: .5. 3? .r... u vagm. _ E ha . .. ”#11,: ‘ fir :3. . SEW? 6; .94 IV. ‘ .145“: .. ”in. , a. u. . . .r a .2 .0». . x?‘.ifin«..u...eumw.r V l I! I It :1}? . u I! .. v.4 . .I . .‘vc 1 ( as” 3 V I .m‘ur x 4 wt?» 4 yr... ah}! I N113”. 1 y .9393. .. , .1311}... NJ? .115... J.-. 31.; .. e-.. . 9.3.3. 531:4. ‘ :l. f i! v. a! a ‘ 9 I V; J 4 Nu... It 1);. . . .3. . 1.; . .wvu .r arfiienfimuiézfnfi 42. w, m. (til? 4.3.1.3...5; . ‘ . .4 Ni? dm‘namflafi. 3M Eififiwflpfiksi “a.“ THE” 2 99.04 ; 9,4,10» 7- LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled MOVEMENT OF WHITE-TAILED DEER FROM A BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS INFECTED POPULATION UNDER BAITING AND WINTER FEEDING RESTRICTIONS AND TB STATUS OF BLACK BEARS IN MICHIGAN presented by Darian Pablo Muzo has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the MS. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife 1 -’ \\ F\\ ~'. f Major Professor’s Signature C‘ ‘1 /I 89/03 Date MSU is an Alfinnafive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE §E§§Y§ms FEBU r 0 2 159609 MMIQZDIB 6/01 c:/ClRC/DatoDue.p65-p.15 MOVEMENT OF WHITE-TAILED DEER FROM A BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS INFECTED POPULATION UNDER BAITING AND WINTER FEEDING RESTRICTIONS AND TB STATUS OF BLACK BEARS IN MICHIGAN By Darian Pablo Muzo 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 2003 ABSTRACT MOVEMENT OF WHITE-TAILED DEER FROM A BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS INFECTED POPULATION UNDER BAITING AND WINTER FEEDING RESTRICTIONS AND TB STATUS OF BLACK BEARS 1N MICHIGAN By Dan'an Pablo Muzo In response to concerns about the 1999 baiting and feeding ban imposed to help eradicate bovine TB (Mycobacterium bovis), movement data have been collected on 88 radio-collared white-tailed deer that were trapped in and around DMU 452. These results were compared to results reported in a similar study by Gamer (2001) on radio-collared deer movement before the baiting and feeding ban. There was little change in the proportion of deer that migrated and the mean distance traveled by migratory deer increased by 37% but this trend was not observed at all study sites. The mean size of seasonal ranges increased substantially. Results indicate that deer may have compensated for the ban by increasing the mean distance of their seasonal movements and the mean size of their seasonal ranges. There were indications that deer movement has become more sensitive to changes in winter weather. The ban on baiting and feeding of deer combined with a decrease in deer densities appeared to have had little negative impact on deer movement in DMU 452; deer are not making mass migrations out of the area and spreading TB into other parts of Michigan. I developed a protocol for collecting cranial lymph node samples from hunter harvested black bears (Ursus americana) for TB testing that maintained the trophy value and meat for the hunters. Seven out of 202 samples collected during the black bear hunting seasons of 1998 through 2001 tested positive for bovine TB. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Scott Winterstein, for the opportunity to work with him, his support, guidance, and patience throughout my graduate studies, and the unique experiences I have had throughout this research project. I also thank the other members of my graduate committee, Drs. Rique Campa, James Sikarskie, and Stephen Schmitt for their guidance throughout the development of this project and paper. I thank Dr. Mark Garner for his training, infectious enthusiasm, friendship in and out of the field, and for being a great person in general. He was the catalyst and inspiration for my desire to pursue a graduate degree. Funding was provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and the Michigan Agriculture Experimental Station at Michigan State University. Invaluable assistance and equipment was provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources offices in Atlanta, Mio, and the Rose Lake Wildlife Research Station especially fi'om Elaine Carlson, Tom Cooley, Jean Fierke, Paul Friedrich, Dave Smith, and Joe Valentine. The Michigan Chapter of the Safari Club International and the Michigan Chapter (UPNORTH) of Whitetails Unlimited provided essential equipment and public support. I thank the following individuals, businesses, and organizations for their assistance, support, fiiendship, and cooperation: Adrian’s Sports Shop, Birch Creek Club, Jim and Sandra Black, Black River Ranch, Ralph Bolda, George Burzlaff, Canada Creek iii Ranch, Randy Casteller, Ken Cramer, Lewis and Kathy Crawford, Deadstream Taxidermy, Deep Woods Taxidermy, Jim Duetsch, Garland Resort, Henry Joy, Henry Kreger, Leroy Hunt Club, Limited Edition Taxidermy, Lawrence and Dorothy Lippert, Lockwood Lake Ranch, Manning Meat Company, Tim Michiels, Northern Deer Processing, Ron Otto, David Read, Raymond Reasner, John Reigle, Dean and Bev Rouleau, Larry Ruhstorfer, David Stebbins, Merle Shepard, Art and Eleanor Strohschein, and Randy Strohschein. I was amazed at the enthusiasm of the property owners, club members, and business owners toward this research and the kindness that was shown to me and the technicians that worked with me. I felt honored by the trust they had to let a bunch of know-it-all college kids run loose on their properties. I thank the owners and members for help with many aspects related to the field work, time taken from their business or recreation, and for occasional stories, jokes, nourishment, and warm spaces in the winter. I thank the technicians that helped me throughout this research; for the long hours they put in during cold, wet weather and through equipment and brain failure. Thanks for putting up with me and my dogs, on occasion. I thank my parents , Carlos and Rosa Muzo, for all the love and support they have given me through the years; my brother, Christian, for setting a good example and showing me how to avoid getting in trouble the hard way; and my sister-in-law, Lori, and her family’s much appreciated words of encouragement. Thank you, Shelley, my wife for your patience, love, financial and emotional support, moving us into a new house while I was up-north playing with my deer, and then some more patience. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures Chapter 1: Effects of Restricted F all-Baiting and Supplemental Winter—Feeding on White—tailed Deer Movement Behavior Introduction Bovine Tuberculosis in White-tailed Deer Objectives Study Area Birch Creek Club Black Farm . Black River Ranch . Canada Creek Ranch . Crawford Residence . Garland Resort Leroy Hunt Club Lippert Ranch . Lockwood Lake Ranch Strohschein Farm Methods Deer Trapping Deer Marking Deer Movement Data Initiation and Termination of Seasonal Deer Movement Seasonal Ranges and Distance of Seasonal Movements Classification of Movement Winter Severity Index. Results . Seasonal Movement Seasonal Range . Movement and Range of Radio-collared Deer Before Baiting and Feeding Ban . Deer Present Before and After Baiting and Feeding Ban Discussion . . . . Management Implications Chapter 2: Survey of Black Bears for Bovine Tuberculosis Introduction Objectives Study Area vii viii 50mo~o-- 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 18 20 21 .22 24 26 26 27 28 38 39 43 46 55 58 58 60 60 Methods Results Discussion Appendix Literature Cited vi 61 62 63 67 128 Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Appendix Table 1. Appendix Table 2. Appendix Table 3. Appendix Table 4. LIST OF TABLES Initiation and termination dates used for seasonal ranges for deer that did not make seasonal movements. (Combined with 1997 to 1998 data fi'om Garner [2001].) . . . 33 Change in classification of seasonal movement over time (shown as percentage of radio-collared deer). . . . 34 Mean distances (km) of seasonal movements by study site and year. (Combined with 1997 to 1998 data from Garner [20011) . . . . . . 37 Mean size (ha) of seasonal ranges by study site. . 42 Mean distance (km) of seasonal movement for all study sites combined. . . . . . 43 Number of non-cervid wildlife tested for bovine TB as of August 2002. . . . . . . 60 Results of black bear tissue sample collection for bovine TB testing. . . . . . . 63 Brief chronology of events surrounding bovine TB in Michigan. . . . . . . 67 Identification, sex, age at capture, capture date, last recorded location, seasonal movement behavior, and fate of radio-collared deer used in study. . . . . . 69 Mean distances (km) of seasonal movements of radio—collared deer. (Combined with 1997 to 1998 data from Garner [2001].) . . . . . . 73 Mean area (ha) of seasonal ranges by site and type of seasonal movement. (Combined with 1997 to 1998 data from Gamer [2001].. . . . . . . 74 vii Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Figure 15. LIST OF FIGURES Map Showing the bovine TB core area and movement restriction zone bounded on the west by I-75 and on the south by M-SS; also indicates the first two documented cases of wild white - tailed deer infected with bovine TB.. . . . 3 Map of study area showing approximate locations of trapping sites. . . . . . . . 7 A: Example of migratory deer seasonal ranges. B: Example of nonmigratory deer seasonal ranges. . . . 25 Initiation of spring movement and Winter Severity Index (W SI ) 1999. . . . . . 29 Initiation of spring movement and WSI 2000. . 29 Initiation of spring movement and WSI 2001. . 30 Initiation of spring movement and WSI 2002. . 30 Initiation of fall movement and WSI 1999. . 31 Initiation of fall movement and WSI 2000. . 31 Initiation of fall movement and WSI 2001. . 32 Mean distance of all types of seasonal deer movement by study site and year (1997-2002). . . . 36 Mean size of seasonal deer ranges by study site and season (1997-2002). . . . . . 40 Mean distance traveled by deer with radio-collars both before and after the baiting and feeding ban by study site and year (1997- 2002). . . . . . 44 Mean size of seasonal ranges of deer with radio-collars both before and after the baiting and feeding ban by study site and season (1997-2002). . . . . 45 Map showing county boundaries, major roads of northeastern Lower Michigan, and median, mean, and maximum distances traveled by deer (from this study) extending fi'om the boundaries of DMU 452. . . . . . . 56 viii Appendix Figure 1. Appendix Figure 2. Appendix Figure 3. Appendix Figure 4 Appendix Figure 5 Appendix Figure 6 Appendix Figure 7 Appendix Figure 8 Appendix Figure 9 Appendix Figure 10 Appendix Figure 11 Appendix Figure 12 Appendix Figure 13 Appendix Figure 14 Appendix Figure 15 Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 0.085 (A) and asf 0.901 (B). . . . . . . . 79 Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 0939 (A) and asf 0990(B). . . . . . . 80 Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1095(A) and asf 1330(8). . . . . . . 81 Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1375(A) and asf 1415(B). . . . . . . 82 Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1512 (A) and asf 1581 (B). . . . . . . 83 Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1551. . 84 Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc0570 (A) and bcc1344 (B). . . . . . . 85 Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1870 (A) and bcc 1030 (B). . . . . . 86 Point locations for radio-collared deer bccO972 (A) and bcc1530 (B). . . . . . . 87 Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc1246 (A) and bcc1400 (B). . . . . . 88 Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1175 (A) and bcc 1193 (B). . . . . . 89 Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1310 (A) and bcc 1386 (B). . . . . . 90 Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1560 (A) and bcc 1590 (B). . . . . . 91 Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1896. . 92 Point locations for radio-collared deer brr 0540 (A) and brr 0620 (B). . . . . . 93 ix Appendix Figure 16. Appendix Figure 17 Appendix Figure 18 Appendix Figure 19 Appendix Figure 20 Appendix Figure 21 Appendix Figure 22 Appendix Figure 23 Appendix Figure 24 Appendix Figure 25 Appendix Figure 26 Appendix Figure 27 Appendix Figure 28 Appendix Figure 29 Appendix Figure 30 (13)- Point locations for radio-collared deer ccr 1215 (A) and cor 1225 (B). Point locations for radio-collared deer ccr 1502 (A) and cor 1570 (B). . . . Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 0440 (A) and ggr 0514 (B). . . Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 0580 (A) and ggr 0640 (B). . Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 0685 (A) and ggr 0972 (B). Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 1396 (A) and ggr 1396-1 (B). . . . Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 1570 (A) and ggr 1570- l (B). . Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 0580 (A) and jbf 0875 (B). . . . . Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 0950 (A) and jbf 0980 (B). . . . Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1375 (A) and jbf 1425 (B). . Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1444 (A) and jbf 1797 (B). . . . . Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 0440 (A) and jbf 0912 (B) . . . Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1210 (A) and jbf 1387 (B). . . . Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 0590 (A) and jbf 1090 (B). . . . Point locations for Radio-collared deer Brr 1.200 (A) and 1.340 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Appendix Figure 31 Appendix Figure 32 Appendix Figure 33 Appendix Figure 34 Appendix Figure 35 Appendix Figure 36 Appendix Figure 37 Appendix Figure 38 Appendix Figure 39 Appendix Figure 40 Appendix Figure 41 Appendix Figure 42 Appendix Figure 43 Appendix Figure 44 Appendix Figure 45 Appendix Figure 46. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1230 (A) and jbf 1370 (B). 109 Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1472 (A) and jbf 1600 (B). . 110 Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1774 (A) and jbf 1936 (B). . . . . 111 Point locations for radio-collared deer 1c 0390 (A) and 1c 1170 (B). . 112 Point locations for radio-collared deer 1c 1411 (A) and 1c 1904 (B)- 113 Point locations for radio-collared deer lc 191 S. 114 Point locations for radio-collared deer lhc 0501 (A) and lhc 0611 (B). 115 Point locations for radio-collared deer lhc 0920 (A) and lhc1421 (B). . . . 116 Point locations for radio-collared deer lhc 1612 (A) and lhc 1621 (B). 117 Point locations for radio-collared deer lip0420 (A) and 1ip0680 (B). . . . 118 Point locations for radio-collared deer lip1235 (A) and lip1285 (B). . . . 119 Point locations for radio-collared deer lip1370 (A) and lip1405 (B). . . 120 Point locations for radio-collared deer llr0595 (A) and llr1380 (B). . . . . 121 Point locations for radio-collared deer llr1462 (A) and llr1490 (B). . . . . 122 Point locations for radio-collared deer llr1541 (A) and llr1888 (B). . . . 123 Point locations for Radio-collared deer Llr 1.946 124 xi Appendix Figure 47. Sample of letter informing participants of bear study. . 125 Appendix Figure 48. Sample of form for requesting contact information for successful bear hunters. . . . . . 126 Appendix Figure 50. Sample of data sheet for black bear tissue sample collection. . . . . . . 127 xii Chapter 1: Effects of Restricted Fall-Baiting and Supplemental Winter- Feeding on White-tailed Deer Movement Behavior Introduction Bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) manifests as lesions in the internal organs of infected animals. Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is usually a chronic disease that can be carried by apparently healthy animals but, when an infected animal is stressed or its health is otherwise compromised, the disease can become acute and lead to complications that may result in death. Bovine TB is broadly infectious to humans, both domestic and wild mammalian species, and some avian species (Enarson and Rieder 1995, Meslin and Cosivi 1995, Bruning-Fann et al. 1998). Bovine Tuberculosis in White-tailed Deer Bovine TB has been reported in various cervid species in the United States and Canada, but in each case the infected animals were associated with TB infected livestock; once the infected livestock were removed, TB was not maintained in the cervid populations (Schmitt et al. 1997). The first documented occurrence of TB in Michigan’s wildlife was in a white- tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in 1975. However, this was thought to be an incidental case and no further action was taken. A second TB positive deer was found in the same area in 1994 (Schmitt et a1. 1997) which led to the widespread testing of deer in 1995. Initially, that monitoring was restricted to part of northeastern Lower Michigan designated as Deer Management Unit (DMU) 452 that coincided with an area designated as the primary area containing TB infected deer in Michigan or the “TB core area”. DMU 452 had an irregularly shaped boundary that was centered over the area where Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency, and Oscoda Counties meet and included roughly one- quarter of each of these counties (Figure 1). While the boundaries of the “TB core area” have not changed, the boundaries of DMU 452 have changed over time depending on the political justifications for creating those boundaries. At one point, in 1999, DMU 452 covered an area that included five entire counties. In this paper, references to DMU 452 are as its boundaries were at the time this paper was written which resembles the original boundaries established in 1994 which are the same as the “TB core area” (Figure 1). Efforts to test harvested deer were concentrated in the five county area of Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency, Oscoda, and Presque Isle and the surrounding area (Figure 1). However, in 1999 TB positive animals were identified in areas outside of the five county area and statewide testing of deer was initiated. Currently, testing is concentrated in the northern half of Lower Michigan. Since 1975, when TB was first discovered in the herd, 449 of 105,872 white-tailed deer have tested positive for bovine tuberculosis as of December 2002 (MDNR website www.michigangovldnr). Wildlife managers with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) hypothesized that the primary modes of deer-to-deer transmission of TB occurred both directly and indirectly. Direct (snout-to—snout) contact occurs in areas where deer are concentrated in small areas or as bucks spar or fight with each other (to establish social hierarchy or gain access to does) where the M. bovis bacteria could be transmitted as an aerosol (O’Brien et al. 2002). Indirect contact occurs at bait and feed piles when infected deer contaminate feed with saliva and mucus containing the bacteria which is later NUMBER 1975 POSITI . h TBDEER V5 1 DTB CoreArea 1994 P031“ ‘51 re DEER VB 1 - U Buffer Zone D County Lines 0 10 20 30 Miles m Presque Isle Charlevoix °"‘°°’9‘“ . hontmorency Alpena Antrim is ; ..... all . ' s EELA HAD 5‘ g m .ng Grand I 9 3002“ Traverse Kalkaska Crawford Oscoda Alcona g a? O 3“” z Manistee Wexford Missaukee [Rommmo anrnaw Iosco Arenac Osceola Clare Gladwin Mason Lake Oceana Newaygo Mecosta Isabella Midland . —“ . M“"‘°9°" Montcalm Grader] Saginaw 1’ 1 Figure 1. Map showing the bovine TB core area and buffer zone bounded on the west by I—75 and on the south by M-55; also indicates the first two documented cases of wild white-tailed deer infected with bovine TB. Tuscola ingested by other deer visiting the contaminated bait and feed piles. The MDNR also believed that bait and feed piles, established to attract deer during the hunting seasons or to supplement deer feeding during the winter months, were contributing to the transmission of TB by increasing direct and indirect contact among deer. A study conducted in DMU 452 by Garner (2001) from 1997 to 1999 showed that higher concentrations of deer at bait and feed piles increased close contact between deer. Garner also observed that radio-collared deer repeatedly visited multiple feed sites. Taken together, these observations indicate potential interactions with many different deer at different locations, thereby increasing the risk of contracting and transmitting TB if infected deer were in the area. As part of their plan to eradicate bovine tuberculosis from the deer herd, the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) and the MDNR implemented baiting restrictions, in DMU 452, prior to the Fall 1998 white-tailed deer hunting season in order to reduce close deer-to-deer contact. Also, beginning January 1999, the practice of providing feed for over-wintering deer was made illegal. Beginning in the fall 1999 deer- hunting season, all feeding and baiting of deer had been made illegal in DMU 452. The ban on fall baiting and winter-feeding initially included the area of northeastern lower Michigan east of Interstate-75 and north of State Highway M-55 that included DMU 452 and a surrounding buffer zone. Also, deer densities in DMU 452 were to be reduced to levels that could be sustained by the natural habitat (Dr. Stephen Schmitt D.V.M., MDNR, pers. commun). The regulation of baiting and feeding of deer in Michigan created an emotionally charged social climate that prompted many stakeholders including livestock and dairy producers, feed producers, hunters, and landowners to voice their concerns both for and against the ban of baiting and feeding. As a result, baiting and feeding regulations have changed over time depending on the political climate (Appendix Table 1). In general, baiting and feeding are banned in counties where TB is found to be prevalent and restricted in other counties. Currently, baiting and feeding is illegal in Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda, Otsego, and Presque Isle counties and the volume of ! bait or feed allowed in other Michigan counties is restricted to 7.62 liters (two gallons) for baiting and recreational viewing (MDNR 2002 Michigan Hunting and Trapping f Guide). Concern arose among wildlife managers that the ban on baiting and feeding would cause infected deer to carry TB outside of DMU 452 as they search for more suitable habitat if the local habitat was rendered unsuitable due to the sudden removal of supplemental feeding, insufficient amounts of quality deer habitat, and high deer densities leading to competition for resources. Garner (2001) provided information on the movement patterns of white-tailed deer before the baiting and winter-feeding ban was implemented. Additionally, some data were collected after the baiting and feeding ban. However, the number of deer observed was too small and the length of time each deer could be observed was too short to provide meaningful comparisons. This study continued to collect data on the deer remaining from the Garner study and increased the sample size of deer to study the movement of deer after the baiting and feeding ban. Objectives The objectives of this part of the study were to: 1. Document white-tailed deer movement and migratory patterns in northeastern Lower Michigan under baiting and winter-feeding restrictions. 2. Determine if there has been a significant change in deer movement fi'om before to after the baiting and winter feeding restrictions were implemented. 3. Make management recommendations to the MDNR for white-tailed deer. Study Area The study area was the northeast portion of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan bounded on the west by Interstate-75 and on the south by State Highway M-SS (Figure 1). The study was concentrated more specifically in parts of Alcona, Alpena, Cheboygan, Montmorency, and Oscoda Counties. There were five deer-trapping sites in 2000 located on privately owned properties: Birch Creek Club in northwestern Alcona county, Jim Black's farm in Alpena county, Black River Ranch in Montmorency and Cheboygan counties, Canada Creek Ranch in northern Montmorency county, and Garland Golf Resort in southwestern Montmorency county (Figure 2). In 2001, deer were trapped at Birch Creek Club, Jim Black’s farm, Garland Golf Resort, and the Crawford residence in western Alpena County on the north side of Fletcher’s Pond. Deer were also trapped at Art Strohschein’s farm in northeastern Presque Isle Black River County Ranch [Canada Creek Ranch of Mord Rosldo‘n Montmorency/~— —*' Slrohscholr/ , County Farm ‘ F“ 3"“ Lockwood Lake ‘ ‘ Farm Ranch b Leroy Hunt Club When Crook Club Garland Resort \Llppofl Ranch ‘ Alcona Oscoda County County Legend . Trap Sites Figure 2. Map of study area showing approximate locations of trapping sites. Montmorency county and Lockwood Lake Ranch in eastern Montmorency county (Figure 2); these two sites were used from 1997 to 1999 in a similar deer movement study (Garner 2001) prior to the baiting and feeding ban. Deer were not trapped at the Strohschein or Lockwood sites between 1999 and 2001 to ensure that our trap-baiting activities were not influencing the movement of deer during the transition from legal baiting and feeding to the ban on baiting and winter-feeding of deer. Garner (2001) also trapped and radio—collared deer at the Leroy Hunt Club in western Alpena County and the Lippert Ranch in northwestern Alcona County prior to the baiting and feeding ban. The deer that remained from the Gamer (2001) study with active radio—collars were used in this study. These trapping sites were selected because they represent common types of land ownerships in the area. Birch Creek Club Birch Creek Club is located near the center of the TB core area in Alcona County approximately 4.8 km south of the northern county boundary and 2.4 km east of highway M - 65 (Township 28N, Range 5E, section 13) (Figure 2). The Birch Creek property is 259.2 ha (640 acres) in size, has a creek that flows east through the property and is interrupted by two man-made lakes adjacent to each other and contained, entirely, on the Birch Creek property. One lake is approximately 0.6 ha and spills directly into the other 1.0 ha lake through a culvert. This property is mostly forested with oaks (Quercus spp.), maples (A cer spp. ), conifers, and aspen (Populus tremuloides and P. grandidentata). Most of the forest along the creek is cedar (Hmja occidentalis) swamp. Soon after the initiation of the feeding ban, several feed plots were constructed throughout the property and are kept in rotations of alfalfa, buckwheat, corn, oat, rapeseed, rye, soybean, sunflower, wheat, and other crops. Birch Creek is owned and managed by ten members chiefly for deer hunting, but also for turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and black bear (Ursus amerr'canus) hunting. There is a large clubhouse, smaller residence, and a cabin located adjacent to the smaller lake and another small cabin is located nearby. One of the members lives year-round on the property; the rest may vacation sporadically throughout the year on the property. Most, if not all members, including guests, are certain to be using the property at some point during the hunting seasons during which deer are heavily hunted. Other game animals that are hunted less frequently on the property include coyotes (Cam's latrans), grouse (Bonasa umbellus), and raccoons (Procyon lotor). Deer and other wildlife were fed regularly on Birch Creek throughout the winter before the baiting and feeding ban was implemented. Deer were trapped and radio—collared on Birch Creek Club from 1999 to 2001 and were located until the end of the study. Ten of the deer from this site were trapped by Garner (2001) in 1999 and data were collected from them and used in this study as long as the deer and their radio-collars remained active. Black Farm Jim and Sandra Black’s farm is also located within the TB core area. The 162 ha (400 ac) Black farm is located in Alpena County on the west side of highway M — 65, approximately 4.3 km south of the M — 32 highway (Township 35N, Range 5E, section 6) (Figure 2). Approximately three quarters of the property consists of row crops of bean, corn, wheat, and cat. Less than one-filth of the property is forested with a mixture of oak, cedar, and aspen. The remainder of the property (just over 1/16 of the property) is swampy. This property is heavily hunted during the deer hunting seasons and prior to the ban, bait was occasionally put out for the deer. Deer were trapped and radio—collared on the Black farm from 1999 to 2001 and were located until the end of the study. Seven of the deer fiom this site were trapped by 5-". Garner (2001) in 1999 and data was collected from them and used in this study as long as the deer and their radio-collars remained active. Black River Ranch Black River Ranch is approximately 3655 ha (9024 ac) in size and is located northwest of the TB core area in the northwestern corner of Montmorency County and extends into Cheboygan County (Townships 32N and 33N, Range 1E, multiple sections) (Figure 2). The Black River flows north through the property and the East Branch of the Black River also flows onto the property and joins with the main branch on the property. There are two lakes on the northern end of the property; the larger (Silver Lake) is 64 ha, the smaller is 0.8 km south of Silver Lake and is about 6 ha in size. In between the two lakes is a runway for small airplanes. There are several ridges and valleys that run north and south through the property and are more pronounced than what is found in other parts of the study area. Twenty members belong to the Ranch and use the property, along with their families and guests, primarily for deer hunting as well as elk and bear hunting. The property is also used for recreation throughout the summer. The caretaker of the property, along with his family, lives year-round on the property. There are two main buildings on the east side of the main lake. One is lodging for the members and guests; the other serves as a residence for the caretaker and is also the main kitchen and dining room for the ranch. There are also smaller storage and maintenance buildings located nearby. 10 Baiting and feeding were practiced on the property before the ban and are still done on the portion of the property located in Cheboygan County (where no TB positive deer have been detected). There are several large feed plots located throughout the property that were established before the baiting and feeding ban and are used by both deer and elk. Black River Ranch was added as a study site because trapping success was down at Canada Creek Ranch (see below) and this was the closest available site to it. Deer were trapped and radio—collared on Black River Ranch during 2000 and were located until the end of the study in the spring of 2002. Deer were not trapped in 2001 at the request of the ranch members. This may have been due to the fact that two or three of the radio—collared deer remained close to the buildings on the property and were often seen by people, which may have given the impression (undesirable, to the ranch members) that more deer were collared than actually were. Canada Creek Ranch Canada Creek Ranch is located northwest of the TB core area in northwestern Montmorency County just west of highway M — 33 and adjacent to Black River Ranch, its northern border follows part of the county boundary (Township 32N, Range 1E, multiple sections) (Figure 2). Canada Creek flows north through the property and there are seven lakes ranging from one ha to 39 ha in size. Most (70%) of the undeveloped parts of the property are forested and include aspen, oak, maple, and other northern hardwood species and conifers. Timber is harvested from these forests in a manner that is meant to benefit wildlife. Approximately 11 20% of the property is grassland or fields; 16 ha to 24 ha of fields are maintained as food plots for wildlife with rye, wheat, clover and legumes. Ten percent of the property is swamp. This 5672 ha (14005 ac) property is owned by 1550 members. There is a 608 ha developed area on the east side of the property where 600 houses and cabins, a twenty room hotel, campground, restaurant, and many rental cabins are located. Canada Creek Ranch receives a great deal of hunting pressure from the members, their families, and guests. Traps were placed on the northern end of the property, away from areas frequented by people, when possible, but were sometimes found and visited by recreational snowmobile users. Deer were trapped and radio—collared on Canada Creek Ranch during the winters of 1999 and 2000 and were located until the end of the study. Deer were not trapped in 2001 because trapping success was low during 2000 and a sufficient number of deer from Canada Creek Ranch and Black River Ranch wore radio—collars. Three of the deer from this site were trapped by Garner (2001) in 1999 and data were collected from them and used in this study as long as the deer and their radio-collars remained active. Crawford Residence This is a private residence, approximately 16 ha (40 ac) in size located inside of the TB core area, south of M - 32 and about 1.6 km east of the Alpena-Montmorency County line in Alpena County (Township 30N, Range 5E, section) (Figure 2). Most of the property is forested in cedar swamp mixed with hardwoods. A house and two 12 outbuildings are set on one corner of the property. There is also a small feed plot and two fields on the property that are used by deer and turkeys. The surrounding land is also privately owned and deer in this area receive hunting pressure fi'om residents and visitors. Deer were trapped on the Crawford residence in 2001 and were located until the end of the study. This site was added late in the study to determine deer movement near the north end of Fletchers Pond. Garland Resort Garland is a AAA, four-diamond resort west of the TB core area in northwestern Oscoda County approximately eight kilometers south of the town of Lewiston on county road 489, which bisects the property (Township 28N, Range 1E, multiple sections) (Figure 2). The 1418 ha (3501 ac) property has four golf courses, a restaurant, hotel (120 rooms), twelve houses, 90 smaller villas or cottages, and 160 residential lots for sale. There is also a privately owned airport with a 1789 m paved runway and a 446 ha enclosure, where guided hunts for white-tailed deer, boar (Sus scrofa), and elk are sold, on the property. A large portion of the property on the western end remains undeveloped and is used for deer hunting; the southeastern end of the property is adjacent to state- owned property and is also used for hunting. Baiting and some winter-feeding were practiced on and around the property before the baiting and feeding ban. The deer from this property seemed to be accustomed to routine employee activity. Some of the areas containing signs of heavy deer use crossed commonly used service roads and areas disturbed by maintenance activities on the resort. Traps were placed away from residential areas, but were sometimes located near service roads. One 13 trap was located in the southern end of the property near one corner of the enclosure (greater than 40 m fi'om the enclosure) and adjacent to public property. Deer were trapped and radio—collared on Garland Resort from 1999 to 2001 and were located until the end of the study. One of the deer from this site was trapped by Gamer (2001) in 1999 and data continued to be collected on it throughout this study. Leroy Hunt Club The Leroy Hunt Club is located inside the TB core area approximately 13 miles north of the Alcona — Alpena County Line, has Fletcher’s Pond as its western border, and is 648 ha (1600 ac) in size (Township 30N, Range 5E, section 28) (Figure 2). Approximately one-third of the property adjacent to the lake is swamp, most of the remaining property is covered with hardwoods. Much of the vegetation on the west and middle of the property was damaged by a tornado in the early 1990’s and is regenerating slowly. There are two natural gas wells operating on the northeastern corner of the property. Approximately 30 members belonging to the club hunt cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagusfloridanus), turkey, ruffed grouse, bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote, black bear, and white-tailed deer. Baiting and feeding of deer was practiced on this property before the ban. Although the club members discontinued supplemental feeding of the deer before the ban, Garner (who also used this property in his study) was given permission to continue providing feed for the deer to collect feeding behavior data. After the initiation of the baiting and feeding ban, several food plots were created on the property to attract wildlife. 14 The six radio-collared deer from Leroy Hunt Club were trapped by Garner (2001) in 1997 before the baiting and feeding ban and data was collected from them and used in this study as long as the deer and their radio-collars remained active. Lippert Ranch Although the ownership and name of this property changed (now it is the North Fork Ranch) during the course of this study, all the marked deer were trapped on this property when it was the Lippert Ranch. This study site was not renamed to avoid confiJsion. This study site was located inside the TB core area on State Highway M-65, approximately 11 km south of the Alcona - Alpena County Line (Township 27N, Range 5E, section 2) (Figure 2). The property covers 648 ha (1600 ac) of hills covered by hardwoods and cedar swamps. Although the property was used as a vacation home, the caretaker of the property was present every day. Deer were baited and fed heavily here, but recreational viewing took precedence over hunting; although deer were hunted regularly on the properties bordering the Ranch. There were approximately 11 established food plots larger than 2.1 ha planted with rye or clover for wildlife. Large numbers of black bears, bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), wild turkeys, and other wildlife could also be found on this property. Soon after the change in ownership of this property (early in 1999) there was a significant amount of construction concentrated in the southwest corner of the property. Several buildings were erected along with a horse stable and corral. 15 The six radio-collared deer from this site were trapped by Garner (2001) in 1997 or 1998 before the baiting and feeding ban and data was collected from them and used in this study as long as the deer and their radio-collars remained active. Lockwood Lake Ranch Lockwood Lake Ranch is located inside the TB core area approximately 6.5 km north of the Montmorency — Oscoda County Line and 1.6 km east of State Highway M- 33 (Township 29N, Range 4E, section 7) (Figure 2). The property is 770 ha (1900 ac) in size and contains the 63 ha lake for which the ranch is named. The land is hilly and covered with hardwoods and cedar swamps. This property was once a horse ranch, but no livestock are currently being maintained and the fields have been abandoned. There are several buildings located on the northeast end of the lake in close proximity to each other. There are also 20 natural gas wells on the property with well-maintained gravel roads leading to them. The ranch is maintained by a caretaker who actively harvests timber from the property with the objective of maintaining habitat that is beneficial to wildlife, especially deer which are hunted regularly during the hunting seasons. This property was used little by the owners and their guests except as a place to vacation during the summer and in the fall and winter for hunting, during which it was used heavily. Baiting and supplemental feeding of deer was practiced on this property before the implementation of the ban. F our of the deer used in this study were trapped and radio—collared on this site by Garner (2001) before the baiting and feeding ban and data was collected from them and 16 used in this study as long as the deer and their radio-collars remained active. Additional deer were trapped and radio—collared in 2001 and were located until the end of the study. Strohschein Farm This farm covers 65 ha (160 ac) of fields, some coniferous wooded areas, and areas of cedar swamps. The farm is located just north of the TB core area approximately 7.7 km south of the Presque Isle - Montmorency County Line and 3.3 km west of the Montmorency - Alpena County Line (Township 32N, Range 4E, section 27) (Figure 2). The farm is primarily a beef-cattle operation and is hunted heavily during deer season by family and friends. Deer feed regularly on fields of hay on the farm and prior to the baiting and feeding ban, deer were feed bales of hay and corn. After the ban, food plots of winter wheat were created for deer, and several rows of corn were left standing on one side of the property adjacent to a road, which had the added benefit of deterring people from illegally harvesting deer from the property because the view of the fields from the road was blocked. Six of the deer used in this study were trapped and radio—collared from this site by Garner (2001) before the baiting and feeding ban. Additional deer were trapped and radio—collared in 2001 and were located until the end of the study. 17 Methods Deer Trapping Deer were trapped in January 2000 and 2001 after the end of the firearm deer seasons until the end of March when winter weather was coming to an end and before spring deer migrations began. Single-gate, collapsible Clover traps (Clover 1954, 1956; McCullough 1974) and box traps were used to capture deer. Both types of traps have been successfully used in similar studies in the same general area (Garner 2001). Clover traps are relatively easy to move, place, and operate. Box traps are not as mobile but, historically, appear to be more successfiil in capturing deer and protect them from weather, predation, and stress for animals that spend time inside the trap (Garner 2001). Both types of traps were transported to the study sites via pickup truck and a snowmobile trailer. Clover traps were easily carried by two people and could be placed away from roads and trails, while box traps had to be placed using the pickup truck to transport it directly to where it was used. The base of the Clover traps were anchored by driving stakes (made of 45 cm lengths of rebar with a heavy washer welded onto one end) into the ground outside the trap, near each corner and tying the stake to the lower frame of the trap with wire. The tops of the traps were anchored and supported with ropes attached to nearby trees or stakes driven into the ground approximately 1.5 m to 2.0 m away from the trap at an angle away fi'om the ends of the trap. The ropes attached to the door end of the traps were secured with a slipknot so that they could be easily removed to collapse the trap. The weight of the box traps eliminated the need to anchor them, but it was necessary to pack snow or dirt around the base of the box traps to prevent a deer fiom seeing sunlight under the trap and attempting to escape, thereby injuring itself 18 because of the weight of the traps. Deer also seemed to remain calmer when inside box traps if an attempt was made to block sunlight from entering gaps between the doors and body of the traps. Traps were placed adjacent to deer travel routes and baited for two to five days before setting the traps. Shelled corn was the primary bait, but was changed as necessary. A minimum amount of bait was used at the traps to increase the likelihood of deer entering the traps quickly and not loitering in a group at their entrance, and to minimize the size of the reward deer received by feeding on bait at trap sites. Deer were manually restrained in Clover traps by coaxing the deer to face the trap door, then collapsing the trap on top of the deer and gently straddling the deer inside the trap to immobilize it. In the case of box traps, the deer was coaxed through an opening in the side of the trap into a narrow box just large enough for an adult deer to fit into, from which the deer was extracted by two people, each pulling on one rear leg, then one person straddled and laid on the deer to immobilize it. Afier the deer was restrained, a knit cap, with a hole cut out of the closed end, was placed over the snout and head of the deer to cover its eyes, which usually had a calming effect on the deer. The sex and estimated age of the deer were recorded. Deer age was estimated based on characteristic wear and replacement patterns of the teeth on the lower jaw (Severinghaus 1949, Sauer 1984). I attempted to attach radio-collars to fifteen deer at each trapping site in 2000 and between five and twelve deer at each site in 2001. The number of traps at each site was adjusted to try and accomplish this. 19 All individuals involved in handling deer wore appropriate latex gloves and respirators to minimize the possibility of contracting bovine TB from handling an infected live deer. Deer Marking All captured deer were marked using colored and numbered ear tags. Distinct combinations of colors and ear tag numbers allowed for visual identification of individual deer from a distance using binoculars. Deer trapped at the same study site were marked with the same color and three - digit numbers on the ear tags identified different deer fi'om the same site. Additionally, ear tags were attached to the right ear of male deer and the left ear of females. Captured deer were also fitted with radio-collars with distinct frequencies to facilitate the documentation of their movement. The collars were equipped with seven- hour motion sensitive mortality sensors, had a minimum battery life of three years, and weighed less than 0.5 kg. Collars placed on fawns had an additional foam lining glued on to them to prevent the collar from slipping off before the fawn grew to adult size. All collars were marked with an address and phone number stamped into dog tags that were then riveted to the collars to expedite their return if found. All methods used in the trapping, handling, and marking of deer were approved by the All-University Committee on Animal Use and Care (AUF# 12/96-178-00). 20 Deer Movement Data Attempts to locate radio-collared deer were made one to three times per week using hand-held receivers from known locations on the ground. Three azimuths for each deer were recorded with a magnetic compass, from known map locations to estimate a single point location. The date and time of each location attempt were also recorded. Frequencies of deer that could not be located fi'om the ground were communicated to the MDNR to be located by plane until it was possible to locate them from the ground again. The computer software Locate H (Pacer, Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada) was used to estimate point locations from the three azimuth bearings. The software outputs a coordinate in the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) format. The GIS software ArcView was used to create shape files from the estimated point location data then converted from UTM coordinates to the Michigan GeoRef Coordinate System using the Michigan DNR Projection Wizard ArcView extension program downloaded from the MDNR website (www.michigan.gov/dnr). Base maps of the appropriate counties that contained shape files of roads, lakes, rivers and streams were also downloaded fi'om the MDNR website. It would then be possible to superimpose the shape files containing the point location coordinates over maps of the appropriate counties. The point location data were then analyzed and grouped so that deer movement, initiation and termination dates of seasonal movements, and seasonal ranges could be estimated using the same GIS software. 21 Data from any given deer were used only if a reasonable estimate of seasonal movement or seasonal range could be created from its data; this usually required a minimum of 10 locations during one season. Deer movement data from before the baiting and feeding ban were taken from results reported by Garner (2001). In an attempt to make appropriate comparisons between deer from this study and deer from the Garner study, some of the results for this study are reported in a format similar to that used by Garner. Deer movement data collected before the baiting and feeding ban by Garner (2001) were compared to the combined data collected fi'om this study and from Garner’s data collected after the baiting and feeding ban, using the Kruskal — Wallis test (Rao, 1998), to determine if deer movement was significantly different afier the implementation of the baiting and feeding restrictions. Deer were stratified by age, gender, and classification of seasonal movement (migratory, nonmigratory, etc.) to determine if deer behavior had changed. Initiation and Termination of Seasonal Deer Movement Deer movement was classified as migratory, nonmigratory, or dispersal based on whether or not the deer displayed seasonal movement. While seasonal deer movement was classified as “spring” (from winter range to summer range) or “fall” (from summer range to winter range) movement the point location data used to estimate the ranges were lumped into “winter” and “summer” seasonal ranges. In this paper, the winter seasons are identified by the year in which that winter ended; for example, the winter that began at the end of 1998 and ended in 1999 is referred to as “Winter 1999” here. Migratory deer 22 occupy, and travel between, distinct winter and summer seasonal ranges that do not overlap. Nonmigratory deer do not have distinct seasonal ranges or they may shifi their movement between winter and summer seasons, but those movements overlap or are not distinct enough to be considered migratory. Deer that disperse leave one seasonal range to occupy another range, but will not return to the original seasonal range. Deer movement was classified by season (spring and fall) based upon the behavior of migrating and dispersing individuals. The initiation and termination dates of spring and fall seasonal movements for each migrating or dispersing deer were determined using the point location data in ArcView. Once the locations were overlaid on a map, it was easy to determine when a deer left one seasonal range to travel to a different seasonal range. For example, the point locations of a migratory deer would be concentrated in two distinct groups on a map with no, or few, point locations located between the concentrations of points. If the corresponding dates (when the locations were made) of one of the concentrations of point locations were sequential, then it could be considered a distinct seasonal range and I could determine the approximate last and first day on a particular seasonal range. Ifthe point locations of a nonmigratory deer were plotted on a map, they would more likely be concentrated in one area on the map. It was important to define winter and summer ranges for nonmigratory deer, and not to group all the point locations as a home range so that comparisons could be made between nonmigratory deer and deer that made seasonal movements. The initiation and termination dates of the seasonal ranges for nonmigratory deer were defined by the median date of all deer that made seasonal movements during a given season and year. 23 Seasonal Ranges and Distance of Seasonal Movements To make reliable comparisons between deer movement before and after the baiting and feeding ban, the methodology described by Garner was used to create the seasonal ranges of deer observed in this study. The seasonal ranges were estimated in ArcView with an adaptive kernel estimator using the least squares cross-validation of h for the smoothing parameter and a 90% confidence interval as was used by Worton (1989), Seaman (1998), and Seaman et al. (1999). A minimum of 30 locations per deer were used to estimate seasonal ranges, but there were exceptions. For example, mild winters appeared to shorten the duration of time some deer spent on winter ranges and it was not possible to record 30 locations on them. In cases where the minimum number of locations was not observed, the seasonal range was estimated using the available data and evaluated to determine if it was credible; if the estimate looked to be an extreme figure, it was not included in the analysis. To estimate the distances of seasonal movements, polygons were created using the same method for estimating seasonal ranges, except with a 10% confidence interval (Figure 3). This smaller polygon, which was inside the corresponding seasonal range, could be considered the center of activity for a particular deer on that seasonal range. ArcView was then used to measure the distance between the approximate centers of the centers of activity of the appropriate seasonal ranges to estimate the distances of seasonal movements. 24 Deer were stratified by age (yearling and adult), sex, and the study site where they were trapped to identify differences in movement among different groups of deer using the Kruskal-Wallis test. A. 90% confidence interval: Winter Range seasonal range 69 km —> 10% confidence interval: “center of activity” Summer Range Winter Range Summer Range Figure 3. A: Example of migratory deer seasonal ranges. B: Example of nonmigratory deer seasonal ranges. 25 C lassrfication of Movement A deer was considered migratory if it left one seasonal range for another, and later returned to a seasonal range that overlapped the original seasonal range. Also, if a deer was to be considered migratory, the summer and winter ranges could not overlap and the edges of the seasonal ranges must have been equal to or greater than one kilometer apart (Figure 3). If subsequent seasonal ranges overlapped or the edges were less than one kilometer apart, the deer was considered nonmigratory. Deer movement was classified as dispersal if a deer left its seasonal range and did not return the next year, unknown if a deer died or lost its radio-collar before it could be determined whether or not it would move, or ambiguous if it displayed different types of movement (dispersal, migratory, or nonmigratory). The initiation and termination dates of seasonal movements and seasonal ranges of dispersing, unknown, and ambiguous deer were estimated using the appropriate combination of methods described previously for migratory and nonmigratory deer. Winter Severity Index The MDNR monitors the winter severity using a Winter Severity Index (WSI) that measures the combined effects of air chill and snow hazard. Air chill is measured as the number of kilowatt-hours needed to maintain water inside a chillometer at 102.2 degrees Celsius. Snow hazard is measured as the distance a compaction gauge falls into snow and simulates the force exerted on the snow by the weight of a standing deer (Chadwick 2002). The MDNR begins collecting data for the WSI in November or December until the end of April and reports the WSI as the cumulative average of the 26 weekly WSI values for the entire season for three Michigan regions (Upper Peninsula, Northern Lower Peninsula, and Southern Lower Peninsula). Details of the severity index are available from Venue (1968). The MDNR provided me with data for all stations that collect WSI data in Michigan. I calculated a weekly average WSI value for northeastern Lower Michigan from data collected at the Atlanta, Gaylord, and Mio stations, all located in northeastern Lower Michigan, for the time that this project was being conducted (1999-2002). The weekly average WSI for northeastern Lower Michigan were then plotted on a chart along with data from the initiation of seasonal deer movement to identify trends in deer movement and winter weather. Results Data were collected from 88 radio-collared deer (66 females, 22 males) after the baiting and feeding ban. Approximately 9,940 point locations were collected on these deer; an average of 113 point-locations (range: 5 to 289) on each deer over the entire study. An average of 30 point locations (range: 3 to 105) were collected during each season for each deer in the study. Deer were located at different times of the day and night; 3.6% (n=357) of the locations were recorded between 12:00 am. and 5:59 am, 34.3% (n=3,410) between 6:00 am. and 11:59 am, 48.0% (n=4,772) between 12:00 pm. and 5:59 pm, 10.3% (n=1,027) between 6:00 pm. and 11:59 pm, and the time was unknown for 3.8% (n=3 74) of the locations. 27 Seasonal Movement The median date of initiation of the 1999 spring seasonal movements was 25 March 1999 (range: 14 February to 7 May 1999) (Figure 4); for the spring of 2000, 29 February 2000 (range: 28 January to 9 May 2000) (Figure 5); for the spring of 2001, 29 March (range: 29 November 2000 to 12 April 2001) (Figure 6); and for the spring of 2002, 27 March 2002 (range: 26 March to 9 April 2002) (Figure 7). The median date of initiation of the 1999 fall seasonal movements was 24 November 1999 (range: 23 August 1999 to 5 January 2000) (Figure 8); for the fall of 2000, 12 December 2000 (range: 14 September 2000 to 16 March 2001) (Figure 9); for the fall of 2001, 28 December 2001 (range: 27 September 2001 to 26 February 2002) (Figure 10). (For Figures 4 through 10 the same range of values for the x — axis and y - axis are displayed for each of the seasons, respectively, for ease of visual comparison and to show any outliers.) The Kruskal- Wallis test showed no significant difference in the median initiation of spring movements (szw = 2.59, P > 0.05) or median initiation of fall movements (szw = 2.18, P > 0.05). Average weekly WSI data is show in Figures 4 through 10 with the corresponding initiation of seasonal deer movement. The start and end of the WSI data collection by the MDNR are denoted by the diamond-shaped symbols in Figures 4 through 10. The average weekly WSI over the entire winter for northeastern Lower Michigan were 2.72, 2.63, 3.57, and 2.35 for the winters of 1999 to 2002, respectively. The cumulative WSI for northeastern Lower Michigan were 57.10, 52.68, 74.90, and 51.65 for the winters of 1999 to 2002, respectively. The MDNR reported the cumulative WSI for all of northern Lower Michigan as 49.27, 49.21, 66.13, and 44.00 for the winters of 1999 to 2002, respectively. The highest WSI recorded since 28 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Number of Deer Winter Severity Index %OdN0&U’IGNG :46». 0s: ’7 90: 6903’99990969‘3 i: ,‘j« :6. O a, a? a To, To, a 9) [— Number of Deer Initiating Seasonal Movement — —Wlnter Seventy Index I Fig. 4. Initiation of spring movement and Winter Severity Index (W SI) 1999. 8 8.00 7 7.00 3 .. 6 6.00 g E 5 ,/\ 5.00 E. E 4 A l V‘- 4.00 g E 3 I L4 \l 3.00 3 z 2 .l +\ - 2.00 E 0 t t t . I + t . L 0.00 9‘” 9" 99°9°°9°§§P95§ 553 9° S9 9° 9° 9° 6‘ a s a s x A I N’oéfgoé’ 30 >0 63* $0 Vé’tgfé‘b NXQ'éijffi’YQa‘sQ Date [_ Number of Deer Initiating Seasonal Movement - —Winter Severity Index] Fig. 5. Initiation of spring movement and WSI 2000. 29 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Number of Deer Winter Severity Index L ‘qpoanwamouoo O N N N N N N N '\ °§>€<< ”525’” ‘peipfigfipvépef ”‘33 '9’” '3’ '9' (V N“ 6°, NV 7" 9) [- Number of Deer Initiating Seasonal Movement — —Wrnter Severity Index Fig. 6. Initiation of spring movement and WSI 2001. 8 8.00 7 7.00 g g 6 6.00 E .6 5 5.00 g .. 4 4.00 g g 3 3.00 g 3 2 2.00 g 1 1.00 "3' 0 0.00 9N '\ éPN§ 9‘1; 00:}0 61'609 wo‘pqub:(:9: :19 ”01%;” 9‘], ‘9‘]! Date 9» ’2 ‘3 ”to L- Number of Deer Initiating Seasonal Movement — —Winter Severity Index] Fig. 7. Initiation of spring movement and WSI 2002. 30 7 6 .. 5 I’A t 4 A . M .. [l ’ l .3 3 LL 5 2 - 1'- ‘ 1 I ~ - - e"; - [171' o @I . II I L . l . 4 099999 fix $530529 .« .. We»: .iifiifsis’“ tie»: . r‘ 1° 9° 9 9' 9’ >1 O O O O O O O Winter Severity Index P o ]- Number of Deer Initiating Seasonal Movement — -Winter Severity Index] Fig. 8. Initiation of fall movement and WSI 1999. 7 l 6 ;I\ tip- 5 5 I"\ lll‘ é ‘ i " ‘I' 3 3 l E I z 2 _ . I -- .-LJIJ[I .J|,|.|.I, Q Q N N x N V: o 90 99?? :f:§p:o“§é€ép:o§3&@ié°p $6169 stage M moaeavte’veve Date .-‘ .N 9’ P .0' 9’ >1 O O O O O O D Winter Severity Index .° o ]— Number of Deer Initiating Seasonal Movement — —Winter Severity Index Fig. 9. Initiation of fall movement and W812000. 31 N 7‘ o 6 6.0 u 5 1 5.0% .3; . .\ A '\ .6 3 1‘ [‘1 \ll 9 8 3 J - ‘i 3.0.3 2 2 ' IV JIA’ZDE ‘ l I 1"" II I“ 0 6+ 2% I J t i . . 6 0.0 N ]_ Number of Deer Initiating Seasonal Movement — —Wrnter Severity Index Fig. 10. Initiation of fall movement and WSI 2001. 1969 for the Northern Lower Peninsula was 101.12 for the winter ending in 1982 and the lowest was 37.80 for the winter ending in 1998. Tire mean WSI for the Northern Lower Peninsula since 1969 is 66.40 (SD = 15.18) (Chadwick 2002). Table 1 shows the median and mean initiation and termination dates of the seasonal ranges based on the deer that made seasonal movements. The median dates for each season were used as the initiation and termination dates to determine the seasonal ranges for deer that did not make seasonal movements. The 1999 winter season began on 1 January (start of the ban on feeding of deer) and ended on 24 March (84 days), the 2000 winter season began on 4 January and ended on 28 February (56 days), the 2001 winter season began on 5 January and ended on 28 March (83 days), and the 2002 winter season began on 12 January and ended on 26 March (74 days). The 1999 summer season began 32 on 26 March and ended on 23 November (243 days), the 2000 summer season began on 10 April and ended on 11 December (246 days), and the 2001 summer season began on 4 April and ended on 27 December (268 days). The 2002 summer season began on 18 April but the collection of field data was completed before the end of this season could be determined. Table 1. Initiation and termination dates used for seasonal ranges for deer that did not make seasonal movements. (Combined with 1997 to 1998 data from Garner (2001).) 5'? End End End Winter Summer Winter Summer - 1997 - 1997 - 1998 - 1998 Median - 29-Mar - 28-0ct - 29-Mar - 28-Oct Mean - - - - - - - - End Begin End Begin End Begin End Winter Summer Summer Winter Winter Summer Summer - 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 Median - 24-Mar 26-Mar 23-Nov 4-Jan 28-Feb 10-Apr 1 1-Dec Mean - 25-Mar 27-Mar 4-Nov 9-Dec 1 5—Mar 5-Apr 2-Dec Begin End Begin End Begin End Begin Winter Winter Summer Summer Winter Winter Summer 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 - Median 5-Jan 28-Mar 4-Apr 27-Dec 12-Jan 26-Mar 18-Apr - Mean 22-Dec 22-Mar 7-Apr 19-Dec 4-Jan 30-Mar 2-Apr - Of the 88 radio-collared deer present after the baiting and feed ban, 5% were dispersers (n = 4), 16% were migratory (n = 14), 41% were nonmigratory (n = 36), 19% were ambiguous (n = 17), and 19% of the deer movements could not be classified (11 = 17). The percentage of deer dispersing during any particular season ranged from 0% to 7%, for migratory deer 24 % to 37 %, for nonmigratory deer 38 % to 74 %, and for deer with unknown types of movement 0 % to 22 % (deer displaying ambiguous movements 33 are included in the appropriate category depending on the behavior they display during that particular season) (Table 2). Table 2. Change in classification of seasonal movement over time (shown as percentage of radio-collared deer). Year L1 999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 l 2002 Season 1Winter n Summer n Winter n Summon n Winter n Summer n IWinter n % % % % % % 96 DisperSS 7 3 7 3 0 0 0 0 6 4 6 3 0 0 Migratory 24 1 1 29 12 26 13 28 15 34 22 37 20 26 7 onmig ratory 67 30 63 26 68 34 68 36 38 24 41 22 74 20 Unknown 2 1 0 0 6 3 4 2 22 14 1 7 9 0 0 There was no significant difference detected in the distances of seasonal movements after the baiting and feeding ban by deer classified as migratory, dispersers, or unknown over all the study sites combined (Kruskal — Wallis test; szw = 3.41, P > 0.05) (Appendix table 3), therefore, the results of these deer were pooled for analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis test also showed no significant difference between distances traveled by male and female deer (szw = 0.97, P > 0.05), or between yearling and adult deer (szw = 0.30, P > 0.05). There was, however a significant difference in the distances traveled by deer of different study sites (szw = 52.57, P < 0.0001) and in different years (szw = 14.10, P = 0.003). The mean distance traveled by deer for all study sites over the entire study after the baiting and feeding ban was 12.1 km (11 = 105, range = 2.9 km to 33.1 km). In 1999, the mean distance traveled was 9.6 km (n = 26, range = 3.8 km to 21.0 km); in 2000, 10.3 km (n = 37, range = 3.0 km to 21.7 km); in 2001, 14.9 km (n = 36, range = 2.9 km to 33.1 km); and in 2002, 17.9 km (n = 6, range = 6.6 km to 23.65 km). Figure 11 shows the mean distance of seasonal movements observed by study site and year. The mean distance traveled by deer radio-collared at the Birch Creek Club 34 after the baiting and feeding ban was 12.1 km (n = 35, range = 3.8 km to 20.9 km). In 1999 the mean distance traveled was 9.8 km (n = 11, range = 3.8 km to 19.0 km); in 2000, 12.1 km (n =12, range = 4.0 km to 19.9 km); in 2001, 13.9 km (n = 9, range = 5.5 km to 20.9 km); and in 2002, 15.5 km (n = 3, range = 6.6 km to 20.0 km) (Table 3). The mean distance traveled by deer radio-collared at the Black farm after the baiting and feeding ban was 19.8 km (n = 25, range = 6.4 km to 33.1 km). In 1999 the mean distance traveled was 15.4 km (11 = 5, range = 7.1 km to 21.0 km); in 2000, 16.5 km (n = 6, range = 6.4 km to 21.7 km); in 2001, 23.5 km (n =11, range = 15.9 km to 33.1 km); and in 2002, 20.1 km (n = 3, range = 15.4 km to 23.7 km) (Table 3). The mean distance traveled by deer radio-collared at the Black River Ranch after the baiting and feeding ban was 8.1 km (n = 4, range = 3.0 km to 14.8 km). In 2000 the mean distance traveled was 7.0 km (n = 3, range = 3.0 km to 14.8 km) and in 2001, one deer traveled 11.47 km (Table 3). The mean distance traveled by deer radio-collared at the Canada Creek Ranch alter the baiting and feeding ban was 5.7 km (n = 4, range = 2.9 km to 9.3 km). In 1999 one deer traveled 9.3 km; in 2000, one deer traveled 5.2 km; in 2001, the mean distance traveled was 4.3 km (11 = 2, range = 2.9 km to 5.7 km) (Table 3). All of the radio-collared deer fi'om the Crawford study site were classified as nonmigratory or unknown and no seasonal movement was observed for these five deer. The mean distance traveled by deer radio-collared at the Garland Resort after the baiting and feeding ban was 14.6 km (n = 6, range = 10.4 km to 33.0 km). In 2000 one deer traveled 10.4 km and in 2000 five deer traveled a mean distance of 15.4 km (range = 10.4 km to 33.0 km) (Table 3). 35 22380. £80“ £080 880? E6”. .665. .............................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................... A5.0 onO :25. can“. 50:02.25- .w I ,. e. 666:9..- 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 16.0 -—4 n {Inn}... - u 1 0. 6 2.0 i 3: “I: 0.0 - Study srre 01998 .1999 32000 132001 02002 .1997 Fig. 11. Mean distance of all types of seasonal deer movement by study site and year (1997-2002). 36 Table 3. Mean distances (km) of seasonal movements by study site and year. with 1997 to 1998 data from Garner (2001).) Site; year km n RangL Birch Creek Club 1999 9.8 11 3.8-19.0 2000 12.1 12 4.0-19.9 2001 13.7 10 5.5-20.9 2002 15.5 3 6.6-20.0 Black Farm 1999 15.4 5 7.1-21.0 2000 16.5 6 12.4-21.7 2001 23.5 11 15.9- 33.1 2002 20.2 3 15.4-23.7 Black River Ranch 1999 - - - 2000 7.0 3 3.3-14.8 2001 11.5 1 - 2002 0.0 0 - nada Creek Ranchi 1999 9.2 1 - 2000 5.2 1 - 2001 4.3 2 2.9-5.7 2002 0.0 0 - Crawford 1999 - - - 2000 - - - 2001 0.0 0 - 2002 0.0 0 - Garland Resort 1999 0.0 0 - 2000 10.4 1 - 2001 15.4 5 10.4-33.01 2002 0.0 0 - (Combined Site; year km n RanL Leroy Hunt Club 1997 10.9 9 4.9-20.6 1998 20.9 1 - 1999 7.1 1 - 2000 10.6 3 7.7-15.3 2001 7.9 2 7.7-8.0 2002 0.0 0 - Lippert 1997 6.3 4 4.1-8.2 1998 6.9 11 3.8-9.2 1999 5.5 6 4.2-7.1 2000 6.1 6 51-78 2001 7.7 1 - 2002 0.0 0 - iockwood Lake Ranch 1997 7.7 2 4.6-10.7 1998 7.9 2 54-104 1999 4.2 2 4.2-4.2 2000 6.5 5 5.1-9.9 2001 7.3 4 51-97 2002 0.0 0 - Strohschein Farm 1997 4.9 3 5.0-6.7 1998 5.0 1 - 1999 5.0 1 - 2000 0.0 0 - 2001 4.5 1 - 2002 0.0 0 - The mean distance traveled by deer radio-collared at the Leroy Hunt Club after the baiting and feeding ban was 9.1 km (n = 6, range = 7.1 km to 15.3 km). In 1999 one deer traveled 7 .1 km; in 2000, the mean distance traveled was 10.5 km (n = 3, range = 7.8 km to 15.3 km) and in 2001, 7.9 km (n = 2, range = 7.7 km to 8.0 km) (Table 3). The mean distance traveled by deer radio-collared at the Lippert Ranch after the baiting and feeding ban was 5.9 km (n = 13, range = 4.2 km to 7.8 km). In 1999 the 5-, 1.1 “An ‘- r. r' “I. m'- mean distance traveled was 5.5 km (11 = 6, range = 4.2 km to 7.1 km); in 2000, the mean distance traveled was 6.1 km (n = 6, range = 5.1 km to 7.8 km); and in 2001, one deer traveled 7.7 km (Table 3). The mean distance traveled by deer radio-collared at the Lockwood Lake Ranch after the baiting and feeding ban was 6.4 km (n = 11, range = 3.9 km to 9.9 km). In 1999 the mean distance traveled was 4.2 km (n = 2, range = 4.2 km to 4.2 km); in 2000, 6.5 km (n = 5, range = 3.9 km to 9.9 km); and in 2001, 7.3 km (n = 4, range = 4.9 km to 9.7 km). At the Strohschein farm only one radio-collared deer made a seasonal movement after the baiting and feeding ban, in 2001, of 4.5 km (Table 3). Seasonal Range The only significant difference found in the size of seasonal ranges was between deer of different sites (Kruskal - Wallis test; szw = 65.60, P < 0.0001). The Kmskal -— Wallis test detected no significant difference between summer and winter ranges (szw = 3.12, P > 0.05), different years (szw = 0.34, P > 0.05), male and female deer (szw = 1.23, P > 0.05), or yearling and adult deer (szw = 0.12, P > 0.05) (Appendix table 4). The mean size of seasonal ranges for all radio-collared deer after the baiting and feeding ban was 510.8 ha (n = 334, range = 15.6 ha to 7028.0 ha). Figure 12 shows the mean size of the seasonal ranges observed by study site, season, and year. The mean size of seasonal ranges of deer radio-collared at the Birch Creek Club was 753.5 ha (n = 90, range = 68.6 ha to 4125.4 ha), 710.7 ha (n = 57, range = 21.2 ha to 7028.0 ha) on the Black farm, 692.5 ha (11 = 5, range = 281.4 ha to 1265.5 ha) on the Black River Ranch, 417.0 ha (11 = 17, range = 15.6 ha to 2359.7 ha) on the 38 Canada Creek Ranch, 82.1 ha (n = 10, range = 33.7 ha to 151.1 ha) on the Crawford residence, 539.4 ha (n = 24, range = 101.1 ha to 1126.1 ha) on the Garland Resort, 337.2 ha (n = 33, range = 61.7 ha to 2489.0 ha) on the Leroy Hunt Club, 245.5 ha (n = 35, range = 57.0 ha to 680.5 ha) on the Lippert Ranch, 323.0 ha (n = 28, range = 34.7 ha to 998.1 ha) on the Lockwood Lake Ranch, and 262.5 ha (n = 35, range = 16.6 he to 769.4 ha) on the Strohschein Farm (Table 4). Movement and Range of Radio-collared Deer Before Baiting and Feeding Ban Data collected from 92 deer (59 females, 33 males) by Garner (2001), before the baiting and feeding ban, were used for comparison in this study. The median last day on the winter and summer ranges was 29 March and 28 October, respectively, in both 1997 and 1998 (Table 1). The mean distance traveled by radio-collared deer making seasonal movements was 8.2 km (n = 33, range = 3.0 km to 20.9 km). In 1997, the mean distance traveled was 8.5 km (n = 18, range = 3.0 km to 20.6 km); in 1998, the mean distance was 7.9 km (n = 15, range = 3.8 km to 20.9 km (Table 5). The mean distance traveled by deer from the Leroy Hunt Club before the baiting and feeding ban was 11.9 km (n = 10, range = 4.9 km to 20.9 km). In 1997 the mean distance traveled by these deer was 10.9 km (11 = 9, range = 4.9 km to 20.6 km). In 1998 one deer traveled 20.9 km (Table 3). 39 l e All-‘3'. Jill-III] Agile-(Iii i. LII [I gig; Illl‘llllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllglllllllllll Igal Ellllllllilllll'lllillllllllillil in chu- I..-Inu-. l-.nlu -:-.-.Iih.aN-I II-nn Indunr: -— 53%|! Idlll 1.: 313.14..”1 $131.11.. 1131‘ . llil 1500 1400 1300 i I'llrll. 1..1..11...11..11..1..11..1.11.121111.111...E.1.1111..... N§§S§§§§§:§‘I II ill"; lililllllllll‘l‘ 311i; 311.131,: Egg .1.- g .IPIWSUP. :Etztf). case all: 1...... rattlrrifltll! in: Olbjloitttlt) III!!! a IIEIIIFIIII’IIIIII‘I'E 11 - 313111343133”: .............................. .tooom Den—.90 EEEBEO Essay. x020 Sacco 58m .25. 3.85 E5“. saga 403.0 x020 :25 Each. Eononcozw .flnocum 3.5 0095.03 ago 2:: 66.. Study Site BSumrner 2000 ISumrner 1999 DWInter 2000 uSumrner1998 IWInter 1999 IWW1997 ISummer1997 IWlntOf1998 IISurnrner 2001 DWlnter2002 0m 2001 2002) Fig. 12. Mean size of seasonal deer ranges by study site and season (1997 40 The mean distance traveled by deer fi'om the Lippert Ranch before the baiting and feeding ban was 6.8 km (n = 15, range = 3.8 km to 9.2 km). In 1997 the mean distance traveled by these deer was 6.3 km (n = 4, range = 4.1 km to 8.2 km). In 1998 the mean distance traveled was 6.9 km (11 = 11, range = 3.8 km to 9.2 km) (Table 3). The mean distance traveled by deer from Lockwood Lake Ranch before the baiting and feeding ban was 7.8 km (n = 4, range = 4.6 km to 10.7 km). In 1997 the mean distance traveled by these deer was 7.7 km (n = 2, range = 4.6 km to 10.7 km). In 1998 the mean distance traveled was 7 .9 km (n = 2, range = 5.4 km t010.4 km) (Table 3). The mean distance traveled by deer from the Strohschein Farm before the baiting and feeding ban was 4.9 km (11 = 4, range = 3.0 km to 6.7 km). In 1997 the mean distance traveled by these deer was 4.9 km (n = 3, range = 3.0 km to 6.7 km). In 1998 one deer traveled 5.0 km (Table 3). The mean size of seasonal ranges for all radio-collared deer before the baiting and feeding ban was 283.0 ha (n = 212, range = 14.0 ha to 3770.0 ha). Figure 12 shows the mean size of seasonal ranges. The mean size of seasonal ranges of deer radio-collared at the Leroy Hunt Club was 330.2 ha (n = 44, range = 22.0 ha to 3770.0 ha); on the Lippert Ranch, 305.1 ha (n = 66, range = 23.0 ha to 2855.0 ha); on the Lockwood Lake Ranch, 314.4 ha (n = 50, range = 49.0 ha to 1217.0 ha); and 184.8 ha (n = 52, range = 14.0 ha to 657.0 ha) on the Strohschein Farm. 41 37m? : 5.31 x35 «cacao Econ. Segue—.25 worréow room : tomom “Eat—.0 wwonmm P w - o c : cocoa 52¢ :35 E15". xuefi 5:3. 93.. 3on00.. : 8:623”. 28380 hww Twp N 9 56 or won C 93.0 3320 :25 .35 :5: >23 42 Table 5. Mean distance (kniof seasonal movement for all study sites combined. Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Overall Dist. 8.2 7.9 9.2 10.3 14.9 17.9 8.1 n 19 1 5 27 37 37 6 34 Deer Present Before and After Baiting and Feeding Ban Twenty of the deer (19 females, 1 male) that were trapped prior to the baiting and feeding ban survived with active radio-collars long enough to collect data on them after the ban. For these twenty deer, a Kruskal — Wallis test showed no significant difference in the initiation and termination dates of seasonal movements among sites after the ban (szw = 1.61, P > 0.05); however there was a significant difference from year to year after the ban (szw = 14.82, P < 0.01). The median last day on the winter range for this set of deer was 25 March in 1999, 28 April in 2000, and 19 March in 2001. The median last day on the summer range was 23 August in 1999 and 2 November in 2000. 1 Fifteen percent (n = 3) of these deer migrated after the baiting and feeding ban, 55% (n = 11) were nonmigratory, and 30% (n = 6) displayed both migratory and nonmigratory movements. Since there was only one male in this group of deer, comparisons between male and female deer movements were not considered. The data from the male deer were pooled with the other deer for analysis. There was no significant difference shown between deer of different study sites (szw = 2.05, P > 0.05), type of seasonal movement (szw = 0.82, P > 0.05), year (szw = 3.68, P > 0.05), or winter or summer ranges (szw = 2.16, P > 0.05). There was a significant difference shown by year (Xka = 9.55, P < 0.01). 43 22.0 18.0 < 16.0 1 14.0 4 . . . .‘Ax . 3'}. nevi-1 . -. . . . fl...“ ._..._._._....._.,... -.-.-.-.~ ._. ._.... ................ ..... .. d _O o Average Distance (km) 5‘. o 9° 0 6.0 ~ 4.0 ~ ‘~.\ “333xXtN‘t-‘x‘xfiwt. > i r. \. 1. \x“ i. 1 \‘I‘ \ \\ \\\1 x3 \ 1; . x 2.0 4 ’/ - roy H.“ Chb -L'ppert -Lockwood Lalte -Stroheche'n Ranch Farm Study Site 0.0 ~ .1997 E31998 .1999 32000 E32031 [32002 Fig. 13. Mean distance traveled by deer with radio-collars both before and after the baiting and feeding ban by study site and year (1997-2002). 44 .;i .. a use. sun... i... .u. 1 . . a. o u u a .. .13 1 31.....L. 3...... yd¢eéd§¢ z. 5.5. .r . 5...... ..r.nu.mw..u.vnu..l.nfi6./N§ ........... 700 1 d m a... .32 82.22 N m a....W.W,._..__...H..n.w . . . .. . x/aamflfi. m m o Strohschein Farm Lockwood Lake Ranch Study Site Lippert Leroy Hunt Club C1 Summer 1999 IWinter1999 ISummer 1998 ISummer1997 Ianter1998 IWinter1997 CI Winter 2002 E3 Summer 2001 13 Summer 2000 BWinter 2001 BVVInter 2000 Fig. 14. Mean size of seasonal ranges of deer with radio-collars both before and after the baiting and feeding ban by study site and season (1997-2002). 45 Overall, the mean distance traveled by these deer from 1997 to 2001 was 7 .7 km (11 = 54, range = 3.0 km to 20.9 km). The mean distance traveled before the baiting and feeding ban was 8.2 km (n = 33, range = 3.0 km to 20.9 km) and 6.8 km (n = 21, range = 4.2 km to 15.3km) after the baiting and feeding ban. The mean distance traveled in 1997 was 8.5 km (n =18, range = 3.0 km to 20.6 km), 7.9 km (11 = 15, range = 5.0 km to 20.9 km) in 1998, 5.0 km (n = 7, range = 4.2 km to 7.1 km) in 1999, 7.5 km (11 =10, range = 4.2 km to 15.3 km) in 2000, and 8.3 km (n = 4, range = 7.7 km to 9.7 km) in 2001. Figure 13 shows the mean distance traveled by these deer by study site and year. The overall mean size of the seasonal ranges for this group of deer was 291.8 ha (n = 311). The mean size of seasonal ranges before the baiting and feeding ban was 214.5 ha (n= 168) after the ban the mean size of seasonal ranges was 198.3 ha (n = 99, range = 90 ha to 998.0 ha). Figure 14 shows the mean size of seasonal ranges for these deer by study site, season and year. Discussion It is widely known that weather and cover from winter weather play an important role in deer behavior throughout the winter. Coniferous forests are an important component of winter deer habitat; dense conifer cover provides the best shelter for energy-conservation and predator defense for winter survival. But prime shelter is not absolutely necessary for deer having access to nutritious farm crops during winter. During the winter months deer reduce their intake of food and may lose as much as 20 to 30 percent body weight even if good quality food, which slows this weight loss, is made available (Mautz 197 8). The high-energy diet of corn, along with browse, provides deer 46 with a balanced diet and sufficient energy to compensate for energy loss (Ozaga 1994). The amount and variety of feed available to deer throughout northeastern Lower Michigan before the baiting and feeding ban likely buffered the effects of winter over many years to the point that deer relied on the feed to protect them from normal winter weather instead of the cover afforded to them by their natural habitat. Furthermore, the amount and availability of good-quality food invariably determines how many deer can 5.1 survive a prolonged, stressful winter season in any given area. High deer densities A. (12.5-19.5 deer/kmz) throughout DMU 452 have probably resulted fi'om a combination of feed available to deer in the winter and the reluctance of hunters in the past to harvest antlerless deer (Hickling 2002). Ozaga (1994) stated that a series of successive mild winters, coupled with increased food availability produced by logging or artificial feeding, could perpetuate deer occupation of widely scattered, poorly sheltered sites. It would be reasonable to assume that if those conditions lasted long enough, as they have in northeastern Lower Michigan, traditional deer movement could be effected to the point that deer occupation of widely scattered and poorly sheltered sites would become the normal behavior for some deer. At the start of this project I assumed that the long-term, intensive winter-feeding and fall-baiting of deer as it was practiced in northeastern lower Michigan before the baiting and feeding ban, had a profound influence on deer movement. Due to the great amount and distribution of food made available by people for the deer beginning in the fall combined with several years of consecutive mild winters, I felt that the initiation of seasonal movement was less dependent on weather patterns and more dependent on the 47 availability and composition of feed. I thought that the baiting and feeding would have the overall effect of decreasing the mean distances of seasonal movements and size of seasonal ranges because deer simply did not have to travel far when food was made regularly available at particular locations throughout their ranges. I also thought that the removal of supplemental baiting and feeding would reverse these trends. Deer movement should become more sensitive to weather conditions (deer movements appear to be responding to weather, but it is unclear if they are more sensitive than before the ban), increase the distances of their seasonal movements (the mean distance has increased), and increase the size of their ranges (an increase in the size of ranges were observed on some sites) as a result of the ban on baiting and feeding, although these changes would probably occur gradually over a few years. These changes should occur in order to compensate for the removal of supplemental feed because deer would be forced to rely on their natural habitat for their nutritional requirements and cover from winter weather while competing with each other for these resources. All age classes of female deer were represented in this study; both fawns and adults were trapped and radio-collared and commonly survived throughout the study. Male deer, however, were under-represented in this study partially because only the fawns of this sex entered the traps and also because it was rare for the bucks to survive past the hunting season after which they were trapped and radio-collared. Van Deelen (1995) reported that the last day on the winter range of deer in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan was 4 April and 15 December for the last day on the summer range. Sitar (1996) reported the last day on the winter range of 1994 and 1995 to be 8 April and 27 March, respectively, and the last day on the summer range of 1994 48 and 1995 to be 29 November and 19 November, respectively, on deer fi'om what would be considered the northern part of the five county area in this study. Garner (2001) reported the last day on the winter range to be 29 March and the last day on the summer range to be 28 October in 1997 and 1998. In this study, the last days on the winter range were 28 February, 28 March, and 26 March from 1999 to 2001, respectively and the last days on the summer range were 23 November, 11 December, and 27 December fi'om 1999 to 2001, respectively. The last day on the winter range for deer of this study was similar to those of the other studies except for the winter of 1999 which occurred approximately four to six weeks earlier than in the other studies. Changes in winter weather conditions may help explain this difference, except that the winters preceding and following the winter of 1999 were both mild as was the winter of 1999 (Chadwick 2002). Another likely explanation for this was the elimination of the winter-feeding of deer that began in January of 1999 which may have forced deer to migrate earlier than normal in order to seek out alternative natural food sources to replace what normally would have been provided by the supplemental feed. The last day on the summer range for deer of this study was similar to those found in other studies. Van Deelen (1995) reported the median distance between the harmonic mean centers of winter and summer ranges of all deer in his study as 5.5 km, 9.2 km, and 1.7 km from 1992 to 1994, respectively, which would underestimate the distance of seasonal movement as used in this study because it includes distances of deer that I would have considered nonmigratory. Garner (2001) reported the mean migratory distance of deer from Leroy Hunt Club, Lippert Ranch, Lockwood Lake Ranch, and Strohschein Farm to 49 be 8.4 km, 10.6 km for migratory deer from Birch Creek Club, and 25.7 km for migratory deer fiom the Black Farm. The distances of seasonal movements of deer from this study seem to be comparable to those of the other studies. The overall distance ~ traveled was 12.1 km and ranged from 9.6 km in 1999 to 17.9 km in 2002. Although the mean distance has increased over time, it is important to note that there was not a sudden and large increase in the mean distance after the initiation of the baiting and feeding ban that would have indicated that deer were making mass migrations out of the area to search out more suitable habitat. The only statistically significant difference found among the seasonal ranges was between deer of different study sites; this was likely due to the characteristics of the local habitat. There was no clear pattern observed among the study sites except for the Crawford Residence where the mean seasonal range decreased in size each season. When considering winter and summer ranges separately, the only site where the mean seasonal range increased each year was the winter ranges on Black River Ranch, the rest of the sites show no distinct trend. Furthermore, Figure 11 shows that all of the study sites do not follow the same trend of increasing seasonal movements after the baiting and feeding ban. The mean seasonal distance traveled increased every year after the baiting and feeding ban on half (5) of the study sites, one of the study sites (Canada Creek Ranch) displayed a decrease in the mean seasonal distance, four of the study sites showed no pattern of steady increase or decrease every year, and one study site (Crawford) showed no seasonal movements. The distances traveled by individual deer also did not depart fiom what was observed prior to the baiting and feeding ban. Garner (2001) reported distances traveled 50 by deer prior to the ban ranging from 3.8 km to 20.9 km; distance traveled by deer from this study after the ban ranged from 2.9 km to 33.0 km. The deer that traveled 33.0 km in this study was a yearling buck that managed to lose its radio-collar after traveling 33 km and was not believed to have traveled fiirther, because it was sighted by local residents in the general area where the radio-collar was recovered from on more than one occasion over a number of weeks. Gamer (2001) reported the mean size of the winter ranges as 328.7 ha while the mean size of the summer ranges as 238.2 ha before the baiting and feeding ban. The seasonal ranges observed in this study were substantially larger than those reported by Garner (2001) before the baiting and feeding ban. The mean size of the winter ranges was 512.7 ha and the mean size of the summer ranges was 439.1 ha. The results of some of the study sites for which data were available only after the baiting and feeding ban may be somewhat misleading because they stand out as having much greater seasonal movements and ranges than study sites for which data were available before the ban (e. g. Birch Creek Club, Black Farm, and Garland Resort in Figure 11), but there is nothing to indicate that the deer from these sites took a radical departure from the behavior they displayed before the ban. For example, deer from the Black Farm may have always displayed greater seasonal movements than deer from the Strohschein Farm. This may be due to traditional behavior of the local deer or characteristics of the local habitat instead of changes in baiting and feeding practices in the area. Table 3 shows that more deer migrated during 2001, 34% in the winter and 37% in the summer, than any of the other years which never rose above 29%. The percentage 51 of deer with unknown types of movement (died, or censored before movement could be determined) was also higher; some of these deer would likely have been considered migratory, further increasing the number of migratory deer. The influence of winter weather on deer movement was also suggested when deer that normally did not migrate during previous winters, migrated or shifted the location of their winter seasonal range part-way through the winter so a noticeable change in the seasonal range was observed, but not enough to be considered a migration. Other deer made a normal migration movement in the fall and later made a secondary movement to a separate winter range. Deer were also observed migrating to areas not typically used by deer from the same study site during the winter of 2001. The deer present during the following winter (2002), which had a WSI of 44.00, resumed normal winter movement. The result of these shifts in the winter ranges was the increased size of the winter range for some of the deer in 2001 because they could not be considered separate and distinct winter ranges. The behavior of those deer that exhibited shifts in winter seasonal ranges and migrations in previously nonmigratory deer is like that of conditional migrators as suggested by Sabine et al. (2002) where individual white-tailed deer may or may not migrate to a winter range in a given year. The occurrence of conditional migrators for Sabine et al. (2002) appeared to be a fimction of climate variability and its expression appeared to be a related to snow depth as a proximate cue of the onset of limiting conditions. Changes in deer movement between mild and more severe winters as described above were not described by Garner (2001) before the baiting and feeding ban when he 52 experienced a severe winter ending in 1997 (W SI = 67.41) followed by a mild winter ending in 1998 (W SI = 37.8), but he did not have an opportunity to observe deer during a severe winter preceded and followed by mild winters as I did and therefore such changes in movement may not have warranted notice. Of great interest in this study are the results of those deer that were an active radio-collar both before and after the baiting and feeding ban because they provided data from the same individuals before and after the ban. This group of deer should not be viewed as the complete model for the effects of the removal of baiting and supplemental feeding on deer movement because it was a relatively small sample size of twenty deer only one of which was a male deer. On three of the four study sites in this group of deer, the mean seasonal distance was increasing before the baiting and feeding ban. During the year following the ban, the mean distance decreased on three of the sites and on the fourth there was no change. After the ban two of the sites showed increasing seasonal distances, one increased then decreased, and no data were available on the fourth site after 1999. Overall, the mean seasonal distance traveled increased significantly every year after the baiting and feeding ban, but none of those distances were greater than the furthest distances traveled before the ban. There were no significant differences found between the seasonal ranges of these deer. The only pattern seen was that the mean size of the winter range was slightly larger than the following summer range, but this was certainly not the rule. 53 Overall, it appears that the average distances of seasonal movements and the average size of the seasonal ranges have increased since the initiation of the baiting and feeding ban, but not beyond distances and range sizes recorded before the ban. Despite the tendency of deer to follow traditional seasonal movement, it was not given that the deer from DMU 452 would remain in DMU 452 once the baiting and feeding was eliminated because never before had supplemental feeding been removed from a large area where it had been ingrained in human and deer tradition as long as it has in Michigan. Changes in the human use of deer habitat (e.g., silvicultural practices) can certainly affect deer behavior on different scales depending on the extent of those changes. While individual landowners may harvest timber or create food plots for wildlife on their property there was no way to track land use changes on all the properties that the radio-collared deer visited nor was there any indication that land use or vegetation cover types changed on a regional scale where the study area was located. Therefore, I assumed that there were no land use issues impacting deer movement besides the elimination of baiting and feeding in the area. Another factor that may have affected deer behavior was the fact that although baiting and feeding was made illegal, it has not actually been eliminated. This was not of great concern since I was interesting in observing deer behavior “in the real world” as they responded to a change in our (humans) management policy. When this study was initially under development, the baiting and feeding ban was not anticipated. It was necessary to adapt the study to the policy changes taking place at the time. If the ban could have been anticipated, it may have been possible to 54 maintain a larger sample size of deer that survived with active radio-collars through the transition from baiting and feeding to no baiting and feeding. Management Implications The results of this study show that it is possible to make a seemingly major change to our management policies (i.e., ban baiting and feeding) and minimize the negative impacts on wildlife (i.e., spread of TB outside of DMU 452). The deer in this study may have displayed subtle changes in their movements, but there was not a large overall change in movement that occurred after the baiting and feeding ban. In trying to estimate what a worst-case scenario would look like if deer moved out of DMU 452 now, the mean, median, and maximum seasonal distances traveled by deer in this study were drawn extending from the boundary of DMU 452 into the surrounding area of northeastern Lower Michigan (Figure 15). The shaded area in Figure 15, indicating the area extending (from DMU 452) the maximum distance traveled by a deer from this study, and all of the shaded areas within, contain all but 14 of the TB infected free-ranging deer found in Michigan; in other words, it contains more than 95% of the deer that tested positive for bovine TB. Wildlife managers considering similar changes should take into account the ecology of the species of focus to determine whether or not a change in human behavior will affect the behavior of the wildlife. For example, white-tailed deer follow traditional migratory behavior passed from generation to generation rather than strictly following resources where they may be found, as predatory species would be more likely to do. In the event of a food shortage this still would limit the likely spread of TB, among deer, to those 55 deer with overlapping seasonal ranges and seasonal movements instead of moving unpredictably as if the deer were to abandon traditional movement. Median Seasonal -- "-:-'- . Movement :-:3:i:3:1:3:3:3:3:3 3:353: i'31z- 9.7km a. .;.;23233 332323333{3353:33353333333 Mean 35:}3?:{.3:§:3:3:§:?:3:§:?:¢:§:}:§:::;:; : .. Seasonal ;:;:~: 21?: Movement 12.11011 4; :.::::~:::::::.:-:-:-.-:-: . ~::s:s Maximum ' I I I I I I :::E:E:::::: :I;Z;I;.;. .;'-:Z;I;32'I:I'I:' Movement -__ - ’ 33.1 M-55 Figure 15. Map showing county boundaries, major roads of northeastern Lower Michigan, and the median, mean, and maximum distances traveled by deer (from this study) extending fiom the boundaries of DMU 452. 56 It is important to note that the elimination of baiting and feeding in DMU 452 was implemented concurrently with an increase in the hunter harvest of deer. This may have reduced deer mortality related to starvation at the end of the winter, reduced the effects of deer browsing on vegetation thereby allowing the habitat quality to increase, and reduced density dependent factors such and competition and dispersal behavior. Until the MDNR’s goal of eliminating TB in the deer herd is achieved, it would be prudent to maintain a ban on baiting and feeding to reduce direct and indirect deer contact and transmission of the disease as implied by Garner (2001) especially since there appear to be no adverse effects on the movement of the deer in DMU 452 from the ban. 57 Chapter 2: Survey of Black Bears for Bovine Tuberculosis Introduction The discovery of bovine TB in the Michigan deer herd prompted the testing of livestock in the area by the MDA and other wildlife by the MDNR. Seven black bears, four bobcats, thirteen coyotes, two elk, three raccoons, two red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and two opossums (Didelphr’s virginiana) have tested positive for bovine tuberculosis in the northeastern counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula as of October 2002. Seventeen beef cattle herds and two dairy cattle herds in the same area have also tested positive for M. bovis (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1 October 2002, Bovine Tuberculosis update). While aerosol exposure to M. bovis is considered to be the most likely avenue of infection for domestic livestock (Thoen and Bloom 1995), it is thought that wild or feral carnivorous and omnivorous mammals are contracting TB by ingesting the internal organs of dead animals already infected with M. bovis. The non-cervid wildlife that has become infected with TB are not considered to be reservoir hosts of bovine TB because social interactions with individuals of their own and other species make it unlikely that they will spread the disease. More importantly, the extensive lesions found in the tissues of infected deer that shed the M bovis bacteria into their environment have not been seen in the TB positive non-cervid wildlife (Diegel et al. 2002, O’Brien et al. 2002, Palmer et al. 2002, O’Brien et al. 2001). In fact, most of the TB positive non-cervid animals had no gross or microscopic lesions at all and were only confirmed TB positive after M. bovis was cultured from tissue samples Bruning-Fann et al. 1998). It is assumed that the elimination of TB in the deer herd will result in the elimination of TB in the 58 other wildlife populations (Dr. Stephen Schmitt D.V.M., MDNR, pers. comm), however, the true prevalence rate of TB in the non—deer mammalian wildlife populating areas where TB positive deer are found is not well known. The non-deer wildlife for which there is a concern of TB infection includes black bears and other medium-sized furbearers. Sampling of the fiirbearers has been done by the opportunistic collection of dead animals (i.e. road-killed) and by the voluntary submission of harvested animals. There are sixteen non-cervid wildlife species that have been tested for bovine TB: badger (T axidea taxus), black bear, bobcat, feral cat (Felis cams), coyotes, feral dog (Canusfamiliaris), red fox, gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), mink (Mustela 5p), opossum, otter (Lontra canadensis), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), raccoons, skunks (Mephitr's mephitis), and weasel (Mustela 5p.) (MDNR) (Table 6). The number of individual animals tested within most of these species is relatively small and there was no established, standardized protocol for collecting most of the furbearer samples. Black bears are of special concern because they are a popular game animal among Michigan hunters. The fur and skull of black bears have trophy value, and humans commonly consume the meat of harvested bears. Because black bear flesh is consumed, it is a potential source of bovine TB infection to humans. Prior to the start of this project, no black bear samples had been collected for TB testing. This was likely due to the black bears’ trophy and meat value and hunters’ unwillingness to submit the entire carcass for TB testing. There was no hunter-friendly protocol in place for collecting the tissue necessary to test for bovine TB without sacrificing the head or entire carcass. 59 Table 6. Number of non-cervid wildlife tested for bovine TB as of August 2002. Lpecies # TB positive Badger Black bear Bobcat Feral cat Coyote Feral dog Red Fox Gray fox Snowshoe hare Mink Opossum Otter Porcupine Raccoon Skunk Weasel oowoomooomoaocsxro Total # non-cervid 1378 animals tested Objectives The objectives of this part of the study were to: 1. Monitor the prevalence of bovine TB in black bears harvested in northeastern Lower Michigan. 2. Determine the practicality of using black bears as indicators of bovine TB infection in wildlife populations. Study Area The study area was the northeast portion of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan bounded on the west by Interstate-75 and State Highway M-55 on the south (Figure 1). 6O Methods I developed a protocol to facilitate the collection of tissue samples fi'om hunter- harvested black bears that could be used to test for bovine TB while preserving the trophy and food values of the harvested bears. Harvested bears are registered at MDNR offices or designated registration stations. When a black bear is registered, a tag with a unique number is attached to the carcass, the sex of the bear is recorded as well as the location of the harvest, and a tooth is removed from the skull to estimate the age of the bear; no other tissues samples are required to be collected from the bears. Prior to the start of the black bear hunting season, black bear registration stations, taxidermists and local meat processors were contacted to ask for permission to use their facilities for this part of the study. During the black bear hunting seasons research assistants waited at registration stations, taxidermy shops, and meat processing facilities to ask successful hunters to submit their bears for TB testing. Because research assistants could not be kept at every location that successful bear hunters might visit, information detailing this part of the research was left at registration stations and other locations that hunters might frequent along with a form where successful bear hunters could provide us with contact information for later sample collection (Appendix Figures 47 and 48). Depending on the number and locations of harvested bears for which contact information was provided, one or two research assistants drove to residences, hunting cabins, or other locations to collect tissue samples. After the carcass was skinned, the head was dissected and the cranial lymph nodes and tonsils were removed. Half of each lymph node was fixed in 10% buffered 61 formalin solution for later histological examination by the Diagnostic Center For Population And Animal Health at Michigan State University. The other half was placed in a sterile bag and frozen for transport to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa and the Michigan Department of Community Health in an attempt to culture any M. bovis that may be present. Muscle tissue samples were also collected fi'om each bear for fiiture genetic studies. Tissue samples of individual bears were identified using tags (TB tags) that the MDNR uses to process animals submitted for TB testing. Data recorded for each tissue sample included TB tag number, seal number, sex of the bear, harvest location, and hunter information (Appendix Figure 49). Latex gloves were used to protect sample collectors from the possibility of coming into contact with TB. TB-cide disinfectant was used (per label instructions) to sterilize equipment to prevent the spread of TB and cross-contamination of samples. After tissue samples were collected, they were transported to the MDNR at the Rose Lake Wildlife Research Station to be processed and sent for testing. Results for the tissue samples that were collected were then reported to us by the MDNR. Results During the 1998 black bear hunting season, 43 samples were collected of which one tested positive forM. bovis. Forty-five samples were collected during the 1999 season with none testing positive for M. bovis. One major difficulty during the 1999 season was the lack of cooperation from one of the registration sites. This restricted the collection of samples from a large area surrounding the site and access to twenty bears 62 was potentially lost, from which samples could have been collected. Sixty samples were collected during the 2000 bear-hunting season and three were found with M. bovis. F ifty-four samples were collected during the 2001 season and three were found to be TB positive. A total of 202 samples were collected over the four years of which seven tested positive for the presence of bovine TB (Table 7). Approximately 42.2% to 46.2% of the total number of bears harvested in the study area were sampled. The samples that tested positive for bovine TB were all collected from bears harvested in the core area of TB infected deer. Table 7. Results of black bear tissue sample collection for bovine TB testing. Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total 43 45 60 54 202 amples collected 1 O 3 3 7 LTB positive samples] Discussion This study showed that black bears are capable of contracting bovine TB. Prior to this study, no evidence of bovine TB in Michigan black bears could be identified in the literature. Prior to the start of this study, the number of samples that could be collected could not be estimated, but the methodology was able to consistently sample 42.2% to 46.2% of the bears harvested in the study area. Hunters were mostly cooperative, but some were hesitant until a local resident or employee at the particular business urged them to participate. There were only a few hunters that did not want to participate under any condition and denied permission to collect samples on their harvested bears. There were some harvested bears that were not 63 sampled because the hunter transported the bears out of the area, or disposed of the tissues before they were contacted. Maintaining a positive relationship with hunters, registration stations and any other businesses where samples were collected was crucial to successfully obtaining samples. Many of the hunters were pleased that someone was acting proactively to determine the prevalence of TB in black bears and liked the opportunity to have their bears tested for TB. It took a great deal of effort to collect the samples that were obtained. Each season there were only three or four people trying to cover four registration stations and over four MDNR offices in five counties. Although some of the employees at the registration stations and MDNR offices helped to gather hunter information, a lot of effort was put into making initial contact with the hunters that were missed. In order to maximize the number of collected samples, assistants were placed at two or three locations that were expected to receive many bears. Additionally, one or two assistants were needed to phone other places where bears might become available (registration stations, meat processors, taxidermists, hunter residences and camps), and drive to those locations to collect these samples as they became available. Hunters registered their harvested bears sporadically throughout the day and week, so it was difficult to plan to arrive at certain locations at a particular time to collect a number of samples; some of the meat processors and taxidermists that cooperated with us would set aside individual bears for us to collect samples. Time spent in the field collecting samples ranged from eight to fourteen hours per day, including weekends. Two to three vehicles were used to collect samples and traveled an average of 372 km per vehicle per day (64 km to 710 km) during this part of the study. 64 A much larger sample size would be needed to determine the incidence and distribution of bovine TB in Michigan black bears, which would likely be possible only with the assistance of the MDNR to collect samples as harvested bears are registered. 65 Appendix Tables 66 Appendix Table 1. Brief chronology of events surrounding bovine TB in Michigan. November 1994 Fall 1995 Fall 1996 Fall 1997 29 January 1998 12 March 1998 One bovine TB positive free-ranging white-tailed deer discovered in Alpena County. 27 of 814 white-tailed deer harvested in newly created Deer Management Unit (DMU) 452 tested positive for bovine TB by Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). All cattle, goats, and pigs in five mile radius of 1994 TB positive deer tested for bovine TB by Michigan Department of Agriculture (WA); none tested positive. 47 of 3,718 harvested deer in Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency, and Oscoda counties tested positive for TB. Extensive testing (e.g., 2800+ cattle) shows no TB Positive livestock in 4-county region. DMU 452 redefined to include Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency, Oscoda, and Presque Isle counties. “Buffer Zone” defined to be all areas extending east of I-75 and north of M-55 to DMU 452. 73 of 3,678 free-ranging deer from DMU 452 and the buffer zone tested positive for TB; two TB positive white-tailed deer from a captive herd in Presque Isle County identified. No TB positive livestock identified in DMU 452. Michigan Governor John Engler issues Executive Directive No. 1998-1 directing the Departments of Community Health, Agriculture, and Natural Resources to develop plans for eradicating bovine TB in Michigan deer. Part of this directive calls for the development of a strategy for a mandatory feeding ban in DMU 452. The Michigan Agriculture Commission agrees to the mandatory feeding ban proposed by the MDA (Order No. 1998-01) for deer and elk in DMU 452 and the buffer zone. The ban was proposed by the WA partially because the MDNR had no authority over the feeding of wildlife on private lands unless the purpose of the feeding was to bait wildlife for hunting, in addition to livestock, the MDA has jurisdiction over captive cervids. The Michigan Natural Resources Commission agreed to restrictions limiting baiting in DMU 452 and the buffer zone. 67 Appendix Table l (cont’d). 1 May 1998 14 September 1998 Fall 1998 Feeding ban and baiting restrictions became effective. MDA issues Order No. 1998-02, imposing quarantine restrictions on all cattle and captive cervids in DMU 452 and the buffer zone that became effective 1 January 1999. 78 of 8,996 free-ranging deer from DMU 452 and the buffer zone tested positive for TB. Two 'IB positive cattle herds identified in Alcona County. A group of landowners in DMU 452 initiates legal action for Alcona County to have the feeding ban set aside Spring/Summer 1999 Circuit Court for the County of Alcona sets aside feeding ban in Fall 1999 Fall 2000 Fall 200 1 Fall 2002 DMU 452 and the buffer zone, ruling that the MDA lacks legal authority to impose such a ban over such a large geographic area. The Michigan legislature passed and the governor signed into law legislation giving the Natural Resources Commission authority over the feeding of wildlife on private lands. The Michigan Natural Resources Commission banned the use of bait for white-tailed deer hunting and winter-feeding in DMU 452 and the buffer zone. 58 of 19,500 free-ranging deer tested positive for TB statewide. 53 of 25,858 free-ranging deer tested positive for TB statewide. DMU 452 redefined to resemble original boundaries established in 1995. The Michigan Natural Resources Commission reinstates limited baiting in portions of infected counties despite opposition by MDNR, biologists, and hunting and conservation organizations. 60 of 24,275 free-ranging deer tested positive for TB statewide. The Michigan Natural Resources Commission bans all baiting in infected counties. 68 882 93 8888; n a 882 can: u 8 .86 .8: 8.3 u a: .8553. 8850 u 2 .88 85 "up“ £88 886 u 8 88m 286 880 u 8 88m 85 85 u 8 .86 2850 .225 u 85 85.2 52888 "8 m>__< 8259582 «8 8882. 88:8 8 n. 838 8.. 22 8259582 «8 888:... 8288 no a 832 8: m>__< 889552. cm: 8888 8288 no .2 838 8: 02:. 8.59: ”NP 8888 88:8 8 a 838 8a 9.88: 8259582 8 8885 888: no a 8n. 8. 8: 32 8.59.2 8.0. 888:. «.858 3. n. 38.5. Se 8:8 585.? 8.59582 S 3858 S88: 3 a 232 8.. 022. 8259.2 08 8888 88:8 no a 88.8. 8.. 822 8229582 2; 888:. 8888 3 a 8:2 8.. 9.882 88.9582 n: 8883 8888 3 a 833 8.. $2 88995. mfi 5853 8288 3 a «358 8a 9.882 8259.2 8 8888 8288 no .2 898. 8.. 88a 88 8.59582 SN 5888 82: S no a ,8.me c8 8:8 88 8.59582 a? 8883 5968 88 a .88. 8 9.282 8.59582 «.2 8888 82:88 no a «B. .8 8 888... 8.59582 mi 888:: 08:28 3 u. 838 8 888: 585.5 8 388 :2 38:3 no .2 83m. 8 8882 855.5 t. 588:: 6888 3. a 838 .8 9.885. 8.59582 R 8888 S88: 3. n. 88.8. 8 888: 889582 8 588: F 68:8 no .2 88.88 8 8:8 88 88.9582 cm: 5888? 38:88 no a .88. .8 888: 2259582 3; 888 E _ m8 :5: m. F u. 898. 8 mean. EwEu>OE mcozwucd COBGUOA «ma.— uuua amt. EanNO xmw >ucosaeu_ 35 .8883 he on: no Lon—E22 an om< r55 .858 E v.8: coon 88:00.068 90 Sum use .EoEoSE .2088 we 25 50:82 3888 82 .83 0538 .3890 2393 8 own .28 dong—£253 .N 038,—. 59585 69 .88 28.? IS. 88.. sateen 8 225. 286 éauou I8 .882 .2... 282? 8 25 286 8.27 8.. .82. 52.88... 8829.3 .8588... .852 8851.286 .5... 22318888828858. wnhma .— 85. .5... 288.2 5.65.... 2. 88.8.2 88.8: m : u. 8... 8: 8.88: 82.995... 3 . 58...: 88...: m... s. 24.8: 8:8 552.: 865...: t 88.2... 88:8 no .2 7832 2.282 5.65.5 3 88...: : 88.8 m... .2 38. :2 £285 998> 5.65.5 8 88: to 88.8.8 .8 n. 832 988.2 8.29582 8 88.8... 82.3.... o... u. 832 8.88: 8.29582 2.. 38.8: 58.5 no 2 8.8.8: 8.88... 8.29.... 8. 88.2: : 88.28 +3 n. 98.8: 9.2 8.29582 .2 88.8... 88.28 +3 n. 26.8.: 888... 865...: 8 88.2.2 88.8 m... .2 828: 8:8 5225 538...... 8 88.2: 88E... t. N n. 33.2 m 8:8 :85» 82890 8 88.88 88... :m m o .2 83.8.. 8.880 8.29582 8 8.. to :: : 08 to .8 m... u. 8.... E F 2...... 88995.. 28 88.8... 82.8.0 o... n. 88.5: oz... 82.995... 2m 88.88 82.2... 0.: n. 28:2 m>..< 82.995... at 88.88 88...... o... n. 2.32 988.2 88995.. 82 88.2... 88.... :m o... n. 0822 2...... 8.29582 «2 88.8... 88.28 9m n. 828: 2.2 8.29582 .2 88.8... 88.2... 0.8 n. 83.8: 02... 8.29582 88 88.8... 82.8 m... u. 8.... :2 9.2.82 8.292 8. 58:8 82.8 m8 n. 8... :2 2a". Equ>os_ 20:30.. 60.. $5.. 2.5 22.... 2:350 3w 22.2.52". 95 .ucomuom .0 2...... .0 .3552 an ¢m< r55 8.58. N 22.5 888... .55 9.3 895.03 u :— doaam 5&5 u a: 520 :5: >93 u 2: 62.863. 98330 n u. an... .85 "E “:83. 22.8 n 3 .65». “.85 888 u so 55. 55. .85 u E. 520 .85 Em u 8.. Ea. 52.8.65 "E .. o>..< 955.582 5 685$. 3265 3. n. 82.2 2.. £3.22 3899.2 «NP 8853 323 5 ram n. :33 2. £25.... 3899.2 mm. 38.3 5.. :1: no u. and». 2.. m>..< easygoz E «888:. Sousa 3 u. 232 u. 3.2 2299582 2. 886% :5me 3 u. 3... B. u. 5.8 56.5 2289582 5 38.3 58.3 m... 5. Elm. 0 8.82m: $65.5 3 88.5.8 Souaa m... s. «8.5. 5 8.880 5355 5 88.5w m8 :3 m... u. E. E. 5 3.3.3.2 .meama 8 «Swan: SEEN no .2 :52 B w>..< r2995. 8. 8883 83$ a u. 25...... 3 ea... .5... 5.55.2 $85.5 t. 583:: 58am 3 n. «5.5. 3 9.2 3299582 8 888:. 385a on u. 3.32 3 8.850 .8...qu 3. 823.: 855% on s. 332 .3 8.32“: 5.29882 «2 885$ 88...: no .2 m5. 2... s 2.2 88922 R: 885 to 8.. tag a n. .5. E. s m>..< e299: S 886% Boga: men u. SN. :3 3 8.880 692.20 3 88a :2 826$. on u. 232 5 3.355. $.29: N: 58:. S. 8.. :5 o... u. 8... B. 5 8.82m: E59582 mm 58.1.2 585: m... s. 832 5 8.822.. 28995. «E 883 :2 825R 3 u. «3.8. 3 58:8 $55.52 a? 886:: ooogm: no s. 2.32 3 Sun. 25:335. 2.2.33 60.. «ms.— 23 :8... 2:58 «a ou< xom > 25 353.06% «0 83—. no bans-.2 09.0362"— #25” 25:8 N 2.3 £223... 71 8.5. 9.3 82382 n 2. .822. 822... n 2.. .86 .8: .223 n 2.. .8883. 8.320 n 0. .82... 2.222 "2... 88.. .88.. u 8 .882 28.0 2.88 n 8 .882 .25. .82. u 8 .86 286 22.2 n 8.. 282 2.2.888 ”8 .. 2...... 2.8982 t. 88.8; 382.... m... n. 23.5. 2. 9.2. 2.9.922... 2. 888.2 88.8.. no u. 8... .n. 2. 8.88: 8.29.2 mm. 888... 82.8.8 2.... .2 36...... 2. 8:8 8.28 8.29s. 3 .28.. .2. 582.... m. 2 82...... 2. 8:2 88 8.29282 8. 88.8... 28.88 8 u. «3.». 2. 22.28... o.o.8> 8.29.282 8. 58.2... 28.88 2.... u. 28...... .... 2...... 2.2.9282 28 88.8; 8.. .8: no n. 28.8.. ... 8.88.. 8.29.2 8. 88.3. . 82 .28 no 2 3... S . 2.. 2.88.2 8.29.2 .o. 88.8... 82 ... .6. m... n. 8... .2. 2.. 8.88: 8.29.2 «t 888.... 82.88. m... .2 28...... 2.. 2...... 8.29282 ”8 88.8... 82 .28 m... n. 28.5. 2.. 8.88... 8892...... 8. .2888. 82:8 8 n. 23.8. 2.. .822. .28... 8.29.282 8. .282... 82 .88. m... n. 82.8. 2.. 8...... 88 28:92.5. a... .282... 82.88 3 n. 82...... u... 888... 8.29.282 .2. .28.. .2. .8 .38 m... u. «3.8. 2.. 8.88.. 289222 B. 888. .6. 32 .28 3 2 82...... 2.. 8w". $253.2 20:30.. 60.. «an. 2.3 8... 83$ 8 wm< .25 2 35 _u:oma¢m *0 §.—. no .3532 ucuzceu— Knew . 2.83 N 2...... 2.822... 72 Appendix Table 3. Mean distances (km) of seasonal movements of radio—collared deer. (Combined with 1997 to 1998 data fi'om Garner (2001 .) l. “Migr” = migratory; “Disp” = dispersers; “Unkn” = unknown. 2. No data available from this study site. 73 _Site; Year lllligr1 n Distn Unkn n Site; Year Milr n Dist n Unkn n Birch Creek Leroy Hunt Club Club 1999 9.8 11 9.01 0.0 0 1997 11.0 8 9.7 1 0.0 0 2000 12.1 12 0.0 0 0.0 0 1998 20.9 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 2001 13.7 1011.21 0.0 0 1999 7.1 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 2002 15.5 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 2000 8.2 2 0.0 0 15.3 1 Black Farm 2001 7.9 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 1999 16.6 3 13.22 0.0 0 2002 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 2000 18.5 5 0.0 0 6.4 1 Lippert 2001 21.1 7 28.21 27.6 3 1997 7.0 3 4.1 1 0.0 0 2002 20.2 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 1998 7.2 5 0.0 0 8.7 6 Black River Ranch 1999 5.5 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 1999 -2 - - - - - 2000 6.1 6 0.0 o 0.0 o 2000 9.0 2 3.01 0.0 0 2001 7.7 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 2001 11.5 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 2002 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Lockwood 2002 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Lake Ranch Canada Creek Ranch 1997 4.6 1 0.0 0 10.7 1 1999 0.0 0 9.31 0.0 0 1998 0.0 0 10.4 1 5.4 1 2000 5.2 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 1999 4.2 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 2001 5.7 1 2.91 0.0 0 2000 6.5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 2002 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 2001 7.3 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 Crawford Residence 2002 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Strohschein 1999 - - - - - - Farm 2000 - - - - - - 1997 5.0 1 3.0 1 6.7 1 2001 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1998 5.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 2002 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1999 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Garland Resort 2000 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1999 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 2001 0.0 0 0.0 0 4.5 1 2000 10.4 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 2002 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 2001 10.4 1 11.91 18.2 3 2002 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 23. 9 3a. 5.3 325800. .8258... 3.888 .0 25 9.... 8.8 .3 moms-8 39888 .0 85 no... :82 .v 032,—- 59.829... - o o 5.8 - o .. 5.8 - o o 5.8 88-2.. 8 8... 5.6.. - . B 58.. 38.8 m 8.. 5.5.. - . .8 .95 88 8.8 - 8. m 88. .95 «28 8.. - 28 m 8.. .95 88 - o .. 2.... .852. - o o 2e... .852. - o o 2.... .352. - o o 5.8 88.8. m 88 5.8 - o o 5.8 98.8. m 8.. 5.6.. .8-8 m 8. 5.8.. 88.8.2 2 8m 58.. - . .8 .95 .28 8.. -8. v 8.. .95 .28 .8. - 8 o 8.. .95 .28 - o o no... SEE—5 - . 03 an... Lon—5.5 - o o 2»... BEE—2m - o o 5.8 «2..-m8 8 8m 5.8 - o .. 5.8 m8. - 8... m 8... 5.8.. 8.. - 88 a .8 58.. 8. - 8 o 88 5.8.. - . .8 .95 .28 88. -28 .. 8.. .95 .28 88 -88 2 8m. .95 .28 - . m8 2...... .32.; - . 88 2e... .852. - o o 2a... .852. - o o 5.8 - . 8.8 5.8 - o o 5.8 88.88 m .8 58.. 8.8 v 88 58.. 88-8. . 28 5.8.. - . 8.. .95 88 .8 -8. m 28 .95 88 8o. - 8 o 8.. .95 88 - o o 2.... 2088.5 - o c an... 20:25.5 - o o no... .2555 - o o 5.8 82-8 8 .3 5.8 - o o 5.8 - o .. 58.. 88- .m m 8.8 58.. 8.7.8 2 8... 58.. - . .8 .95 88 .8. -8... N 28. .95 88 m8. - .8 o 8.. .95 88 - o .. 2..... .352. - o o 2.... .85.... - o o 2...... .352. u u u 5...: .- o o 5.5.. n o o can: - - - 58.. «878. m 8.. 5.8.. 28-8. v o8 58.. - - - .95 8... - . 8... .95 82. 8.8-8. 8 v:- .95 8... - - - 2.... 858m 8... -88 a 8... 2a... 855.5 - o .. 2.... 855.5 1 u u 5...: u _. 5mm 5...... u o o 5...: - - - 5.8.. 2... .. .8 N v... 5.8: .8 - 88 v 8.. 58.. - - - .95 8... - . .8 .95 8... 8-8. m .8 .95 28. - - - 2.... 35.2. 2.8-8. 8 8.. 2a... .852. - o .. 2.... .32.; :2...”— :20 09.3. 2 HM“ Hun—>2” 32¢ 09.5. 2 “HM“ “any...“ “hm cue-m : ”so-.0“ Hun—>22...- .320 sou-m :25 dog 20.2.80 So... 88.. 74 75 - o o 5...: - o o 5...: - o o 5...: 8.188 N 88 5.3.. 88.8 a 8 5.3.. 8..-... m 8. 5.3.. - 8 o .95 ~88 - o o .95 «88 - o o .95 «88 - o 8 2.... .352. - o 8 2.... .352. - o o .5... .352. vo..-Nvmv co. 5...: - o o 5...: - o o 5...: 8.8 - .8. - 88 5.3.. .8- 88 8 .8 5.3.. - 8 o 5.3.. - . 88. .95 .88 - o o .95 .88 - . m8 .9... .88 - . o8. 2.... 355:8 - o 8 2.... 355:8 - . 88 8... 355:. 8.2-88.8 8.. 5.8 8-88 8 N8 5.8 - o o 5.8 8.788. «.8 5.3.. 8.8.. 8 88 5.3.. - o o 5.3.. - . 88 .95 .88 - o o .95 .88 - . 88 .95 .88 - . 88 2.... .352. - o 8 2.... .352. - . 888 .3... .352. u .- mi. 57.: - u u 52.: n o o 5......— ooe-mmw N «mm 5.0.. - - - 5:0: .8. .80. m 8.. 5.0.. - . .8. .95 88 - - - .95 88 - o o .95 88 - o o no... .0...E:m - - .. an... .oEE:m - o c an... 35.5w - o o 5.8 - - - 5.8 - o 8 5.8 - . 88 5.3.. - - - 5.3.. 88.. - 88. 8 8. 5.3.. - o o .95 88 - - - .95 88 - o o .95 88 - o o 2.... .352. - - - 2.... .352. - o o 2.... .352. - o o 5...: - - - 5...: - o o 5...: - . 888 5.3.. - - - 5.3.. .8 - 88 N 88 5.3.. - o o .95 88. - - - .95 88. - o o .95 88. - o c an... .oEE:m - - - an... .055:m - . mow an... .055:m - o o 5...: - - - 5...: - o o 5...: - . 888 5.3.. - - - 5.3.. .8. -8. m 8. 5.3.. - o o .95 8... - - - .95 8.. - o o .95 8... - o o 2.... .352. - - - 2.... .352. - . 8 2.... .352. .2... 55>: .382 .3... .55.... .888... an... 55...... 8...... 09.3. .. 5.0.2 .0 on»... 0.3.30 09...”. c :00: .0 0...... 0.0.26.0 09...”. .. .30.... .0 on». 8...“..«00 5.58. ... 8.8.. 8888.. Appendix Table 4. (cont’d) Lerglyuigunt .iayvflneug.f '11:: n Range Lippert raw: :2: n Range Winter 1997 Diep 53 1 - Winter 1997 dlep 241 1 - Migr 398 6 76 -708 mlgr 211 3 100 -281 Nonm 1782 4 135 -3770 nonm 307 10 24 -931 Unkn - - - unkn - - - Summer 1997 Diep 23 1 - Summer 1997 dlep 62 1 - War 23 1 - migr 1325 3 23 -2855 Nonm 188 6 29 -495 nonm 217 10 37 -623 Unkn 179 4 41 -325 unkn - - - Winter 1998 Dlep 130 2 22 -237 Winter 1998 diep 87 1 - Migr 430 1 - migr 654 4 116 -1958 Nonm 162 7 81 -330 nonm 290 9 55 -1218 Unkn - - - unkn 344 7 74 -1122 Summer 1998 Diep 45 3 41 -53 Summer 1998 diep 65 1 - Migr 159 1 - migr 85 4 46 -144 Nonm 136 7 63 -284 nonm 167 6 95 -240 Unkn - - - unkn 141 6 40 -226 Winter 1999 Diep - - - Winter 1999 diep - - - Migr - - - migr 137 3 106 -175 Nonm 257 6 77 -518 nonm 498 3 364 -681 Unkn - - - unkn - - - Summer 1999 Dlsp - - - Summer 1999 diep - - - Migr 196 1 - migr 1 17 3 66 -160 Nonm 244 5 95 -425 nonm 290 3 214 -373 Unkn - - - unkn - - - Winter 2000 Dlep - - - Winter 2000 diep - - - Migr - - - migr 286 3 176 -467 Nonm 171 6 62 -382 nonm 160 3 57 -325 Unkn - - - unkn - - - Summer 2000 Dlep - - - Summer 2000 diep - - - Migr - - - migr 290 3 217 -432 Nonm 174 6 70 -250 nonm 279 3 122 -494 Unkn - - - unkn - - - Winter 2001 Dlep - - - Winter 2001 diep - - - Migr 221 2 126 -317 mlgr 292 3 144 -380 Nonm 760 2 386 -1133 nonm 358 1 - Unkn 2489 1 - unkn - - - Summer 2001 Diep - - - Summer 2001 diep - - - Migr 245 2 212 -277 mlgr 390 1 - Nonm 787 1 - nonm 128 1 - Unkn - - - unkn - - - Winter 2002 Diep - - - Winter 2002 diep - - - Migr - - - migr - - - Nonm 368 1 - nonm 240 1 - Unkn - - - unkn - - - 76 Appendix Table 4. (cont’d) Lockwood Lake ii'ype of Strohschein Typeof Ranch Mvmnt. Area n Range Farm Mvmnt. Area n Range Winter 1997 diep - - - Winter 1997 dlep 274 1 - migr 446 1 - migr 416 1 - nonm 280 7 49 -581 nonm 166 7 122 -244 unkn 181 1 - unkn - - - Summer 1997 diep - - - Summer 1997 diep 14 1 - migr 107 1 - migr 118 1 - nonm 245 7 173 -444 nonm 284 9 197 -533 unkn 559 1 - unkn - - - Winter 1998 diap 520 1 - Winter 1998 dlep 61 1 - migr - - - migr 121 1 - nonm 349 14 119 -766 nonm 192 14 74 -316 unkn 176 1 - unkn - - - Summer 1998 dlap 218 1 - Summer 1998 diep 18 1 - migr - - - migr 148 1 - nonm 348 14 84 -1217 nonm 146 14 41 -657 unkn 82 1 - unkn - - - Winter 1999 dlap - - - Winter 1999 diap - - - migr 491 1 - mlgr - - - nonm 333 3 76 -737 nonm 349 8 202 -571 unkn - - - unkn - - - Summer 1999 diep - - - Summer 1999 diep - - - migr 558 1 - migr - - - nonm 388 3 73 -712 nonm 298 5 240 -357 unkn - - - unkn - - - Winter 2000 diep - - - Winter 2000 diep - - - migr 998 1 - migr - - - nonm 250 3 137 -381 nonm 370 5 167 -769 unkn - - - unkn - - - Summer 2000 diep - - - Summer 2000 dlep - - - migr 492 1 - migr - - - nonm 285 3 69 -413 nonm 201 5 113 -293 unkn - - - unkn - - - Winter 2001 diep - - - Winter 2001 diep - - - migr 411 4 138 -725 migr - - - nonm 35 1 - nonm 263 5 101 -650 unkn - - - unkn 71 2 56 -86 Summer 2001 dlep - - - Summer 2001 diep - - - migr 145 4 85 -192 migr - - - nonm - - - nonm 79 3 17 -130 unkn - - - unkn 179 2 163 -196 Winter 2002 diep - - - Winter 2002 dlep - - - migr - - - migr - - - nonm 160 3 53 nonm - - - unkn - - - unkn - - .. 77 Appendix Figures The legend below applies to the following Appendix Figures (1-46) showing maps with the point locations of radio-collared deer. N County Boundary {a} Dmu 452 Boundary Pre-ban Summer 1999 Summer 2000 Summer 2001 Winter 1999 Wmt. 2000 Wmt. 2001 Winter 2002 aile>>oooxi> Asf = Strohschein Farm Bcc = Birch Creek Club Brr = Black River Ranch, Ccr = Canada Creek Ranch Ggr = Garland Resort M = Black Farm Lc = Crawford Residence Lhc = Leroy Hunt Club Lip = Lippert Ranch Llr = Lockwood Lake Ranch 78 8 Montmorency County is ,,M "\w" .xGrass Lake . Cr 451 “CI..— N. 1 4 Kilometers Montmorency County is /Grass Lake ................ ' 'ECr451 3&1...— w k. 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 1. Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 0085 (A) and asf 0901(B). 79 It Montmorency County jg rM/N/M ./Grass // -_ Lake p .................... Montmorency County *1 /"-"/ z'Grass Lake h Cf 451 in \ l’ , 4 Kilometers B. “Y” , _ Alpena -. County ’4. ”am .. Cr 451 ‘ 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 2. Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 0939 (A) and asf 0990(B). 80 Montmorency *— . County LNWMW . 9 Long I 1‘ is /"'"“" l /Grass Lake ........... ‘ J i R ~ Cr 451 r _ ..__\ ‘r i , O 2 4Kilometers Montmorency County , .-. Cr 451 l E» , Kw tin-q“ o 2 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 3. Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1095(A) and asf 1330(3). 81 it 3:"- Montmorency a,» 1. Cr 451 ‘85—... \. 4 Kilometers Montmorency County 3‘: x'Grass Lake .. Cr 451 l . 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 4. Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1375(A) and asf 1415(B). 82 lfi l l \w l' g .. Montmorency -~~..__. Alpena w A. 2 Kilometers “ ., i l | ”‘ Montmorency j? .kxlperia .. B County .. ”"' "3 County 83 \ Montmorency 2 3 4 Kilometers 1"fo i x i ,. I :i '3': Appendix Figure 6. Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1551. 84 N “11: " rm... f" ’ 1‘ \\~_./A" M-65 . \Wr‘g i? Alcona l , to A , A County I A ” a? McCollum Lk. Rd. 1 2 3 4 Kilometers 1 .r a N “-11” :BI “\‘J .. M-65 - _,-.‘”€> ~ ( - " a Alcona if McCollum Lk. Rd. 0 . 5 . 1 2 3 4 Kilometers , ,«J 0 Appendix Figure 7. Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc0570 (A) and bccl344 (B). 85 I 0’ 0' “5* McCollum .:r Lk. Rd. ' \ . ' 's ' O '. 3. o ; o 3 : a ‘ C . 7‘ o z : “~ * , t “ ‘ .."‘ I 6 Kilometers Vs. Kilometers . L ..‘\I l W Appendix Figure 8. Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1870 (A) and bcc 1030 (B). 86 11 if Montmorency _,___ A. County , L... * ' . Alpena . County 5”: /""‘“‘"“/I\ M /Grass I] .... Lake . (K .. Cr 451 '2 I . 4 Kilometers Montmorency B. .. Cr 451 County 1.....w—ww g,__- "" . ' . _ Alpena f County a i ..... . .x’Grass _ Lake 1 _ \P 3.5...“ 80 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 2. Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 0939 (A) and asf 0990(B). 5! i’" Montmorency County Lflww 9 Long is / ~Cr451 KL... Montmorency County \ 4 Kilometers .. Cr 451 E “fix I . O 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 3. Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1095(A) and asf 1330(B). 81 Sr {1" Montmorency County imwwM 3% fl” xGrass V Alpena ”fl County t Cr 451 M i . 4 Kilometers County is /'*“""' .x’Grass m Cf 451 1 .. - "‘“"\ O 2 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 4. Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1375(A) and asf 1415(B). 82 ‘3 95') i i l MA 1 \ ' . Montmorency Alpena A ' s ”an” 0. .. z a . I My ‘Cr 451 it i 2 Kilometers » . if f 1 I Montmorency j County ‘ll 4 ' "K’l'K-I‘. . t ’. ., I. ‘ 9 .o' . ‘3‘ \ ' I a i i fix Avalon -". ' ..:.j: '4 \‘ '1.... 1.. .O : ' 7;, 1:545 , s 83 \ Montmorency 4 Kilometers 1 .‘ v“ z e l '\ i i \" Appendix Figure 6. Point locations for radio-collared deer asf 1551. 84 McCollum Lk. Rd. .L/ .4. l 2 3 4 Kilometers ,- M-65 /. 1 2 3 4 Kilometers ,2.) Appendix Figure 7. Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc0570 (A) and bccl344 (B). 85 \s. \\\ .......... f "T /" Alcona gym a: County ' ' .' 1 . . .. . . . . . - t . ~ _ t _- ~ . .’ .' - 3 "at I ; ‘ I a : 1 5 ~. _ ~. : ‘. '. 1 ' I. . . 0.... ,1 - .. ‘ ‘ ..‘ i ‘ ' I , r I . . , _ . . _ 4 . . . 3‘ ' - .2 -' ‘. e 1' :-'_ . : . u . , .I .. H... ‘ u... .9 ‘ '. I, ' .............. . . I I ‘ \ ‘ . . . ‘. . u; . ' M 5 ' o. - ‘ I ’ ‘3 w : 4' 6 u...” 3 - , .- .’ « . l .' .. ‘‘‘‘‘ \ . . i I _.._ -. _ . ' ‘. ‘- : / ...... 3 . ' v-v- -'. . . .1" , 1 f ‘_ ~ . M, . - ; . -~~ 1 ‘ . .. . . . 4 L” .453 McCollum Lk Rd ‘1 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 8. Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1870 (A) and bcc 1030 (B). 86 - L...........l Montmorency , County : Turtle Lake ; A' M-65 ‘ Li , 4. J Alpena *— Alcona ’ Oscoda a . . flCounty g County ( ‘ ‘ x 1 IN I / .«J .. .1- Z/ l 0 Kilometers 8: § " : ' I'll/ll}: g? .- . I: 3’Oscoda if County » Border of / i DMU 452 Appendix Figure 9. Point locations for radio-collared deer bccO972 (A) and bcc1530 (B). 87 Southwestern Border of DMU 452 4 6 8 Kilometers Southwestern Border of DMU 452 " A “i 1.8% 2 O 2 4 6 8 Kilometers Appendix Figure 10. Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc1246 (A) and bcc1400 (B). 88 lometers a 1 fl 2K elooooooIIoIIoIIIO I09... I. n - ‘ I . . ‘ , .. . a |. .. c O... )... e I 1 o r I O . I O 1 I e I I . . . J. . o e . lo I c I I u e 1. 2‘ O 1 u I Q I I uI . e .0 . I a I I. . L . u! u. 0.0 .4 di)l\oac UM . . Ol . . I . . , n - O . § I . . \UIC 'li‘! In. 0‘ a I .r.oi.oo....oec .l. C d v. :1 1a ‘0'! . n O . I a v\\ll~ It I "’ ’ .1 I .3 \\ ‘ Q. n a anO n. J . ...‘, McCollum Lk Rd .6 l3. 2. .. . \i{.: 4 I n u .r n . . . A. 0‘ 1d. IOIK ...A. I on I l 08...; to. u a ' . 09’. ..8IIOIOII 6‘ N ”I F a Ca CI a ..00000 \( ‘6‘. I n III s .4 cl . 80.0... IO|\IO «IDIOQIOO I I‘ I Q‘II I I I \OII [00 I‘ll KI \O,l 0‘. at. 1‘... a’a'IQI CO I Q . . 8-..... DI o . .‘ I... '. . l I o I O teete- a O l I I. U I. ‘ I I. c $ . e \ m . : IQ I ‘60. I. .0... A l O . \‘IO‘IO.I:\‘JQO - Ill 30.. I I... 0 - C‘I ‘6. I; I Q .c I $II’OI’OQDlroa9aI'a . Cl 0"! I\I0aee6‘\ d)!‘ O Q . .‘QeQI\Q i, Q I O \ a I. . \ . \‘II.OII.Ie’ee ‘ ”Cal 1...! ilometers 3K 2 I). r, II 00 to. Appendix Figure 11. Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1175 (A) and 89 bcc1193 (B). lometers In: s I a OQ\0\\OQOOQII one aafooeo u. o -.-...2. K loo ‘0 N r 2 Kilometers l “‘3... ’fl":.‘oaoo 1‘ Appendix Figure 12. Poi t locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1310 (A) and bcc 1386 (B). 90 ‘ """"" - 3 ,c: j: i . C 7"."7. ‘ I z , an : ~~ » é ...a Alcona . " .-"- . ' ,0. h :5 ...... "I. 1"“, fl. . “:5 f" M .3 ‘. ' a ‘ .'. L‘ ,. .21." , ‘ .. I. . , | \ I. e . . . . l! ..l . .. I. l ‘ 4:1. .‘ .I.‘.. . I u .‘ 4 00- - 3 ‘ a e.’.‘ . I a z I ‘1 , ._. u . . fl. 1' i e‘ . l " if: : ‘8 .. : ttttt c O um . z " '\ II ' e . a. I .1 . I .‘ PI a 9 _ e a . '. ' ' . l I “ . o S v ‘ ‘ o' - Q l I ..5 I ‘ . .' . I . ‘ a - I .A I I . -' . . u . ..e e 1., l . a ‘ f" ' ' I 9 9 e‘ , ' .‘ e ' ' a ‘ ' s. Q '0 a. a' ' 4 1 r n e 1 i. ‘-~. IyI'cConum Lk Rd w .. i f‘ a a .I.‘ e a“! I. o l O a _ - ‘ : a I. 9 j a K ' ' ~ 2 d: 1 . I O .0 r I 4 a . z .3 y , o n‘ l , . J‘ ‘ a ‘3 ' {A \“’ Q " IIIII ; - ‘ - 1 Appendix Figure 13. Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1560 (A) and bcc 1590 (B). 91 39' ‘. A. k Rd j . .., ‘\ cCollu L f. i 5:" i: ' :1 '1 A ,- . { .. .t‘ ...e .- r, "W 3: -’ z“. ' '1 i ' 1 r ' . A z . , : z. - E...” ‘- .' ° " (”Na-Mm 1 0 1 2 3 Kilometers I»... ‘53,: Appendix Figure 14. Point locations for radio-collared deer bcc 1896. 92 “ax—A. W'P * Presque lele E :‘QCounty . h ''''' .‘ ..._ if: . . \ Montmorency County U. 4 Presque! ‘ lele I. County Q i l Montmorency -- ‘z\ .- County . al.... .. 6 8 Kilometers .. . ‘1‘ W ,—————1. Appendix Figure 15. Point locations for radio-collared deer brr 0540 (A) and brr 0620 (B). 93 ...i j... A. Q ' * 1— Presque - .lsle v w»- a ”s I ’1 Montmorency IR County it . . . . I ' l ‘ -- ' ‘ ‘ . , i r -- a ‘- . '. :22- L ‘ i .f. ’ , l ‘ Q 7 ‘ f . 3 -§ i i ‘ ,. {Otsego N ” K“(County ) . { U. 2 0 2 4 6 8Kilometers - NL/ —;~;\..‘x W r....__._.1 ‘1 "ML B 3”” . LM . i I - . ’ 4 Presque in st . . . \ rlsle 7” Cheboygan County 6‘ Montmorency it \\ County il... 4 6 8 Kilometers , ‘1‘ M Appendix Figure 16. Point locations for radio-collared deer brr 1200 (A) and brr 1340 (B). 94 N W ontmorency 1;? ‘ County M-33 u "f V 2 0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers Q )..} M433! :/ 1 6 8 Kilometers Appendix Figure 17 Point locations for radio-collared deer ccr 1215 (A) and ccr 1225 (B) 95 ontmorency County Appendix Figure 18. Point locations for radio-collared deer ccr 1502 (A) and cor 1570 (B). 96 "‘i 1, Oscoda " _ n -» County I'V‘N 1 x / Southwestern KL Boundary of ’* ‘ L . DMU 452 \ ’ ....( ......... ' . Southwestern ‘ .- - ' , Boundary of Crawford J / £ _ A 1__ DMU 452 County \L/ ; _ 1.. , ll ' x _ " 4.2 \ ---~. 332-" .1 I l J ‘2 . l ' . "7r . 5 l O 2 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 19. Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 0440 (A) and ggr 0514 (B). \‘ 97 Southwestern Boundary of Oscoda "‘ .. County “‘ Southwestern * ° Boundary of g“ \z, L1 DMU 452 Appendix Figure 20. Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 0580 (A) and 88! 0640 (B) 98 , Oscoda " - .. County \1 l. ‘s , J Southwestern , L Boundary of DMU 452 r ‘ ~ . A . . a" f iv ' H ‘ * .l‘ t“ ) x . . ‘ ‘ 1‘ ' ' 1 1 ' 3"\‘Oscoda . - .. County Irm“ . - . l ' f" V SOuthwestem ' ‘ .. Boundary of DMU 452 Crawford W} ....... N ”County Appendix Figure 21. Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 0685 (A) and ggr 0972 (B). 99 Oscoda" a b I? K 4* County I; N Southwestem . ., 1 Ft!” Boundaryof _\ .- ' "’ tOscoda "‘ * —.. .. County m Southwestern - Boundary of ~ DMU 452 ‘ - Appendix Figure 22. Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 1396 (A) and ggr 1396-1 (B) 100 Crawford “County r 1! 1: 11‘ V0» 1 m“ I / ‘ Oscoda m .4. County 1 Kl < '- . ’ I” ‘11,“ka 1 Southwestern * Boundary of DMU 452 z 7. ' J a 3. n N? VT . ‘ .vvn R-‘M- ! ., fl . l 'S 'v p ._ . b . ‘ l FLJ .11" ,8.‘ 17"? . .1 ‘3' a... '. M-33; W“— ". A_ i v 1" s N" N I it I 1 I Kilometers -v...‘ ‘L W 1: \. i A l _, ”J, ,....... ,gi N1 '53.».‘75‘ rd swam-r ‘1-Montmorency 13]] ‘1" ., Crawford 3,; O “J County ‘ - I i” . 4 8 12 19°in -i1l * .r & I6 20 Kilometers Appendix Figure 23. Point locations for radio-collared deer ggr 1570 (A) and ggr 1570-1 (B). 101 111ml ' M-65 A“ E ’1 -* LT“ . r O 2 4 Kilometers . l p , 11 ~ B. M-65 “00.0.4 M, “I". \J 1 - | 2 0 2 4 Kilometers 3 m Appendix Figure 24. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 0580 (A) and jbf 0875 (B). 102 I 4 Kilometers WW" g) ’5 (Incl.- (I) .1 III.“ ...................... . . “.25.... . .39/3vxfemwfiwmwmw g? c. I} (I -. 4 Kilometers Appendix Figure 25. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 0950 (A) and jbf 0980 (B). 103 l" ,... ‘ w. M65 A. . .f O O. 0 . , L o ’. M . I I 2 4Kilometers 1"" V \, | M. 4 L"""""' 2 O 2 4 Kilometers m ’ Appendix Figure 26. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1375 (A) and jbf 1425 (B). 104 I j_ 1. 1 ‘1 W' M / 2 0 2 4 Kilometers \ ~ —~ 1 ~ 1 B '. . o Appendix Figure 27. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1444 (A) and jbf 1797 (B). 105 DMU 452 ~ Boundary M-65 ' V 3 Beaver” Lake . . .‘ O 6 Kilometers m r DMU 452 Boundary Fletcher - M-65 ' Pond (,4 Beaver Lake ,H.f ‘ 9 1 3 O 3 6 Kilometers W Appendix Figure 28. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 0440 (A) and jbf 0912 (B). 106 1L l i J B. .1. "T Kilometers 0' M .M ’2 h.- 4 Kilometers I h .001 ..2M..#.. 2 ... 222%... ...... . . . 22 222 2. 2. 2”222.2 2 22222flflflr.2.2..2.n.2 .. 2..?! 2222 22222 22 . 2 l ounty pa Illa. 22”....222 .2222 ”"2 .122222222. .2. 22 2.2.nu#22 . 22 222222.222 2A....2222 . .2222 .2222222 2.2..2..2..2 22.222 ...22222. . 222. .2....2222202. 22 22:22.22 22.22 2222.22222722.122flW2..2222 2 I. 7. . .2.”2.2.2.../.. 2U22)m# ..22222.2.2uu 222.22WW222.2.22HH.H. ...2. .2322 2.. 0...... 2.2/ 2 2 . 2 . 22.2.22”... ...”.u22.222flu..2 M2 , 0 22222.. 22222 2.2.0022222 222 22 Montmorency t Montmorency 2......mww; 23./é .2... 222.2...2HA.2.222 222 2 /2 .... .x .. 222222222 22%! 2.. .5 ”##3##... .2.... 222.... 222522. . .22.2...22.2.2 ...2 ”.2.22N2 2 2 222.....2..2.22 2222222 22.2.22 22 2 222%.. ...... 2222.2.22wr2 2.2..22 .2 2.....uu? W0mA2.A..2222 .20...” 2 2V2? 222222 222”"2AW2M222A/ 22m (.../W 2 ”022.212.2222. .2./... 22 22 22”.“.79222W22. /?I I) l I H "2!.HH2V. 22 2222 22.. 222/00! 2A...”22 2 22 2 2../Z .. 22 222 22.222 (”222.2222 ...2”. 22.2... I 2.2 2.2.2.3.... . . 2!fl/.u6.... ....2222..2 22 .2.. It. 2" t 1. 4 ) 3}.DJ l... / 1 l Appendix Figure 29. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1210 (A) and 107 jbf1387 (B). 5 J ,1; .-~. . . . ; “:32” “"'T“ W ‘ _ i 1..“ nLifi- 5' ... t p _ I 1.; ”Alpena [ ; , DMU 452 M7533 w Boundary - “LL " i ' '-. ‘ . "T— Montmorency 7‘73 M55 fl 1+— l-w ~ . M... ' f Alcona .5 County , . ., i‘ w, I 8 1.2 16 Kilometers T ' J few-:4.- “ l; 7 fr» ‘t - DMU 452 -_ M-33 .. ( i “J x Bgoundary “rug. Montmorency " * M-65 »C°“"‘V . é ‘ M/ ' “'7. ‘ . .:" 1 u i .. W - ' 4- ’ l‘ ‘ - 321 N “Oscoda f" ,9 ; . I Alcona .- ~County ~ : _. . . County : K l ‘3 4 o 4 8 12 16 Kilometers -- .. 5 ' ‘ Appendix Figure 30. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 0590 (A) and jbf 1090 (B). 108 JR 2 M-32 114:... . " l «i ' 5‘ -' Mesa Montmorency llJl ~-County ." , *5 - -" _ »Osooda $3.... , ‘ ~County Aloona E Counter 8 12 16 Kilometers . . ’ x- ,._- ‘ ”'2; ' :1" "‘ DMU452~ , . _.... "i * ‘ Boundary .. " -. ...... z . J” :le ‘ 4 .91... +Montmorency 1 A M65 __§_CountY : . 7 t . , . gE- :1“- "M 7 , 3; N eOscoda .5.- Alcona ,1 «- . ~County County '\ i I l : " . . ' .71/ Ni W 4 O 4 8 12 16 Kilometers Appendix Figure 31. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1230 (A) and jbf 1370 (B). 109 AICbna l O 8 12 16 Kilometers pa “3 m: T "1J5! B. .Alpena -" J 35.1515 County 4 Fletcher 3% 1 '2 -- Pond -- L— “ 34 . MDMU 452 Tl ma“- ~ Boundary rm“ H J 3 .0 2 ‘:I : ', ,' v .91... +Montmorency has . M-65 if t “LCounty . . . w l '5' 4‘ a u ' .. W 1 N ;Oscoda . , 'I' Alcona - County '- . w- ’ - , County it ; - 1 K i V] 4 o 4 8 12 16 Kilometers ~ a. I: Appendix Figure 32. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1472 (A) and jbf 1600 (B). 110 A. .1 pena . County DMU 452 Boundary " M-33. Montmorency . ”County ' M-65 s. ‘ 5. - . . W .2 N ..Oscoda ..; e 3'00"?! R I W 14 O 4 8 12 16 Kilometers , '93 , “l“ 1 "‘ J 91. . ‘g. 3 3 1 I n B- ..Alpena‘i - J. H County _: Pond ;----"- L: I DMU 452* .. n w Boundary I" , . ' “‘T t M-65 ”W . . ' >. M w Montmorency l iCountY _ ”:3. . . y . f w ...-.... ‘ a ; .1"! .. 0. - -. W if N ‘OSCOda “1:55- ‘_ I Alcona ’J at County t a r; f “ County at :. K i \34 O 4 8 12 16 Kilometers ._ . “a a , . Appendix Figure 33. Point locations for radio-collared deer jbf 1774 (A) and jbf 1936 (B). 111 Montmorency County WT fl , 1‘1 "-- - DMU 452 Boundary ......J "‘1 :5: < .. . l J. .- :- J." Montmorency ‘ County » V. 3 'y l" l , ‘1 - DMU 452 ‘ Boundary WI N...- A Appendix Figure 34. Point locations for radio-collared deer 1c 0390 (A) and lc 1170 (B). 11 on. r 112 Fletcher APond M-32 00.” Fletcher Pond .2 .Kmlmetefs Alpena ...... 50.0 County m l J Montmorency County Jaw—“1‘ a l" l ’ "' “DMU452 "“‘"“' 1. Boundary ......JJ 1 Fletcher Pond - .l J ? ... Montmorency ‘1 ‘ County - .. +1. Alpena ......W "I g __ ... County ‘ , l' I l ”DMU 452 ‘11- Boundary .~-:57"" ......JJ 1 1.5 Kilometers u'. ~11 Appendix Figure 35. Point locations for radio-collared deer lc 1411 (A) and 1c 1904 (B). 113 pvt" . l \ A 1F" ,_ 1 Montmorency County m Mun-r , l“ l ’* "DMU 452 Boundary ......J 1 is... N 1.... 1A Appendix Figure 36. Point locations for radio-collared deer 1c 1915. 114 1 l } lL—r' Montmorency j COUth "11 Syn-J J}. - ' :1 DMU 452 Boundary 1 l I ‘an‘ Montmorency-r-rJ County DMU 452 J“ x Boundary 1 «411—TM-” ‘ FT « 1...,- 44 N Turtle .../..- JA Lake l: . 1 1‘ 1A. AAlpena ~ . *1 County JL M; ...1 Beaver .5 ‘1 Lake T 2 0 2 4 6 Kilometers W5 fi. Beaver #1 ..Lake l .. l 2 O 2 4 6 Kilometers Appendix Figure 37. Point locations for radio-collared deer lhc 0501 (A) and lhc 0611 (B). 115 l l I \ L'TJ _ . t... ........'..._,,.... it Montmorency - . f C°untY “l M-32 _ ‘ . F)” I 4 - Lw w J DMU 452 , 1: .- _ *m _ 1.11 Boundary ’ . ’ 141/l » 1 1:, . ‘ } w. as ( M-33 FT N t ‘ l Beaver 5 6L ...—1 Lake ‘ 'T’ 2 0 2 4 6 Kilometers 1:21M: Turtle Lake 46 \Stl Montmorency ' j l LB. County - ‘l 1 1:' .33: arw'M‘” _“ W1 5555 ,« “T..." um». I . 1",}; ”1.. ' ‘ I , i M s .1 DMU 452 ””"i 31,-. 1 p f Ll Boundary Lu ' , ' j I .A ‘ . r ~ , 1 0' 'fi _. MJAlpena < ...] County Q, ..1 Beaver ; “1 ..Lake ' 1' filfifi 2 0 2 4 6 Kilometers Elm Appendix Figure 38. Point locations for radio-collared deer lhc 0920 (A) and lhc 1421 (B). 116 1 l ) lL—r' Montmorency " County we?— - w A 'L’ DMU 452 Boundary 1s Lake 2 0 2 4 6 Kilometers \131: “1" lt I ‘1‘ L-wJ on morency ' County "F . DMU 452 on. on "Lil Boundary L , i , . ii Li % M'33 -= . £er L..-—----’ x ‘ ... :- 7 ...l . "L“N A 111 ‘ Beaver . ‘ Turtle ~ *1: Lake ' T ...... Lake l " ' /_/:EA 2 0 2 4 6 Kilometers W Appendix Figure 39. Point locations for radio-collared deer lhc 1612 (A) and lhc 1621 (B). 117 I Oscoda 1% A. County r . f) l + g . g DMU 452 g7 k Boundary Ni ’ . M'72 w w w at}! ‘ 1 1 . ...ffl 0 N I \J" Oscoda B- County 12‘ g DMU 452 Boundary L~ 1 ”0 1 2 3 4 Kilometers "Fkr Appendix Figure 40. Point locations for radio-collared deer lip0420 (A) and lip0680 (B). 118 Oscoda 1’ . County . 1 '1 ’1 DMU 452 N " ' Boundary 221‘“ , 1 ~ N . ‘ ta.“ ...; _ 2 0 2 4 6 8 Kilometers .- 1 gr Oscoda 1‘ ’JM-e5 . . J B county . 1/ g 1‘ p DMU 452 ' "fa Boundary Ell. Alpena County 1““ .7 ”111 1 "0 1 2 3 4 Kilometers h*r.l\,.. Appendix Figure 41. Point locations for radio-collared deer lip1235 (A) and lip1285 (B). 119 Oscoda County 1111 DMU 452 Boundary County Oscoda .1 if”) . ......j B :41 ‘91 <1 11- DMU 452 * J Boundary .x Alpena County l “O l 2 3 4 Kilometers hl’L‘J—fi Appendix Figure 42. Point locations for radio-collared deer lip1370 (A) and lip1405 (B). 120 “'21" ’ ...! Northwestern Boundary of ...... DMU 452 run-u“ 4 6 Kilometers ...... (.1117. W1 Northwestern Boundary of - DMU 452 6 Kilometers ma Appendix Figure 43. Point locations for radio-collared deer llr0595 (A) and llrl380 (B). 121 untojO’J Northwestern Boundary of ...... DMU 452 l Northwestern Boundary of «- DMU 452 . , mpu‘J ’9'“ 1 Appendix Figure 44 4 6 Kilometers . Point locations for radio-collared deer llr1462 (A) and llr1490 (B). 122 ““71 "....“ . i 1‘ Northwestern Boundary of ...... DMU 452 6 Kilometers M“ 1 m Northwestern Boundary of --- DMU 452 ‘l Appendix Figure 45. Point locations for radio-collared deer llr1541 (A) and llr1888 (B). 123 Northwestern Boundary of .... DMU 452 “Cl “9" ...J 6 Kilometers Appendix Figure 46. Point locations for radio-collared deer llr 1946. 124 15 September, 1999 Dear Michigan Black Bear Hunter: The Department of Fisheries and (Wildlife at Michigan State University (MSU), in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), is conducting a study to determine the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in black bears harvested in northeastern lower Michigan. Last year one out of 42 bears tested was found to be positive for TB. Because bears are such a highly prized resource, it is important that we learn the extent of TB in black bears. Your voluntary participation is vital to the success of this study. Our study will focus on bears harvested in the portion of the Red Oak Bear Management Unit in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 452 and the surrounding buffer zone (east of US - 75 and north of y - 55). To test for TB, we will need to collect lymph nodes from the head 1' the bear. The collection procedure will not damage the fur or skull. If you harvest a bear from the test area please consider allowing us to collect and test some sample tissue. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your decision of whether or not to participate in this study will have absolutely no impact on your ability to apply for, or chances of receiving, a hunting permit in the Future. if you are willing to assist us in this project and someone from MSU is not present to collect the lymph nodes, please leave you name and phone number at the place where you registered your bear. Someone will contact you as soon as possible to make arrangements to collect the necessary samples. cemmsmor FISflEfl'Es mp if you have any questions about this project, please feel free to call WILDLIFE . Michigan 51311.- University MSU MDNR , 13 Natura: Rezomces 811110123 Dr. Scott Wm - Dr SW Schmitt Tim Rd, as: Lansmg, . ° 48821-1222 517-353-2022 ' 517-373-9358 517-373-l263 511/355-4477 - ' FAX 5l7/432-3699 Dalian Muzo DI- Larry Vim 517-735-3259 517-422-6572 Thank you for your assistance. Scott R. Winterstein Associate Professor of Wildlife Biology MSU -s I" Rwy-190mm: ml'mclwo :f’slaiwcn Appendix Figure 47. Sample of letter informing participants of bear study. 125 28:3: .3; 530008 8.. 30.38.80. 88000 $58330. 8.. 8.8 ..0 0.95m .wv 0.3mE 0.630%? 0:93 0.. ._ 002000. on :00 30> 0.055 % 0:05. 0802 ...;8 .0 so .0 e. .2.. 53.0 c.3333 55.8.5. .0 a. use: «Laos 50> .982...» 00350» «00:00 on 3:053ch 9.2.. :00 0>> .mmmmnmnfi 5. «0 03300:. a 900. :00 30> .0 .0 30> some. :00 0B .383: .000. m 900. 0000... 03.30.. mm :00» mm 30> 89:8 2 .5 ...2, 0>> .5020 0.5 :0 cows—E8... .30> 050. 300.0 .m... .0. 007.0. g 0.6.. 9 9... 0.303 new .02 0 090020.. 0>mc 30> n._ >095 m._._wmm>_23 m.._.<._.w 2630.192 126 00.82.00 0.0800 0300.“ .005 0.003 8.. 00:0 80.. mo 0.0—cam .00 83me 000003.? an $82.00 0.6.9.? .0.3_UcwEa:w 0.0032 00950328. .5.— 0__0:0.r 039.3 ._ m GEE. 2. >E300 0.0a % mecca— 000.UU< 0802 0.023.... fimh % .mow 127 Literature Cited Bruning-Fann, C. S., S. M. Schmitt, S. D. Fitzgerald, J. B. Payeur, D. L. Whipple, T. M. Cooley, T. Carlson, and P. Friedrich. 1998. Mycobacterium bovis in Coyotes from Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 34:632-636. Chadwick, S. B. 2002. Winter severity index 2001-2002. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Report No.: 3374 Clover, MR. 1954. A portable deer trap and catch-net. California Fish and Game. 402376-373 Clover, MR. 1956. Single-gate deer trap. California Fish and Game. 42: 199-201 Diegel, K. L., S. D. Fitzgerald, D. E. Berry, S. V. Church, W. M. Reed, J. G. Sikarskie, J. B. Kaneene. 2002. Experimental inoculation of North American opossums (Didelphis virginiana) with Mycobacterium bovis. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 38:27 5-281 Enarson, DA. and H.L. Rieder. 1995. The importance of Mycobacterium bovis to the tuberculosis epidemic in humans. pp. xix-xxii. In 00. Thoen and J .H. Steele eds. Mycobacterium bovis infection in animals and humans. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa. 348pp. Garner, M. 2001. Movement patterns and behavior at winter feeding and fall baiting stations in a population of white-tailed deer infected with Bovine Tuberculosis in the northeastern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Unpublished PI-{D dissertation. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Hickling, G. J. 2002. Dynamics of bovine tuberculosis in wild white-tailed deer in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Report No. 3363. Mautz, W. W. 1978. Sledding on a bushy hillside: the fat cycle in deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 6:88-90. McCullough, DR. 1974. Modification of the Clover deer trap. California Fish and Game. 61 :242-244. Meslin, F.X. and O. Cosivi. 1995. The importance of Mycobacterium bovis to the tuberculosis epidemic in humans. pp. xxii-xxv. In C.O. Thoen and J .H. Steele eds. Mycobacterium bovis infection in animals and humans. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa. 348pp. 128 Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division. 2002. 1 October 2002. Summary of Michigan Wildlife TB Surveillance. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2002. 2002 Michigan Hunting and Trapping Guide. O’Brien, D. J ., S. D. Fitzgerald, T. J. Lyon, K. L. Butler, J. S. Fierke, K. R. Clarke. S. M. Schmitt, T. M. Cooley, D. E. Berry. 2001. Tuberculous lesions in free-ranging white-tailed deer in Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 37 :608-613. O’Brien, D. J., S. M. Schmitt, J. S. F ierke, S. A. Hogle, S. R. Winterstein, T. M. Cooley, W. E. Moritz, K. L. Diegel, S. D. Fitzgerald, D. E. Berry, and J. B. Kaneene. 2002. Epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis in free-ranging white-tailed deer, Michigan, USA, 1995-2000. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 54:47-63. Ozaga, J. J., R. V. Doepder , and M. S. Sargent. 1994. Ecology & Management of White-tailed Deer in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Report Number 3209. Palmer, M. V., W. R. Waters, D. L. Whipple. 2002. Susceptibility of raccoons (Procyon lotor) to infection with Mycobacterium bovis. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 38:266-274. Rao, P. V. 1998. Statistical Research Methods in the Life Sciences. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Pacific Grove, CA. Sabine, D. L., S. F. Morrison, H. A. Whitlaw, W. B. Ballard, G. J. Forbes, J. Bowman. 2002. Migration behavior of white-tailed deer under varying winter climate regimes in New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66: 718-728. Sauer, P. R. 1984. Physical Characteristics. Pages 73-90 in L. K. Halls, editor. White- tailed deer ecology and management. Wildlife Management Institute. Stackpole Books, Garrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Sitar, K. L. 1996. Seasonal movements, habitat use patterns, and population dynamics of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in an agricultural region of northern lower Michigan. MS. Thesis. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 130 pp. Schmitt, S. M., S. D. Fitzgerald, T. M. Cooley, C. S. Bruning-Fann, L. Sullivan, D. Berry, T. Carlson, R. B. Minnis, J. B. Payeur, and J. Sikarskie. 1997. Bovine Tuberculosis in Free-ranging White-tailed Deer From Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 33:749-758. 129 Seaman, D. E. and B. Griflith. 1998. KERNELHR: a program for estimating animal home ranges. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 26:96-100. Seaman, D. E., J. J. Millspaugh, B. J. Kemohan, G. C. Brundige, K. J. Raedeke, and R. Gitzen. Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management. 63:739-747. Severinghaus, CA. 1949. Tooth development and wear as criteria of age in white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 13: 195-216. Thoen, CO. and ER. Bloom. 1995. Pathogenesis of Mycobacterium bovis. pp. 3-14. In C.O. Thoen and J.H. Steele eds. Mycobacterium bovis infection in animals and humans. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa. 348pp. Van Deelen, T. R. 1995. Seasonal migrations and mortality of white-tailed deer in Michigan’s upper peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 158pp. Verme, L. J. 1968. An index of winter weather severity for northern deer. Journal of Wildlife Management. 32:566-674. Worton, B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in homerange studies. Journal of Ecology. 70: 164-168. 130 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111