t 9, ?‘ ‘ x??¥%§i,g‘; 2:31,“ - s) , . u, . at «3. Wag * 'i 43"“: st» a"? jaw? w ~ aw! i N cf? - u r w. ‘5 a . .-:.=:e- "7 arm w .24.;- .125"- 5:3" A y . '1’“ $1; 3'? "“ELQ' “*Tt at :2‘ 22: -fit'& . __. “:4. ”I" ,0 ‘ 1:2? 3 c, um; 5!: 3P3; \ a 1%, V :4;- ‘ . ;._ “1,...” =3}: ,3 . 1‘ .gag‘gzgmfi 2.3" mg; 3:. 3 ".39 “z 2349:; .lifi‘ 3": " " . : %}«;:1 :32 '0' r, ' 'c' «a. «fern ,. ‘3')” - ”:37: ..- .._ u. «at... ,.. < 9' .p 1 I > ' V" a“ "35' "N “u‘ v v .f’ :1 ! -0 vfl“'q“w ‘1. a... lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 31293 014051944 This is to certify that the thesis entitled POPULATION SIZE ESTIMATION AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR A LOCAL POPULATION OF WHITE-TAILED DEER (ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS) presented by Hark Earl Moore has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MASTER OF SCIENCE degree in FISHERIES & WILDLIFE (’5 5‘ , -——>"’cs:d MUV’JZM‘QQG‘ Major professor Date Iallqlqs’ 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution , _ ._ t _ , I _ _ _ _ ._J LEEPARY Michigan State University PLACE II RETURN BOX to remove thin checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or bdoro dot. duo. DATE DUE DATE‘DIEE DATE DUE JAN 1 0 C7 3 :3 /‘ (J‘f‘w'z ‘j a (Q A 0:14,; Mam ;_ Wm M “an 5,: 3?..2127975‘3 MSUIsAn“ '1 :r M POPULATION SIZE ESTIMATION AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR A LOCAL POPULATION OF WHITE-TAILED DEER (QDQQQILEHS EIEGINIANHS) BY Mark Earl Moore A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1995 ABSTRACT POPULATION SIZE ESTIMATION AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR A LOCAL POPULATION OF WHITE-TAILED DEER (QDQQQILEHS MIBQINIANHS) BY Mark Earl Moore Infrared triggered cameras and monitors were used to census white—tailed deer (ngggileus giggigiagus) on South Fox Island, a 1,400 ha. island in Lake Michigan in Lelanau County, Michigan. Twenty-day censuses were conducted in September (pre—harvest) and the last two weeks of November and the first two weeks of December (post harvest) of 1993 and 1994. The population was estimated using: (1) pellet group surveys, (2) Lincoln-Peterson estimators utilizing camera and harvest data, (3) the ratio estimator of individually identifiable fork antlered bucks to spike bucks, bucks:does, and does:fawns from the camera data, and (4) the change-in-ratio of males to females in the pre- and post harvest camera censuses. A modified Lincoln-Peterson and the ratio estimator yielded the best estimates during the post harvest censuses when compared to population estimates derived from the harvest data. Infrared camera systems can be effectively used to monitor deer in their natural habitat. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project could not have been successfully completed without the assistance of many people. I would like to express my appreciation to my major professor Dr. Scott R. Winterstein for all of his help, support, and professional wisdom that he so graciously bestowed upon me. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Rique Campa and Dr. James Sikarski, DVM. for their assistance in reviewing my manuscript. A special thanks to Dr. Harry Jacobson from Mississippi State University for his expert assistance, for reviewing my manuscript, and for the use of his drop-nets. I extend my gratitude to David V. Johnson with Victor International and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division for funding and making this project possible. This project was partially supported by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act under Pittman— Robertson project W-127-R. A special thanks to all Mirada Ranch employees who assisted me in the field and helped to make this project a success. I would like to extend my appreciation to Island Airways for safely transporting me and my supplies to and from the island. South Fox Island proved to be a wonderful place and without the support of the hunters this project would not iii have been as successful. Thanks to all MDNR personnel who assisted with pellet group surveys each spring. I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the faculty and staff at Michigan State University's, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife for allowing me to have this opportunity to further my education. I thank my entire family for allowing me to have the opportunity to broaden my horizons and for their support through the many missed holidays and special events. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................... Vii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................ X CHAPTER I. POPULATION ESTIMATION OF WHITE-TAILED DEER ON SOUTH FOX ISLAND .............................. 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................... l OBJECTIVES ....................................... 3 STUDY AREA AND HISTORY ........................... 3 CAPTURE METHODS ................................. 12 CAMERA STATIONS ................................. 14 HARVEST DATA .................................... 21 STATISTICAL APPLICATIONS ........................ 22 Pellet Group Counts ........................... 22 Mark-recapture Estimator ...................... 23 Modified Lincoln-Peterson ..................... 28 Ratio Estimator ............................... 32 Change—in—Ratio Estimator ..................... 34 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................... 37 Photographic Data ............................. 37 Harvest Data .................................. 41 Pellet Group .................................. 41 Lincoln—Peterson .............................. 44 Chapman Estimator ............................. 46 Modified Lincoln-Peterson ..................... 46 Ratio Estimator ............................... 49 Change-in—Ratio ............................... Sl Helicopter Survey ............................. 51 Economic Analysis ............................. 52 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ................. 54 II. QUALITY WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT ................. 6O LITERATURE CITED .......................................... 64 APPENDIX A. HUNTER HARVEST DATA FOR 1993 AND 1994 ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS ON SOUTH FOX ISLAND, MI ................................... 67 B. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF EQUATIONS LISTED IN TEXT .......................................... 80 C. COST ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATING INFRARED CAMERA SYSTEMS ................................... 81 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Time table for South Fox Island's population size estimation research project .................... 13 2. White-tailed deer tagged on South Fox Island, MI during 1993-1995 ................................. 38 3. Photographs of white-tailed deer on South Fox Island, MI during 1993 and 1994 pre- and post harvest camera census periods .............. 4O 4. Age, gender, averaged dressed weight and number of antlered points, and total number of white-tailed deer harvested on South Fox Island, MI during the 1993 hunting season ................... 42 5. Age, gender, average dressed weight and number of antlered points, and total number of white-tailed deer harvested on South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 hunting season ........... 43 6. Summary of all white-tailed deer population estimates for 1993-1995 on South Fox Island, MI ................................................. 55 7. Mean antler measurements (inches) of all bucks harvested on South Fox Island, MI during the 1993 and 1994 white—tailed deer hunting seasons ...................................... 62 A1. Age, gender, average dressed weight and number of antlered points, and total number of white-tailed deer harvested on South Fox Island's public hunting area during the 1993 hunting season ................................ 67 vii A2. Age, gender, average dressed weight and number of antlered points, and total number of white-tailed deer harvested on South Fox Island's private hunting area during the 1993 hunting season ................................ 68 A3. Number of antlered points for each buck harvested by age class for private and public hunting areas on South Fox Island during the 1993 white—tailed deer hunting season ............................................. 69 A4. Public land hunters kill tag numbers and deer harvested on South Fox Island during the 1993 white-tailed deer hunting season ............................................. 70 A5. Private land hunters kill tag numbers and deer harvested on South Fox Island during the 1993 white-tailed deer hunting season ............................................. 71 A6. Age, gender, average dressed weight and number of antlered points, and total number of white-tailed deer harvest on the public hunt area for South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 hunting season ..................... 73 A7. Age, gender, average dressed weight and number of antlered points, and total number of white-tailed deer harvest on the private hunt area for South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 hunting season ..................... 74 A8. Number of antlered points for each buck harvested by age class for private and public hunting areas on South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 white-tailed deer hunting season ..................................... 75 A9. Public land hunters kill tag numbers and deer harvested on South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 white-tailed deer hunting season ..................................... 76 A10. Private land hunters kill tag numbers and deer harvested on South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 white-tailed deer hunting season ..................................... 78 viii Bl. C1. Numerical solutions for the 1994 post harvest population estimates from the Lincoln-Peterson and Chapman estimators based on photographic and hunter harvest data collected on South Fox Island, MI ............. 80 An itemized list of all expenses associated with running infrared camera systems, all numbers are approximate .............................. 81 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Location of South Fox Island, Leelanau County, MI ................................................... 4 2. Distribution of public and private lands on South Fox Island, MI ................................. 6 3. Distribution of public and private lands on South Fox Island, MI during white-tailed deer hunting season. Private land hunters can hunt on public lands ............................. 7 4. White—tailed deer harvested on South Fox Island, Michigan from 1965 to 1994, all numbers are approximate (Unpublished P.R. report, MDNR, Wildlife Division) ................................. 10 5. A passive infrared monitor and camera set-up on South Fox Island, MI ................................ 16 6. An active infrared receiver, transmitter, and camera set-up on South Fox Island, MI ........... 17 7. Distribution of nineteen camera stations (*) on South Fox Island, MI. Each block represents approximately 65—ha ................................. 20 Chaptor 1. Population Estimation of Whito-tailod Door on South Fox Inland INIBQDQCIIQN White-tailed deer (ngggilgug yirginianus) are one of Michigan's most prized big game mammals. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1982), of all the managed wildlife species, none are as popular or more commonly hunted than the white—tailed deer. With an ever increasing number of archery and firearm deer hunters (Winterstein et a1. 1995), the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) will need more efficient and more accurate population estimators to manage the state's deer herd. Even though white-tailed deer have been studied extensively in Michigan, (Eberhart and Van Etten 1956, King 1970, Ozoga et. al. 1994, and Ryel 1971) researchers and managers contend that current population estimation techniques (e.g., pellet group counts) are time consuming and expensive to use. Additionally, it is questionable that they provide dependable population estimates. The science of wildlife population estimation confuses many wildlife biologist, yet it dictates every action that they take. Wildlife population estimation began with simple mark—recapture models that Lincoln and Peterson devised in the early 1900's (Seber 1982). From the Lincoln-Peterson model, many complex models have since evolved (e.g., Chapman and Jolley-Seber) (Seber 1982). Population indices are another way to look at 2 populations since they are directly related to the true population (Ratti and Garton 1994). An index should follow the same trends as the true population over time. Population indices (e.g., pellet group counts and call counts) are used by many wildlife management agencies as a basis for management recommendations and decisions. The MDNR has relied extensively on pellet group surveys (counts) (Eberhart and Van Etten 1956) to estimate white- tailed deer populations, even though it has come under extreme criticism over the past 40 years. According to Eberhart and Van Etten (1956), large errors in population estimates could result if: (1) not all pellet groups in the sample area are counted and (2) if old pellet groups are counted as new pellet groups. Van Etten and Bennett (1965) stated that population estimates from pellet group counts tend to be conservative. Fuller (1991) concluded that estimates by pellet group counts do not directly correlate to the true population size. The MDNR currently uses pellet group surveys, deer- vehicle accidents, and spot—light surveys in the northern 2/3 of the state to obtain deer population trends. In the southern lower peninsula the MDNR has been using sex-age kill data, deer-vehicle accident data, and crop damage data to estimate population trends. Although the pellet group survey is one of the most expensive and labor intensive it has a long tradition of use as a population estimator by the MDNR. QEQEQIIMES The main objective of the study was to compare and evaluate the usefulness of four techniques for population estimation of white—tailed deer on South Fox Island, Michigan. Estimators used were: (1) Pellet group counts (2) Mark-recapture estimator (3) Ratio estimator (4) Change-in—ratio estimator The pellet group index was compared to each of three estimators (mark-recapture, ratio, and change—in-ratio) derived from photographic data collected by infrared camera systems. A second objective of the study was to initiate and evaluate a quality white-tailed deer management program. SIHDX_ABEA_AND_HISIQBX South Fox Island offered a unique opportunity to study a closed population of white-tailed deer in their natural habitat. The study was conducted from August 1993, to December 1995. Benefits of using an island setting were that I could control the deer population by manipulating different harvest strategies and that I could control what types, of management activities, if any, were implemented. South Fox Island is located in Leelanau County in Lake Michigan approximately 48—km due west of Charlevoix (Figure 1.). The island is approximately 8-kn3 in size with 18.5-km DOMINION OF CANADA ‘. \I‘fi‘t-w '0' m0- uat «(on cunt «can 6011“ «K0 5"" tun «nun um (no: m M mm moon “I!!!“ CANADA _./" L A in: (RI: :égure 1. Location of South Fox Island, Leelanau County, 5 of shoreline. It is mostly forested with a few open fields around old homesteads. The dominant trees are American beech (Emma grandifnlia) . maple (Age: spp.), ash (Emma spp.), northern white cedar (Ibuja occidentalis), basswood (Till; spp.), and shumard oak (Quergug shumardii). One stand of Eastern white pine (Rings strgbus L.) is known to exist on the island. Soils are in the Deer Park-Dune land association and East Lake—Eastport-Lupton association (Weber 1973). Both tend to be moderate to well drained sandy loams. Average slopes range from 0 to 45%. There is one small pond (0.003 ha.) and a few smaller water holes on the island. South Fox Island is divided into public and private holdings with the public lands interspersed in the private lands (Figure 2.). Because of difficult hunter access and trespass problems an agreement was developed by the MDNR in 1971, to render only the northern 1/3 (484.4 ha.) of the island as public land during deer season, but private land hunters were allowed to hunt this area. The line is depicted by the township line between T 34 N and T 35 N (Figure 3). The southern 2/3 (968.8 ha.) of the island was for private land hunting only. No hunting by public or private land hunters was permitted on the southern 46.5 ha. surrounding the light house and dune areas. This agreement allowed public hunters to have access to a solid block of land, and it also reduced trespass problems. The agreement only persists for the hunting season and was strictly for hunting ‘r’ bk 1 d“ W7 W4- .- 04 '0”) --_fl'! 5 6339?.91» - . waist-”AZ.- if: - may 5" -/’- STATE-WED IAND Scok t==$ 0 la I M41 Figure 2. Distribution of public and private lands on South Fox Island, MI. -O_>Z 113 W. [ISM 1.5K \ 1.3414. 2 \ .loke Midigan can be ' \. 1.34 K euremely hazardous in ‘ ‘. 1 November. Booting amid ' ii be undertaken with great ’ core.Thereisnosheltered 4' ‘9‘~---; Il harborin which to coder. 6 \ ' I l I ----meumk Public Hunting D Private Hunting g No Hunting oermphg :‘ ll ill 0 l r :lt if: 0““ up”; \ ' Jig, l! 3.31” mfi kxh it r. ° W" tow Figure 3. Distribution of public and private lands on South Fox Island, MI during white-tailed deer hunting season. Private land hunters can hunt on public lands. rights. Deer were first introduced to the island in 1915 by the MDNR (Hatt et a1. 1948). The deer population grew to an estimated 40 individuals by 1925. In the ensuing years, the population dramatically decreased due to unrestricted harvests by island residents. While surveying the island's deer herd and habitat Bartlett (1945) noticed only one set of deer tracks on the northern end of the island. White-tailed deer were reintroduced for a second time by the MDNR in 1962, with 17 deer released, six males and eleven females (Craker 1983). All deer originated from wild pen-raised Michigan stock and were of known age except for one buck (Harger and Cook 1972). According to Harger and Cook (1972), the deer that originally inhabited the island as a result of the 1915 release had been exterminated prior to the 1962 release. The 1962 release followed a recent logging operation that allowed the deer to have an abundance of browse available the following spring. Bartlett (1945) noted a thick understory composed mostly of American yew (Iaxus madensisl , dogWoods (Camus spp.). Mibmznnm spp.. and elders (Sambugus app.) that was impenetrable in places. The first year after the release, two female fawns were known to have died (Craker 1983). The remaining 15 individuals populated South Fox Island. Following the 1962 release, the deer herd exploded and by the late 1960's, the MDNR was trying to bring the herd 9 under control. The MDNR was concerned that the deer would over-exploit the island, and severe winters would result in die—offs. South Fox Island is part of the Beaver Island Wildlife Research Area, and, consequently, the Department of Conservation (presently the MDNR) authorized an experimental hunt which allowed for more does to be harvested (Harger and Cook 1972). The experimental hunt allowed a hunter to kill three deer with one being a buck. In the 1970's, the deer herd hit an all time high. Approximately 76 deer per square mile were estimated on the island in 1970, (Craker 1983). Over the next three years (1969-1971), 689 deer were killed. The MDNR decided the deer herd had been brought under control by the mid 1970's and that 100 deer would have to be harvested annually to keep the population under control. Following the population peak in the 1970's, many favorable browse species, such as American yew declined. King (1970) estimated that 25% of the American yew had been consumed and many of the Northern white cedars had moderate browse lines. The MDNR had planned to do some timber cuttings to enhance the understory, but before any habitat improvements were conducted, the owner of the private lands died in a 1973 airplane crash on the island (Craker 1983) and the new owners were not interested in deer management. Although the private land owners lost interest in the deer on the island, deer harvests continued with some 3,848 deer being killed by public and private hunters over the past 29 years (Figure 4). 10 .Eo_m_>_o 652:5 .mzoz .toao. .mm 855333 925033 9m 9628:: =8 .33 2 mm? Ea: 59:25. .966. xou Snow :0 commie; Como 3:36:53 .v 659“. ”50> m3? mom? ___1____. .1 O L _ a I a _ . _ O O N com L 1360 so iaqwnN co.—q com 11 In 1988, the private lands were purchased by David V. Johnson. Mr. Johnson was reluctant to harvest any deer the first year but, with persuasion from employee's and the MDNR, deer harvest were continued. In 1992, the MDNR contacted Mr. Johnson about helping to fund a study on the island's deer herd. In 1993, this project was started in cooperation with Mr. Johnson and the MDNR. 12 CARIBBE_MEIHQDS Deer were trapped using a modification of the drOp-net technique described by Ramsey (1968) and clover traps described by Clover (1956). Whole shelled corn was used as the primary attractant along with minerals and apples. Each trapping location was baited prior to setting nets up to determine if any deer were attracted to the site. Before trapping began and after the nets were set-up, each station was baited for two to three days or longer depending on deer response. The delay gave deer time to become habituated to the nets and/or traps. Drop nets were utilized from early Fall, after the bucks had rubbed out of velvet, through December (Table 1). Clover traps were utilized the second year from early Fall through the winter months. Deer were anesthetized with Xyalazine hydrochloride (Rompum; 2.2 mg/kg of body weight) (Day et a1. 1980) after they were captured to ensure the safety of the deer and the researchers. The anesthetized deer were removed from the nets and marked with color and number coded cattle ear tags (National Band and Tag Co. Newport, Ky) in one or both ears. A numbered metal clip tag was also placed in the ear to differentiate between sexes. Males were tagged in the upper top part of the right ear and females in the upper top part of the left ear. After the deer had been marked, they were given injections of an antibiotic Liquamycin (LA-200; 8.8 mg/kg of body weight) and a reversal drug (Yobine; 0.1 mg/kg of body (I) 13 Table 1. Time table for South Fox Island's population size estimation research project. Activity Data. 1993 Trapping 15 August - 1 October 26 November - 8 December Camera set-up 24 September — 25 October 27 November - 20 December Hunting Season Archery 1 October - 28 October Firearms 30 October - 26 November 1994 Trapping 1 January — 1 April 1 August — 10 December Camera set—up 5 September - 30 September 24 November - 13 December ZHunting Season Archery 1 October - 28 October Firearms 30 October - 26 November IPellet Group Survey 9 May - 12 May 1995 Pellet Group Survey 1 May - 5 May Iielicopter Survey 15 March (9:30-10:30 a.m.) 14 weight). The antibiotic was intended to help combat any infections due to trapping and/or handling related injuries. Each deer was monitored until it was able to walk away from the trapping site. All trapping, handling, and marking procedures were reviewed and approved by the All-University Committee on Animal use and Care (AUF Number: 01/94-029-01). CAMEBA_$IAIIQN$ Infrared camera triggered systems have been successfully used to monitor mule deer (ngggileug hemignus), black bear (Ursus ameriganus), moose (Algesyalges), turkey (Meleagrifi gallgpayg), white—tailed deer, gray fox (Urggygn cineregargenteus). grizzly bears (grams arenas). and wild pigs (fins figxgfia) (Kucera and Barrett 1993 and Kucera and Barrett 1995). Foster and Humphrey (1995) used Trailmaster® (Lenexa, KS) monitors and camera systems to monitor highway underpass use of Florida panthers (E3115 gongglgr,ggzyi) along a portion of Interstate 75 in southwestern Florida. The Trailmaster® systems provided a non-intrusive mechanism for studying wild animals in their natural habitat. A study conducted in Mississippi by Jacobson et al. (In Press) employed the use of photographs taken by infrared camera systems at bait stations to estimate the population of a local white-tailed deer herd in a forested environment. Their study also provided an evaluation of three population estimators and determined if they could be economically and efficiently used to measure the size of a local white—tailed 15 deer herd. In the current study, Trailmaster® camera systems were used to take photographs of marked and unmarked deer at various camera stations locations. Camera stations consisted of mineral licks that were baited with whole shelled corn, salt, and minerals. Camera stations were monitored daily until a deer visitation pattern could be determined and then only every other day. Data were collected from the monitors when a roll of film (ISO 200, 36 exposure color print) had been exposed. Corn (approximately 3.5—kg) was replenished every other day as needed. Salt and minerals (approximately 2-kg) were initially put out at the onset of every camera census period (pre- and post-harvest). The camera systems had two different configurations, a passive system and an active system. The passive system utilized passive infrared technology to detect the presence of animals based on body heat and motion (Figure 5). Movements of a warm-blooded animal passing through the area of sensitivity, were recorded and/or the animal's picture was taken. The active system employed a two component set-up with a transmitter and a receiver (Figure 6). An animal had to walk between the units and break the beam for the receiver to record an event and/or take the animal's picture. The passive system's area of sensitivity is typically 20-m.deep and spreads in an elliptical cone 150°*wide and 4° high. The elliptical cone was reduced to 90° by placing electrical tape over portions of the front lens. The number Post or tree Camera l F3531) Receiver V /l.0 m Ll ~4.0m 16 Post or Tree \ca Transtr 431‘: ~75 cm Figure 6. An active infrared receiver, transmitter, and camera set—up on South Fox Island, MI. Post or tree ——9- Monitor \ l ~75 cm\ 0 U 000 1 17 Camera ~l.0m .._.;b:,3".:~, . 4": an ‘ :ooe‘og‘". ’ .D‘fbo‘w ’53. "o .' Figure 5. A passive infrared monitor and camera set-up on South Fox Island, MI. 18 of pulses (P) was set at 3-5; thus, three to five pulses had to be interrupted before the monitor recognized an event. Stations with low growing vegetation in the outer perimeter of the elliptical cone required a higher pulse setting than stations without any low growing vegetation due to adverse effects by wind. The pulse time (Pt) was set on three to four. The deer had to cover three to five pulses in a three to four second time period to be counted. The passive monitors were placed on posts 2—4 m from the bait at 60-76 cm above the ground. The active system's transmitter and receiver were set- up on posts two to four meters apart at 61-76 cm above the ground. Pulses were transmitted every 0.5 seconds. The animal had to break the beam for five pulses before an event was recorded by the receiver. Olympus Infinity Twin® (Olympus Corp., Crossways Park, Woodbury, NY) cameras were modified to be triggered by an electrical pulse from Trailmaster® receivers. Cameras were equipped with a quartz clock that allowed the date and time to be displayed‘on each exposure. In addition, cameras were equipped with an automatic flash that could either be turned on all the time or just set to come on at low light levels. The cameras were attached to the receivers with an 8—m cable, allowing flexibility in the placement of the cameras in relation to the receiver. Both systems were set up to collect data 24-hours a day. A five to seven minute camera delay was placed on both 19 systems. The camera delay prevented cameras from taking photographs each time the infrared beam was broken after an initial photograph had been taken. The camera photographed the next event after the selected delay period, but event data continued to be collected and stored during the delay period. Nineteen camera stations were systematically distributed over the entire island at various mineral licks and/or major deer trails giving a coverage of l camera/65—ha (Figure 7). Eight monitors were passive systems and eleven were active systems. Jacobson et al. (In Press) determined that approximately 20 camera stations were sufficient to photograph most of the island's deer population. They determined that 1 camera/65—ha accurately estimated the population of a local white-tailed deer herd in Mississippi. The cameras collected data (pre-harvest census) from 24 September 1993 through 25 October 1993 and 5 September 1994 through 30 September 1994. To ensure their safety, camera stations were dismantled and removed during hunting season (1 October - 26 November). All stations started collecting data (post-harvest census) again after all the hunters left the island, 22 November 1993 and 24 November 1994, and ran until 8 December 1993 and 13 December 1994, respectively. 20 -O>Z Seek O l ”2 m... Figrue 7. Distribution of nineteen camera stations (*) on South Fox Island, MI. Each block represents approximately 6S-ha. 21 HABYESI_DAIA All deer harvested on South Fox Island were checked at one of two check stations. One check station was located on the public end of the island and served the public land hunters. The other check station was located on the private end and was utilized by private land hunters. The following data were collected from all the harvested deer: (1) weight (2) age (3) sex (4) antler measurements (5) lactation. Weight was measured to the nearest five pounds. The lower jaw was removed from each deer using a jaw extractor (Marshall et al. 1964) and age determined by mandibular tooth wear and replacement (Larson and Taber 1980). All ages were recorded in half year increments (i.e. fawns are 0.5 years). Antler measurements followed MDNR antler measurement guidelines for all males (inside spread, main beam lengths, and circumference of main beams). Larger males (i.e. males 2.5 years old and older) were measured according to Boone and Crocket standards (Nessbit and Wright 1985) with the only deviation being that the antlers were not dried. For females, lactation was recorded as either milk present or not. Some female reproductive tracts were examined in the field to determine ovulation rates. 22 STATISTICAL_AEELI§AIIQN§ The primary focus of the study was to examine and compare different methodologies for estimating the size of a local deer population. The four population estimation techniques were: (1) Pellet groups counts (2) Mark-recapture estimator (3) Ratio estimator (4) Change-in-ratio estimator The data collected from the photographs were used in the latter three estimators. We Pellet group counts (Eberhart 1957) were conducted each spring by the MDNR in association with Michigan State University (MSU) researchers according to MDNR standards. The population was estimated using he following equation: 19 = X}; * (plotsize) '1 * size of study area (1 - 1) deposition period * defecation rate *- number of plots where: IV = population estimate ng = mean number of pellet groups per plot 23 Assumptions of pellet group sampling are: (l) the defecation rate is constant, (2) all pellet groups are counted, (3) the age of all pellet groups can be easily determined, (4) a defecation period can be delineated (Ryel 1971). Sixty—one transects 119 meters apart running east and west were established on the island in 1994. Ten lines were randomly picked and deleted from the survey. A random starting distance (i.e., where the first plot would be) was drawn because every line and every plot after that was systematically placed every 201 meters. Long rectangular plots (3.7—m.x 22.1—m; 0.008-ha) were established at 45° to the right of the course line. Fifty—two transects 137-m apart running east and west were established on the island in 1995. Twenty—four lines were randomly drawn with pellet courses running on these 24 lines. Plots were established along the course lines similar to the 1994 design. Wm: The mark-recapture estimator followed the Lincoln— Peterson method (Pollock et al. 1990) to estimate the population size. The following formula was used to estimate the population: 24 (2.1) A): 5222 where: IV = population estimate n1 number of marked animals n2 = number of animals that were photographed “g n total number of marked animals that were photographed By using the pre-hunt photographs and hunter harvest data the size of the post-hunt herd was estimated. An estimate generated solely from post-hunt photographs was combined with the harvest data to check the pre-hunt estimate. Assumptions of the Lincoln-Peterson method are: (1) the population is closed to immigration and emigration, (2) all animals have equal probability of being captured in every sample, (3) marks are not lost or over-looked (Pollock et a1. 1990). Hunter harvest data collected during the white—tailed deer hunting season were used to get a Lincoln-Peterson pre— harvest estimate of the population: 25 (2.2) 10: fir—13 where: N = estimated population, n1 = total number of marked animals, n2 = total number of animals that were harvested, at, = total number of marked animals that were harvested, Two derivatives of the Lincoln-Peterson were used to compensate for some of the biases associated with antler and radio collar restrictions (see Chapter 2). (2.3) 10’ = ———(”’) (HI) ml where N’ = Population estimate except for radio collared individuals and males less than six points, M’ All marked individuals except radio collared deer and males less than 6 points, 12’ = Number of legall harvest deer except for bucks less t an 6 points, 26 m’ = Number of marked individuals harvested, and M”) (II/I) (2.4) it)” = _<______ mil where N” = Population estimate except for radio collared individuals, M” = All marked deer execpt radio collared ones, 12” = Number of deer harvested, m” = Number of marked deer harvested. A Chapman estimator was used to estimate the population from hunter harvest data. The Chapman estimator is an unbiased estimator of the population (Lancia et. al. 1994). (M+1) (n+1) 1?: c (m+1) (2.5) where NC = Population estimate, M = Total number of marked animals, n = Total number of animals harvested, m = Number of marked animals harvested. 27 Two derivatives of the original Chapman were used to try to compensate for some of the biases associated with antler and radio collar restrictions (see Chapter 2). (2.5) 19’: (“WNW”) c (m’ + 1) where N; = Population estimate except for radio collared individuals and males less than six points, M’ = All marked individuals except radio collared individuals and males less than six points, n’ = Number of legally harvested deer except males less than 6 points, 127’ = Number of marked animals harvested, and (2.7) N” = (”II + 1) ”I” + 1) c (m” + 1) ‘where Nc’.’ = Population estimate except for radio collared individuals, M” = Marked individuals except radio collared indi viduals, n” =’ Number harvested, m” = Number of marked individuals harvested. 28 H i'E' 3 I. J -E A modified Lincoln-Peterson index utilizing photographic data was developed and utilized to obtain a population estimate from: (1) The ratio of marked does to unmarked does in the photographs in relation to the total number of marked does, a (2.8) 11d: dH" Ad where t5 = estimated number of individual unmarked does photographed, a.d = number of marked individual does photographed, A.d = total number of marked doe occurrences in photographs, PM = total number of unmarked doe occurrences in photographs, and. hd (209) Rd=_Cd+Cd ad where Ra = estimated total doe population, total number of individually marked does. 0 a. II (2) (2.10) where he at Af Hf and (2.11) where R: C: (3) 29 The ratio of marked fawns to unmarked fawns in the photographs in relation to the total number of individually marked fawns, estimated number of individual unmarked fawns photographed, number of marked individual fawns photographed, total number of marked fawn occurrences in photographs, total number of unmarked fawn occurrences in photographs, _ h: 1H:"E'C}*'C} r estimated total fawn population, total number of individually marked fawns. The ratio of marked unbranched antler bucks to unmarked unbranched antlered bucks in the photographs in relation to the total number of (2.12) where and (2.13) (4) 30 individual marked unbranched antlered bucks (spikes), estimated number of individual unmarked spikes photographed, number of marked individual spikes photographed, total number of marked spike occurrences in photographs, total number of unmarked spike occurrences in photographs, uln- R = Sca+cs estimated total spike population total number of individual marked spikes. The ratio of marked branched antlered bucks to unmarked branched antlered bucks in the photographs in relation to individual marked branched antlered bucks, a (2.14) hb = _b£b Ab where 1% = estimated number of individual unmarked branched antlered bucks photographed, ab = number of individual marked branched antlered bucks photographed, . A.ID = total number of marked branched antlered buck occurrences in photographs, Pg = total number of unmarked branch antlered buck occurrences in photographs, and h ab DU a II estimated total branched antlered buck population, (M = total number of individual marked branched antlered bucks. A total population estimate was derived by summing all the individual component estimates: (2.16) fi=Rd+Rf+Rs+Rb where 32 N = population estimate E I. E l' The photographs were used to get an estimate of the total deer population. Individual bucks with branched antlers were identified by antler configuration. Any bucks with greater than or equal to one branched antler were considered branched antlered bucks (Jacobson et al. In Press). Ratio estimators were used to estimate the size of the deer herd by reconstructing the population from: (1) The ratio of branched antlered bucks to unbranched antlered bucks (spikes), (3.1) R8 AL“ N fa where R.II = ratio of total deer occurrences in photographs that were spike-antlered, N”,= total number of deer occurrences in photographs that were spike-antlered, INfa = total number of deer occurrences in photographs that were branched antlered, and 33 (3.2) Eb= (B*RS) +B where Eb== estimated total buck population, B = number of individually identified branched antlered bucks. (2) The ratio of bucks to does, .N (3.3) Rd=—d Nb where R.d = ratio of total adult deer occurrences in photographs that were does, kg = total number of adult deer occurrences in photographs that were does, 1% = total number of adult deer occurrences in photographs that were bucks, and (3.4) Ea==Ebi=Rd where Eh = estimated total doe population. (3) The ratio of fawns to does, 34 Nf (3-5) Rf: _ Nd where R.f = ratio of total antlerless deer occurrences in photographs that were fawns, bk = total number of antlerless deer occurrences in photographs that were fawns, and (3.6) EQ==EQfltRf where Ef== estimated total fawn population. A total population estimate was derived by summing all individual components: (3.7) 1\“7=1_=:,,+Ea,+1'3f where N = estimated population. :1 _. _ . E . The change-in-ratio estimator required that the population be split into two mutually exclusive groups, x- and y-types (antlered vs. antlerless); that the number of 35 individuals removed from the population be known; and that the number removed from one group be disproportional to their representation in the population (Lancia et al. 1994). The deer population was estimated by comparing the pre-hunt and post-hunt photographs. Assumptions associated with the change-in-ratio method are (Lancia et al. 1994): (1) x- and y-types have equal probability of being sampled (2) the population is closed except for harvest (3) number of removals for both x— and y-types is known (4) the proportion of x- or y-types in the harvest is different than in the population. If the ratio of x- and y-types (x-type animals = males; y- type animals = females) changes due to removal a new (post- removal) proportion of x—type animals can be calculated by using the following equation (Lancia et a1. 1994): (4.1) P2 = XVR" = _P1N1-R" Nl-R Nl-R where R7‘ = the number of x—types removed (known), RV = the number of y-types removed (known), R = Rx-rlg,= the total number of animals removed (known), P1 = Xl/N1 = the proportion of x-type animals before the removal (where N1 is the total population size before the removal), 36 P2 = ){2/N2 = the proportion of x—type animals after the removal (where N§.is the total population size after the removal), x1 = the number of x-type animals in the initial (pre-removal) population, Y3 — the number of y—type animals in the initial (pre—removal) population. By solving for 55 an estimator of total population.size before the removal can be calculated by using the following equation (Lancia et al. 1994): (R -RP ) (4.2) 10 = ——"——2— 1 (Pl-P2) where P1 and P2 are estimated from the photographs. The number of x-type animals in the population before removals can be estimated by (Lancia et al. 1994): (4.3) 21 = 161101 For other population parameter estimates, see Lancia et al. 1994. 37 BESULIS_AND_DISQHSSIQN Wm Sixteen deer were trapped before and during the 1993 pre-harvest census period using drop nets (Table 2). In 1994, 32 deer were trapped using drop nets and 9 using clover traps. Of these 62 individuals, 9 were marked with radio transmitting collars (Lotek Engineering Inc, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada). All radio collars were equipped with mortality sensors set on 7 hour delays. Deer were randomly selected for marking with the radio collars, although each sex and age class (malezfemale and/or fawn:adult) was equally represented. In 1993, 371 and 166 deer photos were taken during the pre- and post harvest census, respectively (Table 3). Of the 16 deer marked prior to the pre-harvest census, only 2 (12.5%) were photographed by the infrared camera monitors. During the post harvest census, 4 (26.6%) out of the 14 (2 deer were harvested during the hunting season) marked deer were photographed. In 1994, 2,106 and 2,396 deer photos were taken during the pre- and post harvest census periods, respectively (Table 3). Of the 45 marked individuals prior to the pre-harvest census, 18 (40%) of the marked individuals were photographed. During the post-harvest census, 26 (56.5%) of the 46 (13 were marked after the pre-harvest period but 10 marked individuals were harvested during the hunting season) marked individuals were photographed. Table 2. during 1993—1995. White—tailed deer tagged on South Fox Island, MI Radio Collar Sex8 Age Date Trapping Method Frequency Female 0.5 8/29/93 Drop—net Female 2.5 8/29/93 Drop-net Female 0.5 8/30/93 Drop-net Female 0.5 8/31/93 Drop-net Female 0.5 9/9/93 Drop—net Male 0.5 9/9/93 Drop-net Male 1.5 9/12/93 Drop-net Male 0.5 9/23/93 Drop-net Female 4.5 9/23/93 Drop—net Female 0.5 9/25/93 Drop-net Female 0.5 9/26/93 Drop-net Female 0.5 10/4/93 Drop-net Female 1.5 10/4/93 Drop-net Male 0.5 10/8/93 Drop-net Male 0.5 10/18/93 Drop—net *Female 6.5 10/18/93 Drop-net Female 0.5 2/9/94 Drop-net Female Adult 2/9/94 Drop-net Female Adult 3/9/94 Drop-net *Male 0.5 3/9/94 Drop-net *Male 0.5 3/9/94 Drop-net *Male 1.5 3/9/94 Drop-net *Female Adult 3/9/94 Drop-net Male 0.5 4/1/94 Drop—net Female 2.5 4/1/94 Drop—net *Female 0.5 8/1/94 Drop-net *Male 0.5 8/1/94 Drop-net *Female 0.5 8/1/94 Drop-net Female 1.5 8/18/94 Drop-net Female 3.5 8/21/94 Drop-net Tflgfl6 Female Adu 8/22/94 Drop-net lflLafi Male 1.5 8/29/94 Drop-net Male 3.5 8/29/94 Drop-net ISLIE Female 0.5 8/31/94 Drop-net Female 0.5 8/31/94 Drop-net *Female 0.5 9/8/94 Drop-net Female 1.5 9/8/94 Drop—net Female 2.5 9/8/94 Drop-net *Male 4.5 9/9/94 Drop-net Male 1.5 9/16/94 Drop-net ISLIE *Male 3.5 9/19/94 Drop-net Male 0.5 9/2/94 Drop-net runny *Female 5.5 9/26/94 Drop-net Male 0.5 9/26/94 Drop-net *Female 0.5 9/26/94 Drop-net Male 0.5 9/27/94 Clover Iablez Female Male Female Female Male Male *Female Female Male Male Female Female Male Male Female Female (cont'd). orac>o<3c>gcoc>o<3u10umm umomI b m I H m m.vmm mam um0>Md$n0HmI AUflnmmnmouonmv ofiumm ma.m I m.m m.mma <2 umw>umm umoml mH.m I m.m am.mmma 42 umm>unmImHmI Avenmmumouonmv nomumuwmIGHooafia Gunmapoz b.m Aw.omv m.vmm dz .maddpw>flpcfl Umunaaoo Gabon mmpdaoxw umm>HmmI0HmI m.m Am.vmv m.mmm dz .muQImv axodn UOMHME Una mandpfl>wpcfi pwumHHou Devon meSHUXw umm>HmmeHmI m.m Am.mov m.mam <2 umu>unmImHmI Aumw>H6£v Gnfimmno v.N Am.Hmv N.Hmm <2 .mHMDUfl>flUGfl panHHoo Gavan mundaoxw umm>HnmImHmI m.m Aw.mhv N.vmm <2 .mumev mxodn pmxumfi Una mandpw>flpcw UmHmHHOU Datum meSHoxw umm>HmmeHmI N.N Ab.mmv m.mmm «Z umm>HmmImHmI Aumm>un£v GomumuwmIGHoucflq H.N a.mmmv awe umw>unm umoml H.m m.mmmm bmmm uwm>HmmeHmI inflzmnnmouonmv GomuwummIGHoocfiA H.H ooa mmH uwm>umm umoml imzozv 00:00 ozone umaamm. Ammo amma mmma a GOADMDUH llflflddfifldflfllddflddflflddflll Houmfiflumm .Hz .UGMHmH Xom nudom Go mmmHImmmH How mwudfiflumw GOMDMHSQOQ H000 UwawnuImufl£3 mo kumfifidm .m 0HQMB 56 .m0u08wum0 um0>H0£ umom amma 0n» 0» pcomm0uuoo >03» usn mmma mo madman 0s» Cw ©0uodpcoo 0H03 mucsou H0umoofla0mn .ha0>wuo0mm0u .m0umfiflum0 um0>Hn£ umom vmma Una mmma 03» on UGOQ00HHOU >0£u van mama can vmma Ga p0u05©floo 0H03 mh0>Hdm U0HH0ma <2 mma dz um0>Hnm umomI 2283 uwudouflmmn . AU . UGOUG q 0.239 57 Classical mark—recapture Lincoln-Peterson and Chapman estimators all require having marked individuals in the population. be marked in the population, percentage of deer marked the better the estimate. current study, marked. provided greater confidence in population estimates 6). however, There was no set number of deer that needed to the higher the In the only 20-25 percent of the population was Higher percentage of marked animals would have (Table The modified Lincoln—Peterson did not work for the age and sex groups that had relatively few marked individuals (fawns). Ideally a greater number of marked individuals needed to be spread proportionally over each sex and age class (does, bucks and fawns). The ratio method proved to be a reasonable estimator for the post harvest censuses. The post harvest censuses produced more reasonable results during 1993 and 1994 than many of the other estimators when compared to the harvest estimates (Table 6). One reason could have been that the deer were still stimulated from the hunt and were moving around more and thus were encountering more camera stations. Weather could have also play a harvest census snow was on the becoming harder to locate. More does than fawns were and more fawns harvest census, the post harvest census. This role in that during the post ground and food resources were photographed in the pre— than does were photographed in could have been a result of 58 the fact that fawns were starting to become more dependent on vegetation during the post harvest census and the corn may have served as an easily obtainable energy source for them at that critical time. Of the two Trailmaster® monitoring systems (active infrared, TM1500; passive infrared, TM500), the active infrared system preformed the best during the study (1993— 1994). With the TM1500, the area of sensitivity was restricted to the area between the transmitter and the receiver. The major problem with the TM500 was that the depth of the field (65-ft) could not be adjusted and low growing vegetation that became heated by the sun was able to activate the system when the wind was blowing. A minor point to consider is that other animals such as red fox (ynlpgs yulpgs), coyote (ganis latxans), barred owl (Stzix Eerie), Canada geese (Branta ganadgnsis), blue jays (Wm cristata) , and American crows (Cums braghyrhynghgs) are capable of activating the monitors. Crows use of corn was so bad in the pre-harvest censuses at some stations that corn was discontinued and salt was substituted. Camera systems can be efficiently used to gather photographic data that can be utilized to generate a number of different estimators. The ratio estimation method seemed to have the least amount of bias associated with it, and also seemed the most practical method to use in other areas, such as on the mainland. The ratio method requires no marked 59 individuals and has no hunter biases associated with it. Mark recapture methods require marked individuals that must be in the population prior to the census. Thus, a lot of pre-census preparation must be completed before the census can start. By increasing the number of marked animals in the population the confidence intervals associated with Lincoln— Peterson estimates would be lower. The pellet group survey required skilled personnel and is extremely time consuming. Defecation rates may change seasonally with diet and metabolism, defecation rates for penned deer on artificial diets may differ from wild deer, and they may also differ between species or within species in different habitats (Ryel 1971). The camera systems could potentially prove to be very useful management tools for estimating populations of white— tailed deer on the mainland. The ratio estimation technique 'would be best suited for areas where marking individuals is not only impossible but impractical. The ratio technique requires less technically skilled personnel than pellet group surveys and is less time consuming. The optimal time for the camera systems to collect data would be after hunting season. Chaptor 2. Quality Whito-tailod Door "anaconont A quality deer management program was started on South Fox Island by MSU researchers in conjunction with Dr. Harry A. Jacobson of Mississippi State University. Quality deer management can be defined as "the use of restraint in harvesting young bucks combined with adequate harvests of female deer to maintain a healthy population that is in balance with existing habitat conditions" (Quality Deer Management Association, undated). Quality deer management like trophy management stresses enriching nutrition, elevating the number of older bucks, and decreasing the number of does in the population (Ozoga et a1. 1994). Quality deer management varies from traditional management in that a larger percentage of bucks killed are in the 2.5 and older age classes. In the Southeastern U.S., quality deer management has a large following because most of the land is privately owned and many of the private individuals place self imposed restriction on their lands. The increased interest in quality deer management in the Southeast has led to the establishment of some public lands as quality deer management areas. South Fox Island offered a unique opportunity to determine if quality deer management would be productive in JMichigan for public and private lands. The objectives of quality deer management were tested by establishing a six jpoint restriction on the antlered bucks harvested and a liberal doe harvest. Hunters were allowed to kill two does 60 61 and one buck during the 1993 and 1994 hunting seasons. The "six point rule" stated that it was illegal to kill antlered bucks with less than six antlered points. The "six point rule" was put into law by MDNR Commission Order amendment number 5 and was published in the 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 Michigan Hunting and Trapping Guide. The "six point rule" was intended to eliminate bucks younger than 2.5 years old from being harvested. During the 1993 and 1994 white-tailed deer hunting seasons, only five illegal bucks were killed on the island. JMost of the hunters respected the "six point rule" and were ‘willing to cooperate when I put a restriction on harvesting radio collared individuals. Two years was insufficient time to evaluate the effectiveness of quality deer management. However, the first two years have demonstrated that MI hunters will comply with restrictions (Appendix A). In the first two years, hunters were very efficient at removing a vast majority of the deer >6-pionts. that are 1.5 to 2.5 years old (Tables 4-5). Because this included a number of 6-pt. yearlings additional restrictions (i.e. :minimum inside antler spread of 11.0 inches) would be needed to protect this age class (1.5 year class) (Table 7). Quality deer management is an achievable goal on any area in Michigan but the key is to have control of a large jblock of land. These large blocks could be deer management .areas or state wide. Even today, some states in the Southeast have established state wide antler restrictions. 62 mH0uGD£ How U0DG0E0HQEfi wcofluuwuum0u ham 0msmu0fl m0£UGH cw .m0nocfl Ga 0D 0» 0>0£ DHDO3 G0>flm 0H0 muG0E0H500E H0Hucdu Awo.avmv.ma Amb.vah.ma va.vmm.ma AmH.vmm.m Ama.vmm.m Amw.vb.b amma AwH.vab.ma Amm.avbm.om Amb.vbm.am Avm.vm¢.a Amv.V0b.v Aavm mmma m.o Ava.vma.afi Amo.HVNm.aH ion.avoa.ma Ama.vao.m AHH.VvH.m Amm.vm.m amma Amm.vwv.ma Aba.vmm.ma AHv.vvm.mH Amm.xmv.m ANN.VHm.m .mm.vm.b mmmH _ m.m Abm.vma.ma Amm.vom.¢a Amv.vmo.aa ANH.Vom.m Abo.vmm.m Ama.vm.b vmma Amm.vbm.ma Amw.vvo.ma Amb.vmo.ma Ama.vmv.m AmH.vhm.m Ama.vm.b mmma m.N Aom.vmv.m Amm.vmm.oa Abo.avvb.oa Aba.vvm.m Aha.vmm.m Aam.vm.m vmma Abb.avmm.m Amm.vmm.aa Amm.vmm.oa AoH.me.m Aao.vam.m onm mmma m.H Ammo Emma Emma Ammo Ammo Ammo Dm0umm unmfim um0q ufimfim uu0q mucflomt mu00w uflflwdw IllllllddddfldlfldflHllll IIOUQMHMHEdMHHUI lfldd a.mnomn0m mcflucdfi H000 D0Hfl0uI0ufl£3 amma Dam mmma 0S» mGflHDU H2 .DGMHmH xom Sodom GO U0um0>H0£ axosn Had no Am0£0Gfiv muC0E0Hdmn0E H0HDG0 G002 .b 0HD09 63 A major problem facing quality deer management in Michigan is that there is no clear understanding by the public as to what it really means. To some people it simply means quantity and to others it may mean seeing a lot of deer but at the same time also seeing quality deer (trophy deer). Until there is a clear understanding between the MDNR and the public as to what quality deer management means, it will be difficult to establish quality deer management areas on the mainland. The MDNR could use quality deer management as a management tool in some of the heavily crop damaged areas. They have the standards established already with the block permits. Block permits are based the amount of crop damage a landowner has on his/her property in a given year. Block permits are restricted to antlerless deer only and may be used by any one that the landowner deems necessary. Quality deer management could play a major role in better management of Michigan's deer resource through active management. Quality deer management if implemented and managed correctly would keep the deer population in balance with its environment. LITERATURE CITED Litoraturo Citod Bartlett, I. H. 1945. A report on a preliminary investigation of the deer herd and habitat on South Fox Island, Leelanau county Michigan. Michigan Dept. of Conser. Game Division Rept. 893. 4pp. Clover, M. R. 1956. Single—gate deer trap. Calif. Fish Game 42:199—201. Craker, K. N. 1983. They came to South Fox Island. Book Crafter, Inc. Chelsea, MI. 154pp. Day, G. I., S. D. Schemnitz and R. D. Taber. 1980. Capturing and marking wild animals. Pages 61-88. In S.D. Schemnitz, ed. Wildlife management techniques manual. Fourth ed. rev. The Wildl. Soc., Washington, D.C. Eberhart, L. and R. C. Van Etten. 1956. Evaluation of the pellet group count as a deer census method. J. Wildl. Manage. 20:70-74. Eberhart, L. 1957. The 1956 an 1957 pellet-group surveys. Michigan Dept. Conserv., Game Div. Rept. 2133. 37pp. Multilithed. Foster, L. M. and S. R. Humphrey. 1995. Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:95-100. Fuller, T. K. 1991. Do pellet counts index white-tailed deer numbers and population change? J. Wildl. Manage. 55:393-396. Harger, E. M. and J. L. Cook. 1972. The South Fox Island deer story. Michigan Dept. of Nat. Resour. Res. and Develop. Rept. No. 264. 14pp. Hatt, R. T., J. V. Tyne, L. C. Stuart, C. H. Pope, and A. B. Grobman. 1948. Island Life: A study of the land vertebrates of the island of Eastern Lake Michigan. Cranbrook Institute of Science. Cranbrook Press, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. 27:179pp. 64 65 Jacobson, H. A., J. C. Kroll, B. H. Koerth, R. W. Browing and M. H. Conway. In Exess. Infrared—triggered cameras for censusing white—tailed deer. (In Press) 16th Ann. S.E. Deer Study Group Meeting, Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. Jackson, MS. King, D. 1970. Deer population—range relationships on Garden and South Fox Islands, Michigan. MS Thesis Ph.D. University of Michigan. 228pp. Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1993. The Trailmaster® camera system for detecting wildlife. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:505-508. Kucera, T. E. and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Trailmaster® camera systems. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:110-113. Lancia, R. A., J. D. Nichols and K. H. Pollock. 1994. Estimating the number of animals in wildlife populations. Pages 215—253. In T. A. Bookhout, ed. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth ed. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Md. Larson, J. S. and R. V. Taber. 1980. Criteria of sex and age. Pages 143-202. In S.D. Schemnitz, ed. Wildlife management techniques manual. Fourth ed. rev. The Wildl. Soc., Washington, D.C. Marshall, C. M., J. F. Smith and A. J. Weber. 1964. Deer without trophy defacement. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 137—140. Neff, D. J. 1968. The pellet-group count technique for big game trend, census, and distribution: a review. J. Wildl. Manage. 32:597-613. Nessbit, W. H. and P. L. Wright. 1985. Measuring and scoring North American big game trophies. The Boone and Crockett Club. 176pp. Ozoga, J. J., R. V. Doepker and M. S. Sargent. 1994. Ecology and management of white-tailed deer in Michigan. Michigan Dept. of Nat. Resour.:Wildlife Division Rept. 3209. 73pp. Quality Deer Management Association. Undated. Statement of purpose. Greenwood, SC Spp. ' Pollock, K. H., J. D. Nichols, C. Brownie and J. E. Hines. 1990. Statistical inferences for capture-recapture experiments. Wildl. Monogr. 54:91pp. 66 Ramsey, C. W. 1968. A drop—net trap. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(1):187-190. Ratti, J. T. and E. O. Garton. 1994. Research and experimental design. Pages 1-23. In T. A. Bookhout, ed. Research and management techniques for wildlife habitats. Fifth ed. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Md. Ryel, L. A. 1971. Evaluation of pellet group surveys for estimating deer population is Michigan. Thesis (Ph.D.). Seber, G. A. F. 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. 2nd ed. MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc., New York, New York. 654pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. National survey of hunting, fishing, and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Dept. Int. Washington D.C. 164pp. Van Etten, R. C. and C. L. Bennett, Jr. 1965. Some sources of error in using pellet—group-counts for censusing deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 29:723-729. Weber, H. L. 1973. Soil survey of Leelanau County, Michigan. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conserv Ser., In cooperation with the Michigan Agric. Exper. Stat. 90pp. Winterstein, S. R., H. Campa, III and K. F. Millenbah. 1995. Status and potential of Michigan natural resources—-wildlife. Michigan Agriculture and Experiment Station, Michigan State University. Special Rept. 75. 40pp. Appondix A Hunter harvest data for 1993 and 1994 on public and private lands on South Fox Island, MI. 67 Table A1. Age, gender, average dressed weight and number of antlered points, and total number of white-tailed deer harvested on South Fox Island's public hunting area during the 1993 hunting season. _AQL Budge Does (years) # Average Wt. Average # Pt's # Average Wt. 0.5 5 27.7 kg 4 22.7 kg 1.5 5 38.6 kg 2.5 1 63.5 kg 8 3 44.6 kg 3.5 2 47.6 kg 4.5 1 70.3 kg 10 3 44.6 kg 5.5 1 45.4 kg 6.5 2 45.4 kg TOTAL= 7 20 _Age_ _Euc.kL__ __QQeL_ Total (years) # % of Bucks # % of Does # Total % 0.5 5 72 4 20 9 33.4 1.5 5 25 5 18.5 2.5 l 14 3 15 4 14.8 3.5 2 10 2 7.4 4.5 1 14 3 15 4 14.8 5.5 1 5 1 3.7 6.5 2 10 2 7.4 TOTAL: 7 20 27 68 Table A2. Age, gender, average dressed weight and number of antlered points, and total number of white-tailed deer harvested on South Fox Island's private hunting area during the 1993 hunting season. ._JEEL_ Bucks, .Does (years) # Average Wt. Average # Pt's # Average Wt. 0.5 8 28.5 kg 12 25.5 kg 1.5 3 56.7 kg 4.0 4 42.5 kg 2.5 4 58.9 kg 7.8 1 36.3 kg 3.5 3 64.3 kg 7.3 7 43.7 kg 4.5 1 83.9 kg 8.0 6 46.5 kg 5.5 1 88.5 kg 8.0 4 44.8 kg 6.5 4 51.0 kg 7.5 1 52.2 kg TOTAL: 20 39 _As_e_ _Bus;ks___ _129es___ Total (years) # % of Bucks # % of Does # Total % 0.5 8 40 12 31 20 33.7 1.5 3 15 4 10 7 11.9 2.5 4 20 1 3 5 8.5 3.5 3 15 7 18 10 17.0 4.5 l 5 6 15 7 11.9 5.5 1 5 4 10 5 8.5 6.5 4 10 4 6.8 7.5 1 3 1 1.7 TOTAL: 20 39 59 69 Table A3. Number of antlered points for each buck harvested by age class for private and public hunting areas on South Fox Island, MI during the 1993 white-tailed deer hunting season. _AQL _Er_i.1at_e_ _P34b_l.ic__ (years) # of Points # of Points 1.5 2,5,5 2.5 6.8.8.9 8 3.5 7,7,8 4.5 8 10 5.5 8 TOTAL BUCKS = 12 2 70 Table A4. Public land hunters kill tag numbers and deer harvested on South Fox Island during the 1993 white-tailed deer hunting season. TAG NUMBERS DEER KILLEDa 1. 93017 93019 2. 93131 93133 D 3. 93107 93109 D D 4. 93113 93115 A D 5. 93026 93028 6. 93110 93112 D D 7. 93029 93031 8. 93125 93127 A 9. 93134 93136 C C 10. 93119 93121 B D 11 93098 93100 D D 12 93116 93118 B D 13 93032 93034 D D 14. 93038 93040 A D 15 93035 93037 C D 16 93014 93016 17 93020 93022 18 93023 93025 19. 93011 39013 20 93095 93097 21. 93104 93106 D 22 93101 93103 23. 93122 93124 24. 93128 93130 A ‘D = Adult Doe, C = Fawn Doe, B = Adult Buck, A = Fawn Buck 71 Table A5. Private land hunters kill tag numbers and deer harvested on South Fox Island during the 1993 white-tailed deer hunting season. TAG NUMBERS DEER KILLEDa 1. 93029 - 93211 2. 93206 - 93208 3. 93203 - 93205 4. 93200 - 93202 5. 93197 - 93199 D 6. 93194 - 93196 D 7. 93191 - 93193 A 8. 93188 - 93190 A 9. 93182 - 93184 A A B 10 93179 - 93181 D B 11. 93173 - 93175 D C C 12 93176 - 93178 D 13 93170 - 93172 D 14. 93167 - 93169 D 15 93164 - 93166 D 16 93161 - 93163 D 17. 93158 - 93160 18 93155 - 93157 B 19. 93152 - 93154 20 93149 - 93151 D 21. 93146 - 93148 22. 93143 - 93145 23 93140 - 93142 24. 93092 - 93094 D A D 25 93080 - 93082 B 26 93089 - 93091 A D 27. 93086 - 93088 28 93137 - 93139 D D B 29. 93050 - 93052 30. 93044 - 93046 72 Table A5 (cont'd). 31. 93041 - 93043 D 32. 93047 - 93049 D C *B 33. 93065 - 93067 B 34. 93053 - 93055 C 35. 93056 - 93058 C 36. 93059 - 93061 37. 93062 - 93064 38. 93068 - 93070 39. 93071 — 93073 C D 40. 93074 — 93076 D D C 41. 93077 - 93079 B 42. 93083 - 93085 C A 43. 93185 — 93187 D 44. 93212 — 93214 B 45. 93215 - 93217 46. 93218 - 93220 B A 47. 93221 - 93223 D D 48. 93224 — 93226 D 49. 93227 - 93229 50. 93230 - 93232 B 51. 93236 — 93238 D *B 52. 93243 - 93244 53. 93239 - 93241 C C C 54. 93233 - 93235 C D D aD = Adult Doe, C = Fawn Doe, B = Adult Buck, A = Fawn Buck, *B = illegal buck (less than 6 pts. 73 Table A6. Age, gender, average dressed weight and number of antlered points, and total number of white-tailed deer harvested on the public hunting area for South Fox Island during the 1994 hunting season“. __AQE__ BUCKS DOES (Years) # Average Wt. Average # Pt's # Average Wt. 0.5 4 30.1 kg 5 24.9 kg 1.5 2 39.2 kg 7.5 2 44.2 kg 2.5 2 68.0 kg 8.5 1 45.4 kg 3.5 2 69.2 kg 7.5 1 43.1 kg 4.5 1 58.9 kg 9.0 2 47.6 kg 5.5 2 52.2 kg 6.5 1 81.6 kg 8 0 7.5 1 47.6 kg TOT = 12 14 AGE BUCKS DOES IQIAL (Years) # % of Bucks # % of Does # Total % 0.5 4 33 5 36 9 34 1.5 2 17 2 14 4 16 2.5 2 17 1 7 3 12 3.5 2 17 1 7 3 12 4.5 1 8 2 14 3 12 5.5 2 14 2 8 6.5 1 8 1 4 7.5 1 7 1 4 TOT = 12 14 26 3Only 1 deer was taken during archery season, a 1 1/2 year old 6 point buck. Table A7. antlered points, Age, gender, 74 average dressed weight and number of and total number of white-tailed deer harvested on the private hunting area for South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 hunting season. _A§E__ BUCKS DOES (Years) # Average Wt. Average # Pt's # Average Wt. 0.5 5 24.9 kg 4 20.4 kg 1.5 4 44.8 kg 5.0 5 38.6 kg 2.5 3 63.5 kg 7.3 6 43.9 kg 3.5 2 65.8 kg 5.5 4.5 2 73.7 kg 7.0 3 47.6 kg 5.5 2 44.6 kg 6.5 1 45.4 kg 7.5 1 45.4 kg TOT = 16 2 AGE BUCKS DOES IQIAL m_ (Years) # % of Bucks # % of Does # Total % 0.5 5 29 4 18 9 23 1.5 4 29 5 23 9 26 2.5 3 18 6 27 9 23 3.5 2 12 2 5 4.5 2 12 3 14 5 13 5.5 2 9 2 5 6.5 1 5 1 3 7.5 1 5 l 3 TOT = 16 2 38 75 Table A8. Number of antlered points for each buck harvested by age class for private and public hunting areas on South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 white-tailed deer hunting season. __A§E__ __£EUJEEEL_. __EUELIQ___ (Years) # of Points # of Points 1.5 6,6,6,2 6,9 2.5 8.8.6 8,9 3.5 5,6 7,8 4.5 6,8 9 5.5 6.5 0000 TOTAL BUCKS = 11 76 Table A9. Public land hunters kill tag numbers and deer harvested on South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 white- tailed deer hunting season. _______IA§_NHMBERS DEER KILLEDa 1. 94393 - 94395 2. 94595 - 94597 C,C 3. 94381 - 94383 4. 94339 - 94341 5. 94342 - 94344 6. 94327 — 94329 7. 94417 — 94419 B,D,A 8. 94384 - 94386 D,C 9. 94387 - 94389 10. 94399, 94400, 94591 11. 94321 - 94323 12. 94592 - 94594 13. 94372 - 94374 B 14. 94378 - 94380 15. 94622 - 94624 C 16. 94614 - 94616 B,D 17. 94324 - 94326 18. 94611 - 94613 19. 94336 - 94338 20. 94330 - 94332 21. 94603 - 94605 22. 94631 - 94633 23. 94369 - 94371 24. 94414 - 94416 B 25. 94411 - 94413 B 26. 94396 - 94398 B,D 27. 94375 - 94377 D 28. 94606 - 94608 D,A 29. 94348 - 94350 B 30. 94351 - 94353 A,D 31. 94345 - 94347 77 Table A9 (cont'd). 32. 94333 - 94335 33. 94617 - 94619 34. 94360 - 94362 35. 94401, 94402, 94420 C,A 36. 94628 - 94630 37. 94354 - 94356 38. 94598 - 94600 39. 94357 — 94359 40. 94390 - 94392 41. 94363 - 94365 42. 94366 - 94368 43. 94625 - 94627 D 44. 94609, 94610, 94621 D,B 45. 94601, 94602, 94620 aD = Adult Doe, C = Fawn Doe, B = Adult Buck, A = Fawn Buck 78 Table A10. Private land hunters kill tag numbers and deer harvested on South Fox Island, MI during the 1994 white— tailed deer hunting season. TAG NUMBERS DEER KILLEDa 94049 - 94051 94082 - 94084 94070 - 94072 B 94052 - 94054 D 94186 - 94188 A 94174 - 94176 94043 - 94045 D 94103 - 94105 94010 - 94012 D,B 94067 - 94069 B 94159 - 94161 94058 - 94060 94001 - 94003 94097 - 94099 D,D 94034 - 94036 B 94031 - 94033 94028 - 94930 94016, 94017, 94021 A 94040 - 94042 94085, 94089, 94090 C,D,B 94294 - 94296 D,D 94177 - 94179 94147 - 94149 94061 - 94063 D 27. 94055 - 94057 28. 94291 - 94293 A,D 29. 94171 - 94173 C,D,B. 30. 94138 - 94140 31. 94114 - 94116 32. 94037 - 94039 94180 - 94182 79 Table A10 (cont'd). 33. 94100 - 94102 C 34. 94120 - 94122 35. 94117 — 94119 36. 94094 - 94096 37. 94086 - 94088 B’ 38. 94004 - 94006 39. 94076 - 94078 40. 94046 - 94948 41. 94165 - 94167 42. 94123 — 94125 D 43. 94079 - 94081 B 44. 94132 - 94134 45. 94126 — 94128 A,D 46. 94106 - 94108 47. 94022 — 94024 B 48. 94025 — 94027 49. 94168 - 94170 50. 94162 - 94164 51. 94156 - 94158 52. 94073 - 94075 D 53. 94144 - 94146 D 54. 94183 - 94185 55. 94013 - 94015 D 56. 94111 — 94113 57. 94129 - 94131 58. 94064 - 94066 D,C 59. 94153 - 94155 60. 94150 — 94152 61. 94091 - 94093 D,B 62. 94007 - 94009 .A = fawn buck, C and B':= illegal bucks (less than 6-pts) fawn doe, D adult doe, B = adult bucks, Appondix B Sample calculations of equations listed in text. 80 Table B1. Numerical solutions for the 1994 post harvest population estimates from the Lincoln-Peterson and Chapman estimators based on photographic and hunter harvest data collected on South Fox Island, MI. Equation 2.1 26 Equation 2.2 N=———52(64) =332.8 10 Equation 2.3 N/.__ 41(62) =254.2 10 Equation 2.4 fi”=_4£'_(§4_). =231.5 10 Equation 2.5 N = (52+1)(64+1) —1 =312.2 c (10+1) Equation 2.6 N’= (41+1) (62+1) _1 =239_5 C (10+1) Equation 2.7 N”: (44 +1) (64+1) _1 =264.9 c (10 + 1) Appondix C Cost associated with operating infrared camera systems. Table C1. 81 running infrared camera systems, all number An itemized list of all expenses associated with are approximate. Item Number Needed Cost Camera Systems Passive Active "C" Batteries Passive Active Film 35mm ISO 200, 36 exp. Developing Corn Labor 9 ll 4/monitor 8/monitor 80 rolls 80 rolls 1500 lbs 2-3 weeks Total cost of running camera's for 14-days $500 $0.66/each $5.50/roll $8.00/roll $6.00/50 lbs $250/week $6.92/ha MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES lllllIllIIIlIlHlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 31293014051944