.epeuea pue sale paa!un ayl~noyBno~yl Jaa paI!eI-+I!yM alaw 10, sale4 E!lalJow pua len!nJns paIJo8ay -l alqal

6 8 8 8 8 8 L 9 S P P E Z 1

a~~nog

.sa?a~e~~s 'SYIOA~U~FIZ~

3uaruaSeueru mod au!ja~ noii aAom sqmq qnpD aAJym Aapuiz ~0~~~03 ruoaj s%u!l~caii SE ZUISSB~

dpq II!M SasJnos asayl 03 2.~0~ $1 2anamoy 'uoilunl!s s!q~ ~s~~o!~v~tro~~uo? afl!ssa.i8Sn aJe day1 sysnq 23uno.d jo

]sol sysnq go a%eluas~ad ayl lo Sul~~uds Su!snp sAapun ynol sqmq om? ziaym unmo JaqLun" 'ql ]pu!l sJO1sr?j

pue eaJe InoX LI! h!pl~ow. Ll?l~l.totu Su!luny-uou ,lo asnun t(otuwonun iClantgvp~ y ~!~E~JOLU PUE SlUaLLl.3AOUI

jo sas~nos UOUILLIOS y3nq MOY pwlwapun IOU op sour ay1 Su!pnels~apun sJaluny pue s-laumopuel ,kmru

'(I alqEL) salels pal!nn aql 'X~[euo~!pp~ 'syq mplo jo

jo uoga~ pue uoseas iiq put? Jaqmnu pal!sap aq1 asnpo~d

Jaap jo a%e pue xas iiq XEA 01 eale ~uawaZeww. ayl jo

hq!qe ay paasxa suopelsadxa

ap!qaA 'uo!l!nnuleiu 'sases iiuaru u1 .1uawa2auew

'aseaslp <~ay~aai~ Lwo~epa~d sno!i\a~d Japun uey~ sysnq

'Su!yseod 'Suuuny 01 1. 7 nplo Xpues!j~u%!s paIsa,\asq

paInq!me aq ues h!lel~opy JO uaas IOU aheq Aaq~

asnesaq siroseas leJa,jas Iaye ..reaX ua~!% a u! sap lerp uopelndod aq] jo aSe1ua3~ad pyab q~v pa1ensn.13 aiuoxq

aq3 Lldw.!s s! pay Jaap e 103 smuny pm sJauMopwl

a~e~ h!leuow lenuue aql aU0S 'J~A~MOH 'O!lEJ XaS pue 'a~rusn~ls aLae 'az!s play

h!@wopy paqsap aq1 asnpo~d 01 .map ssal.l.y~~c jo ~s.~.\.~t?q ,,~enbape LIE ~I!M paldnos sysnq

.~ue~%o~d nrab moii jo ssassns aq~ lsadm! XBLU ~ZIS 2unoii jo uo!~sa~o.lcl sa.\loAu! L[[es!dh pyab .walnnq pm: a8ue~ aruoq pue 'ps~ads!p Lh!l~l~our ymq ~oy Ma!i\aJ s~au~nopuel s'liepo~ ~I!M Walens ~ua~ua%eueul ~elndod

11" a,w als~~e s!q~ UI 'sassep a%e laplo ay] Su!ysea~ iilSu!sea~n~~! 1113 s! (r/\rab) ~uauraSeuepy ~aaa h!@nb

- - - - - - - - - -

00'0 90.0 6 1'0 Sz'o

Al!~evow

-A asne~ 0lepa.u

-

91'0 01'0 90'0 SO'O ZO.0

11'0-80'0 -

EZ'O-80'0 91'0 00'0 - - -

Al!le)low 6u!~unyuo~

IleJnaeN

- ZE'O PP'O 09'0 OE'O 91'0

PZ'O-OZ'O -

Z1'0-90'0 LP'O ZL'O 1 P'O 82'0 6z'o

AJ!I~VOW 6u!lun~

-

OS'O 9S'O LP'O LE'O 81'0 -

09'0 61'0 SL'O 8L'O tS'O ES'O ES'0

Al!~evow lenuuv

PP'O OS'O PP'O ES'O 69'0 Z8'0 -

09'0 1L'O SZ'O ZZ'O 99'0 LP'O L9.O

I~!A!N~S lenuuy

(syluoUJ 81-1) ~uelhey\l (s~eaA +q~) !dd!ss!ss!y\l

(s~eaA s.9) !dd!ss!ss!y\l (s~eaA s.~) !dd!ss!ss!y\l (s~eaA s.z) !dd!ss!ss!(/y (s~eaA s. 1) !dd!ss!ss!y\l

eu!lo~e=) ylnos lelseo3 UO~~LI!~S~M lsa~ylnos

(s~eaA z <) sexal glnos (s6u!l~eaA) ue6143!~ yuo~ (s~eaA z <) ue6!y3!y\l 41~0~

e]osauu!y\l le~lua3 yuo~ elosauu!~ peaypo~

(sJ~~A Z <) y3!MSUnJg MaN uo!le301

Legal harvest is a significant source of mortality in mortality rates vary by parasite species and age and most areas, and is controlled with regulations and health of deer. hunter selectivity. Illegal harvest, on the other hand, is Legal and illegal hunting are usually the most not easily controlled and has not been quantified, but is important mortal i ty factors in the southeast. assumed to be substantial. In most of the Southeast, comparison, legal hunting, weather, and predation are legal and illegal harvest account for most of the annual probably the most important in the ~~~~h and buck mortality. Southwest.

Populations near the northern and Dispersal southern boundaries of the whitetail's range Dispersal is the

have the highest process of an animal

reported non-hunting moving from its point

mortality. In these of origin to where it

regions, up to 25 reproduces. Most

percent of all bucks 1 animals exhibit some

may be killed annually form of dispersal to

by predators. Coyotes, ensure exchange of

wolves, and black Heniorrl?~rgic disease or individuals over time.

bears have been uiruses transmitted by biting midges. This disease is one o f the most Dispersal of bucks to

predators of cowzmon causes on non-hunting mortality in white-tailed deer, and from your property whitetails in the particuhrly in the south and central United States. Severely infected Can s i ~ i f c a n t l y i l n ~ a c t

North, whereas, animals, pnrticularly those found dead, often exhibit the typical blue the your

coyotes and mountain tongue (top left). Deer that survive the disease often have management plan.

lions are the sloughing hooves (top right). None of the viruses that produce Reported dispersal prominent predators this disease are infectious to humans. Photos by SCWDS. rates vary from 40 in the Southwest. percent in Virginia to

The Southeast no longer has viable populations of 70 percent of bucks 8-18 months old in Maryland.

large predators such as wolves and mountain lions that Researchers in Maryland found that the number of

are capable of killing adult deer. Coyotes and bobcats yearling bucks dispersing onto their property was much

are about the only significant predators of whitetails in lower than the number of yearling bucks dispersing

the Southeast, and they mostly take fawns and adults from their property. This resulted in an annual net loss

that are sick or injured. of yearling bucks. They suspected the reason for unequal dispersal was the intense

Most health-related harvest pressure from mortality in the Southeast can neighboring properties. be attributed to two causes- hemorrhagic disease and Legal harvest is typically

malnutrition-parasitism the most significant factor

syndrome. Hemorrhagic disease limiting the success of

(also known as blue-tongue) QDM programs. Research

viruses can kill up to 50 percent in Mississippi demonstrated

of a deer herd, although that the most significant

mortality rates are typically less cause of buck mortality was

than 15 percent. Deer legal harvest. Clearly, control

populations in the South are of legal harvest is required

confronted with these \ ' l~ruses for a successful QDM

much more frequently than program. Properties less

their northern counterparts and than several thousand acres also must rely on have developed some immunity S t I I / is g e t / / I I cooperation from Deer ~ o ~ ~ l l ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ in northern ouer/~opi,l'~tnl deer herds, is anotbr major c'ursr of nei$boring hunters. latitudes may only encounter non-hunting nzortality in white-tailed deer.

the disease every 5-10 years and suffer much higher mortality rates. Home Range Size

Malnutrition-parasitism syndrome is generally Home range is simply the area that an animal travels associated with high-density deer populations where during its normal activities and is estimated during the habitat has been chronically overbrowsed or where specific time periods (e.g., breeding or annual home populations occur on very poor quality habitats. range). Whitetail home range size varies by sex, age, and Nutritional stress makes deer much more vulnerable to habitat type. Home range sizes of bucks throughout the both internal and external parasite infestations. Primary United States are listed in Table 2. The average annual internal parasites include the large stomach worm and home range size for females is around 300-600 acres. lungworm. Major external parasites include ticks and The average annual home range for bucks is probably keds (deer lice). High deer densities can increase the 2-4 times larger (600-2,400 acres), and older bucks transmission of these parasites to other deer. Actual generally have larger home ranges than younger bucks.

6 QUALITY \Y'HlTETAILS V O L U M E 6, ISSUE 3

Table 2. Reported home ran e sizes of male white-tailed deer throughout %e United States.

Management Implications

. ". \,. Line 2 = 10% natural mortality and 30% legal hawest

a. -\ .-.. -\. -+

f '-.. -++& Line 3 = 10% natural mortalit 30%"'.. *+ legal harvest, and 10% illega?harvest "-..- ---I- -...- -... - ................

Location Mississippi Florida (Everglades) Florida (Everglades) Florida Washington Michigan New York (Summer) New York (Winter) Texas (Coastal Blend)

Acres 3734 1730 71 7 1732 51 5 351 576 37 1 343

Sample Size

5 10 23 5 7 - 34 12 14

The above South Texcls brlc-k IOLIS krlled 11y coyotrs cflrrrrzg

the late summer. Whrle predation is not generally considered a major source of rzon-hunting mortality, high predator populations, especially larger predators such as

coyotes, wolves, and bears can affect management success.

Fi ure 1. Effects of Natural Mortalit Le al Harvest, and We will use some hypotherical examples to %legal Harvest on a ~~~OthetlcaYbuc!! Population. illustrate how movement and mortality factors

90 can affect the number of bucks on your property and, thus, the success of your QDM

80 program. Suppose you are managing a 5,000-acre property with a deer density of 1

70 deer per 16 acres. If the adult buck to adult In Y doe ratio is 1:2 and the annual fawn survival 2 60 is 80 percent, you should have around 83 m

50 buck fawns alive at the beginning of the o hunting season. Now we will evaluate the t 40 P effects of natural mortality and harvest on

survive tG3.5 years old &d o;~ly 10 percent (8 bf 83) would survive to 5.5 years of age with this combination. Line 3 represents the effect of a 10 percent annual natural mortality rate, a 30 percent annual legal harvest, and a 10 percent annual illegal harvest. Only 13 percent (10 of 83) would survive to 3.5 years while only 4 oercent (3 of 83) survive to 5.5 with this scenario. Now

S uare h ies 5.8 2.7 1.1 2.7 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.5

f 30 z

20

10

imagine how these figures would change if you included unequal dispersal rates off and onto your property.

these 83 buck fawns, and calculate how many would survive to maturity (Figure 1).

Line 1 represents the effect that a 10 percent annual natural mortality rate would have on this group, with only 73 percent (61 of 83) surviving to 3.5 years old and 60

Now let us use the information on home range size to see how it could impact harvest levels on your property. If you have a 100-acre tract of land, no deer will be totally protected given the average home range size of over 600 acres. Let us look at another example, with a 5,000-acre tract (Figure 2). The box represents a property boundary and the circles represent the home ranges of deer. You can see that most of the deer could

Hectares 151 1 700 290 701 209 142 233 150 139

O 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 percent (50 of 83) surviving to 5.5 years old. Age Line 2 represents the effect of a 10 percent

annual natural mortality rate and a 30 percent annual legal harvest. Onlv 25 Dercent (21 of 831 would

" be vulnerable to harvest on surrounding properties. As the size of the management unit increases, the number of bucks that can be protected within the management unit also increases. Property size and harvest intensity on peripheral properties can have a big impact on the success of your management plan.

Square Kilometers

15.1 7.0 2.9 7.0 2.1 1.4 2.3 1.5 1.4

Source 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 15 16

Another source of frustration for hunters can come from differences in the susceptibility of bucks to harvest. The absence of older aged bucks in the harvest can lead hunters to believe that these animals are not present in the herd. Often older bucks do not expose themselves to hunters during daylight hours with about the only harvest opportunities occurring during the rut. Therefore, it is possible these older aged bucks are present but are not being harvested.

Conclusions We hope the information provided in this article will

assist you in understanding some of the factors that can affect the success of your QDM program. Local harvest rates, natural mortality rates, dispersal rates, and home range size all can play an important role in the success or failure of a plan. Landowners and hunters must have goals and expectations that are reasonable given these limitations. The degree to which a QDM program works is dependent on these and many other factors. Consultation with a biologist from your specific region about these considerations can help you fine-tune your management program and increase your chances of success. #

Bronson Strickland is a Research Associate in wildlife biology at Mississippi State University. Dr. Stephen Dernarais is an Associate Professor o f WiMife Management at Mississippi State University. This is Bronson's first contribution to Quality Whitetails.

LITERATURE SOURCES FOR TABLES 1 AND 2 1.3. Gavin, T,A., etal. 1984. Population characteristics, 1. Whitelaw, H. A., et a/. 1998. Survival and spatral organlzatlon and natural mortal1 In the Columb~an

cause-speclflc mortality rates of adult whlte-talled deer in white-tailed deer. hildlife Monographs, 81. New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Management, 14. Beier P., and D. R. McCullough. 1990. Factors 62:1335-1341. influencin white-tailed deer activity patterns and habitat

2. Nelson, M. E., and L. D. Mech. 1986. Mortali o' 7' use. ~ i l d j f e Monographs, 1 09. white-talled deer ~n northeastern M~nnesota. Journa of 15. Tierson W. C., et a/. 1985. Seasonal movements and Wildlife Management, 50:691-698. home ranges of white-tailed deer in the Adirondacks. Journal

3. Fuller T. K. 1990. Dynamics of a declining of Wildlife Management, 49:760-769. whitetailed deer population in north-central Minnesota. 16. Inglis, J. M., etal., 1979. Home range of white-tailed Wildlife Monographs, 1 1 0. deer ~n Texas coastal ralrle brushland. Journal of

4. Van Deelen, 7 R,, et a/. 1997. Mocali patterns of Y Mammalogy, 60:377-389. whiteta~led deer In Michl an's upper penlnsu a. Journal of Wildlife Management, 61 :803-910.

5. DeYoung,,C. A. 1989. Mortality of adult male white-talled deer In south Texas. Journal of W~ldl~fe LITERATURE CITED FOR ARTICLE Management, 53:513-518. Co gin, D. S. 1998. Survival and mortality of adult male

6. Gavin, T.,A., et a/. 1984. Population characteristics, white-palled deer in Mississip i Thesis. Mississippi State spatlal organlzatlon and natural mortallt In the Columblan University, Mississippi State. 8s. white-tailed deer. hldlife Monographs, & . Davidson, l!, R., and G. L. Doster. ,1997. Health charac-

7. Dozier, J. H, 1997. Mortality and.emigration in a teristlcs and whlte-talled deer populat~on dens1 In the coastal South Carollna population of whlte-talled deer. southeastern United States. Pa es 164-184 i n k . J. Thesis, Clemson University. McShea, H. 8. Underwood. an&. H. Rappole, editor?. The

sclence of overabundance: deer ecolo y and opulatlon 8. Cog in, D. S. 1998. Su,rvival ,and mortality of ad( management. Smithsonian Institution ?ress, 8ashington.

male white-tiled deer in MISSISSI~~I. Thes~s, M~ss~ss~pp~ DC. State University. DeYoun C. A. 1989. Mortali of adult male white-tailed

9. . Rosenberry, C. S. 1997. Dispersal ecology and deer in sou8 Texas. Journal of ildlife Management behavror of yearl~n male whlte-talled deer. D~ssertat~on, 53:513-518.

2 North Carolma stage University. Downing, R. L., and B. S. McGinnes. 1976. Movement

lo. Mott, S. E:, et a/. 1985. Use of Mississippi bottomland vtterns of white-tailed deer in a Virginia enclosure. hardwoods by white-talled deer. Proceed~ngs, Annual roceedin s.of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Game anc?flsh Comm~ss~oners 29:454-459. Wildlife Agencies, 39:403-411. Rosenberr , C. S. 1997. Dispersal ecology and behavior

11. Sar ent, R. A., Jr. 1992. Movement ecolo y of a of yearlln mare white-tailed deer. Dlssertat~on. North male whltejailed deer ~n hunted and non-huntej Carolina State University, Raleigh. NC. opulations in the wet prairie of the everglades. Thesis,

eniversity of Flor~da. Whitlaw, H. A., W. B. Ballard, D. L. Sabine, S. J.Young, R. A. Jenkins, and G. J. Forbes. 1998. Survival and

12. Labisky R. E, et a/. 1991. Po ulation ecolo y and cause-specific mortality rates of adult white-tailed deer in mana ement of white-tailed deer in Phe Osceola dtional New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Management, ores sf! Florida. Final Report to the Florida Game and Fresh 62:1335-1341. Water Fish Commission. University of Florida.