}
I

W!

(IIWHHIWWWWWHHHIIWHHIHU

 

11
08

\l\l

  

Imullllllllluflxlfillluywll L

 

31

 

THERW

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

DEER WINTER CONCENTRATION AREAS
IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN

presented by l

Joseph Warren Masek

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Sciencgdegreein Eisherieg and Wildlife

Liz /%J
9/55.;

Major pr e

Date Lay 8 . 1979

0-7639

  
   

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY ‘
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
thisjchecllcout from your record.

FY 3333

=9 4- o 3'
RV“ 2 W m.
. Q; frwfiji 4
151’I1J1: .flfilzsb @flfi

 

 

 

DEER WINTER CONCENTRATION AREAS
IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN

By

Joseph Warren Masek

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

1979

ABSTRACT

DEER WINTER CONCENTRATION AREAS
IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN

By

Joseph Warren Masek

During the winter months, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
concentrate in certain areas of southern Michigan in large bands of up to
150 individuals. Little is known about the factors influencing this
grouping tendency in agricultural regions.

In this study, l00 winter concentration areas were identified
in the southern third of Michigan (Region III). Information on environ-
mental features, food sources, and deer herd density was compiled for
these areas. Quantitative data on available food and cover were gathered
for 18 selected concentration areas.

Evidence from this study indicated that the size, shape, distribution,
and intensity of use of deer winter concentration areas in southern
Michigan is influenced by many factors. The availability of waste field
corn may be a key factor influencing selection and use of wintering areas,
and was shown to have an approximate linear relationship with deer herd

density in the 18 study areas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by funds from the Wildlife Division of
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

I wish to thank Dr. Leslie W. Gysel, chairman of my guidance com-
mittee, for giving support to my graduate work by accepting me as a
Graduate Assistant, and providing assistance throughout this project..
I thank Dr. Rollin Baker for his careful review of this thesis. I
appreciated the patience that Dr. Stanley Zarnoch had with me during
many discussions about the study proposal and subsequent data analysis.
I am especially grateful to Dr. Glenn Belyea for his help in getting
the project "off the ground" (literally), for many discussions on the
nature of the problem involved, and for careful editing of this thesis.

I am deeply indebted to Mr. Robert Wood, in charge of the Deer
Range Program of the Wildlife Division, and Mr. Ed Tucker, Region III
Biologist, for their interest and financial support for the project.

I am grateful for the information provided by the District Biologists
and the many Habitat Biologists who participated in the survey.

Their help and cooperation made this study possible. I appreciated the
help and friendship of many of my fellow graduate students, and wish
them well in their chosen fields. Many thanks to my good friends, Larry
and Ruth Beckham, for their technical assistance in preparation of the

final draft of this thesis.

1'1

My parents have provided untold help in the form of physical, moral,
and financial support. This acknowledgement seems totally inadequate
as thanks for the love which they have given me through the years.
These same feelings are expressed toward my in-laws, who have recieved
me into their family even as one of their own. Last, but certainly
not least, I thank my family for their loving support. To my wife,
Mary, thank you for bearing with.me during these six years of school,
for supporting me and for sharing in our love for God's creation; to
my son Casey, thank you for just being the precious gift of love that
you are, and for showing me how to experience each contact with nature
as a new and exciting adventure. May my generation help to insure the
opportunities for your generation to experience God's creation at it's

best.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ........................ v
LIST OF FIGURES ....................... vi
INTRODUCTION ......................... 1
STUDY AREA .......................... 3
METHODS ....................... . . . . 7
RESULTS ........................... l3
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................. 2l
MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 36
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 40
APPENDIX ......................... 46

iv

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Winter conditions in Regions I, II, and III ...... 5
Summary of data from l8 study areas within

Region III ..................... ll
Information on past use of deer winter

concentration areas ................. 15
Primary and secondary food sources (N = 74), expressed

as percent of N. .................. l5

Figure

1.

10.

LIST OF FIGURES

Map of lower Michigan, showing Region III, which

is divided into five districts ............

Eighteen study areas within area of relatively

high deer density ..................

Regional map showing distribution and size of

concentration areas .................

Regional map showing deer herd densities within

each area ......................

Estimated deer herd size within individual winter

concentration areas (N = lOO) ............

Environmental features and land types present in deer

winter concentration areas (N = 75) .........

Measure of the linear relationship betwegn corn

(bu/ha) and deer herd density (deer/km

Landowner attitudes concerning deer on their land

(N = 136) ......................

Aerial view of disturbance caused by foraging deer. . . .

Hypothetical relationship between amount of cover

(X) and deer population levels (Y) ..........

vi

Page

..9
..14
.f14

. .19

20
22

31

INTRODUCTION

The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), absent for many
years from the southern half of Michigan's Lower Peninsula until becoming
re-established during the early 1940's (McNeil 1962), has made a dramatic
comeback in that portion of the state. The present herd numbers around
200,000 deer (Vogt 1979), with population levels approaching or exceeding
problem proportions in some areas (Nixon 1968).

During the winter months, deer concentrate in certain areas of
southern Michigan in large bands of up to 150 individuals (Jenkins 1963).
This often leads to locally heavy damage to agricultural crops, orchards,
and ornamental trees and shrubs on private land. An increase in deer-
car accidents may also occur on secondary roads which are found within
these areas (Nixon 1968).

There are many references in the literature concerning the "yarding"
behavior of deer in the northern portions of their range (Boer 1978,

Huot 1974, Moen 1968, Verme 1973), but little is known about the factor(s)
influencing this grouping tendency in agricultural regions. Conditions
similar to those of southern Michigan exist in several other states
(Erickson gt_al, 1961, Kline 1965, Larson 1978, Nixon 1968, Rongstad and
Tester 1969, Sparrowe and Springer 1970). No attempt will be made in

this paper to address the question of why_deer concentrate in the winter.

Suffice it here to say that they do, for whatever reason(s) yet unexplained.

Several researchers provide interesting possible explanations in answer

to this question (Cowan 1956, Hammerstrom and Blake 1939, Loveless 1967,
Mattfeld 1974, Moen 1968, Ozoga and Gysel 1972, Webb 1948). Expressed
in Mattfeld's (1974:11) words,

Great care should be exercized in differentiating evolutionary

roots of winter concentration, factors which trigger concentra-

tion, and factors which sustain concentrations of deer...the
search for a single factor to explain all three facets of this
phenomenon has led to confusion in the literature and in the minds
of wildlife professionals and the general public alike.

The growing importance of southern Michigan's deer herd, from an
economic, safety, and recreational standpoint, dictates the need to
accumulate pertinent information for sound management of Michigan's
most important wildlife resource. Toward that end, the objectives of
this study were:

1) to map the distribution of known deer winter concentration

areas in southern Michigan;

2) to determine the major factor(s) which influence the deer to

use these given areas.

 

STUDY AREA

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has divided
the state into three regions for administrative purposes. Region III,
the southern third of the state, is the general study area under con-
sideration (Figure I). It is comprised of 35 counties totaling 22, 169
square miles in area. The region is divided into five districts (9, 11,
12, 13, and 14).

Present land use distribution within the region is 49 percent
cropland, 17 percent timber, 16 percent urban uses, 4 percent pasture,
and 14 percent other uses (including idle land and roads) (Great Lakes
Basin Commission 1975).

Approximately 7,834,300 people, nearly 86 percent of the population
of Michigan, reside in Region III. Winter conditions (Merz 1978) are
considerably milder than in the northern portions of the state (Table 1).

Within the general study area of Region III, 18 concentration areas

were selected for study on available food and cover (Figure 2).

-—->2

 

 

 

 

 

 

/
‘ I
v-rdl ‘1
9
14
‘2 I3
-'-'- NORTH LIMIT OF 0
REGION III a 4 8‘0 I 'To
Km

Figure 1. Map of lower Michigan, showing Region III, which is
d1v1ded into five districts.

Table 1. Winter conditions in Regions I, II, and III.

i
L

Mean Annual
Snowfall

Daily Minimum
Temperature

Daily Maximum
Temperature

Mean Annual
Number of Days
with Snow Cover

Region I

1.5-2.5 m

-12.2 - -9.4°c

-6.6 - -3.8°c

120- 150

Region II Region III

1.5-2.5 m 0.9-1.5 m

-12.2 - -9.4°c -9.4 - -6.60C

0 O
-3.8 - -l.l C -l.l - 1.7 C

100- 130 70- 100

 

—-——-—)2

 

 

 

 

”h?

 

 

"—- Boundary of high
density area

PO
O
0
d
O
0

Figure 2. Eighteen study areas within area of relatively high deer
density (Michigan DNR Map 2155 - 1973).

METHODS

During February of 1978, aerial surveys of Region III were made
in an attempt to confirm suspected deer winter concentration areas.
District 14, which was believed to contain no concentration areas, was
excluded from the flights. Michigan DNR field biologists participated
in the observation flights and prepared maps showing known and suspected
concentration areas in advance. County maps showing detailed road infor-
mation were used, enabling observers to readily identify their position
during the flights.

The flights were made in a fixed—wing aircraft (Dehaviland Beaver),
at altitudes ranging from 90 to 240 m. From this height the deer were
plainly visible against the snow background. Two observers besides the
pilot were present. The flights were restricted to paths which would
most effectively cover the suspected concentration areas in a minimum
amount of flying time. Deer concentrations were recorded as well as
observations on environmental features, number of deer observed, bedding
and feeding sites, major trails, and other pertinent information.

Reports on each concentration area were completed on a district
by district basis. Personal interviews were conducted with each DNR
District Biologist, along with all the field biologists involved in the
flights. Information forms (Appendix 1) were used to standardize and

record information for all known concentration areas. Areas were

numbered by district and county, following a north to south and west to
east system. A composite map, showing distribution and size of the areas
on a regional basis, was transcribed from county maps (Figure 3). A
second regional map was made which indicated deer herd density within each
area (Figure 4).

Based on this initial information, 18 concentration areas of various
sizes (Figure 2) were chosen for study of available food and cover. Six
blocks of three concentration areas were chosen, each block containing a
low (0-19 deer/kmz), medium (20-38 deer/kmz), and high (39+ deer/kmz)
density area. This blocking was an attempt to minimize the differences
in herd size, agricultural practices, and physiographic features found
acrossed the region. All concentration areas were within a 75 mile
radius of Lansing and were within a general area having approximately
uniform relative deer density (Figure 2).

Initial reports indicated that standing and waste field corn
availability may influence location of winter concentration areas.
Therefore, an attempt was made to quantify the relative amounts of
corn available to deer in the 18 study areas. Black and white aerial
photographs (RF 1:660) were obtained from the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service (A.S.C.S.) office in each of the seven counties
involved. The photographs for the individual counties were dated as
follows: Ingham, Kent, and Livingston - 1963; Jackson - 1964; Barry, Ionia,
and Eaton - 1967.

Land ownership was determined within each area using current county
platte maps and farm code numbers found on the A.S.C.S. photos. One hun-
dred and thirty-six landowners were contacted by telephone during the

summer of 1978. Inquiry was made as to their land use (farming vs.

 

Figure 3. Regional map showing distribution and size of concentration
areas.

 

Ct...» @ Mchun‘ 0 5:3».

Figure 4. Regional map showing deer herd densities within each area.

10

non-farming), hectares of land planted to corn the previous year,
harvesting method used (cornpicker vs. combine), and bushels per
hectare yield for areas in which corn was left standing. Variations
occurred in the amount of waste corn left after harvesting, depending

on the harvest method used. For this study, hectares of corn harvested
by combine and hectares harvested by cornpicker were multiplied by con-
stants of 14.83 and 9.88 bu/ha respectively (Bygg and Gill 1965) to
determine total bushels of waste corn available in each area (Table 2).
Landowners were also questioned as to their feelings about having deer
on their land and about any direct observations of deer which they made.

Cover, used here to define any wooded or brushy areas suitable
for bedding or escape, would appear to be another major factor influencing
deer in the selection of winter concentration sites (Dasmann 1971,
Leopold 1933, Ozoga 1968, Ozoga and Gysel 1972, Verme 1973). Cover
was quantified using the aerial photographs and a modified Bryan Dot
Grid ( l dot = 0.25 ha) to determine the amount of cover and open land,
and then calculating the percentage of each concentration area covered
by woods and brush.

Interspersion was determined by using a map-measuring device to
record the linear meters of "edge" between cover and open land. The
dispersion index formula outlined by Patton (1975) was then used to
calculate an "interspersion index" (1.1.) for each concentration area.
This formula relates the linear extent of a measured edge of a habitat
type to the perimeter of a circle which has the same total area as the
unit of land under study. As the amount of edge within an area increases,

the interspersion index increases proportionately.

ll

 

 

Table 2. Summary of data from 18 study areas within Region III.
2 Percent
Area No. Size(Ha) Deer/Km Bu Corn/Ha Cover *I.I.
9-6-2 1285.31 9.65 0.494 62.6 2.60
9-6-1 694.05 19.31 0.833 49.4 3.62
9-6-5 132.34 57.92 1.888 31.8 1.84
9-5-2 1335.09 14.67 0.220 60.6 4.17
9-6-3 549.98 19.31 1.201 37.5 2.32
9-6-6 188.18 38.61 0.531 62.0 2.84
12-2-2 794.42 9.65 0.504 40.0 4.34
12-2-1 766.90 23.17 0.778 54.0 2.90
12-2-7 342.37 38.61 1.384 63.0 ' 3.24
12-2-3 259.00 13.51 0.927 85.0 1.29
12-2-4 518.01 28.96 3.252 75.0 2.32
13-1-1 297.05 38.61 5.770 35.0 2.29
13-3-4 1048.97 9.65 0.190 37.0 1.45
13-2-2 182.52 27.03 3.091 57.0 2.48
13-3-3 287.33 96.53 5.140 31.0 2.05
13-6-3 259.00 13.51 0.810 17.0 1.30
13-6-2 241.60 28.96 1.871 50.0 1.85
13-6-1 259.00 57.92 3.197 53.0 2.70

 

* Interspersion Index

12

The quantitative data from this portion of the study were analyzed
using stepwise multiple regression to determine the most important
independent variable(s) influencing the dependent variable of deer

herd density.

RESULTS

The observation flights made during February of 1978 confirmed
the presence of 100 deer winter concentration areas scattered across
Region III (Figure 2). Twelve additional areas were suspected to be
within Saginaw and Lenawee counties, but due to inadequate time and un-
predictable weather, these counties were not checked.

The following information was summarized from forms completed
by DNR district personnel (Appendix 1). Data on concentration area
size and deer herd estimates are available for all 100 areas. Less is
known about some areas than others, resulting in fluctuations in sample
size for many of the categories of information.

The concentration areas varied widely in size, averaging 803.76
3 1025.22 ha (m t SE). Total herd estimates within the individual
areas (Figure 5) averaged 116.45 f 92.58 deer, with one area estimated
to have over 500 individuals. The average density of deer within the
concentration areas was 23.12 I 17.41 deer/kmz. The average maximum
group size observed was 48.76 I 31.47 individuals (N = 62). The
largest group seen during the flights was about 150 deer.

Information was available on the past history of some concentration
areas (Table 3). Nearly all the areas were believed to be used histor-
ically on a regular yearly basis, and a large majority of them were used

regardless of the severity of the winter. More than half (69 percent)

13

10
lo
13 To
9.
P to
C In
C
n '°
*- lo
10

     

      

0
1°". :o-Iu too-zoo Ana-nu soc-tn r...

NMMLI" 0“ JOCF

Figure 5. Estimated deer herd size within individual winter individual
winter concentration areas (N = 100).

 

 

 

[994
hi
sci
P 79‘
e .
r 60
c :04
e
In "‘
t ’01
1.1
low I l l | l I I [.—1
° 7 2
U5 VI
‘ '0 °' a g 5 i’.‘ 1
% W .12 5 U) L 4 0 c
_‘ 3 U “ -' ‘9 E L 4’ d
“ -‘ ‘ z 4 \v 3 “5 u
c —u ‘ ° — L“ ‘2 y
g —5 «J d c U
__ K 5 1; .2.fl )‘ ‘a s "U
9— —‘- .‘.' 3 9‘ ‘2' H
3 3 ’5‘ 1:
o
A (

LonJ types and environmental futures

Figure 6. Environmental features and land types present in deer winter
concentration areas (N= 7)

15

Table 3. Information on past use of deer winter concentration

 

 

 

areas.
Information- N Percent Yes
Area used historically 45 96
Herd size stable over
past five years 42 26
Area used regardless
of winter severity 47 87

 

Table 4. Primary and secondary food sources (N = 74), expressed

as percent of N.

 

 

 

Food Item Primary Secondary
Corn 57.0 35.0
Browse 35.0 28.0
Winter wheat 2.7 -
Mast - 2.7
Artificial feeding 2.7 -
Orchard 2.6 -
Soybeans - 5.4
Blueberry plants (commercial) - 1.0

 

16

of the areas were reported to have increasing deer herds.

Information on primary and secondary food sources was available
from biologists for 74 areas (Table 4). Standing and waste field corn
was reported to be the most important food item, with 57 percent of the
area reports indicating it to be the primary food source. Reports from
two areas indicated that the primary food source was artificial feeding
of corn or hay by private individuals.

Land types and environmental features within 75 concentration areas
are indicated by categories in Figure 6. The most widely noted general
feature was agricultural cropland, with lowland hardwoods ranking second.

Bedding sites were often easily distinguishable during the obser-
vation flights and the type of bedding cover was recorded for 61 areas.
Lowland hardwoods (31 percent), upland hardwoods (29 percent), and
mixed stands of lowland hardwoods and conifers (25 percent) were used
nearly equally. Deer in some areas bedded down in conifer plantations,
crops, open fields, and fencerows.

Main trails were also distinguishable from the air, and distances
from bedding to feeding sites were often recorded. Deer in some areas
bedded in the same field in which they were feeding, while in other areas
they were apparently moving up to 1.6 km to reach their main food source.
The average distance which deer were moving from bedding to feeding
sites was approximately 0.6 t 0.3 km (N = 63).

Deer began gathering in the areas with the advent of colder weather
in December. Groups of deer were seen in a number of areas as early as
November, while a few areas did not show a noticeable increase in deer
herds until January. Dispersal usually coincided with the arrival of

warmer weather during March.

17

Some area reports included deer damage or mortality problems.

Crop damage complaints were filed in 28 percent (N = 54) of the areas.
Deer-car accidents were reported to be a significant problem in 25
percent (N = 55) of the areas. Twenty percent (N = 51) of the area
reports indicated that deer were being lost to poaching or predation by
dogs.

Quantitative data on available food and cover within the 18
concentration areas selected for further study are found in Table 2.
These study areas averaged 524.51 t 382.60 ha in size, with an average
deer herd density of 30.31 t 22.37 deer/kmz. The availability of stand-
ing and waste field corn in the 18 areas averaged 1.782 t 1.661 bu/ha.
The typical concentration area had 50.0 i 17.0 percent of its total
area covered by woods and brush. The average interspersion index
was 2.53 t 0.89, indicating good interspersion between cover and open
land.

Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine the possible
influence of the independent variables of corn, cover, and interspersion,
along with all possible interactive variables and appropriate trans-
formations (Gill 1978). The only independent variable which was included
in the prediction equation (P50.05) during the computer analysis was the
availability of corn. A significant (P<0.005) linear relationship was
found between the amount of corn available in a given concentration
area and the density of deer within that area (Figure 7).

0f the 136 landowners contacted, 75 were actively farming their
land. Hectares of corn varied widely between individual farms, with the
average being 14.57 t 15.38 ha (N = 75). Harvest methods used were evenly

divided between cornpickers (47 percent) and combines (53 percent).

18

Fall plowing, which reduced the amount of corn available to wildlife,
was done to some degree on 28 percent of the farms under consideration.
Landowner attitudes concerning deer on their land are summarized in

Figure 8.

19

I00.

104

“d

  

sun-M30“ I—v 0:- 100:!
3'
1

   

9: I353 ‘I' 9.42 X

1": 0.5”
P. 0.00:

 

 

West: corn X

Figure 7. Measure of the linear relationéhip between corn (bu/ha)
and deer herd density (deer/km )

20

I.“

in

..-
P 10:1
.5 W
: 8’01
H n-
t

I"

I0:

 

 

Decrease Increase Mn tam No
Inn-J Inn-J stable comment
size. sue. “v.4

53 1e.

Len :1 owner- attitudes

Figure 8. Landowner attitudes concerning deer on their land (N = 136).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Deer winter concentration areas, like the deer themselves, are
neither uniformly nor randomly distributed throughout southern Mich-
igan. During this survey the distribution of 100 known concentration
areas in Region III was mapped, information on some of the environmen-
tal features was compiled, and some insight into the motivating factors
which may influence the location and size was gained.

Aerial censusing of white-tailed deer populations can be a useful
management tool, particularly in agricultural areas (Allen 1947,

Erickson 1961, McCaffery 1976, Petrides 1953, Sparrowe 1966), but it
does have limitations. In southern Michigan, it is doubtful that ob-
servation flights alone can account for the majority of deer in a

given district. However, there was general agreement among partici-
pating biologists that the flights enabled them to accurately locate
the major concentration areas. Evidence of disturbance caused by large
numbers of deer feeding in open fields (Figure 9) could be easily
detected from a considerable distance.

Personal interviews concerning information on field conditions
seldom provide exact details, but can yield satisfactory data of a
generalized nature (Longhurst 1952). The wide scope of this survey pre-
cluded any intensive research within a small group of concentration areas.
The information compiled from interviews with those most familiar with

local field conditions can help to lay a foundation for further research.

21

22

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Aerial view of disturbance caused by deer foraging for
waste corn in concentration area No. 9-6-4, Ionia County,
Michigan.

23

The quantity and accuracy of certain types of information on many areas
are reflected, in part, by the length of time which the participating
biologists have been assigned to a given district. In some cases,
the landowners themselves may be able to provide more accurate infor-
mation on a given area, and any study involving a single or small group
of concentration areas should not overlook this valuable data source.

The great variation in concentration area size (32.38-7770.13 ha)
must be attributed to many factors, including the nature and extent of
the primary food source, the type of cover available, the macro and
microclimates of the individual locations, and the general deer density
of that portion of the region. The size of the areas and the intensity
of concentration are also influenced by the severity of the winter
(Cook and Hamilton 1942, Dahlberg and Guettinger 1956, Hammerstrom and
Blake 1939, Moen 1978, Rongstad and Tester 1969), with deer forming
looser aggregations during milder winters. A severe winter snowstorm
in early January of 1978 caused an abnormal snow accumulation of about
0.6 m. This intensified the congregating tendency of the deer, causing
the concentration areas to be more clearly defined than during milder
years.

There are numerous reports of deer in various climates and regions
of the country forming larger herds during the winter months (Cook
and Hamilton 1942, Cowan 1956, Hammerstrom and Blake 1939, Jenkins
1963, Nelson 1930, Pietsch 1954, Rongstad and Tester 1969, Rue 1962,
Sparrowe 1966, Stegeman 1937). In many cases this grouping occurs
regardless of the severity of the winter. Deer herd size and density of
deer within a given area can also be attributed to one or more of the

factors previously stated concerning concentration area size, but are

24

probably most influenced by general deer population levels in the
region.

Previous studies from other areas support the finding that most
deer winter cocentration areas in Region III are used historically on a
regular yearly basis (Bartlett 1938, Dahlberg and Guettinger 1956,
Gruell and Papez 1963, Hammerstrom and Blake 1939, Rongstad and Tester
1969). Some of these studies outline tagging operations, which have
revealed that many individuals or family groups return to the same
concentration area year after year. Hammerstrom and Blake (1939)
postulated that perhaps some winter concentration areas were first
used by small family groups, with their continued use by progressively
larger groups becoming a learned behavior pattern passed down through
successive generations.

The reports of increasing deer herds in 69 percent (N = 42) of
the concentration areas probably reflect the general increase in deer
population levels in many parts of Region III over the past several
decades. The herd has been growing in some portions of the region at
a high annual rate of increase (Nixon 1968). Jenkins (1963) attributed
this high rate of increase to two major factors: 1) excellent range
conditions, including relatively mild winters, good interspersion of
favorable cover types, and an abundance of nutritious food during all
seasons; 2) high reproductive rate and fawn survival. Other sources
indicated that the latter factor is strongly influenced by the first
(Cheatum and Severinghaus 1950, Murphy 1968, Murphy and Coates 1966,
Verme 1963, 1974).

25

A sudden increase or decrease in the deer herd within a given
concentration area from one year to the next might be the result of a
change in agricultural practices or perhaps a new source of human or
animal distrubance. One such area in Region III, which had not been
used by deer in previous years, developed into a concentration area due
to a soybean field which had been left unharvested over the winter. In
some areas conspicuously large herds of deer feeding in open fields
may draw poachers, possibly causing a dispersal from the disturbance
site. Predation by dogs is also a factor which could cause a decrease
in the herd size (McNeil 1962) and was reported to be a problem in 12
percent (N = 51) of the areas in this study.

Standing and waste field corn is reported to be a major deer winter
food item in many agricultural regions (Erickson §t_al, 1961, Jenkins
1963, Kline 1965, Korschgen 1962, Larson 1978, Moen 1968, Murphy 1968,
Mustard and Wright 1965, Nixon gt_a1, 1970, Sparrowe and Springer 1970,
Watt gt_al, 1967, Zagata and Haugen 1972). The summary of food sources
in Table 4, the importance of the presence of agricultural crops indi-
in Figure 6, and the linear relationship between corn and deer density
(Figure 7) all strongly suggest that the presence and amount of corn
available to deer is a major factor influencing them in the selection
of given areas as winter concentration sites in southern Michigan.

r Corn, when utilized as part of the regular annual diet, provides
{more than adequate nutrition to maintain white-tailed deer in excellent
health (Dietz 1965, Moen 1968, Verme 1974). Verme (1974) reported that
the conception rate among southern Michigan "corn fed" doe fawns is

nearly seven times higher than it is among doe fawns from Michigan's

26

Upper Peninsula. Burgoyne §t_al, (1977) reported that antler beam
diameters, another measure of the general herd condition, averaged 22
percent greater among lkeyear-old antlered bucks from Region III than
those from Region I (Upper Peninsula).

The variety of corn most frequently found in southern Michigan
(Dent, U.S. Grade No. 2) has a digestible energy content for sheep (also
a ruminant) of 4.14 kilocalories (kcal) per gram, and a crude protein
level of 10 percent (Natl. Res. Council 1975). Ullrey (1971) reported
that a digestible energy content of 2.75 kcal/gram is considered ade-
quate for deer. Bissel and Strong (1955) stated that the crude protein
content of a plant is a good index of its food value, with 7 percent
crude protein content being a minimum level required to maintain west-
ern deer. Moen (1968) reported that in agricultural habitats of Min-
nesota, deer continued to bed in open fields and feed on corn even dur-
ing prolonged periods of extreme cold (-18°C). He indicated that the
high protein diet of corn supplied an adequate quantity of metaboliz-
able energy for the deer to maintain a positive energy balance, and
that even though cover may be needed to help maintain a positive energy
balance on range where food supplies have been deleted, it can only
serve to reduce heat loss. He emphasized that sufficient food must be
available to maintain the basal energy requirements of the animal and
must therefore be considered the most basic requirement.

Browse.was indicated as the second most important food source within
the concentration areas (Table 4). Sikarski (1978) observed signs of
severe browsing on the.edge of a woodlot adjacent to a cornfield which
was being heavily used by deer, with many of the browsed plants being

nonpreferred browse species. He also noted the change in deer feces

27

from a well-formed pellet to a soft stool, which is associated with a
high-energy corn diet. He postulated that the heavy browsing indicated
an attempt by the deer to get natural roughage without having to leave
the corn. Mattfeld (1974) stated that deer are poorly adapted to woody
twig forage and may not be able to digest crude fiber effectively.
However, Dasmann (1971) indicated that a full protein diet (e.g., corn)
enables a ruminant to utilize roughage foods more efficiently. These
findings suggest that in farmland areas the use of agricultural crops
and natural browse by deer complement one another.

In southern Michigan, woody browse is fairly evenly distributed
throughout the districts in which deer wintering areas are found
(excluding the intensely agricultural "thumb" area), and in most areas
could not be considered a limiting factor. Such is not the case in
some "Corn Belt" states of the Medwest, where woody vegetation--serving
as both a source of natural roughage and of cover for bedding and escape--
may well be the factor which limits deer population levels (Murphy 1968).
Corn, unlike browse, is not evenly distributed throughout most of Region
III, and evidence from this study suggests that deer often "key in"
on available sources of corn during the early winter months. Van Dyke
(1913) lends support to this theory, when he stated that deer show a
great preference for "specialty" foods, such as acorns and beechnuts.

He indicated that when these foods are available, deer will travel
"many leagues" from their summer range to concentrate in areas

where they are found. Further support is provided by Severinghaus and
Cheatum (1956), who concluded that movement of groups of deer to an

abundant source of especially favored foods can occur at any time of year,

28

providing travel is not totally restricted by snow_depth.

Lowland and upland hardwoods were both noted as important environmen-
tal features (Figure 6), reflecting the whitetails need for bedding
and escape cover. Dasmann (1971) proposed that the security provided
by cover may be an important factor in maintaining deer in good physical
condition. Some doubt exists as to whether lowland hardwood or swamp
areas provide better protection from the elements than do upland hardwoods
(Larson et al. 1978). There may be several explanations why lowland
hardwoods are used to a slightly greater extent than uplands (56% vs.
39%) in the areas under consideration. Lowland hardwoods have an abundance
of preferred browse species, such as red maple (Acer rubrum) and red-
osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). There generally is little human
disturbance in lowland areas, usually due to wet conditions and a dense
understory. Upland areas are often used as additional pasture for
cattle, while lowland areas are generally not suitable for that purpose.
Sparrowe and Springer (1970) reported that all the wintering areas
which they surveyed in eastern South Dakota were relatively free
from human activity or livestock.

The analysis of cover within the 18 study areas showed no
significant correlation (P50.05) between deer density and interspersion or
amount of cover (r = -0.15). This may indicate that, for most of the
region, cover is available in adequate amounts and is sufficiently
interspersed with agricultural food sources to meet the needs of the
deer in these areas. The lack of significant correlation may also be
due, in part, to the small herd size involved. A hypothetical rela-
tionship between the amount of cover available and deer population

levels is presented in Figure 10. As this figure indicates, a

29

minimum amount of cover is essential for deer populations to exist within
a given region. Some states in the Midwest may be approaching this
unknown minimum level as agricultural practices and impoundment projects
continue to deplete the existing natural cover (Murphy 1968). In
these areas, where plentiful food in the form of agricultural crops
exists, as the amount of cover increases deer population levels increase
commensurately. At some point of optimal cover availability, deer
population levels no longer respond to additional increases in cover
(shaded area). It is proposed that most of Region III would lie in
this part of the curve. As cover continues to increase in amount,
age, and height, a point is reached where additional cover adversely
affects the deer herd, causing a decline in population levels. Such
appears to be the case in the Upper Peninsula, where declining deer
herds are attributed to natural succession, which has drastically
increased the amount of cover in the form of mature climax forests
(Bennet 1974).

Bedding sites were nearly equally distributed among the major
habitat types, with most deer bedding within 0.6 km of their major
food source. Bedding site selection within some concentration areas
may simply be indicative of habitat types nearest to the food source,
which are suitable for bedding. Ozoga (1972) noted that when food and
bedding cover are in close proximity, a minimum of energy is used in
travel from resting to feeding locations. In other areas, diurnal
human or animal activity near the food source might be a sufficient

disturbance to preclude use of adjacent cover for bedding, resulting in

greater traveling distances from bedding to feeding sites.

Deer
f’l"

level

Figure 10.

 

30

much .3 net...“
. . most of II P P a. r
k-mwy c... Belt states—’1‘" Region 111: "1"— p“; not)“

7
a // L

 

 

 

 

——->

Amount of Cover

Hypothetical relationship between amount of cover (X)
and deer population levels (Y).

31

Concentrations of deer became noticeable in many areas during
late November and early December. This activity generally coincides
with the advent of colder weather, which is often accepted as the likely
"triggering mechanism" for this phenomenon (Darling 1937, Mattfeld 1974,
Ozoga and Gysel 1972). While this may be true in most cases, it is
possible that in some areas deer may be seeking shelter from the drastic
increase in noise and numbers of people invading the woods, resulting
from the beginning of the firearm deer season in mid-November.

Springer and Sparrowe (1970) reported that in eastern South Dakota
hunting influenced deer movements and distribution more than any other
factor. Once within these areas of less disturbance, cold weather and
sufficient food supplies may serve to sustain the concentrations

of deer until the following spring.

Dispersal is believed to coincide with the arrival of warmer
weather and resultant loss of snow cover (Cook and Hamilton 1942,
Hammerstrom and Blake 1939, Mattfeld 1974, Sparrowe and Springer
1970), which usually takes place during March in southern Michigan.

The exposure of new grasses and forbs, following the recession of the
snow, may also play an important role in the dispersal process
(Korschgen 1962, Mattfeld 1974).

Crop damage by white-tailed deer in agricultural regions is an
old and widespread problem (Brown §t_al, 1978, Crawford 1968, deCalestra
and Schwendeman 1978, Flyger and Thoerig 1962). Crop damage complaints
were filed from only 28 percent of the concentration areas (N = 54)
in this study; This figure may not be representative of the actual

amount of damage occuring in winter concentration areas due to the

 

32

willingness of many farmers to incur some damage to crops in exchange
for intangible benefits derived from having deer on their land (Brown
gt_al, 1978, Evans, R.A. 1979, McNeil 1962, Queal 1968). This attitude
was evidenced during this study, when 46 percent of the landowners
contacted expressed the feeling that deer numbers should stay the same
or even increase, while only 34 percent indicated a desire to have the
deer herd redeuced (Figure 8). The latter figure seems to be rather
small, considering that this was a select sample of landowners from given
areas with known high deer densities rather than a random sample of
landowners over the whole region. It is likely that the group expres-
sing the feeling that there were too many deer was comprised mainly
of farmers who suffered relatively heavy crop damage. Queal (1968)
indicates that rural landowners can have a great influence on the manage--
ment and harvest of deer in agricultural areas due to their attitudes
toward deer and willingness to allow deer hunters access to their land.

Deer-car accidents were reported to be a problem in 15 percent
(N = 55) of the concentration areas and occurred primarily in the areas
which were bisected by secondary roads. In response to the threat
to safety on southern Michigan's highways presented by an increasing
deer herd (Nixon 1968), research is being done (Sicuranza 1979) which
may provide some insight into the response of deer to environmental
parameters surrounding high-accident-rate areas.

Jenkins (1963) stated that the size of the deer herd that should be
maintained in southern Michigan is the number of deer which can be
tolerated by it's residents. He noted that although they are of great

value to hunters and also to large numbers of people who just enjoy

33

seeing them, deer also cause a great deal of damage to crops, orchards,
nurseries, and automobiles. He concluded that the people involved

must determine when the damage costs outweigh the various benefits

of supporting large numbers of deer. Excellent studies have been conduct-
ed on the various costs and benefits attributed to deer in agricultural
areas (Brown et a1. 1978, Brown and Decker 1979, Crawford 1968,
deCalestra and Schwendeman 1978, Gamble and Bartoo 1963, McNeil 1962,
Thomas and Pasta 1955).

In a theoretical approach to deer management, Thomas and Pasto
(1955) contended that it is only a small part of a much larger problem
involving proper resource allocation and use. Expressed in their
words,

Land, not deer, is the scarce resource involved in deer

management. Land is essential to the achievement of many diverse

social and economic ends, such as those of agriculture, living

space, and wildlife. Conflicts arise because of competition

between different interests for the same land...
They noted that even though the deer herd is "public property", in
most agricultural areas it is the farmer who bears the burden of support-
ing the herd. This causes conflicts between four broad social groups:
1) farmers, who are trying to maximize their economic return from
farming; 2) hunters, who want larger herds in order to maximize their
recreational value; 3) businessmen, who indirectly reap the benefits
of increased hunting opportunities; and 4) society in general, whose
goal is to obtain the greatest benefits for social welfare. During
the past several decades, there has been a gradual evolution in many

of the goals of wildlife.management.from "hunter success" to "hunter

satisfaction" to "public satisfaction" and finally to "public benefit"

34

(Langenau 1976). These words of Thomas and Pasto (1955) seem to speak
even more clearly today:

...it is necessary that our natural resouces be allocated

in such a way that the greatest amount of good accrues to the

greatest number of people.

This study has provided descriptive information on the size, herd
density, and general environmental features of the major deer winter
concentration areas in southern Michigan. Yet the question still
remains as to why deer travel a considerable distance to concentrate in
a given area when there seems to be suitable food and cover in many areas
that are not used! This may prove to be as difficult to answer as the
general question of why deer concentrate in the winter, and it gives
rise to much speculation. Severinghaus and Cheatum (1956) indicated
that the answer to this question might be favorable microclimates which
the deer seek out. Other researchers, such as Bissell and Strong (1955)
and Hagen (1953), proposed that differences in crude protein among forage
plants may be a factor, with deer selecting those plants having a higher
crude protein content. Differences in soils from one area to the next
might affect the palatability of the food sources. Human and animal
disturbance is undoubtedly an important factor in some areas (Sparrowe
and Springer 1970). Farming practices, such as leaving agricultural
crops standing over the winter or plowing the stubble under in the fall,
are also important in determining the distribution of concentration areas.

Verme (1968) stated that the main problem is that we still do not
really understand what motivates deer and how they respond to external
and internal stimuli. He maintained that there are little niches that

supply exactly what the deer are seeking. In the final analysis,

35

Loveless (1967) summed up the situation by saying that deer activity,
movement, and distributional patterns must be associated with a variety
of complex, interrelated environmental factors, and that the reactions

of these animals are seldom induced by independent elements acting alone.

MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

An excellent list of management recommendations for southern
Michigan's deer herd has been provided by McNeil (1962), some of which
have already been implemented, and do not need to be repeated here. In
addition, the following recommendations would greatly help to better
understand, and therefore better manage, white-tailed deer populations
in southern Michigan:
1) Encourage field biologists and conservation officers to
keep simple records of major winter concentrations of deer
observed during their regular field activities. These could
include approximate location, herd size estimates, environ-
mental features, etc., and--particularly--record ideas as to
why the deer are attracted to that area.
2) Keep records of the major concentration areas on a district
by district basis. I

3) Consider the possibility of flying selected counties or dis-
tricts on an annual or semi-annual basis. The observation
flights of 1978 revealed that much information on these areas
can be gained in a minimum amount of flying time. McCaffery
(1976) used deer trail counts as an index to populations and
habitat use in wooded areas of Wisconsin. Perhaps trails and
signs of foraging in the snow (Figure 9) could be utilized in
some.way to provide better indices of overall population levels

or trends in southern Michigan, as well as in other agricultural
36

37

areas.
Consider methods proposed by Brown and Decker (1979) to
incorporate farmers‘ attitudes into management of deer,
particularly in areas where crop damage and/or deer-car

accidents present an increasing problem.

This study was meant to lay a foundation for further research on

deer winter concentration areas in southern Michigan. The regional

maps and information reported here can be of help in a management sense

only if additional information is gathered on the areas already iden-

tified, as well as adding new areas to the records as they become known.

Some of the needs for further research pointed out by this study are

as follows:

11

2)

3)

41

Better estimates of herd size within individual areas are
needed. Remote sensing techniques, using infra-red scanners,
may be one way of accomplishing this, when and if they become
more economically feasible.

Current color infra-red aerial photographs should be utilized

to accurately determine habitat types within and around concen-
tration areas.

Known areas should be monitored on an annual basis, to determine
which ones are definitely used regardless of winter severity (as
noted earlier, the information presented here is based on con-
centration activity during a severe winter), and whether area
boundaries are subject to yearly fluctuations.

Particular attention should be given to newly formed areas, or

areas which have been recently abandoned, to determine factors

 

6)

7)

81

9)

10)

38

which may be responsible for the sudden change.

Attention should also be given to those concentration areas
which do not seem to be occuring as a direct result of an
available agricultural food source.

An attempt should be made to determine if there is any rela-
tionship between soil types and distribution of concentration
areas.

Data are needed on actual damage to farm crops and private land
within these areas, and what levels of damage landowners

will tolerate in these areas.

Study is needed on the effects of disturbance, human or animal,
on the distribution of these areas.

More comprehensive surveys on the attitudes of landowners
living within the boundaries of known concentration areas

are needed, as these are the people most likely to be affected
by efforts to support a larger deer herd in southern Michigan.
Collaring studies, such as those being done in the Rose Lake
Wildlife Research Area in southcentral Michigan (Belyea and
Aho 1978), are needed to determine the distances from which
deer are being drawn to these areas. (They recently reported
one collared doe being recovered 40 km from the point of ;
capture!) This information is critical in administering
antlerless quotas for problem areas. Self-attaching collars
could continue to be used in a wider number of areas.

When funds permit, radio-collars should be used in a select

11)

39

group of the more important areas, such as Rose Lake, for a
greater data return per unit effort.

Continued surveys covering attitudes of all social groups
toward deer will help to insure that southern Michigan's

deer resource is managed in such a way as to provide maximum
recreational, aesthetic, and economic benefits to the greatest

number of people.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J.M. 1947. White-tailed deer investigation. Indiana
Pittman - Robertson Wildl. Res. Rept. 8(1):20-43.

Bartlatt, I.H. 1938. Whitetails: presenting Michigan's deer
problem. Michigan Dept. Cons., Game Div. Bull. pp. 1-64.

Belyea, G.Y. and R.W. Aho. 1978. Farm wildlife research:evaluation
of habitat management techniques. Michigan DNR, Project No.
W-llB—R-ll, Study No. 118-6. 6pp..

Bennett, C.L. 1972. The experimental deer habitat improvement
project. Michigan DNR, Research and Developement Division.

8pp.

Bissell, H.D. and H. Strong. 1955. The crude protein variations
in the browse diet of California deer. California Fish and
Game 41(2):145-156.

Boer, A. 1978. Management of deer wintering areas in New Brunswick.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6(4):200-205.

Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker, and C.P. Dawson. 1978. Willingness of
New York farmers to incur white-tailed deer damage. Wildl. Soc.
Bull. 6(4):235-239.

and D.J. Decker, and C.P. Dawson. 1979. Incorporating farmers
attitudes into management of white-tailed deer in New York.
J. Wildl. Manage. 43(1):236-239.

Burgoyne, G.E.,Jr., D.H. Burck, and J. Meister. 1977. Deer checking
station data - 1977. Michigan DNR, Surveys and Statistics Services,
Rept. No. 169. 23pp.

Bygg, D.M. and W.G. Gill. 1965. Machine losses in harvesting ear
and shelled corn. Dpt. Ag. Eng., Coop. Ag. Ext. Serv. Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio. 5pp.

Cheatum, E.L. and C.W. Severinghaus. 1950. Variations in fertility of
white-tailed deer related to range condition. Trans. North Am.
Wildl. Conf. 15:170-189.

40

 

41

Cook, 0.8. and J.W. Hamilton, Jr. 1942. Winter habits of White-tailed
deer in central New York. J. Wildl. Manage. 6(4):287-291.

Cowan, I. McT. 1956. Life and times of the coast black-tailed deer.
in_W.P. Taylor (EDitor) The deer of North America. The Wildlife
Management Institute, Washington, D.C. ~686pp.

[trawiord, H.S. Jr. 1968. Midwestern deer habitat. in_white-tai1ed
deer in the Midwest - A Symposium. Midwest Fish and Wildl. Conf.
30:19-22.

Dahlberg, B.L. and R.C. Guettinger. 1956. The white-tailed deer
in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Cons. Dept. Tech. Bull. N0. 14. 282pp.

Darling, F.F. 1937. A herd of red deer. Oxford Press, London.
215pp.

Dasmann, W. 1971. If deer are to survive. Wildlife Management
Institute. Stackpole Books. 128pp.

deCalestra, 0.8. and 0.8. Schwendeman. 1978. Characterization of
deer damage to soybean plants. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6(4):250-253.

Dietz, D.R. 1965. Deer nutrition research in range management.
Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 30:274-285.

Evans, R.A. 1979. Changes in landowner attitudes toward deer and
deer hunters in southern Michigan, 1960-1978. Master's Thesis,
Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 40pp.

Erickson, D.B., V.E. Gunvalson, D.W. Burcalow, M.H. Stenlund,
L.H. Blankenship. 1961. The white-tailed deer of Minnesota.
Minnesota Div. Fish and Game. P-R Project W—ll-R, Tech. Bull. No. 5
64pp.

Flyger, V.F. and T. Thoerig. 1962. Crop damage caused by Maryland
deer. Proc. Annual Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm.
16:45-52.

Gamble, H.B. and R.A. Bartoo. 1963. Economic returns from timber
and wildlife on northeastern farmlands. J. Wildl. Manage. 27(3):
457-466.

Great Lakes Basin Commission. 1975. Great Lakes Basin framework study.
Appendix 17: Wildlife. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.

Gruell, G.E. and N.J. Papez. 1963. Movements of mule deer in north-
eastern Nevada. J. Wildl. Manage. 27(3):414-422.

Hagen, H.L. 1953. Nutritive value for deer of some forage plants in
the Sierra Nevada. California Fish and Game 39(2):163-176.

42

Hammerstrom, F.N.,Jr. and J. Blake. 1939. Winter movements and winter
foods of white-tailed deer in central Wisconsin. J. Mammal. 20:
206-215.

Huot, J. 1974. Winter habitat of white-tailed deer at Thirty-one
Mile Lake, Quebec. Can. Field Nat. 88:293-301.

Jenkins, D.H. 1963. Deer in southern Michigan. Michigan Dept. Cons.,
Game Div. Circular No. 135. 8pp.

Kline, P.D. 1965. Status and management of white-tailed deer in
Iowa. Iowa Acad. Sci. Trans. 72:207-217.

Kerschgen, L.J. 1962. Foods of Missouri deer, with some management
implications. J. Wildl. Manage. 26(2):164-172.

Langenau, E.E., Jr. 1976. Non-consumptive uses of the Michigan deer
herd. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, 94pp.

Larson, T.J., D.J. Rongstad, and F.W. Terbilcox. 1978. Movement and
habitat use of white-tailed deer in southcentral Wisconsin. J.
Wildl. Manage. 42(1):ll3-117.

Leopold, A. 1933. Game Management. Charles Schribner's Sons, 481pp.

Longhurst,W.M., A.S. Leopold, and R.F. Dasmann. 1952. A survey of
California deer herds: their ranges and management problems. Cal-
ifornia Fish and Game, Bull. N0. 6. 136pp.

Loveless, C.M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of a mule deer winter
range. Colorado Game, Fish, & Parks Dept., Tech. Bull. N0. 20.
124pp.

Mattfeld, G.F. 1974. The energetics of winter foraging by white-tailed
deer; a perspective on winter concentration. Ph.D. Thesis, Syracuse
Univ. 306pp.

McCaffery, K.R. 1976. Deer trail counts as an index to populations and
habitat use. J. Wildl. Manage. 40(2):308-316.

McNeil, R.J. 1962. Population dynamics and economic impact of deer
in southern Michigan. Michigan Dept. Cons., Game Div. Rept. 2395,
l43pp.

Merz, R.W. 1978. Forest atlas of the Midwest. North Central Forest
Experiment Station. Forest Service, U.S.D.A., St. Paul, Minn. 48pp.

Moen, A.N. 1968a. Energy balance of white-tailed deer in winter.
Trans. North Am. Wildl. Conf. 33:224-235.

. 19685. Surface temperatures and radiant heat loss from white-
tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(2):338-344.

 

 

43

Moen, A. 1978. Seasonal changes in heart rates, activity, metabolism,
and forage intake of white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 42(4):
715-738.

Murphy, D.A. 1968. Deer range appraissl in the Midwest. jg_White-
tailed deer in the Midwest - A Symposium. Trans. Midwest Fish and
Wildl. Conf. 30:2-10.

and J.A. Coates. 1966. Effects of dietary protein on deer. Trans.
North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 31:129—139.

Mustard, E.W. and V. Wright. 1965. Food habits of Iowa deer. Iowa
State Cons. Comm., Fed Aid Project W-99-R-3. 35pp.

National Research Council. 1975. Nutrient requirements for sheep.
National Acad. Sci., washington, D.C. 72pp.

Nelson, E.W. 1930. Wild Animals of North America. National Geogra-
phic Soc., Washington, D.C. 254pp.

Nixon, C.M. 1968. Deer populations in the Midwest. in White-tailed
deer in the Midwest - A Symposium. Trans. Midwest Fish and Wildl.
Conf. 30:11-18.

, M.W. McClain, and K.R. Russell. 1970. Deer food habits and

range characteristics in Ohio. J. Wildl. Manage. 34(4):870-886.

Ozoga,J.J. 1968. Variations in microclimate in a conifer swamp
deeryard in northern Michigan. J.Wildl. Manage. 32(3):574-584.

. 1972. Aggressive behavior of white-tailed deer at winter
cuttings. J. Widl. Manage. 36(3):861-868.

and L.W. Gysel. 1972. Response of white-tailed deer to winter
weather. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(3):892-896.

Patton, D.R. 1975. A diversity index for quantifying habitat edge.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 3:171-173.

Petrides, G.A. 1953. Aerial deer counts. J. Wildl. Manage. 17:
97-98.

Pietsch, L.R. 1954. White-tailed deer populations in Illinois. Biol.
Notes No. 34. Nat. Hist. Surv. Div., Urbana, Illinois. 22pp.

Queal, L. 1968. Attitudes of landowners toward deer in southern Mich-
igan, 1960 and 1965. Michs Acad. Sci. 53:51-69.

Rongstad. D.J. and J.R. Tester. 1969. Movements and habitat use of
whiteetailed deer in Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 33(2):366-379.

Rue, L.L.,III 1962. The World of the White-tailed Deer. Living World
Books. 132pp.

44

Severinhaus, C.W. and E.L. Cheatum. 1956. Life and times of the white-
tailed deer. in_W.P. Taylor (Editor), The Deer of North America.
The Wildlife Management In stitute, Washington, D.C. 686pp.

Sicuranza, L. 1979. Ecological study of deer-motor vehicle accidents
in southern Michigan. Master's Thesis, Michigan State Univ., East
Lansing.

Sikarski, J. 1978. Movement patterns, food, and cover utilization
by white-tailed deer at Rose Lake Wildlife Research Area, for the
winter of 1977-78. Unpublished report. 8pp.

Sparrowe, R.D. 1966. Population distribution and mobility of deer in
eastern South Dakota. P-R Project W-75-R-7 10pp.

and P.F. Springer. 1970. Seasonal activity patterns of white-
tailed deer in eastern South Dakota. J. Wildl. Manage. 34(2):420-431.

 

Stegeman, L. C. 1937. A food study of the white- tailed deer.
Trans. North Am. Wildl. Conf. 2: 438- 445.

Thomas, D.W. and J.K. Pasto. 1955. A theoretical framework for
understanding the deer management problem. J. Wildl. Manage.
19(1):l43-147.

Ullrey, D.E. 1971. A basal diet for deer nutrition research.
J. Wildl. Manage. 35(1):57-62.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1977. Estimates
of the population of Michigan counties and metropolitan areas:
1975 and 1976. Curent Pop. Rept., Ser. P-26, No. 76-22.

Van Dyke, T.S. 1913. Where and how to find deer. Outdoor World
& Recreation. October. 1913.

Verme, L.J. 1963. Effect of nutrition on growth of white-tailed
fawns. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Conf. 28:431-443.

1968. Discussion in Wh hit tailed deer in the Midwest -
A Symposium. Trans. M1 west Ts ?nd Wildl. Conf. 30: 29- 34.

Verme, L. J. 1973. MovemeXis 0 wh te- -tailed deer in upper Michigan.
J. Wildl. Manage. 37(4): 545 552.

1974. Reproductive biology of the white-tailed deer in northern
Michigan. Michigan DNR, Info. Circular No. 175. 4pp.

Vogt, J. 1979. Personal communication.

Watt, P.G., G.L. Miller, and R.J. Robel. 1967. Food habits of
the white—tailed deer in northeastern Kansas. Trans. Kans. Acad.
Sci. 70(2):223-240.

45

Webb, W.L. 1948. Environmental analysis of a winter deer range.
Trans. North Am. Wildl. Conf. 13:442-449.

Zagata, M.D. and A.0. Haugen. 1972. Winter movement and home
range of white-tailed deer at Pilot Knob State Park, Iowa.
Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 79(2):74-78.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

WINTER DEER CONCENTRATION AREA
INFORMATION FORM

 

 

 

 

 

Concentration Area No. District
Name & Position County
1. Is this a major _____or a minor _____concentration area?
2. Is this a new area which was not used prior to the last several
years?
Yes No Don't Know _____

 

If yes, what do you feel is causing the deer to use this new area?

3. Is this an historic winter concentrating area which has been used
for many years?

Yes No Don't Know

If yes, check one: 5-10 _____ 10-25 _____ 25+ _____
4. How many deer are presently using this concentration area?
Check one: 20-50 __ 50-100 __ 100-200 _ 200-300 __
300-500 __ 500+ _
5. What is the approximate acreage of this area?
Check one: 80 _____ 80-160 ____ 160-320 ______ 320-640 _____

sections

46

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

47

Over the past 5 years, have you noticed a significant increase or
decrease in the size of the deer herd in this concentration area?

Yes No

 

 

If yes, speculate on possible factors which may be causing this
change.

What do you feel is the main food source for this herd?

Approximately how far from the main bedding area is the food
source located?

Check one: % mile k-k mile g-l mile
1 mile +

What type of cover are the deer bedding down in?

What is the largest number of deer seen together at one time in
this herd? (rough estimate)

What are the general environmental features of this concentration
area? (crops, swamps, topography. etc.)

During what month do you usually first notice a significant increase
in herd size in this area?

 

During what month does the main dispersal usually take place?

_)

(early mid late

00 deer concentrate in this area every year regardless of weather
conditions and snow depth?

Yes No

If no, explain:

15.

16.

17.

18.

48

Have you had reports of crop or property damage associated with this
herd?

Yes No

 

If yes, give estimate of number of landowners involved and amount of
damage (if available).

Do you know of any highway mortality associated with this herd?
Yes _____ No _____

If yes, give estimate of number of accidents known.
Winter 1977-78 _____ Yearly average ____

Do you know of significant mortality to this herd due to poaching
or predation by dogs?
Yes No

If yes, give estimate and explain.

General Comments:

Icwrcnw STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
31293190629157