (southern Mexico) 3. O. v. borealis – Northern (woodland) white-tailed deer (the largest and darkest white-tailed deer
White-Tailed Deer deer population was approximately 1,400 animals (Jenkins and Provost Paul E. Johns and John C. Kilgo 1964). Within fifteen years, deer had expanded to all areas of the SRS From a public relations standpoint, the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus During the spring of 1965, estimated deer density exceeded 8 per km2
overall beauty. In either case, humans are always impressed to catch a glimpse of a white-tailed deer. White-tailed deer are members of the cervid family which is represented in the United States by four genera; Cervus (elk), Alces (moose), Odocoileus (mule deer and white-tailed deer), and Rangifer (caribou). In the modern form,
The 2017 Indiana White-tailed Deer Report is a com-prehensive report of the state's deer herd including the deer hunting season results, use of depredation permits, deer-vehicle collision reports, disease monitoring efforts, and survey results. Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) reviewed the 5-year Deer Management plan in early 2017.
White-tailed deer are highly adaptable generalists, which utilize diverse habitats across the landscape. Nevertheless, because of seasonal changes in weather, forage availability, and nutritional demands, white-tailed deer require a different mix of habitat components at different
fed, free-ranging white-tailed deer were demonstrably larger and more productive than unfed deer12, 13; others point out that providing white-tailed deer with forages during the winter when some starvation would normally occur could cause populations that regulated hunting would be unable to control14, 15. This is one possible
Managing Your Woodland for White-tailed Deer Behavior and Home Range White-tailed deer make seasonal changes in the use and size of their home range in response to changing weather, food availability and cover needs. In Minnesota's northern forests an adult doe's seasonal home range is between 120-900 acres. Yearling does
Annex L : API Standard 650 Storage Tank Data Sheet Annex M : Requirements for Tanks Operating at Elevated Temperatures Annex P : Allowable External Loads on Tank Shell Openings Annex S : Austenitic Stainless Steel Storage Tanks Annex V : Design of Storage Tanks for External Pressure Hossein Sadeghi WELDED TANKS FOR OIL STORAGE (Rev. 0) 12 STANDARD INTRODUCTION. Hossein Sadeghi WELDED TANKS FOR .
