‘Ml HIHI‘IHIIIHIIM \ i ' «WI! 109 298 THS REG£ONAL DEFFERENCES EN SEZE AND PRODUCTNETY QF DEER EN WEST VERG-iNlA Thais for flu Degree cf M. S. MICEflGAN STATE CCLLEGE Jachn Deémont Giéi i955 ilHlWllHlll11111IJ!‘HUI'1'11”“!llllillhllflll 1293 0006_4 8737 Date 0-169 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Regional Differences in Size and Productivity of Deer in West Virginia presented by John D. Gill has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _ M° 5' degree in_____zo':’1°i":~v Major professor March 7, 1955 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES “ your record. FINES will be charged if book is * returned after the date stamped be1ow. *990 ibGIOI‘IAL Dil"l*‘.mi3_gil<31;$ III 5:23.23 mu RUQIJiJl‘I‘fI'I‘Y OF D143. I}! 2133‘]? ‘JIziGII‘TI By John Delnont gill ANAkEMET Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Aichigan State College of agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirenents for tne degree of JASPER UF SCILHCE Department of Zoology Year 1955 f 3 , 7 Apgroved A15! fl 5' 1,24 ;7 John delnont Gill - 1 The Conservation Connission of fleet Virginia established a project in 1947 to study problens connected with rapidly increasing deer popu- lations. One objective was to compare skeletal growth, body weight, antler development and breeding potential of deer fron several parts of the state. During the hunting seasons from 1951 through 1954, information was obtained from a total sample of about 17,000 deer. The data included sex, age, hind foot length, antler beam diameter and length, number of antler points, carcass weight, and nunber of corpora lutea per set of ovaries. The various neasurenents were tabulated into frequency distributions for individual sample areas for each sex and age class. Calculated coefficients of variation indicated that hind foot length exhibited mucn less dispersion than the other measurements. Consequently it was selected as the primary criterion for comparing characteristics of deer in various parts of the state. Significant differences between mean hind foot lengths were used to divide the state into four regions. Within each region deer had rather constant hind foot lengths and other characteristics. The four regions and the principal physiographical subdivisions within them are: Rest, Ohio—Vest Virginia hills; Allegheny, Allegheny lateau; hast, Allegheny midges and Valleys; and South, Cunberland Mountains. Hind foot lengths and carcass weights were successively lower in West, Allegheny, South and Last regions. In parts of the Nest Jodi Delnont Gill 2 repion fawns were twice the average weight, at hunting season, of fawns in parts of the Last. Three of tie regions,'dest, Allegheny and Last, rank in the sane order as above on the basis of antler bean dianeter and ovulation rate. Antlers are snaller in the South region than in the East. The ranking of the South region in regard to ovulation rate was not accurately deternined. Based on fawn/doe ratio in legal kills the four regions are ranked in tne order indicated by hind foot length and carcass weight. Causes of tie differences in deer between reaions are as iet O unknown. Knowledge of the differences is useful in determining policy regarding harvest management. necrouu surname in are; In women mr OF DLLR IN near VldGIJIA John Delnont Gill A Ten-.513 Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of dichigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for tne degree of ,.. ‘—. AASTQR OF SGILJCL Uepartnent of Zoology 1955 dLu101.L J111nn11oa3 In 3 EL Add :JQDJCTIJITY 01‘ 0111111111 .1... 1.1 VlititlJld. John Gill Conservation Commission of West Virginia, Elkins Deer hunting in West Virginia was regulated by a buck law during the four decades prior to 1951. One of the consequences of this regu— lation was developnent of excessive populations of deer in certain parts of the state. In order to study the problens associated with rapidly increasing deer populations, an investigations project was established by tne Conserve etion CO1 1i ssion in 1947. This work was undertaken with funds fron the Pittnan—dobertson Federal Aid in Wild- life Restoration Act. Tne project has now been active continuously for eight years and investigations have been conducted in many phases of the life history and management of deer. The project phase which will be reported here has the following objective: to stidy deer range potentials as they may be indicated by the phys'cal development of deer, and to conpare skeletal wrowth, body weight, antler development and breeding potential of various herds of the state. before this study was established it was reco 1ized that there were distinct diff erences in sizes and p1oductivity levels of deer between various parts of West Virginia but the1. nrniuudcs of+1ese .. differeices were unknown. Information about physical characteristics ' 3806;”- and productivity of deer may be useful in many ways. done of the values of information about productivity were expressed by Aorton and dheatum (1946) as follows: "Knowledge of tne breeding potential of a game species is essential to its proper damage1ent. Regional differences in productivity may demand differences in diagnosis and treatient. In tne wait -tailed deer (Odocoileus vir inianus), proper marageuent may require adjustnents in laws relating to bag limits, open seasons, and legal game (buck, antlerless, and l-deer laws). In cases of low fecundity, efforts to adjust tne environment to increase tne number of young produced may be feasible. These matters snould be considered in the fornulation of policy intended to make the best possible use of game resources." ' 1 A direct relation has been Observed between adejuacy of forage and the ability of female deer to produce and rear fawns. Gerstell (1938) noted low fawn production in seetions of over-browsed deer range in Pennsylvania. O'doke nd namerstrom (l~18) reported a similar relation— ship for the George Reserve deer herd in micnigan. Investigations conducted in Jew York by Horton and Cheatum (1946) and Cheatum and Severinghaus (1950) have produced evidence that fertilitv and fecundity of deer are direct y related to range quality. Information on anatomical characteristics of deer may also indicate I n . O _ w I " 7‘ I . _ ‘ ' ' 4_ ran e quality. severin;haus et a1. (1990) presented ev1dence unat n antler develognent are related to 101a e adequacy. <: m 5 L {I C [.1. O D U) H Differences in body weights and/or antler development were attributed to differences in range conditions by Johnson (1337), derstell (1937), Park (1935), Park and bay (19nd) and Leopold (1913). In West Virginia, reduction of a high deer populatio1 res1lie in a si~niiiea1t weignt increase for fawns killed in the sane area tce next Tear (dill, 1953b). dost of the foregoing authors ci 1e1uate quantity of forere during winter as tee caise of reddeed size and/or r1n1et v t;; of deer. decentlyb1nces on an ddnrphy (1953) reported a direct relationship in missouri oetween soil fertility an; ole following characteristics of deer: body weight, antler developnenta1nd re roductive pot tential. Differences in size and productivity of Rest Virginia deer als may well be related to differences in quality rather tnan quantity of forage. In this state dear popuL1tion incr ases we1e controlled before extensive OVerbrows ed a.reas were develOped. Population control was secured by adoption of iunter's—cnoice deer seasons beginning in 195 . User of either sex nave been legal sane during the past four years (DeLa1zo, 1951, 1&54, 1951a and Gill, 1953b, 1954a). Increased deer harvests under the liberalized regdlation have (I) permitted collection of data on about 17,000 deer since 199 . Ana 13m 1 of tne data, as reported in this paper, indicates t1at t1e ste te can lorically be divided into four regions whose deer 1ave dist: nct size and reproductive cnaraeteristics. l) roughly reseables that for fine ‘istribution of recions (Fig. physiographical subdivisions (ACL“OVLT, 1952). The refions and sab— J. divisions which include moat of tne area of ea 01 are: Nest, Ohio-nest V11;inia Hills; alle heny, allegneny Plateau; South, Cuneerland nonntains; and Last, Allegheny nidjes Valleys. 93 ;_‘i (\ y. f .21 )“ '4 ;‘l a “,' 1'11'1', ' :\ .1...L..A‘..LtLL.) 11-...) ”#1110qu 'Hest Virginia hunters are required by law to present their deer for tagging at one of the official checking stations established in each county open for hnntinC. This onecking system provides an excellent franework for sampling the legal kill. Since the deer checkinp law is seldom violated, deer brought to each cheching station constitute a sample which is virtually unbiased as to sex and age of deer in tne kill. Certain checking stations were selected as "aging" stations and technicians were assigned to then (see Fig. 1). Selection of trees aiing stations was not ends at random. Rather, an effort was made to secnre more information from certain areas than from others. Samples for individual aging stations were treated as random sanples fron the particular areas involved. This aporoach was used in testing for significance of differences between neans for individual stations. However, the sanpling design did not produce sanples drawn at random fron the regions. Consequently, the regional means which will be presented are not completely representative of the regions. I v 1 v However, they are the oest estimates obtainable, and tney correctly describe general differences oetwcen regions. Technicians assigned to each aging station secured the following data from deer checked durini Open seasons, which occurred about December 1, each year: 1. Sex. 2. Ate, according to the Sevurin_naus (194?) technique. 3. hind foot length, hock to tip of longest nail; neasurcd to tne nearest l/A inch. 4. Antler bean dianeter, one inch above the burr; measured to tne nearest 1/32 inch. 5. Antler bean length, ourr to tip alon: outside curve; measured to nearest 1/: inch. 0. Junber of antler points. 7. heiLht to nearest pound, plus a record of whether whole or dressed, and, if dressed, tne visceral organs remaining. In addition to tnese neas‘renents, technicians collected ovaries from adilt does whenever possible. The ovaries were subseouently sectioned and examined for evidence of ovulation (see Sheatun, 1949). The weights, as recorded on field records, were not all comparable to each other. Those for deer from which some or all of the viscera had not been removed were converted to a "hog-dressed" basis. Tnat is, tney were reduced to reoresent the approxiwate weigits of carcasses wnich had seen bled and coipletely evisceratef. fieight conversions were nade by reference to refressions presented by Severinghaus (1949a) and namerstrom and Camburn (lvbO). The various measurements were tabulated into frequency distrioutiois for individual a in; station saiple areas for each sex and axe class. Keysort punch cards were used in tn's process. he ns and suns of Squares 1 of deviations were computed for most of tie distributions. Calculated coefficients of variation indicated that hind foot L. lengths e28. than th3s e for t1e 3‘ sa ml for the South fie ion is from an aréra which is exceptional in that it has recentlv been over- Deiulat1d wi h deer. Furthermore, the res ultimately oroduced tne overpopulation was I National For St in 'orth Carolina. involved. OVULaIIQN Average ovulation rat€s the ranking of regions which was establisl body weights. avzrages Jor these body measu sweats toching in 1932 :nade wi %t which deer from Pisgah A more co1plicated hereditgr may be (Table 4) also exhibit a departure fron Ched from hind foot lengths and place the South no: fliOl int riec liate between the Alle heny and the Last. The sane A relationship does not hold Ior the average either ag e-class from the South Refion. the other t1r :e regio1s fall; nto the usual nuxbzr of corpora lutea for However, ovulation rates for order. ’\ Table 4 includes tie standard error or the mean for each ovulation rate. Inc sauples are small and are not strictlv renresentative of the regions but the standard errors given do provide a measure of variability in ovulation rates. it can be seen that if tne sanoles for Allegheny, South and Last regions did confo~m to the requirement of randomness, then none of the differences between their means would be significant at the 955 level. Tnis fact emphasizes the caution which must be used in interpreting ovulation rates and indicates that the relationship between the South Region and the other three is not necessarily as shown *4. n Table 4. It is much more difficult to obtain usable sets of ovaries than to secure hind foot length neasurements. Since the latter neasurenent also has several advantages in regard to salnling error, it seemed practical to consider the possibility of a correlation between hind foot length and ovulation. This conparison was made using each deer season record which included both an ovulation count and a hind foot length for an individual doe. Ihe data were divided into two age classes, both of which showed a highly significant correlation between number of corpora lutea and hind foot length. For yearling does only the correlation coefficient was +-O.24 (d.f. = 313). For does of age 2} years and older 3 was + 0.16 (d.f. = 550). rhe l w degree of association between tjC two variables indicates that one cannot be used to estiaatc the otner within graetical limits of accuracy. however, comparison of the two types of infernauion when collected fron tne same area or the sane deer may halo in detecting bias or unusual sanpling error. ram/nu; again Ii was new KILL According to the evidence fron tnis index of rearing success, the four regions rank in tne same order as on tne basis of physical measure- ments. nearing success is highest in the Jest negion where the number of fauna in the kill actually CKCUedS the number of adult does (Table 5). Productivity is successively lower in the Allegheny, South and east regions. Crude fawn/doe ratios indicate that in the Last legion does produce 1/3 less fawns tnan in the nest. AGE COHPO3EEIQN OF In; aDJLT SLGJLJP OE‘EEL LLGAL KILL The age distribution of adult does in the kill is a potential index to productivity. Areas having relatively high productivity will have deer herds in which younger age classes are more predominant than in areas of low productivity. If mortality is nore or less age—indiscriminate, then average age of adult does and slope of the kill curve (fiayne and Lberhar5t, 1&92) will indicate the proportion of replacement to the deer nerd. In Heat Virginia kill—curves of adult does from the nest degion are steeper, indicating a younger average age, than exists in the Last Refiion. Such kill-curves include considerable bias and sampling error (Gill, lfijBa) and are not reliable for indicating less distinct differences in predictivity. 13 Tcree of the regions shown in Fig. 1 can be ranked in a definite order on the basis of all characteristics studied. In descending order of size ard productivity of deer, tnese regions are: Jest, Alle;heny, and LaSt. Inc South negion is intermediate between the Allegheny and east with respect to bind foot length, body weight and fawn/doe ratio. However, antler developnent in the portion of the South Reflion which was sampled was inferior to tint in the East deqion, and ovulation rate in th South Region was not adequately determined. Casual conparison of regional cnaracteristics of deer with the general distribution of various physiographical areas in West Vir inia does not reveal a good fit between characteristics of deer and any of . 1 _.J- several environnental conditions. inese conditions include lend h of growi.g season, precipitation, soil parent material, known nineral deficiencies, calcareous deposits, slope, agricultural land capabil- ities, forest types and otners. Conversations with Dr. G. G. Pohlnan and Jr. G. G. Anderson, respectively soils specialist and aninal nutritionist with tne Zest Virginia Agricultural experiment Station, have led tne writer to believe that tie difjereuces in deer cxaracter— istics between parts of tee state pronaoly are not attribntable to any single ecological factor, but rather to a coxplex of factors. {he ecolOQical variation within regions nakes it impractical to c I attempt to identify thSB conplexes at the regional level. Consequently, it would be rtic-aolc 1+ to inv;?:t Qatc limiti- ’ _r_-‘ -4 4_ f ‘ -\ .. ‘ r --< 1_- v 0 .7: P ‘ . .‘ "—1.: V . . ,41’ r _ . 1 , rdlbiLflCC to Sflallbr areas. 1n11v1anal -1 station . Vas M011 W9 stow ed for unis p‘mr osc. Lnown QlllLTCnCES 1 o(s c.aIactorLst1cs bet:-:e-:‘.:n aging station a tncir relativo raflfie i1 A description of presented in a S’QQT.aY3 oulletin, will incliée o: infornation aoout si Information about alue in h., ,1 4.1 -_ .21 nrlageuuirt 01 nanag~1rnt ijective in (21' of door :iLl hoot t1ro1 to inorove hunter dist ictivc regalat ions I'CSTJI‘ tic pioiicity released ion can 81))Oft ink: r IL‘ (V ' "‘. taan coo Tuou 01 Lio st C‘ UJ TGlOu1V”l" low, ortsw bucks in In Le1cral, kiowlc been useful in di .4. ...: cisternio :cas constitute “ for eval WIa Lug 81:13:! . liiorcnczs ac W‘CJH agi :tation aruas will as n; .1. be I_J :13 ater poolication, a Sta tzmgrt1cnt. C“ ’1'. wkc a cio ssi on of tent apolications local managC“ ac and jroch cuiv"v o? variation in door between regions has an obvious neor narvssts. Cirrcntly, tic primary narvcst Virginia is to obtain bettcr distribution ‘ l .(DCfH JO\’)JLJ the open territory. an attenjt “as been made ioution tiroigh publicity raticr t1an oy rs (deua “ill, 1933, 1354). Part 01 LAC” l —‘~r 11 tLis sffort has fact that tie a fl‘cator pcrcontaqu removal f 501110 dear ate. In the past Aojion, where productivity is en naV(a oocn encourafcd to hunt ctivsly for "D d;o of tie vari between regions has ad policies rclatiny gencnt. . . -4 cfi—L .. . 1.11, to h'31V 2b nana ‘fiT’iT 7 " “ 1'. ' ‘51" am; AlflgleJLILL. .911145 Tsis investigation was originated and largely supervised by H. A. Defiarno, forzerly Leader of Deer Investigations in Rest Virginia and now Chief of the Gene division in Jaine. JeGarno Drocessed all ovarian ”eterial collected in 1951 and 1953. Later collections were interpreted by Arnold Schulz, Assistant Leader of peer Investigations, who also made a statistical analysis of all ovulation data. Enis work was supervised by tne writer. vDr. Halter D. Foster, fornerly bionetrician with tn) Nest Virginia agricultural Lxgeriment Station, generously gave advice on sone statis- tical problens. Valuable assistance in organization and review of tne manuscript was sutelied by Dr. George A. Petrides, of tie departments of Zoology and fisheries and aililife at Hichigan State Collefe. Inis paper is part of tne thesis requirement for the flaster of Science degree at that institution. The author is also indebted to his associates in the Conservation Gonnission of Rest Virginia for the arduous work tney performed in collecting nost of the data. 16 Size and productivitv of Rest Virginia deer were studied under the assumption that tnese factors were related to range quality. Data included inf rnation about sex, age, weifht, size, antler develonnent, and ovulation. The total sample included about 17,000 deer from legal kills for the period 1951 through 195 lhe state was divided into four regions, each having populations of deer with distinct cnaracteristics. deer were found to 06 largest and most prodictive in the West degion. They were successively smaller and less productive in the Allegheny and Last regions. deer in the South Region were intermediate in size between those in the Allegheny and swat regions, but the rank of th: South negion in regard to productivity was not deternined. The causes of regional differences were not apparent. This problem requircs additional study with respect to ecolo ical differences between certain snall areas in wiicn deer characteristics are knowr. l7 LILLJLIJLJ. it); CII‘QD Cheatun, d. L. 19/9. Tlm use of corpora lutea for doterinin” ovulation incidence and variations i; iertilitv of white-tailed deer. Cornell Vet., “(3): 232—; fill , and C. N. Severinciaus. 1950. Variations in fertility of white-tailed de ecr relate d to range C011 tions. Trans. N. Amer. Eildl. Conf., 14: 170-190. DeGarno, U. R. 1951. An analysis of the 1951 deer season. Consrrva— tion Conn. 0p 3. Va 12 D mimeo L -.-.. 4. -. Q , - . ’ . . . . 1952. A preliminary report on the 1952 deer kill. Conserva— tion Conn. of W. Va., 14 p., mimeo. . 1952a. From bucks to deer in Rest Virginia. Paper presented at 8th Northeast Wildl. Conf., ADril 1952, 20 p. . 1952b. Where are the deer? west Virjinia Conservation, Dunheson Robert L. and Dean A. Muroh\. 1953. Missouri's deer herd. ) - J Renroduction and checkine station data. Pacer oresented at 15th Aidwest Eildl. Conf., Dec. 1953, 5 p. — 2 graphs. Gerstell, Richard. 1938. The Pen.sy1vania deer problem. Penn. Cane Gill, John. 1953. Where are the deer? west Virginia Conservation, . 1953a. Remarks on tne analvsis of kill—curves of ienak deer. Paper presented at 9th Lorth e-st Kildl. Coni'., Sent.1953, 12 p. . 1953b. Your deer herd. Res 111ts of the 1953 season. West Virginia Corservation, 12(10): 9-23. . 1954. Here are your deer. west Virginia Conservation, . 1954a. The deer harvest - 1951. West Virginia Conservation, ;§(12): 11-24. Hanerstron, F. N., Jr. and F. Lawrence Canburn. 1950. Weight relation- ships in the George Reserve deer herd. Jour. Rani. 31: 5-17. Kayne, Don U. and Lee Lberhardt. 19:2. Notes on the estimation of survival rates from age distributions of deer. Paoer oresented at 14th Midwest Hildl. Conf., Dec. 1952, 7 p. Johnson, F. W. 1937. Deer weights and antler neasurenents in relation to ponulation density and hunting effort. trans. I. Aner. Hildl. , Aldo. 1943. hisconsin's deer problen. Deer irruption. disc. Cons. 5111., a: 3—22. AcKeever, Sturgis. 1952. A survey of West Virjinia mannals. Conservation Conn. of W. Va., 126 o., mince. Horton, Glenn H. and E. L. Cheatum. 1946. Regional differences in breeding potential of unite—tailed deer in New fork. Jour. Hildl. iht., 12: 242-243. O'Roke, L. C. and F. H. hanerstrom, Jr. 1943. Productivity and yield of the George deserve deer herd. Jour. dildl. Igt., _g: 73-56. Park, Barry C. 1933. Deer weights and measurements on the Allegany Rational Forest. Trans. N. Amer. Mildl. Conf., 3: 261-273. , and Sesse B. Day. 1942. A simplified method for determining the condition of white—tailed deer herds in relation to available forage. U. S. D. A. Tech. Bull. 840. Severinghaus, C. H. 1949. Tooth develoonent and wear as criteria of age in white-tailed deer. Jour. Wildl. Jgt., 13: 195-216. . 1949a. Deer. The live weight - dressed weight and live weight - edible neat relationship. The N. Y. State Conserva— tionist, 4: 25. , and H. F. Esquire, R. A. Cookinghan, and J. L. Tanck. 1950. Variations by ate class in the antler oean dianeters of white-tailed deer related to range conditions. Trans. R. Aner. Jildl. Conf., 12: 551-570. Shaw, 3. P. and C. L. LcLaughlin. 1951. The managenent of whitetailed (sic) deer in Jessa husetts. Res. Bull. 13. Jess. Div. of Fisheries and Cane. l9 1.. I Icicle .Iz: 8 gr... all GE‘s-u .0611! 33.82. viii!!! «mma I Hmmfl .mQOmmem some mhofi cempmpw :M was: some Mo mcoapsQOH mew mew .aeue mo moflpmfi Ipepoeaseo Hmoflmhem no Tense dwefimpfl> pmer an meowmep mcwpmmspeoo Anew .10 mflo USweflfind \ ll I; 1%,..4 2O Taole 1.--M1h0 FOOT naflGTd UP 096d FdOJ FOUd AafilOHd Cfi‘liiif VIdGIfiIA Data fron legal kills, 1951-1154 Age 1/2 Year Age 1 1/2 Years Males Females Males Females Region Ho. Mean 10. Jean Ho. Jean Ho. Hean Best. 630 16.91 in. 675 16.43 in. 435 19.00 in. 513 13.05 Allegheny 1180 16.20 1196 15.70 1120 13.39 1054 17.60 South 177 15.74 162 15.24 175 17.63 136 17.12 Last 399 14.95 346 14.63 552 17.26 353 16.53 Table 2.--MOG-Dib$$hfl SLIGHT OF 0113 Fdfj FOUR fiLGIOHS OF REST VIAGIKIA Data from legal kills, 951-1954 Age 1/2 Year Age 1 1/2 Years Hales Females Males Fetales Region Ho. Jean No. Mean do. Mean Ho. mean Nest 560 66 lb. 568 61 1b. 436 105 1b. 417 91 Allegheny 723 57 707 53 674 97 691 87 South 153 50 136 46 150 83 116 73 East 346 44 282 43 451 79 295 72 Table 3.--AHTLLR Bead DIaJLTai OF Jnld FACE FOUR dLGlOIB or 1:143? VidGIlIIA Data from legal kills, 1951-1954 Age 1 1/2 Years Only ’ o -. ‘ ff 1, ~- degion do. mean \1ncnes) mean (n1.) flest 463 0.80 20.3 Allegheny 1013 3.73 17.5 South 255 0.60 15.2 gas-t 4.3) 0.61. 1505 Table 4.—-HUXBLd 0F CORPORA LJTLA IN QVAilpS OF DALE FAOJ F001 microns 03 345T VIAGIHIA data from legal kills, 953-1953 Age 1 1/2 Years Age 2 1/2 Years and Older Ho. dets Mean No. Sets dean megion Ovaries Ho. C.L. Ovaries Jo. C.L. Allegheny 154 1.34 .05 274 1.55 .04 15 1.27 85 1.29 - .07 162 1.51 - .06 * Standard error of the mean. i 1 ' ; r1 .‘I x ' '_ z" ‘ * .I f " fr" 'r' . 1‘4; 7" "I w" * d " ~T 118.018 .--1".1.1m.11V:;. Jihad.) L11“ . c1110..) 51.4.) AJULJ. 1161...) 11.- 7 -" .. 1'1" ~ "‘ -"1Tl-‘ '- ~'" "- “F."". ‘ '\ ,J- 7r‘f‘1 ' ’3 t);-L. P141113 01‘ 1.1.: .. ll‘lia‘. IJ«JLT£LIJ 1.11.11JJ, 5. 4 f“ '. Ho. Pawns no. Does Age Io. Pawns Per Region Both Boxes 1 1/2 Years and Older 100 Does I’Ee st 1615 1411 11.4- Allegheny 2600 3170 82 South 833 1131 73 East 851 1182 72 Total 5954 6394 86 " \T (in inches) or page 11 ”1,1 iiu.f A kills, 1431—1ega 1aole 6. --:IIIJ IQOT LLFd.1 Data LTOJ le;a1 ———.——. -_—~-..__.—.-~-__-. - --~_ ._ ._.—._._.-_----—__ - “2 . .. - .___. ._ . .....~_. ._ .—._-—--_— —-‘.—.—- —-~—-—-—.—.—.—— ad 4 17.517.16.91. 0 LY 'ales 7enales Area Lo. Kean s.d. Lo. ”nan 8.1. Lest degion sarbour 62 16.96 .74 39 16.52 .64 draxton 41 15.35 1. 51 54 15.66 1.4) Coopers dock 105 16.54 .3.2 4.1 16.21 .73 Clay 12 16.35 .6) 17 16.22 .54 noddridge 62 16.74 .76 60 16.04 .72 Gilncr 7 17.0 — 12 16.63 .43 harrison 45 16.93 .70 60 16.4) .74 hanawha 5 1/.2 - 10 16.33 .97 Lewis 112 16. 6 .53 103 16.24 .74 narion 28 17.17 .71 40 16.65 .75 iason 17 17.24 .75 13 17.14 .63 ileasan 7 17.8 11 16.39 .66 PrestonDD 44 17.03 .60 46 16.52 .67 iitchie 10 17.3 .31 6 16.2 - doane 3 17.4 — 2 17.0 - Taylor 43 17.15 .54 32 16.34 .54 Tyler 18 17.30 .64 11 16.7 .55 Unsnur 44 17.20 .76 71 16.72 .87 wetzel 40 16.90 .69 31 16.13 .75 nirt 2 16.6 - Hood 4 17.2 - 5 16.9 — Allegheny Region Grant, Allegheny 276 16.20 .71 305 15.63 .77 Grant, Last 65 16.16 .67 66 15.49 .66 Nicholas, nuddlety 27 16.12 .70 27 15.77 .59 Poca., Tnornwood 73 16.13 .73 52 15.70 .63 handolph, Alpena 67 16.33 .93 65 15.55 .71 dand., Huttonsville 55 16.26 .85 44 15.69 .87 dand., Kuuorabow 30 16.15 .76 42 15.94 .69 dicnwood area 39 15.92 .89 57 15.55 .70 Tucker 311 16.20 .63 354 15.72 .68 heb., hacher Valley 36 16.60 .92 33 16.15 .63 South Region Aercer 9 16.4 - 6 15.6 - Mcjowell 84 15.07 .77 74 14.47 .65 Raleigh 5 16.3 - 7 15.3 - Wyoming 79 16.35 .64 75 15.92 .61 Last iegion oreenbrier, alvon 46 14.50 .64 20 14.15 .75 Hanpshire 43 15.44 .94 36 14.79 1.11 Hardy 110 14.69 .35 33 14.39 .77 Hin., Fort Ashby 63 15.60 .87 35 15.31 .52 Pendleton 5 15.45 .83 47 14.94 .63 Bocahontas, Last 76 14.39 .3? 75 14.22 .92 . . , aw \ ~¢ -«'. ~mwnu .« - -, 1' -, .17. £81018 6.) . RU 0:11.) ' d j —-..;1. D £10k); 1411.22131: (1.11 111431163 to ) U: #1.;fo 1:5 3.1.111 2‘ 1.13 {1- L118 Ads 1 1/2 12415 QJLY Aales fenales urea Jo. Mean s.d. No. Jean s.d. Nest degion harbour 4 19.4 20 17.90 .60 draxton Cooners mock Clay Uoddridge Gilner harrison l-{a naw‘na Lewis marion .mson Pleasants Preston Mitchie Taylor Tyler Upshur Letzel flirt Allegheny negion Grant, Allefheny grant, Last Hicholas, Auddlety Poca., Thornwood Randolph, Alpena Rand., Juttonsville mand., Idnoraoow dichwood area Tucker Heb., hacker Valley south hegion Jercer chowell daleigh nyoning East Region Greenorier, Alvon Hampshire Hardy Hin., Fort Ashby Pendleton Pocahontas, East 34 93 13 56 r 37 71 16 54 no 77 166 93 49 91 w \ 16.95 15.30 19.00 15.43 19.0 15.94 1:5.E3 13.58 19.16 19.2 19.4 19.06 19.0 19.2' 19.5 19.42 19.09 19.3 15.39 15.41 15.61 15.33 18.24 13.67 13.0 13.16 15.40 15.74 18.4 16.79 13.9 13.63 16.44 17.40 17.29 17.86 17.63 16.67 - o ’71}- .35 L: '9 . z ’ ’. 3 0 U .’ 33 74 12 75 9 36 222 42 31 44 / ,1 o/ 36 40 70 332 27 60 11 60 ’2 34 32 106 72 40 74 17.56 17.39 17.66 17.82 17.68 17.53 17.42 17.24 17.66 13.03 17.2 16.17 17.30 17.93 15.73 16.69 16.46 17.12 16.33 16.14 1.11 051’]- .41 .52 .50 .55 .65 .69 .65 .67 .72 .33 .79 .71 .75 .77 .76 . so .74 . so .65 . so .59 1.23 .71 .98 .76 .79 .63 .72 Table 7.--3JQQ.J 63 CJLRJAA L531a 1] 6711163 OF li—AJL J:LL\J:L4:Q 11 J111t I- l,» -. 2 1/2 lcars data iro1 l(:a Kills, 1J51—1733 age 1 1/72 Years Jo. gets mean 53. sets area Ovaries go. C.L. s.d. Ov:;r'cs ”est Region jarbour 7 1.86 .35 10 Ararton 2 2.JJ .U= 6 Coopers mock 13 1.46 .49 34 Clay 1 2.00 1 doddridge 6 1.34 .35 7 Cilaer 2 2.J3 .33 - nuncock 2 2.JJ .JJ 6 harrison 2 1.50 — — Lewis 14 1.36 .52 13 narion 7 2.13 .54 13 i’reston 10 2. 3 .33 9 1L I. to cnle - - - 1 ffleDT 5 1.40 .¥J 6 1‘yler 2 1.33 - 1 Jgshir o 2.3 .57 7 / netzel v~ Ir__J P: L) a1le'hC1y AeLzon Grant, 4110 deaf 47 .3 .53' uraqc, last 9 1.55 .3~ {lcnolas, guddlety 16 1.25 .56 Poca., '113rnuood 5 2.‘O .30 ”an: oloh 20 1.25 .63 Ric1uood alra 11 1.30 .65 I LCI2er 33 1.27 .73 neo., hacker Valley 10 1.30 .46 South Region McDowell 3 1.33 .47 Raleigh 4 2.00 .00 Uyoning 8 0.33 . 8 Last Region ficrk., Morgan 6 1.53 .76 Greenbrier, alvon 7 0.36 .34 Ha1vshire 5 1.6J .40 Hardy 24 1.33 .55 Jin., Fort Ashby 23 1.43 .53 Eon ileton 6 1.03 .57 ‘ocahonbas, LQSt 14 1.90 .54 ‘5. 22 47 25 15 10 26 40 32 17 22 O rwftp ‘U\ I‘JIxSl—‘NF—J .0 QC UV» 0 F” L\ [—1 O \. ~.$ _;_\ O I I , a. I‘\ ,,c .0 O -‘ I .11 -.’ 1' C v i} (\V f—’ N Ix.‘ 1'“ N H (‘0 0 U U1 (1.1K) w \_./ \r“ (v 1\ C)L»L)U1&J~JCQTC PJFJH‘H‘R>H‘RW4 O O O\C)uwc\C)\;C: t4lvkd O O 0 WOW 1;C>u) HHl-Jf-‘r-‘r-‘(O QUiOI—FQCDO U\_;,\nowc~3 O 0 \F‘. Lo \1 w 6.- U7 0\ ¢~ .33 .33 .23 .42 .53 .5” .42 .33 33 .72 .7) .57 .47 .71 .71 .44 .67 .65 .77 / o DIP HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES llllll Ill HI 4 312930006 8737