Morally grey wolves

I actually come to the conclusion that cats and dogs aren’t inherently or necessarily entirely bad but rather they are capable of both doing good and bad, something like say cats and dogs being used for good like hunting down vermin but they could be bad if they hunt animals on their own, sometimes causing trouble. They do have their value if they make you happy, then that’s fine.

That’s not to say dogs are inherently bad, they can do good like guarding homes and buildings, hunting vermin as I said before, herding sheep and comforting people but some of the same things can be said of cats. That’s not to say they can’t do wrong as they do prey on animals that risk being endangered, a family cat hunts geckos and a family dog hunts lizards and frogs as these are what I experienced or knew second-hand.

They are both capable of doing good and bad, depending on the circumstance and use but sometimes if they’re used to hunt vermin but that vermin’s highly endangered then that’s a real grey area.

Why dogs aren’t that domesticated

I honestly think dogs aren’t that as domesticated as people think, if because they’re still capable of predation that they might as well be formidable predators on their volition, if people cared. I suspect this leaves sheep, goats and cows as the true domesticated animals if because there aren’t that many stray sheep, goat and cow populations in the same quantity as stray dogs do.

Let’s not forget that pedigree dogs make up only a slight fraction of the dog population, even in Europe there still prevails a large number of mongrel dogs (the percentage varies from 50 to 60%) if it weren’t for some countries being this stingy that owners opt for mongrels instead. Let’s not forget that at times dogs do roam and hunt, even kill animals when hungry (same can be said of cats).

That’s not to say feral sheep are nonexistent but they don’t exist in the same large number as dogs do, not to mention sheep are so overprotected if it weren’t for being livestock that even if feral sheep exist they’re not in the majority.

Only Ferals Are Real Dogs

As provocative as the title sounds, the vast majority of dogs are semi-feral mutts which a good number of them hunt animals on their own if given the opportunity and that’s been studied a lot. Actually in some circles, there’s been talk of dogs living a pariah lifestyle (peripheral, commensal) that the existence of semi-feral dogs hunting down animals given the chance proves it right, also if dogs (and cats) are sometimes kept outside they might as well be left to their own devices to cope with it*.

Let’s not forget that there are studies of dogs preying on animals that the possibility of dogs being formidable, even invasive predators might not be a stretch as with dogs preying on cockroaches or livestock that the prey drive’s there. There are anecdotal and reported cases of owned dogs killing and hunting animals on their own that they could still be influenced by their wild ancestors (if you believe some sources) that it ought not to be underestimated if the family dog succeeds in wiping out frogs.

Supposing if tame, purebred dogs are the minority then that would mean a substantial number of dogs are semi-feral strays or even semi-feral pets (if they’re not too socialised to humans). Somebody else even pointed out this, and I suspect in light of canine predation dogs might be more wolfish and self-willed than one realises. Not that they’re bad but the capacity for a wild side’s big enough to ought not to be underestimated.

*Supposing if this area’s so remote as to be inaccessible to vets that stray dogs are bound to proliferate anyways, especially with Russia and Australia as well as some reservations in Canada where they’re fairly sparsely populated enough for dog populations to explode and go feral.

Adam’s Rib Recreation Area Development, Eagle County: Environmental Impact … (Google Books)

Temporary Construction Permanent Operation
Effects Effects
Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
Vicinity Basin Vicinity Basin
Habitat Areal/ HabitatZ/ Habitat§/ Area Habitat Habitat
(acres) (acres)

Mule deer winter range 0 0 0 860 15 3
Mule deer severe winter
range 0 0 0 470 24 3
Elk winter range 0 0 0 660 7 _ 3
Elk severe winter range 0 0 0 150 3 1
Elk winter concentration
area 0 0 0 20 I 1
Elk calving area 475 12 NA4/ 0 0 0

1/ Acreage of habitat that occurs within the 0.25- or 0.50-mile-wide displacement zone established around
project features. Zone width was adjusted to reflect species, season, type of facility, topographic
features, and other relevant factors. Effects for Alternatives 2 and 8 will be the same.

2/ Percent of available habitat in the project vicinity (1-mile radius of outer project facilities).

5/ Percent of available habitat designated in Brush Creek drainage basin.

[merged small][ocr errors]
forage nutritional values in locations accessible to the deer and elk displaced from the project development areas. If the mitigation goal is to realize no significant net loss of herd productivity or average numbers regardless of which habitat parameters might change, then loss of space will not be significant if the improved forage base maintains herd numbers and/or productivity.

Potential reductions in habitat quality from increased human activities in mapped elk calving areas will probably not be significant because wildlife protection provisions and commitments will restrict recreation and other disruptive activities near these areas during the May 15 to June 15 calving period.

Displacement of elk and deer from summer range because of mountain development probably will not be significant because summer range is not considered a limiting habitat type in this area. Only temporary displacement is anticipated during construction of mountain lifts, runs, and trails. Deer and elk will probably reoccupy the mountain following construction and will continue mountain use during summer operations. Habitat studies of deer and elk movements at ski resorts elsewhere in Colorado indicate use of ski mountains during the summer, particularly by deer, if human activity on the slopes is minimized.

Deer and Elk Population Changes. Changes in deer and elk populations occur because of increases or decreases in the carrying capacity of

habitat and because of direct mortality factors, such as vehicle collisions, poaching, and dog predation.

The alternative could potentially reduce deer and elk populations by reducing existing winter range carrying capacity through the combined effects of habitat loss and displacement. The population effects of reducing winter range carrying capacity were determined using a forage biomass and nutrition model for deer and elk (Hobbs, 1987). The model determines range carrying capacity in animal numbers by converting the existing vegetation cover of a specific area into forage biomass (pounds of edible forage per acre). The estimated nutritional value (potential consumable energy) of this biomass is then converted into animal numbers by dividing the average winter-season metabolic energy requirements of an adult deer or elk into the available consumable energy. The potential change (increase or decrease) in existing consumable energy caused by habitat management practices can also be used to estimate the number of animals that areas treated as mitigation could support. Results suggest that the alternative will affect winter habitat supporting approximately 86 mule deer and 42 elk annually (Table 5.92).

The number of deer and elk killed annually in automobile collisions was estimated by applying the current daily traffic volume to deer-kill ratios on Brush Creek and East Brush Creek roads to projections of

5-250

TA8LE 5.92
SUMMARY or DEER AND ELK POPULATION REDUCTIONS

DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONSU
ADAM’’ S RIB RECREATION AREA

Mule Deer (animalslyear) Elk (animalslyear)

Parameter Construction Operation Construction Operation

Winter range carrying capacity:

Habitat loss 34 34 7 3 Habitat displacement 0 52 0 42 Vehicle collisions 38 75 4 8 Dog predation 0 18 0 3 Poaching NA£/ NA NA NA Total 72 179 11 56

%/ Effects of Alternatives 2 and 8 are the same. -/ NA – Not Available.

[ocr errors]
future traffic volumes. This extrapolation method indicates that project-related highway mortality will remove about 38 to 75 deer and 4 to 8 elk annually from the local herds. Current vehicle-animal collision information suggests highway mortality will involve deer rather than elk along a 2-mile-long deer crossing adjacent to the golf course. Peak traffic volumes will coincide with the period of highest deer presence on winter ranges, enhancing the probability of collisions along Brush Creek Road where it passes through deer winter range (between the confluence of East and West Brush Creeks and Brush Creek to the north).

Uncontrolled or free-ranging dogs have been associated with predation and/or harassment of deer and elk at new mountain resort communities (Thomas, 1983). Dog effects on elk and deer populations reportedly have been substantial in some instances, particularly in areas of new mountain developments that coincide with big game winter ranges. However, in other situations the effects are minor. Quantitative data describing deer and elk mortality from dogs are limited. Using the approach of Thomas (1983), which estimates dog predation as a function of human population size, dog predation was estimated to increase the annual number of deer and elk killed by 18 and 3 animals, respectively.

The project’s effect on current poaching levels is extremely difficult to quantify because insufficient data are available on current levels of illegal harvests, and because the relationship between documented occurrences and the number of incidents which actually occur is unclear. Two conflicting effects are possible. First, deer and elk poaching could increase with ARRA because increased human population and greater accessibility of adjacent deer and elk habitat increase the opportunities for illegal harvests. Alternatively, existing poaching levels could decrease if the presence of more human activities serves as a deterrent to poaching by increasing the chances of detection.

The implications or significance of potential population reductions are considered from the perspectives of posthunt population level in the DAU, annual population harvest in the DAU, herd harvest in the GMU, and local wintering population (Table 5.93). The comparisons suggest that mule deer decreases could be as much as 28 percent of the local herd harvest and as much as 16 percent of the local wintering herd during operations. Elk reductions could be as much as 26 percent of the local herd harvest and as much as 28 percent of the local wintering herd during operations.

The potential change in the local deer is considered significant for several reasons. The current deer population trend in the area is downward. Substantial numerical reductions caused by the alternative will contribute to the decline. The greatest proportion of the

[ocr errors]
TABLE 5.93

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DEER AND
ELK POPULATION CHANGES
ADAM’S RIB RECREATION AREA

[graphic]
Number of Proportion of Animalsl/ Proportion ofzl Proportion gf Proportion 2; Local Wintergyg S ecies Affected DAU Po ula ion AU Harv t’ GMU H rvest_ Po ulation(animals (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) per year) Mule deer Construction 72 0.5 5.7 11.4 4.8 to 6.5 Operations 179 1.4 14.2 28.4 11.9 to 16.3 Elk Construction 11 0.2 1.2 5.0 2.8 to 5.5 Operations 56 1.0 6.3 25.6 14.0 to 28.0 M Includes habitat loss, dog predation, poaching, and highway crossing mortality. 2/ Based on 1987 posthunt population in Data Analysis Unit (DAU) 0-14 of 12,300 deer and 5,400 elk in DAU E-I6. 2/ Based on average 1980 to 1987 harvest of 1,260 deer in DAU D-14, and 887 elk in DAU E-16. 1’ Based on 1987 harvest in Game Management Unit (GMU) 44 of 629 deer and 219 elk. §/ Based on estimated wintering herds in the general project vicinity of 1,100-1,500 deer and 200-400 elk. Sources: Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1988a; Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1988c; Colorado

potential loss will result during resort operation from automobile mortality (about 41.8 percent of total loss) and displacement from winter ranges (about 29.0 percent) adjacent to project facilities. The estimated annual losses will constitute about 28 percent of the 1987 annual herd harvest and about 12 to 16 percent of the estimated local wintering herd. The project-induced change may not be detectable with current population census techniques which have a minimum error factor of about 30 percent in areas such as Adam’s Rib.

The potential change in the local elk herd is considered significant, even though the current population trend in the area is upward. The long-term population decrease amounts to a change of about 1 percent of the posthunt population (DAU basis). However, from a local herd (GMU basis) perspective, the potential long-term loss represents about 26 percent of the 1987 annual herd harvest, and about 14 percent to 28 percent of estimated local wintering herd. The largest proportion of the estimated annual elk loss will be due to habitat displacement which will account for about 75 percent of the total loss (Table 5.92). As is the case with deer, the anticipated elk population change probably is undetectable.

The potential losses of deer and elk from all project-related causes will represent less than 1.5 percent of the estimated DAU population. This change is within the margins of error associated with analyzing harvest statistics and estimating winter range populations. Changes in population sizes of about one percent are within the range of normal annual deer and elk population variation. Severe winter kills can change the population size even more. Within the context of the other factors affecting the population, the anticipated changes are small and within the absorption capabilities of the population. For example, big game hunting seasons may remove about 12 percent to 16 percent of a population annually without impairing long-term population welfare. However, from the herd perspective, the anticipated long-term changes are moderate and have the potential to adversely affect herd welfare. Mitigation measures proposed to compensate for or reduce these losses are being discussed between ARRA and CDOW.

Loss of Riparian Habitat. Construction of the golf course and some bridge crossings on East Brush Creek will temporarily affect about 10 acres of riparian habitat. The affected habitat occurs as a series of small parcels rather than in a contiguous block. The small breaks in habitat that will occur during construction are analogous to natural openings. The highly mobile and wide-ranging nature of songbird populations during migration makes it unlikely that riparian habitat changes will cause any significant effects. Permanent loss of riparian habitat is not anticipated. Riparian vegetation is often characterized as providing habitat for many wildlife species, especially migratory

[ocr errors]
songbirds. Currently, riparian vegetation in most ofthe project area is confined to narrow (10- to 40-foot wide) corridors along perennial streams. The corridors do not offer large tracts of habitat and consequently habitat values are primarily for songbirds.

Other Wildlife. Habitat for other wildlife species will be affected by resort development and operation. The type of effect will vary by location, postdevelopment site conditions, time, and wildlife species. In general, however, population numbers and species richness of most wildlife groups (e.g., songbirds or raptors) will decline in the most intensively developed portions of the project because supporting habitats will be replaced with structures and facilities. Some localized areas of wildlife increase will occur in response to removing current cattle grazing, removing hayland management, and protecting the site as open space or green belt. Determining the net effect of such losses and gains is complex.

Land development and land use conversions similar to this resort typically produce the following long-term wildlife trends. Population abundance and species richness of small mammals and songbirds tend to decrease in intensively developed (urban) zones. A few species associated with urban habitats become common (e.g., English sparrow and house mouse). In low- and moderate-density residential areas, species richness increases as plant structural diversity and diversity of food supplies (e.g., ornamental plants and artificial feeders) increase. Wildlife changes in open space and green belt zones depend on tract size, adjacent land use, and vegetation management strategies (e.g., mowing schedule and landscape design). The characteristics of this resort suggest a generally static trend in overall abundance, with some species shifts occurring as adjacent land uses change from rural rangeland to low-density residential development.

Waterfowl currently use the Vassar Meadow, Joe Goode Meadow, and golf course areas on a limited basis for nesting and as migratory habitat. Mallard and green-winged teal are the most common species. Future waterfowl use of Vassar Meadow will be precluded by extensive development. However, limited use of Joe Goode Meadow wetlands will probably continue because existing wetland habitats would become protected open space. Waterfowl use of golf course wetlands will probably continue, but at substantially lower levels than at present. Wetland filling and altered irrigation practices will remove some habitat, and the associated high-density golf course design and recreation will further discourage waterfowl use.

Overall, general raptor use of the resort area will probably decline from current levels. Habitat reductions and increases in human presence will decrease the area’s suitability for nesting and hunting. Raptor nesting, observed in the riparian zone of the proposed golf course area, will be discouraged initially by construction activities

[ocr errors]
and later by recreational use of the courses. Some peripheral open space may be used by raptors where it adjoins suitable undeveloped habitat.

Alternative 8

Deer a d . Similarities in facilities, configuration, and development areas between the two development alternatives will cause wildlife effects from Alternative 8 to be similar to those described for Alternative 2. The differences between the two alternatives are generally too minor from a wildlife-effect perspective, and occur in locations that do not influence special-interest deer and elk habitats, to expect different deer or elk responses to the alternatives.

Other Wildlife. The effects of Alternative 8 on other wildlife groups will be the same as those described for Alternative 2 with the following exceptions. General wildlife use of the Borah Gulch hay meadow will probably increase as hay production and irrigation are discontinued and the site is retired from active management. Approximately 60 acres will be involved. The two waste disposal sites proposed for Alternative 2 along West Brush and Brush Creek Roads (totaling about 31 acres) will remain undisturbed, leaving existing wildlife habitats unaltered.

Waterfowl displacement from the golf course area will be less extensive than with Alternative 2 because none of the existing wetlands will be filled, existing cattle grazing and hay production constraints will be removed, golf course recreation levels will be approximately 50 percent of those for Alternative 2, and more open space will buffer wetland areas. Resident songbird and small mammal populations in the golf course area will probably decline less extensively than with Alternative 2 for the same reasons. The lower density of residential units in the adjacent upland parcels will reduce changes in population numbers of existing species, and probably will encourage the appearance of species typically associated with suburban habitats.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would continue present land uses on ARRAowned lands, and development-related wildlife effects will not occur. Deer and elk populations will continue to be affected by the prevailing plant communities, land uses, recreational pressures, and federal and state habitat and resource management strategies on public lands. Loss of deer and elk winter ranges on private lands, other than those owned by ARRA, may continue from residential and commercial development related to economic factors. The rate and probability of such growth are lower with no action than with either development alternative. Increased demands projected by the White River National Forest for summer and winter recreation on public lands may degrade big game and other wildlife habitat.

[ocr errors]
The No Action Alternative would involve continuation of existing ARRA livestock grazing agreements on public forest and rangelands during the summer. Grazing of approximately 2,300 cattle annually on national forest lands will continue to displace some deer and elk from otherwise suitable range and also create some forage competition with elk and deer. The extent of forage competition and deer and elk displacement in the Brush Creek drainage is unknown. Livestock competition and displacement effects on deer and elk winter ranges are not considered potentially significant because winter ranges typically include brushy slopes, ridgetops, and rugged terrain which provide unsuitable winter forage for cattle. Cattle are collected in late autumn to be wintered in managed pastures and bottomlands where interactions with deer and elk are minimal.

Proposed Mitigation

Proposed mitigation includes specific actions undertaken to reduce or compensate for direct and unavoidable impacts or losses to wildlife resources from project development. The proposed measures are considered from a biological or ecological perspective and not from a policy perspective.

Two categories of wildlife mitigation measures pertain to this project. First, the applicant is committed to implementing measures required in the FSFEIS as conditions of the special use permit. These measures and their anticipated effects are summarized in Table 5.94. Second, the applicant is currently discussing additional mitigation measures with CDOW (Young, 1989). They include precisely delineating important big game habitats near the recreation area, implementing wildlife protection measures, providing a public wildlife education program, and stocking fish in local streams. The measures are presented in Appendix B. It is the intent of ARRA and CDOW to develop a memorandum of understanding containing a long-term mitigation plan to avoid, reduce, and compensate for significant adverse wildlife impacts caused by the resort. Implications of the mitigation plan will have to be considered once the plan is completed.

The measures summarized in Table 5.94 include restrictions on human activities in seasonally-important habitats for deer or elk; construction of facilities to prevent or minimize deer or elk habitat displacement; and management of plant communities to restore habitat losses and quality. Measures are expected to substantially reduce adverse effects. Development of watering sources in the East Brush Creek drainage should be located away from high-intensity human activity areas and roads if use by deer or elk is to be expected.

Arkansas’ deer herd, by David Donaldson, Carl Hunter [and] … Donaldson, David.

Arkansas’ deer herd, by David Donaldson, Carl Hunter [and] … Donaldson, David.

USDA Forest Service

Research Paper RM-111 July 1973

Foods of the Rocky Mountain Mule Deer1

by

Roland C. Kufeld, O. C. Wallmo, and Charles Feddema2

This study is a contribution of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-101-R. Personnel of the Library Reference Service, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Denver, Colorado, assisted in assembling deer food habits references.

Kufeld is Wildlife Researcher, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado. Wallmo is Principal Wildlife Biologist and Feddema is Research Botanist, Forest Service Herbarium, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experi ment Station, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The Station’s central headquarters is maintained at Fort Collins, in cooperation with Colorado State University.

Foods of the Rocky Mountain Mule Deer

Roland C. Kufeld, 0. C. Wallmo, and Charles Feddema

Knowledge of the relative degree to which mule deer consume various species of plants is basic to deer range appraisal and to planning and evaluating habitat improvement programs. Although numerous mule deer food habits studies have been conducted, individual studies are limited to a specific area, and relatively few plant species are found in the diet compared to the number of plants eaten by deer throughout their range. The amount of a particular species found in a given study may or may not be indicative of its true importance as deer forage. In preparing this report, we have evaluated all available food habits studies to determine which plants are eaten by mule deer, and their relative impor tance as reflected by the degree to which they are consumed. Relative importance of plants in this report does not infer nutritional quality or the status of a species in relationship to a desired stage of ecological succession.

Methods

Only those studies which pertain to food habits of the Rocky Mountain mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus ) in the West ern United States and Canada were included. Studies of Rocky Mountain mule deer trans planted to areas outside their normal range were excluded. Locations of food habits studies evaluated are mapped in figure 1.

Only studies meeting the following criteria were incorporated: (1) Data must have been original and derived from a specific effort to collect food habits information. Ref erences containing statements of what deer eat based on general knowledge, or those which summarized previous food habits studies were excluded. (2) Data must have been listed by species and reported quantitatively in terms that would permit the categorization used in

this report. (3) Season of use must have been shown. (4) Data must have been listed separately for mule deer. Studies which referred to combined deer and elk use, or mule deer and white-tailed deer use or “game use” were excluded. (5) Studies with a very limited sample (for example only two or three stomachs) were excluded. (6) Deer must have had free choice of available forage. This ex cluded some pen feeding studies. (7) Study animals must not have been starving. (8) Routine management surveys of browse use, involving fall and spring measurements of tagged twigs, were excluded. In such surveys not all available species were measured, and it is not possible to be sure what animal ate the plant. Ninety-nine studies were incor porated in this summary.

Mechods of data collection were divided into five categories: stomach analysis; feeding observations on wild deer; feeding observa tions on tame, trained deer; ocular judgments of plant use; and pen feeding studies designed to determine relative preferences for natural forage.

Food habits studies differ widely in methods of collecting and presenting data; in number, relative abundance, and availability of plant species encountered; and in number of animals using the study area. Thus, firm guidelines cannot be established for comparing results of different studies in terms of relative forage preference. In every study, however, some plants comprised a greater portion of the sample than others. It is impossible to equate the various kinds of quantification used: volume of stomach contents measured by different methods, weight of stomach con tents, instances of amount of apparent use on plants, bites taken by tame deer, or weight consumed in “cafeteria” feeding. Therefore, we categorized the quantities recorded, regard less of the measurements used, in three broad

Figure 1. — Locations of Rocky Mountain mule deer food habits studies summarized in this paper. Numbers indicate literature citations. The enclosing line is the distribution boundary of the Rocky Mountain mule deer as reported by Taylor (Taylor, Walter P. 1956. The deer of North America. 668 p. The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa.). The portion of the boundary within Arizona and New Mexico, however, was modified to conform with that reported by Hoffmeister (Hoffmeister, Donald F. 1962. The kinds of deer, Odocoileus, in Arizona. Am. Midi. Nat. 67:45-64.).

groups: heavily, moderately, or lightly eaten. Heavily eaten plants, by definition, comprised a major part of a food sample (usually at least 20 percent). In a few cases, plants which comprised less than a major portion of the food sample were classified as heavily eaten if their reported contribution to the diet was far in excess of their reported vegetative composi tion. Moderately eaten plants usually comprised between 5 and 20 percent of the food sample, and lightly eaten plants comprised less than 5 but more than 1 percent. Plants which con tributed less than 1 percent of the total or were reported as trace amounts were excluded from the above system and were cited separately in the summary tables.

Deer are very interesting creatures. But there is more to learn from the way deer live than interesting facts. A knowledge of their habits or life history is essential if we are to preserve and increase them. (Trippensee, 1948.)

It should be stated that we have only one species of deer in this State. This is the Virginia white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). The size and weight, and even the coloration, may vary in different regions; for example, lowland deer are usually darker in color than hill animals. Some hunters speak of “blue deer” in the bottom lands. The largest deer are found in the bottoms, where bucks weighing over 300 pounds are sometimes killed. In some of the mountainous areas a 150 pound buck is considered large. The richer lowland soil, which pro

A set of antlers shed by a white-tailed deer. Note the clean separation of the antlers from the buck’s head. In this State most of the shedding is done in January.

duces better food, accounts for the difference. In general, our upland areas can support one deer on 25 acres, and the lowlands can support two or three deer on the same acreage. In Arkansas most of the fawns are born in May, June, and early July. The doe seeks a thicket, or some other well concealed spot, and there gives birth to her young, which weigh from three to five pounds each. Many of the does have two fawns, but does bearing young for the first time usually have only one. Occasionally, three are born, and there are a few records of four. The average is about one and one-half fawns per breeding doe. These facts, together with information on mortality and the quality of the range, are used to determine the rate of increase. For an average herd this is about 15 per cent per year.

Does are sexually mature at one year of age—and may breed— but most of the does giving birth to fawns are two years old or older. The average period of gestation for white-tails is seven months, but it usually varies a few days. During the first several days after birth, fawns can hardly move about and are hidden during the day while the doe feeds. At night the doe stays close by. It is generally believed that young fawns give off little scent which helps protect them from dogs and other predatory animals.

When the fawns are able to follow, the mother leads them away and they feed and sleep together. Persons who find fawns that are beginning to move about for the first time often think that they are lost and half starved because they are so unsteady on their thin legs; however, the mother is usually close by or will return at dusk. People who find fawns in the woods should leave them unmolested. After their first month the fawns wander further, following the doe. The young are weaned at about four months of age but continue to stay with the doe except for a period during the rutting season. In the fall the spots disappear from the fawn’s coat. When it is again time for the does to bear young the year-old fawns are on their own.

Young bucks begin to grow antlers in their second spring when they are only a year old. The antlers are rather soft and are covered with a membrane called “velvet” during the summer. In the late sum

mer or early fall, growth ceases and the antlers become hard. Then the velvet is rubbed off on brush or small saplings. This scars the

d at these rubs, creating a “scrape.” N)

yearling bucks have short, unbranched antlers and are called

ſ Mo – º cks. The second set of antlers may be long spikes or have d – – . . / two or three points on each side. Large well-developed antlers are

\ – – • found on the older bucks, but other than this, the age of a deer cannot be determined by the number of points. The age of deer can be esti

lº 5 ſº mated

examinatiºn of the teeth. (See Chart I.) /

º

I Limiting Factors

– Hunting: The legal kill has relatively little effect upon the deer population as a whole, particularly when bucks only are taken. This | has been thoroughly demonstrated in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wis

consin, and many other states. Eventually the numbers of deer in these localities exceeded their food supply, and “die-offs,” resulting in the loss of as much as 90 per cent of the population, occurred in a single year. (Leopold, Sowls, Spencer, 1947.)

| TABLE I Number of Deer Killed in Arkansas

1937 ——————————– 183 1944___________________———— 1,606 1938——————————– 208 1945——————————– 1,687 1939——————————– 600 1946——————————- 1,661 1940——————————– 596 1947 ——————————- 2,016 1941 ——————————- 433 1948 ——————————- 2,779 1942 ——————————- 906 1949________________________________ 3,075

º 1943——————————-. 1,723 1950 ——————————- 4,091

The legal kill has little effect upon the deer population as a whole. The legal hunter should receive the benefit of all surplus deer.

º – º ** “Sº º

sº \

The year-round illegal kill is very large. It is especially detrimental to small herds.

Illegal Kill: Estimates of how the illegal kill compares with the number legally taken vary from less than the legal kill to several times that many. At any rate, the year-round illegal kill is evidently very large and is one of the main limiting factors. It is especially detri mental to small herds—where every animal counts. The poacher does not discriminate between bucks, does nor fawns, and thereby reduces breeding deer when the numbers are low.

As the size of the deer herd increases, illegal hunting may become more widespread. It will have less effect, however, because the larger number of deer will be better able to stand the poaching and still con tinue to increase.

Dogs: Second to the poacher, dogs are the deer’s worst enemy. Chasing deer during all seasons of the year makes this problem all the more serious. The belief that dogs should not be allowed to run deer is becoming more widespread among the people in Arkansas. This belief is developing partly because of the large deer herds built up in other states after dogs were outlawed. Some have seen what can be done in this State. The Sylamore District of the Ozark National For

[18]

est and the Five Lakes Club in Eastern Arkansas are examples of areas where restriction of dogs has benefited the deer herds. In the Five Lakes Club area, there is approximately one deer to every six acres, the Heaviest concentration in the State. The Sylamore forest has the largest deer population of any comparable area and the second greatest deer

density. Those who argue against the dog base their arguments on these points: 1. Dogs actually catch and kill many deer, especially does heavy with fawns. 2. Deer are run from the forests to farming areas where they may be killed. 3.

Dogs scatter small populations of deer and retard their increase.

Doe caught by dogs. Second to the poacher, dogs are the deer’s worst enemy.

I Limiting Factors

– Hunting: The legal kill has relatively little effect upon the deer population as a whole, particularly when bucks only are taken. This | has been thoroughly demonstrated in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wis

consin, and many other states. Eventually the numbers of deer in these localities exceeded their food supply, and “die-offs,” resulting in the loss of as much as 90 per cent of the population, occurred in a single year. (Leopold, Sowls, Spencer, 1947.)

| TABLE I Number of Deer Killed in Arkansas

1937 ——————————– 183 1944___________________———— 1,606 1938——————————– 208 1945——————————– 1,687 1939——————————– 600 1946——————————- 1,661 1940——————————– 596 1947 ——————————- 2,016 1941 ——————————- 433 1948 ——————————- 2,779 1942 ——————————- 906 1949________________________________ 3,075

º 1943——————————-. 1,723 1950 ——————————- 4,091

The legal kill has little effect upon the deer population as a whole. The legal hunter should receive the benefit of all surplus deer.

º – º ** “Sº º

sº \

The year-round illegal kill is very large. It is especially detrimental to small herds.

Illegal Kill: Estimates of how the illegal kill compares with the number legally taken vary from less than the legal kill to several times that many. At any rate, the year-round illegal kill is evidently very large and is one of the main limiting factors. It is especially detri mental to small herds—where every animal counts. The poacher does not discriminate between bucks, does nor fawns, and thereby reduces breeding deer when the numbers are low.

As the size of the deer herd increases, illegal hunting may become more widespread. It will have less effect, however, because the larger number of deer will be better able to stand the poaching and still con tinue to increase.

Dogs: Second to the poacher, dogs are the deer’s worst enemy. Chasing deer during all seasons of the year makes this problem all the more serious. The belief that dogs should not be allowed to run deer is becoming more widespread among the people in Arkansas. This belief is developing partly because of the large deer herds built up in other states after dogs were outlawed. Some have seen what can be done in this State. The Sylamore District of the Ozark National For

[18]

est and the Five Lakes Club in Eastern Arkansas are examples of areas where restriction of dogs has benefited the deer herds. In the Five Lakes Club area, there is approximately one deer to every six acres, the Heaviest concentration in the State. The Sylamore forest has the largest deer population of any comparable area and the second greatest deer

density. Those who argue against the dog base their arguments on these points: 1. Dogs actually catch and kill many deer, especially does heavy with fawns. 2. Deer are run from the forests to farming areas where they may be killed. 3.

Dogs scatter small populations of deer and retard their increase.

Doe caught by dogs. Second to the poacher, dogs are the deer’s worst enemy.

_2^ ~ \,(

4. Some deer die of pneumonia after they take refuge in a river or lake, following a long chase.

5. Use of dogs allows the percentage of deer killed to be too high in some areas.

6. A few dogs can do a lot of damage because they range so widely.

Because the style of hunting is so important to many hunters who use dogs, they should not be entirely outlawed; but additional areas should be closed to dogs.

Destruction of habitat: Settlement, with subsequent clearing of lands, reduced deer ranges. However, the cutting of virgin timber tracts actually improved deer range by encouraging the growth of browse plants. This situation becomes reversed when timber stands again mature and shade out ground vegetation. With 67 per cent of its area in timberlands, however, Arkansas now has plenty of deer range. Fac tors other than habitat loss will continue to be of more importance for some time. Only in the Delta Region, where cultivation is extensive, does loss of habitat affect deer at the present time.

Deficiencies in environment: The differences in conditions in each region and in each forest type may have various effects upon the deer population after it reaches the maximum carrying capacity of the available range, but they have very little effect while the deer popula tion is low.

At present there are few areas in the State where the environmen tal conditions limit the increase of deer. The Five Lakes Club and the Sylamore District are both overbrowsed to the extent that deer may soon begin to starve in these areas as the result of food shortages. The Black Mountain Refuge in Franklin County has reached this stage. It may be that high water and resultant losses of deer in the White River National Wildlife Refuge will prevent further increases in this area. This fine herd has been of comparatively little benefit to legal hunters bec of the lack of surrounding territory into which deer could spread. =

– º Competition between livestock and deer for range will

ecome mo, mportant in the future.

Fire: Fires do much damage to the forests and the soil, and this – Deer may escape, but the direct results of fire on deer portant as long-range effects. –

many deer during the 1927 flood, in the White and Mississippi river bottoms.

A serious effect of high water upon deer is that they are concen trated and are forced out of their normal range. This makes deer much more vulnerable to illegal hunting and the attacks of the buffalo gnats.

Gnats: The buffalo gnat has caused the death of many deer in the lowlands of this State. The White River area is usually the scene of the most serious outbreaks. The effect of these gnats on deer was noticed in 1932 on Roc Roe Bayou in the White River country. There were fewer deer then, and only one dead deer was found. It was evi dent that several died however. “Smokes” were built to give the deer protection. This idea was conceived from noticing that deer often came to the smokes which were built to give cattle relief from the gnats.

Each year, more and more deer were noticed at the smokes as the herd increased in this section. In 1949, the first really large kill was noticed. High water forced the deer to concentrate on the farm land

Lowland deer that come to smoke for protection from buffalo gnats show little fear of man. When not protected by smoke, many more deer are lost.

j, Sºſamore Story

The Sylamore District of the Ozark National Forest, consisting of 173,000 acres, lies in Stone, Baxter, Searcy and Marion counties. It has gone through most of the phases that any area or state experiences in building up a large deer herd. Because of this, a complete history of this section and the factors which have affected the deer herd there will serve to make clear the things that will happen in other areas over the State in the future. It should be realized that in some states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, similar events occurred years ago and that in some cases huge deer herds exist over a large portion of those states.

The Beginning of a Deer Herd

The story of the decline in deer in this area is the same as in most other places. Land use, overhunting, and chasing with dogs, all had a part in bringing about the decrease. According to the information obtained during the state-wide survey the low ebb was reached about 1926. At this time it was estimated that there were only about 35 deer in the Sylamore District.

In 1926, two federal refuges were established. This marked the turning point in the population. In Stone County the Livingston Creek Federal Game Refuge No. 1 was set up with 8,420 acres. In Baxter County the Barkshed Federal Game Refuge No. 2 was estab lished with 5,300 acres. They are operated jointly by the U. S. For est Service and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.

The type of deer herd management which was to be carried out in the Sylamore District was new to the people of Arkansas but not to the Forest Service. Their experience in other states had been of much value. The first action taken in connection with establishing the two refuges was to outlaw the dog. The Game and Fish Commission in its early reports (1918, 1919, and others) advocated: “Eliminate the hound from the chase.” This is one of the few areas that did elimi nate the hound. z

In addition to protecting the deer from dogs, Forest Service per sonnel, refuge keepers, and game wardens have always been alert and active in their duties. Few areas have been so carefully patrolled.

2 5 |

Cooperation of the local people played a very important part in the increase. They became more and more interested in the deer and began to work with the officers and to help them in protecting the herd.

Increase and Overabundance

By 1945 it was estimated that there were 5,125 deer in the Syla more District. In 1944, 463 deer were killed during the hunting SeaSOrl.

Hunters and others who had complained of the dog law noticed the great increase, which was in marked contrast to many other areas

of the State. Interest in the skill required in still-hunting was renewed. (See Table II.)

Aside from the hunting take, there were other indications of the herd’s increase. Forest Service counts and estimates began to show the results of protection. In 1943, areas were noticed in which the deer were damaging the forest.

Still-hunting in the Sylamore Area was looked upon with new respect. It was the man against the deer. In 1944, 463 deer were killed there during the hunting season.

Future Population

It is estimated that the future deer population of Arkansas may some day be over 500,000. Populations in states with less range have increased beyond that number. In comparison with states to the north, Arkansas has a longer growing season, milder winters without deep snow, and in some cases a more abundant food supply. Sixty-seven per cent of the State is forested.

Future Management

Most states that have a large deer population, and have had for years, outlawed the dog many years ago. For instance, in Wisconsin “hounding of deer” was outlawed in 1876, although the law was not respected when first passed. Each year, about as many deer are killed in Wisconsin as we have in the entire State. To go deer hunting does not require a long trip, because deer are found in almost all of the woods in that state. In 1912 the kill was over twice as many as ours is at the present time. (Swift.) This does not mean that the dog should be outlawed, but there should be some areas closed to dogs, as is the Sylamore District. That is an example of what can be done if dogs are kept out of the woods, especially during the spring and summer. There is now a law against dogs’ running deer in May, June and July. The use of dogs by the legal hunter during the open season is not detri mental. There should always be areas left open for deer hunting with dogs, because it is sometimes the style of the hunt rather than the num ber of deer taken that appeals to hunters.

Resuming trapping operations on a large scale would aid a great deal in increasing our deer herd and in building up and starting herds in smaller tracts of woodland. It could also aid in relieving over browsed conditions.

The importance of deer in resort areas will probably increase. Aside from the desire of tourists to see deer, hunting would be a big drawing card.

Many people fail to realize that a deer herd is capable of increas ing from a fourth to a third each year. They base their thinking on

[46]

what we have now rather than on what will happen in the future. Problems will arise which can be solved only by long-term planning: competition of deer with livestock for range, deer damage to forests and farms, regulating the size of deer herds by removing does and bucks Where necessary, timber management for production of wood products and game, and many others. It should be realized that the situation is an ever-changing one. Experienced and trained personnel, and sound Planning, must keep pace. As problems arise, individuals and small groups freely voice their opinions and strive to have their personal desires catered to. They have always done this and probably always Will. Often this hampers proper action. Cooperation of sound thinking people, who realize the ability of the agencies concerned, is a big factor in the successful administration of any resource,—deer included.

Sitka black-tailed deer : proceedings of a conference in Juneau, Alaska

Search Results

Proceedings – Volume 45, Part 1965 – Page 109books.google.com.ph › books

Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners – Snippet view – ‎More editions
While wolves no longer exist on the Kenai and loose dogs are rare, the Matanuska Valley although free of wolves has many loose farm dogs of which … goal, the only practical method is extermination of wolves and feral dogs that harbor the adult, egg producing stage of the hydatid organism. … Pruit, (i960), who for seme years studied caribou in Canada, made a film of the yearly events in a caribou’s life.

Sitka black-tailed deer :
proceedings of a conference in Juneau, Alaska

Shuyak Island deer populations have increased steadily since 1971 and are probably at an all-time high.

Shifts in harvest patterns have followed the changes in distribution of high populations. In 1971 only 10 percent of the Unit 8 harvest was recorded from Afognak, Shuyak, and Raspberry Islands. During the 1975, 1976, and 1977 seasons, approximately 30 percent of the annual harvest came from these islands–an estimated 547 deer were taken on these islands in 1977, the largest take on record. Harvest has increased along the westernmost bays south of Uganik Island in the ’70s, reaching a peak in 1976 with 34 percent (367 deer) of the Unit 8 harvest. Distribution of the 1977 estimated harvest is illustrated in fig. 2.

Dooh habitat ‘to Catóonships and {ood habits–The diversity of habitats which now support deer populations belies the early predictions of Batchelor [1962] who believed spruce cover to be a requirement for establishing significant deer herds. The grass-brush vegetation type which covers most of Kodiak Island now supports higher densities of deer than any of the predominantly spruce habitat. Batchelor apparently felt that the grass-brush vegetation on most of Kodiak Island would not provide suf ficient winter cover for deer. However, Batchelor underestimated the adaptability of the Sitka blacktail to non-coniferous habitat. The density of the cottonwood, birch and alder thickets is sufficient to provide considerable protection from the frequent storm winds and precipitation affecting the Kodiak area. Moreover, the diverse and relatively more abundant foods found in the grass-brush association appear to be capable of supporting more deer than spruce habitat, at least in the early years of occupation. During persistent deep snow conditions in this vegetation type, deer are susceptible to heavy winter losses as Batchelor predicted. However, observations indicate that the northern Kodiak and the Afognak Islands group frequently receive heavier and more persistent snowfall than the southern and western part of Kodiak Island. Deer in southwestern and central western Kodiak are less often subject to heavy snow conditions and, therefore, have increased chances for survival during most winters. Snow accumulations on Kodiak often do not exceed 1 to 2 feet on most of the deer winter ranges below 500 feet elevation. Rainy periods characteristically occur intermittently all winter, melting and crusting snow below 500–1,000 feet elevation. Deer sometimes range freely during the winter to above 1,000 feet into the edge of alpine areas which are normal summer and early fall ranges. The rain- and wind-crusted snow sometimes easily supports an adult deer when temperatures are below freezing. With warming temperatures and rain, snow becomes soft and may not support deer. Deer are sometimes seen moving freely over snow 3 or more feet in depth, foraging in willow and alder thickets and on Wind-blown heath knolls at 800 to over 1,000 feet elevation. The advent of warming temperatures, rain or additional snowfall may cause deer to become entrapped at higher elevations where they subsequently starve. It is not un usual to find deer carcasses in such situations during winters with high snowfall. The occasional availability of these higher winter ranges is probably a positive sur vival factor.

Deer move into alpine ranges in late June, depending on snow-melt patterns and phenology. There is by no means a complete shift of deer populations to the alpine areas, as some deer are found at all elevations during summer. The alpine-subalpine range receives heavy use until mid-September when freezing weather desiccates her baceous plants and occasional snowfall begins at higher elevations.

Evaluation of Kodiak’s deer habitat is limited by scanty quantitative data on food habits and distribution and abundance of major food plants. Feeding observations, examination of browsed vegetation, and limited analysis of rumen contents provide some insight into deer food habits. Merriam [1964], in observing deer feeding in alpine and sub-alpine summer range, noted that fireweed (Epi Cobium angustiá0&um) was a primary summer food. Red-berried elder (Sambucus hacomo sa), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), salmonberry, cow parsnip (Hoytac Coum Canatum), reedgrass, and hairgrass (Deschampsia sp.)

189

were fed upon to a lesser extent. Merriam [1968] noted that on Kodiak deer use many species of food plants not generally found or used on other Alaskan deer ranges. Rumen samples he examined, which were collected in November and December, contained substan tial amounts of alder, spruce, willow, bearberry, crowberry, fireweed (Epi Cobium angus tº Kottum) and various grasses. Spruce and alder are not preferred foods and use of these species probably indicates poor range condition or unavailability of forage due to snow cover.

Alexander [1968] used the point-frame method to analyze 49 deer rumen samples collected during December through March. Sampling rumen material from deer taken in both spruce and grass-brush habitat, he noted that diversity and probable nutritional quality of food species in non-spruce areas was much greater than in spruce areas. He found 12 species of plants in deer rumens from spruce habitat including cranberry, salmonberry, crowberry, fireweed, alder, spruce, kelp, lichens, and various grasses. He found 7 additional species used in the grass-brush areas, including highbush cran berry (Vibutnum educe), bearberry, skunk cabbage (Lusichº ton ame tº canum), ground dog wood (Connus canadensis), fern (Dºgoptervis aus tº aca) and birch. Alexander’s study indicated that foraging on spruce increased as the winter progressed, as did use of kelp. Although spruce showed the highest frequency of occurrence and volume, red-berried elder and willow appeared to be the next most-heavily used plants in the spruce habitat. Crowberry, low cranberry, willow, salmonberry, Nootka rose, and red-berried elder appeared to be the most commonly used plants in non-spruce areas. The high use of kelp, alder, and spruce was evidence to Alexander that deer took foods of poor nutritional quality on spruce range.

Steep, windblown, and southerly-exposed hillsides are commonly used winter feed ing areas. Deer forage on the rhizomes and petioles of the fern, Athynium {{{ {x-ſemina, which is abundant on many sites. Hjeljord [1971] noted that this fern was the major food of mountain goats during 1 winter when he was studying food habits on Kodiak Island. The laterally-spreading form of the abundant alder intercepts snow, resulting in less accumulation under its stem, thereby facilitating goat feeding on the growing fern beneath, according to Hjeljord. I have observed deer feeding in similar sites, sometimes pawing through 12 to 18 inches of snow to feed on the fern. Hjeljord reported that the plant is rich in nitrogen-free extract.

The windblown capes and bluffs at the mouth of bays and along ocean entrances are favored wintering areas through the Kodiak Archipelago. Scattered heath patches are found near sea level in these areas and deer forage heavily on crowberry, low cranberry and bearberry. On some ranges these heath knolls are noticeably denuded by deer browsing. Cottonwood, birch, and scattered spruce pathces, dense alder thickets along steep draws provide cover.

Red-berried elder is one of the most heavily used browse species on most of Kodiak. The elder grows abundantly in association with the ubiquitous alder thickets. Deer strip the bark from the larger stems and take tops of the smaller stems. Highbush cranberry is a highly preferred species, often occurring as widely dispersed single plants. This species is severely browsed on northeastern Kodiak where deer have been present longest. The plant is much more abundant on the west side of Kodiak, often forming small thickets. A local resident reported that the cranberry crop in the Uganik Bay area noticeably declined after deer occupied the area. The plant may be a good indicator of the intensity of deer range utilization.

Afognak’s deer undoubtedly use many of the same food plants used on Kodiak as the meadows and forest openings contain some of the same species. Blueberry is fairly abundant in spruce habitat and receives heaviest use under mature spruce forest adja cent to capes. Only light overall use of blueberry in the Afognak Island area is apparent, but deer populations have been low until recently and it may be a much more important browse species than is indicated. Afognak generally has deeper and more

190

persistent snow than most of Kodiak and deer do use beach timber fringes during severe winters. During many winters, however, rains and warmer temperatures prevent heavy snow accumulations. When heavy snows do occur, the coastal timber becomes critical for providing deer with cover and food.

Natuwwa.0 mo/vta Côty–Overwinter mortality is assessed each spring by searching predetermined sections of coastal winter ranges much as Klein [1956] described for black-tailed deer in southeast Alaska. Deer are not forced onto the beaches in most of the grass-brush habitat of Kodiak, as occurs in the coastal forest areas of South eastern Alaska and Prince William Sound. Snow depths comparable to those of south eastern Alaska are seldom recorded on Kodiak. Deer generally range over a broader band of coastal winter range and frequently move up and down, elevationally, with changing snow conditions. While some deer may die close to the beach during heavy snow periods, others move away when rapid snowmelt occurs, subsequently dying some distance from the beach where they are less likely to be found during the spring searches.

The highest mortality recorded for Kodiak was 1.3 deer per mile after the severe 1970-1971 winter. The population was at a low then and much greater mortality probably would have been recorded with a higher population. Winter mortality on Kodiak, as indicated by searching beach transects, does not appear to be as extensive as in much of southeastern Alaska. Less severe winter conditions, wider elevational disperal of deer in winter ranges, and better quality winter range with a shorter history of occu pation by deer may explain the relatively high survival of Kodiak’s deer populations. With the lush herbaceous growth available on the summer range, deer may enter most winters with good fat reserves. It is not unusual to find significant backfat on mature bucks in late December, well after the rut. In northeastern Kodiak Island, with the longest history of occupancy by deer populations, some starvation losses occur during most winters, indicating that winter range is overutilized and much below its former carrying capacity. Some fawns are rather quickly lost to starvation when snow is deep enough to significantly hamper their movements.

Accidents account for minor losses of deer. Most occur during the winter when trails along cliffs become icy. Drowning accounts for a few deer who venture onto soft ice in lakes and protected bays or are injured and trapped by tides.

Predation and chasing by dogs accounts for an undertermined number of deer mortalities. Packs of free-roaming dogs are especially common near the town of Kodiak and other areas of human settlement. Deer frequently attempt to escape pursuit by swimming. Two adult deer were rescued from Women’s Bay during the 1973–1974 winter after being chased by dogs. One was released, apparently in good condition after being dried and confined overnight. The other deer died of apparent exhaustion within a few minutes after rescue. Examination of femur marrow indicated that this deer, a buck estimated at 6 years of age, was in good condition. Another dead buck, cornered against a corral, showed severe hemorrhage from dog bites in the hindquarters but apparently died of exhaustion. Most deer-dog incidents occur when snowfall brings deer to low elevations.

Although brown bear sometimes feed on deer carcasses, there are no recorded inci dents of brown bear predation on deer in the Kodiak area. Given the opportunistic nature of brown bear, predation on deer undoubtedly occurs, but is not a significant limiting factor on deer populations.

The magnitude of winter mortality in Prince William Sound is difficult to determine. Snow depth at the high tide line during a severe winter may be 4 to 6 feet. Deer that are weak often die on the beach and are gradually carried off by the next series of high tides.

Predation is not a significant problem to Prince William Sound deer. The majority of deer are found on the larger Prince William Sound islands which have no wolves or coyotes. Brown bear is the only large predator on Hinchinbrook and Montague Islands but is usually in hibernation during the critical winter months. A few coyotes are present along the mainland in deer country (Gravina Point to Rude River) and probably take their toll of deer during periods of deep snow. A few deer are present near the town of Cordova. They fall easy prey to dogs and coyotes when snow depth restricts their mobility.

Disease has never been a problem to Prince William Sound deer. In fact, they are probably the most disease and parasite-free big game species in Alaska. Occasionally a deer with “warts” will be taken by hunters. These probably are fibromas or papillas –usually benign tumors. Only 3 to 4 cases have been reported in the past 9 years.

Manuvºt — Deer management in Prince William Sound has been largely a matter of maintaining liberal seasons and bag limits, and letting the hunters harvest what they could. The deer season has only been altered twice since 1964. In January, 1967 the season was extended by 2 weeks (with an increased bag limit of 2 deer of either sex) because large numbers of deer were concentrated on the beaches. In 1973, the season was closed 2 weeks early by emergency order because of the large harvest that had occurred with a relatively small deer population.

According to the “Alaska Wildlife Management Plans” [Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1976], which have not formally been approved by the Board of Game, the Prince William Sound deer management qoal is “to provide the qreatest opportunity to participate in hunting deer.” The opportunity to participate is deemed more impor tant than success or quality of the hunt.

The management philosophy at present is to maintain the liberal season and bag limits because hunting has little effect upon the deer population. The season will be closed by emergency order only when a small deer population exists coupled with a potentially excessive harvest. Rather than harvest all the animals that might die of starvation, their fate will be dependent upon a warm trend occurring in mid-winter. If the deer population is “high,” the season will remain open reqardless of the magni tude of the harvest. Prince William Sound deer rande will never support a large deer population except following a series of mild winters, so with a high deer population the hunters might as well harvest all they can.

Except in extreme cases, hunting has little effect upon the status of Prince William Sound deer populations. Winter snow denth and duration are the controlling factors. Preservation of the habitat is the best management possible at present.

Summatiº ºf Cºcº us tºns

Prºbe ºns–The most critical problem facing deer management in Prince William Sound is maintaining their winter range, namely preserving the climax forest within 1/4 mile of the beach. In southeast Alaska, it has been estimated that a clearcut will take at least 200 years for a new forest to reach the climax stage where forage is again available to deer [Schoen, 1977]. Once the climax forest along the beach fringe is clearcut it is essentially lost as deer habitat forever. In the past,

182

little conflict between logging and deer habitat has occurred in Prince William Sound because the timber sales were small and not in critical deer habitat. In addition, the Forest Service has been fairly responsive to Alaska Department of Fish and Game suggestions. Native selection of lands for timber resources in eastern Prince William Sound could result in a loss of deer haibtat. Also, native and D-2 land selections could force the U.S. Forest Service into selecting deer habitat for future timber sales.

Another potential problem is oil contamination of kelp on critical winter beaches. If an oil spill should occur dring a critical period when deer are subsisting on kelp, it could be detrimental, perhaps fatal if they are in a very weak condition. A pos sible solution might be to have the oil company responsible feed the animals until the oil can be cleaned off the beaches.

Predation could also pose a threat to Prince William Sound deer. Wolves were not common residents of the Copper River Delta until recently. The introduction of moose to the Delta during the 1950s and their rapid increase in numbers and distribution, coupled with existing goat populations, has provided a food base. If wolves should become established in Prince William Sound on the major deer islands, they would dras tically affect deer abundance. Deer would be extremely vulnerable to wolf predation in most winters because of the very narrow and limited winter range.

The ſutujue– future of deer in Prince William Sound is neither good nor bad. Deer have existed in the Prince William Sound region for over 60 years. They have dispersed throughout the South and occupy all suitable habitat. Thus, it is a “stable,” established population that is likely to be around for a good many years if their habitat is protected.

Hunters must be made aware of the limited winter range and that Prince William Sound deer abundance will fluctuate considerably with the severity of future winters. It is not a realistic possibility to improve the forage along the beach fringe, nor is it economically feasible for the State to feed deer during the winter months as is done in Some West Coast states.

A baseline study of deer dependency upon the beach and beach fringe timber, as influenced by snow depth and duration, would be extremely beneficial in better under standing and anticipating population fluctuations. At present, the future of Prince William Sound deer rests in maintaining the climax forest along the beach fringe.

The inability to harvest Kodiak’s deer populations at a level sufficient to affect their rapid growth is the major management problem. It is unlikely that enough hunting pressure will develop to exert controls on Unit 8 deer herds within the fore seeable future. Most of the available habitat is now occupied by deer, and high popu lations are present even in the most recently-occupied areas on western Kodiak and Afognak Islands. Deer numbers may be nearing an all-time peak in Unit 8. While much of the recently-occupied range on western Kodiak appears to offer better food plant diversity and abundance than found in northern Kodiak and Afognak, continued high pop ulations will inevitably deplete the low coastal winter range. The population will then fluctuate with the severity of winters. A continuing series of mild, snow-free winters will accelerate the depletion of recently-occupied ranges. The decline of deer in northeastern Kodiak Island from early 1960s levels provides a good basis for this prediction.

Management will continue to be directed at maximizing harvest and recreational hunting opportunity. Even when deer populations are at low levels it is doubtful that hunting will become a limiting factor over most of the Kodiak area. The dense vegetation, severe weather and difficulty of access will enforce the law of diminish ing returns.

193

a hunter to spend up to a week Waiting in Kodiak for suitable flying or boating weather. Usually deer become more accessible later in the season as they move down into winter ranges. Sometimes significant snowfall does not occur during the season and deer remain widely dispersed.

During 1977, the estimated harvest, based on a telephone survey of 9 percent of the Kodiak hunting license purchasers, was 1,868 deer. This was the highest harvest since 1974, but represents a minimum estimate. Nine hundred fifty-seven hunters were estimated to have pursued deer. The telephone survey does not sample residents of outlying villages, hunters under 16 years old, hunters without licenses, or hunters who purchase licenses somewhere other than Kodiak. Analysis of 1975 harvest report returns indicated that 18 percent of the kill was taken by residents of other areas of Alaska. The harvest is probably at least 30 percent greater than that estimated from telephone hunter interviews. Using the 30 percent correction, the 1977 harvest was about 2,500 deer. Deer hunting pressure by residents of other areas of Alaska appears to be increasing with recent restrictions in seasons for moose and caribou.

Deer hunting in Unit 8 is both a recreational and food-gathering pursuit for most hunters. Although venison is highly valued for food, most hunters have either perma ment or seasonal employment and are not dependent on deer for food. Some families With more than l hunter do, however, fill much of their red meat demand with Venison. Some residents of outlying areas and villages hunt deer all year and probably depend fairly heavily on venison for food, thus freeing their cash for other needs. Approxi mately 75 percent of the hunters interviewed in 1977 took more than 1 deer, further indicating the desirability of venison for food. At 40 pounds of meat per deer and a harvest of 2,500 deer, the 1977 harvest represents 100,000 pounds of venison.

The fact that 60–70 percent of the deer reported taken are males indicates trophy selection is common. In the 1971 edition of Records of Alaska Big Game, 26 of 35 (74 percent) deer listed were killed on Kodiak. One Kodiak sport shop sponsors a highly popular “big buck” contest. It is rumored that a few local hunters far exceed the bag limit each year seeking large trophy antlers.

Summavuſ and Concºuš Čons

The inability to harvest Kodiak’s deer populations at a level sufficient to affect their rapid growth is the major management problem. It is unlikely that enough hunting pressure will develop to exert controls on Unit 8 deer herds within the fore seeable future. Most of the available habitat is now occupied by deer, and high popu lations are present even in the most recently-occupied areas on western Kodiak and Afognak Islands. Deer numbers may be nearing an all-time peak in Unit 8. While much of the recently-occupied range on western Kodiak appears to offer better food plant diversity and abundance than found in northern Kodiak and Afognak, continued high pop ulations will inevitably deplete the low coastal winter range. The population will then fluctuate with the severity of winters. A continuing series of mild, snow-free winters will accelerate the depletion of recently-occupied ranges. The decline of deer in northeastern Kodiak Island from early 1960s levels provides a good basis for this prediction.

Management will continue to be directed at maximizing harvest and recreational hunting opportunity. Even when deer populations are at low levels it is doubtful that hunting will become a limiting factor over most of the Kodiak area. The dense vegetation, severe weather and difficulty of access will enforce the law of diminish ing returns.

193

In the most northeastern corner of Kodiak Island about 100 miles of roads provide relative easy accessibility. Continued closure of hunting during November and December, when deer move closer to the road system, should prevent overharvest. However, management emphasis there will be on providing maximum opportunity to hunt while minimizing harvest. Less than 10 percent of the annual harvest is taken there, although about half the hunters interviewed reported hunting 1 or more days in this area during the 1973 season. Illegal harvest and predation by dogs is potentially limiting when added to legal harvest. Competition with cattle for browse and increas ing human settlement in this area will continue to diminish habitat.

Approximately half the coastline of Kodiak and Afognak Island will ultimately be deeded to Native village corporations under terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settle ment Act. Some restrictions on access for hunting on these lands may be imposed, but will probably have little impact on deer hunting. Possible development of recreational cabins or other facilities may even benefit hunters. The impact of this change in land ownership on deer habitat will probably be minimal on Kodiak Island. Native corpor ations will receive title to much of the commercial forest lands in northeastern Kodiak, Afogank and adjacent forested islands. An accelerated logging program with extensive clearcuts could be detrimental to deer. Much of the area of the current U.S. Forest Service administered Perenosa Bay timber sale on Afognak will ultimately become Native corporation lands. Afognak has little previous history of logging and deer/habitat relationships are little researched. Additional research on plant suc cession in clearcuts, as well as seasonal food habits and habitat use by deer, is needed.

The introduction of Sitka black-tailed deer into the Kodiak Archipelago was one of the most successful transplants of big game animals done in Alaska. The full poten tial of recreational hunting for Kodiak’s blacktails has yet to be realized. As hunt ing pressure increases in Alaska and keener competition for opportunity to hunt main land species, such as moose and caribou, develops, more and more hunters will brave the vagaries of Kodiak’s weather to pursue the mossy-backed blacktail.

Woodland Caribou Restoration at Isle Royale National Park: A Feasibility Study (Google Books)

Why Did Caribou
Disappear From Isle
Royale?

In this section, I outline and critique six hypotheses for why caribou disappeared from the park: migration, disease, competition with moose, predation, overhunting, and fires. This analysis is based on the detailed history of Isle Royale caribou presented in Appendix C.

immigration may even have been essential to the long-term persistence of Isle Royale’s relatively small herd of at most a few hundred animals. Immigrants would have prevented inbreeding depression and replenished the herd after “bottlenecks” or catastrophic declines, which are common in small populations (Gilpin and Soule 1986). Thus, Isle Royale supported a resident caribou herd, but over time this herd may have been dependent on a flow of animals from the mainland. Severing this flow could have contributed to the demise of the island’s remnant herd.

Migration

The coincident timing of the caribou’s disappearance from Isle Royale with the decline of caribou herds on the adjacent mainland has fostered a theory that these mobile animals may have been seasonal migrants to the island archipelago (Stoll 1924b, Mech 1966, Martin 1988). Yet caribou were clearly year-round residents on Isle Royale because they were documented there during summer as well as winter and spring. Lake Superior freezes infrequently between Isle Royale and the mainland and regular migration by swimming such a wide channel would be unlikely. Further, the environment on Isle Royale was probably suitable for caribou, providing no apparent impetus for a risky migration to potentially less favorable calving grounds on the mainland.

Yet the Isle Royale herd was not isolated. Caribou are well adapted for travel on ice and they were observed on the lake ice between Isle Royale and both Minnesota and Ontario (Figure 7; Appendix C). Periodic

Disease

Martin (1988) suggested that migrants may have carried meningeal brainworm or other diseases to Isle Royale caribou, but we have no evidence for this hypothesis. The gradual decline of the island’s caribou does not describe a population suddenly

[ocr errors]
[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors]
Figure 7. Woodland caribou crossing a frozen lake. Woodland caribou will cross large lakes over the ice, and a number of historical accounts indicate that caribou crossed the area between Isle Royale and the adjacent Ontario mainland. Photograph: H.R. Timmermann, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

exposed to a fatal parasite. White-tailed deer have not immigrated to Isle Royale, but they were introduced in 1910 by a Michigan state game warden (Wood and Dice 1924 in Martin 1988). Summer resident Frank Warren (1926, 1929) reported that seven or nine animals were released and individuals or tracks were sighted as late as 1925. The Michigan State Game Commission’s reports that the herd “increased wonderfully” (Detroit News editorial, 3 December 1921) were refuted by others. For example, island visitor and journalist W.P.F. Ferguson (1922a) wrote in a letter to Albert Stoll, Jr.: “The [game commission’s] estimate concerning the deer on the island is erroneous. Lively, the game warden, tells me that he has seen only two or three. They cannot live with the [brush] wolves [meaning coyotes].”

initial irruption of the moose herd on Isle Royale, is that moose overbrowsing eliminated winter food for caribou (Peterson 1977, Martin 1988). Krefting (1974) summarized the history of moose on Isle Royale. Moose arrived by swimming or crossing the ice around 1905, possibly earlier, having become common on the north shore by the 1890s. A solid ice bridge in the winter of 1912-13 was a likely source of more immigrants. By 1915, the population was well established at 250-300 animals and numbers increased steadily thereafter. Krefting (1974) believed the best estimates for the moose population were 1,000 in 1921-22, 2,000 in 192526, and from 2,000 to 5,000 by 1930. The inevitable die-off began in 1933; moose numbers bottomed out at a reported 200 by 1935 (Krefting 1974).

In 1916-17, W.H. Foster (1917), a warden, estimated that only 20 deer persisted on Isle Royale. Warren (1929) wrote to Albert Stoll, Jr., that coyotes had killed all the deer by 1929, a claim Dr. Frank Oastler (1929) supported after his survey of Isle Royale for the National Park Service. However, residents such as fisherman Ed Holte (Holte and Holte 1965) recalled seeing deer at a salt lick at Pickerel Cove in the early 1930s and that three deer were on Amygdaloid Island during the 1936 fire.

Deer were not reported after 1936 and never approached the density of 0.4/km2 reportedly required for meningeal brainworm transmission to caribou populations (Karns and Lindquist 1986). Also, brainworm disease symptoms have never been reported in Isle Royale moose, including during the 1930s moose die-off. A report on meningeal brainworm larvae collected from Isle Royale moose feces (Karns and Jordan 1969) was subsequently refuted as an error (Lankester and Hauta 1989).

Competition with Moose

Another possible explanation for the caribou’s disappearance from Isle Royale, based on the coincident timing of caribou extirpation with the

The impact of moose browsing on the food supplies of Isle Royale caribou is difficult to surmise. In 1917, warden Foster (1917) reported that “lichens, which festoon the swamp trees profusely, are.. .[the moose’s] principal diet.” He said the caribou were also “lichen and moss eaters,” and “edible lichens and tree mosses are abundant.” When refuting the high game animal estimates published in the Detroit News, Frank Warren (1924) wrote:

It is my best judgement and belief that the numbers of moose and caribou have been grossly overstated [e.g., by Albert Stoll, Jr.]. It will be many years before they crowd each other for feed (largely browse) except in their favorite places. There are many thousands of acres which I have seen where there are hardly any moose sign, where young poplars and birch abound.

At the time the last caribou were sighted on Isle Royale in 1928, moose density may have reached 4/ km2. By 1930, Murie (1934) recorded overbrowsing on all of the important moose winter foods, such as balsam fir, quaking aspen, paper birch, and American mountain ash (Sorbus americana). However, moose and their impacts were concentrated toward the west end of Isle Royale (Krefting 1974). While living on the east end of Isle Royale, Warren (1929) did not see signs of moose browse on balsam fir

until 1927 and in 1929, claimed overbrowsing was

still localized.

By this time, Canada yew (Taxus canadensis), a primary winter food for caribou as well as moose, had been reduced from understory dominance to virtual absence on the main island (Murie 1934, Janke et al. 1978). Yet yew was still abundant on offshore islands, including Mott Island and Wright Island, as late as 1931 (Krefting 1974). A 1930 photograph of the “Desor Trail” in Albert Stoll, Jr.’s, collection shows a forest festooned with arboreal lichens (Alectoria and Usnea spp.). The condition of other caribou winter browse, such as ericaceous shrubs and ground lichens (Cladonia spp.), was not documented.

In summary, while the absolute abundance of caribou foods was diminished by the late 1920s, starvation is still an improbable explanation for the caribou’s demise on Isle Royale. Competition with moose cannot have been the sole nemesis of Isle Royale’s caribou because

1. caribou began to decline before moose were abundant (numbering as few as 30 when moose numbered only 250-300);

2. moose do not eat all of the plants that caribou can consume (e.g., ground lichens);

3. prime winter caribou browse was still available on offshore islands and, to a lesser extent, inland when caribou disappeared;

4. browse was still sufficient for moose numbers to increase or be sustained for about five years after caribou disappeared;

5. caribou are highly resilient to winter food shortages (A.T. Bergerud, pers. comm.).

Corroboration for this conclusion comes from the Slate Islands where caribou have survived for decades on minimal winter browse supplies— principally windthrown arboreal lichens (A.T.

Bergerud, pers. comm.). Also, caribou can maintain

normal fertility rates despite range depletion (Bergerud 1980, 1983). Reindeer introduced to islands have increased to densities over 12/km2 before starving, without an appreciable reduction in annual productivity (Klein 1968).

Predation

Moose and disease were not the only potential threats arriving from the mainland in the period of great regional faunal change after 1900. Coyotes also arrived on Isle Royale, at least by 1912 and possibly by 1906 (Krefting 1969). By 1916-17, trappers were able to capture 60 “brush wolves,” leaving 12 or more (Foster 1917). Krefting (1969) cited reports of increasing coyotes from 1918 to 1925, despite trapping by fishermen and state game wardens.

Coyotes can be effective predators on caribou calves. For instance, newly immigrated coyotes, in conjunction with black bears (Ursus americanus), have been implicated for the recent population decline of the isolated Gaspe Peninsula caribou herd in Quebec (E. Mercer, pers. comm.).

Isle Royale residents blamed coyotes for whitetailed deer failing to survive and even the dearth of moose calves in the park in the late 1920s (Ferguson 1922c, Warren 1929). Michigan Conservation Department official Hugh E. Green visited Isle Royale in 1928 “in the interest of improving game conditions in Isle Royale, as it had been reported that coyotes are becoming so numerous they threaten other wildlife” (Anonymous 1928). Predator control programs were common in this era and were apparent by the series of game wardens (trappers) that were placed on Isle Royale after 1916.

At the same time coyotes were colonizing Isle Royale, lynx were still commonly seen (Martin 1988). For example, Foster (1917) reported 67 lynx captured in 1916-17, and fisherman such as Milford Johnson (1965) recalled that lynx were common and trapped occasionally in the decades before 1930. During periodic snowshoe hare population crashes, Isle Royale lynx may have been heavily reliant on caribou calves for alternate prey. Bergerud (1971) has demonstrated that lynx can control caribou herd recruitment during these phases.

Fisherman Pete Edisen (Edisen and

Edisen 1965) raised the possibility of

a third caribou predator. Pete recalled

that most of the island residents

owned dogs, an observation borne out

in numerous photographs. These dogs

bred with the “brush wolves” and ran

in packs (ibid). Feral dogs can be

efficient hunters. If they were roaming Isle Royale

as Pete suggested, they could have contributed to

the caribou herd’s predation problems.

Overhunting

None of the 20th-century invaders mentioned earlier—the hypothetical competitor, disease, or predators—explains why caribou numbers were apparently so low on Isle Royale in the 19th century. In North American boreal forests, caribou densities average 0.3-0.4/km2 in association with natural predator numbers and scarce alternate prey (Bergerud 1980, 1983, pers. comm.). Covering 544 km2, providing ample food supplies, and having only lynx for a predator, Isle Royale should have supported at least an average density of caribou in the 19th century—or 200 animals. Stoll’s (1926) population estimates for pre-1920, 200-400 animals, exceeded this average boreal density. Other observers may have underestimated the number of these reclusive animals on Isle Royale, a common bias for estimates of dispersed animals in forested habitats (Hickie n.d.). In contrast, the evidence points to low caribou numbers on Isle Royale before 1900, specifically 1840-90.

[graphic]
Figure 8. Caribou hunters on the north shore of Lake Superior in 1925 or 1926. Photograph: O. Anderson, courtesy of H.R. Timmermann, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

These 19th-century dates coincide with a period of overhunting in the Lake Superior region, from the end of the fur trade through the peak of EuroAmerican settlement. Native American hunters would certainly have been drawn to Isle Royale when game was depleted elsewhere by the 1830s, especially given their tradition of visiting the island and Isle Royale’s reputation for abundant game. Later in the 19th century, miners and fishermen would have been both well armed and typically short of red meat, with plenty of time in the winter to shoot caribou (Figure 8). Thus, despite finding few documented records, I conclude that caribou were probably hunted regularly on Isle Royale before 1900. Elsewhere, annual hunting mortality as low as 5% of a population has initiated caribou population declines (Bergerud 1980).

Fires

The extensive forest fires ignited by mineral explorers periodically between 1850 and the 1890s altered forest composition and successional stages on Isle Royale (Hansen et al. 1973, Janke et al. 1978). By reducing lichen biomass, fires can reduce habitat suitability for caribou for many years (Bergerud 1978, Abraham et al. 1990, Schaeffer and Pruitt

1991). In the long run, fires in mature conifer forests should benefit caribou by restoring ground lichen biomass (ibid). In habitats where caribou are not dependent on lichens for winter browse, the negative effects of fire may be minimal. Thus, fire may be a partial but secondary explanation, along with overhunting, for the caribou’s decline on Isle Royale after 1840.

Summary

In terms of conservation biology, overhunting and perhaps fires in the 19th century most likely began an “extinction vortex” (Gilpin and Soule 1986) for Isle Royale’s caribou by reducing their numbers below a critical minimum level. The subsequent disappearance of caribou on the adjoining mainland shores broke a link to continental populations, assuring this remnant herd’s isolation. An isolated herd of less than 50 animals could have vanished over time merely by chance demographic events, such as a series of years with poor recruitment, or from a random catastrophe, such as most of the animals wandering off toward Canada on thin ice.

I speculate that if numbers were actually as low as 30, as game warden Foster (1917) estimated in 1917, then the most likely cause of the caribou’s final disappearance from Isle Royale was coyote and lynx predation. However, if numbers were still as high as 200-300 just before 1920, as Stoll (1926) suggested, then caribou were more likely to have suffered from direct competition with moose in addition to increasing predation. In any case, reduced food supplies could have exacerbated the downward population vortex by reducing individual fitness.

In conclusion, humans contributed to extirpating Isle Royale’s caribou both directly and indirectly. Native American and Euro-American hunting reduced caribou numbers, perhaps greatly, in the 19th century. Extensive, human-caused forest fires may also have reduced Isle Royale’s carrying capacity for caribou for some time. Overhunting

and forest clearing on the mainland removed caribou from the adjacent shore and isolated the Isle Royale herd. By creating early successional habitats on the mainland, settlers also facilitated moose and coyote immigration to Isle Royale. Once on Isle Royale, moose and coyotes benefited from the expanse of early successional habitat created by miner’s fires, at the expense of caribou. Thus, numerous, seemingly “natural” events—range expansions, disease, and predator responses—were played out on a landscape that human activity had greatly altered.

 

 

 

Endangered Waterbird and Wetland Status, Kaloko-Honokohau National … (Google Books)

PREDATOR CONTROL

The two trap-and-release small mammal density grids (one done in the vegetation behind Kaloko Fishpond and one done behind ‘Aimakapa Fishpond) indicated that there were large, mobile populations of mongooses in KAHO (Morin pers. comm.). Trapping around ‘Aimakapa Fishpond indicated that as mongooses were removed, others expanded their ranges or migrated in to fill the vacated territories. The fact that no endangered Stilt chicks were known to fledge in 1992 prior to predator control, and that Stilts fledged in 1993 and 1994 during predator control, indicates that removal of mongooses and cats has a beneficial effect on Stilt chick survival and recruitment.

lt is not appropriate to use pesticides which cause delayed predator mortality in wetlands like ‘Aimakapa. Dead carcasses of predators that have died at unknown sites in the wetland can trigger waterbird botulism outbreaks. Live trapping, euthanasia, and appropriate carcass disposal (ideally incineration, or covered disposal at legal animal carcass disposal sites) away from the wetland should be the technique of choice.

Although rats were not specifically targeted during predator control, their presence in the traps indicates that the effects of rat predation on Stilt and Coot recruitment should be investigated.

Cats and dogs, both feral and pets, are present at KAHO and create an on-going waterbird predation and harassment problem. Proximity to Honokohau Harbor increases the presence of cats and dogs in the Park, and almost certainly provides an abundant food source (via trash) for maintaining mongoose and rat populations.

Two groups of possible predators need continued surveillance and future study: fish and other waterbirds. The large fish present in ‘Aimakapa Fishpond are suspected to be predators on Coot chicks (Morin pers. obs.). lt is also possible that reported large fish in Kaloko Fishpond limit waterbird use there. The native Black-crowned Night-Heron and the non-native Cattle Egret have both been implicated elsewhere as predators on waterbird chicks, and hence their populations and activities in or near KAHO should be carefully monitored. The recent rapid expansion of Black-crowned Night-Herons at the Sewage plant just south of Honokohau Harbor is a situation that warrants future study; population control for ‘Auku’u and/or Cattle Egrets, or actively hazing them away from endangered waterbird breeding sites at ‘Aimakapa, may need to be initiated someday.

One feral pig (approx. 100 lbs) was removed from the wetlands surrounding ‘Aimakapa Fishpond. lt left considerable sign (rooting damage, footprints, and feces) for an extended period before it was successfully removed. ln 1994 and 1995, other piglet footprints were seen in the coastal strand vegetation near the permittee’s houses, which have since been removed. lt is unclear what the source of those pig(s) was and whether they are still present.

The Mafiosi of the Animal World

When it comes to the possibility of dog predation and dogs as invasive species, people might not get this immediately or rather refuse to as to not allow their beliefs be challenged. I guess the best comparison of stray dogs is to mafiosi, as odd as it sounds it does make sense on some level. Mafiosi as originally defined were people wary of central authority, dogs are often wary of strangers and intruders.

The mafie were groups that developed their own system of retribution, often done in secret though it can be said dogs do hunt and kill animals however sometimes in secret and some dogs are this secretive. Mafiosi extort money from landowners, some stray dogs extort food from humans. The word mafia supposedly came from the word for ‘loyal protector’ just as dogs are loyal protectors.

The Catholic Church, at some point, relied on the Mafia to monitor Sicily property belongings maybe logically dogs (and cats) were at some point or another not just relied on for protection but also had saints associated with them. It’s actually not strange for some Christian monasteries to have guard dogs, most notably New Skete and St Bernard (though again cats might be regarded similarly in here).

Sicilian gangs would eventually create initiation ceremonies which members pledge loyalty, dogs do get initiated into their packs and households and pledge loyalty to them too. If any attempts at curbing mafia gang was ineffective, any attempts at curbing stray dogs and cats can also be ineffective (at times).

Mafie often risk running foul of police authority, so it can be said cats and dogs risk running foul of hunters and the like (that’s even so in Germany). Some of it’s not always precise but direct enough to warrant comparisons, even for all its shortcomings.

Predatory Animals: Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, First Session… (Google Books)

STATEMENT OF DR. MAURICE SHELTON, TEXAS SHEEP AND GOAT RAISERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Shelton. Mr. Chairman, my name is Maurice Shelton and I reside at 2939 Cumberland Drive, San Angelo, Texas.1

I am an employee of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, a branch of Texas A&M University, presently located at the San Angelo Research and Extension Center, San Angelo, Texas.

I have been asked by the Texas Sheep and Goat Kaisers Association to appear before this committee and to discuss the problem of predator losses to the livestock industry in Texas.

The continued existence of a sheep and goat industry in Texas and most of the Southwest is being threatened by a very serious problem of coyote predation. Unless there is some reversal of the present trend, these industries will not survive as viable range livestock industries. This problem has become very critical in recent years due to a rapid buildup in coyote numbers and an extension of their range along with restrictions recently placed on control programs.

The sheep and goat industries are important in this area not only because they provide a source of income and a way of life for many people but also because of a beneficial effect on the ecology of the area through utilization of the range resources by mixed species of livestock.

The products of the sheep and goat industry are important items in international trade, Most of the mohair produced by the Angora goat is exported. Lamb and wool needs not provided by our domestic industry are imported.

1 The. author is a Professor, Texas A&M University, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, San Angelo Research and Extension Center, San Angelo, Texas. The (lata and observations on which these comments are based were taken in connection with the author’s official duties with Texas A&M University; but where opinions are expressed, they should be interpreted as those of the author and they do not necessarily carry the endorsement of Texas A&M University.

In this area sheep and goats graze yearlong on fenced privately owned ranches in continuous contact with any coyote population which is present. Predation is the nature of the coyote, and the killing of domestic sheep does not present a serious challenge. Thus he has an unlimited food supply so long as sheep are present on the range he occupies.

This situation differs from much of the Northwest where sheep occupy a given range for only a portion of the year. Confinement of the flock as often practiced by farm producers is not a feasible alternative for Texas range producers. The significance of the problem in this State is apparent when it is recognized that approximately 25 percent of the Nation’s sheep and 95 percent of the Nation’s goats, Angora and meat type goats, are found in Texas.

Many readers are likely to require proof that predation is the serious problem as previously alleged. Losses are difficult to document because coyote predation almost always occurs at night, and the coyote is sufficiently sensitive to man’s presence that the actual killing is only very rarely observed.

For this reason skeptics who find it to their advantage to do so are likety to question any data which are presented.

However, producers who have experienced these losses have no difficulty ascertaining the source of loss, and their estimates of predator losses should not be discredited.

To fully appreciate the problem in the State of Texas, one must be somewhat familiar with the sheep and goat industries in this State. The majority of the sheep and goats in Texas are found in an area referred to as the Edwards Plateau in West Central Texas.

In the past, smaller numbers extended out into adjacent areas. The Edwards Plateau has been largely free of coyotes for over 50 years. This was due to the fact that they were removed from this area as the sheep industry was initially established.

Coyotes or red wolves or other predators were always found in limited numbers on the periphery of this region, but they were kept in check by available control practices.

However, beginning in the mid-60’s, the predator population and more especially the numbers of coyote or crosses of the coyote and the red wolf began to expand rapidly.

The reasons for this are probably complex, and no effort will be made in the present discussion to explain this phenomenon.

Even with the available control techniques sheep losses to predators began to increase, and with recent restrictions on control techniques the industry is losing complete control of the situation.

As predator losses force sheep and goat producers on the periphery of the Edwards Plateau to go out of business, the area in which sheep can be produced becomes progressively smaller. Without some reversal of this situation the industry will become non-existent in a few years.

As public officials or leaders of the industry, we simply cannot permit this to happen without a determined effort to prevent it.

Texas A&M University maintained a research flock of sheep and goats in the peripheral area referred to above, McGregor, Texas, from 1948 until 1971. The author was responsible for this research program from 1957 until work was terminated at this location in 1971. From 1948 until 1965 no losses to coyotes or related wild canines were sustained at this location.

However, from 1965 to 1971 heavy losses were incurred despite intense control efforts to prevent these losses. In the five-year period,. 1967 through 1971, 290 head of sheep and 93 head of goats are known to have been killed by coyotes, and this is a substantial underestimate of the total since losses from undetermined causes are not included in this number.

During this period of time efforts directed toward preventing coyote predation began to overshadow the time spent in research. The extent of these losses are tabulated in an attachment to this report, see Shelton, National Wool Grower, Volume 62, page 20.

The coyote predation problem was the main reason that sheep and goat research was terminated at the McGregor location in 1971 and moved to a more central location in the Edwards Plateau.

I have in my own experience in dealing with these, we have never knowingly had a coyote occupy the same range used during the lambing and kidding season without becoming a predator.

As additional evidence of the seriousness of coyote predation, an attempt has been made to study the relative density of coyotes and sheep and goats. Estimates of coyote density and sheep and goat numbers are available for 117 counties in Texas. There is a highly significantly negative correlation between coyote density and both sheep and goat numbers. This relationship is sufficiently high to strongly indicate a cause-and-effect relationship.

Also in 1971 and 1972 the Statistical Reporting Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted surveys of large numbers of producers in this State to determine the extent of losses to predatory animals. These estimates indicated 34 percent of the adult sheep losses and over 50 percent of the lamb losses as being due to predators.

Since the losses to predators in the central core of the Edwards Plateau are minimal, most of these losses were incurred by those producers located on the periphery, and it can be documented that these producers are terminating their operations for this reason.

Although the sheep and goat industry carries the major burden of the coyote problem, other species are affected as well; and the controversy over predator control programs will remain even if or after the sheep and goat industry is gone.

Experimental cow herds maintained by Texas A&M University in areas populated by coyotes have experienced loss of calves to this predator.

Commercial producers have had the same experience. In any given herd the percentage of calf loss is small, but this loss is important when the total area involved is considered.

Also this loss is likely to become more important with the rapidly expanding coyote population. It has long been impossible to maintain unconfined poultry flocks in areas frequented by coyotes. Coyotes also prey heavily on many game species of interest to man. It has been reported that in one study area in South Texas 72 percent of the whitetailed deer fawns died in the first 60 days after birth. Coyote predation was indicated as the cause of 53 percent of these losses and as a possible factor in an additional 22 percent—see Cook, White, Trainer and Glazener, Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 35, pages 47-56.

Other studies have indicated coyotes to be a factor in survival of antelope fawns and nesting success in wild turkeys. Thus, a significant coyote population can exist only at the expense of man’s welfare through inroads on domesctic livestock and game species. Coyote densities as great as six per square mile have been indicated to occur in South Texas—see Knowlton, Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol ume 36. pages 369-382.

To those familiar with the range livestock industry of the Southwest, the need for an effective coyote control program or more properly elimination of coyote predation is inescapable. How this is to be accomplished is less explicit. At present, the use of toxicants in some form is the only method likely to have a significant effect on the coyote population.

The idea of identifying and selectively removing individual offending coyotes in areas of significant coyote density is an unrealistic approach.

In the case of sheep and goats, essentially all coyotes become killers after they have gone through a season of lambing or kidding on the range. Many take up the habit of killing adult sheep directly without first starting with the young. Thus, the peaceful co-existence of a range sheep and goat industry and a significant coyote population is a very remote possibility.

Considerable research efforts have been initiated within the past two years to devise non-lethal means of coyote control or of preventing coyote predation. This effort is directed largely at protecting the sheep industry. Conservative estimates indicate a minimum of five years can be expected before useful results can be expected, and there is no assurance that it will be fruitful in any designated period of time.

In the meantime, it is almost mandatory that some means of population suppression be available; and the use of the steel trap which is the only tool presently available will not accomplish this.

One tool known as the M-44 coyote device is reasonably effective and safe and is highly selective for the coyote or related canids.

In the opinion of the writer, this method of control should be made available to the industry for use as needed without restrictions.

The use of other toxicants should be available for use by qualified animal damage control specialists under guidelines established by appropriate State or federal agencies until an opportunity can be provided for research workers to develop workable alternatives.

Mr. Chairman, I have prepared an article for submission to the record, together with my biographical data.

Mr. Dingell. Without objection, the article will appear in the record, along with your biographical data.

[Prepared statement and biographical data follows:]

[Reproduced from “National Wool Grower,” Vol. 62, p. 20, September 1972]
Predator Losses In One Flock Of Sheep And Goats

(Maurice Shelton)1,2

Considerable discussion and controversy have been generated over the predator problem in recent times. One of the difficulties has been the lack of documented

1 Professor. Texas A&M University, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, formerly located at McGregor and currently located at San Angelo.

– The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. J. D. Naler who recorded most of the losses and carried out most of the control measures.

evidence of losses to predators. Complete documentation of losses, even in a single flock, will likely never be obtained. Coyotes, and most other predators, are almost completely nocturnal and are also extremely sensitive to man’s presence. For these reasons observation of anything except an occasional case of predation is out of the question.

From 1948 to 1971 a research flock of sheep and Angora goats was maintained by the Texas Agricultural Experimental Station at McGregor. This station is located on the eastern fringe of the sheep and goat producing area of Texas. From September 1, 1957, to September 1, 1971, this flock was under the direct supervision of the author. During this period an attempt was made to record all death losses and, insofar as possible, the causes of these losses. For the most part the animals were observed and losses recorded on a daily basis. Although daily veterinary assistance was not available, trained field workers were able to diagnose a high percentage of the losses. Frequent causes of losses which could be reasonably accurately diagnosed included mastitis, dystocia, pregnancy disease, fleece worms, screw worms, tetanus, enterotoxemia, freeze losses, founder or overeating of high energy rations, photosensitization, starvation of baby lambs. injury by men or equipment, and losses to predators. In the early years this flock was grazed adjacent to a town of approximately 5,000 people, and town dogs proved to be a serious problem. In 1955 the flock was moved to areas located approximately five miles from town, and the dogs no longer proved to be a problem. However, beginning in the early 1960’s. losses to another predator came into the picture. Initially the animal was called a red wolf, but they were later referred to as coyotes. It is now considered that this animal or the population involved is an admixture of the coyote and red wolf representing various degrees of hybridization between the two. Observation indicates that the population tends more to the red wolf which is normally larger than the coyote. This may explain in part the fact that they readily kill mature sheep or goats; whereas, coyotes- tend to prey much heavier on lambs. The distinction may be largely a matter of semantics. Since the animals have the same chromosome number and readily interbreed, they may simply represent different ecotypes of the same animal.

The skeptic is likely to ask how it is known that coyotes or wolf (coywolf or coy wolves) were the source of the problem instead of dogs. The evidence is circumstantial only; as in eight years of dealing with this problem only one coyote was observed feeding on a freshly killed sheep carcass. However, in the minds of those involved there is no doubt as to the cause of the problem. Listed below is circumstantial evidence indicating coywolves instead of dogs.

1. Coyotes or wolves are almost completely nocturnal; whereas, dogs will sooner or later be found in the flock during daylight hours and can be eliminated.

2. Coyotes (and/or wolves) rapidly become efficient killers and go for the jugular vein; whereas, domestic dogs almost never learn this. Many individual wild predators suck or lick blood only and do not eat the flesh of the sheep. In these cases fang punctures of the jugular vein are the only evidence of predation ; whereas, dogs largely slash and tear.

3. Wild predators seldom kill more than one or two animals at a time and can often do this without seriously disturbing or scattering the flock. By contrast dogs often kill and may mangle many animals in the flock scattering them badly in the process. Coywolves have been observed to kill several animals at a time only when they are challenged. Ordinary domestic sheep often do not represent a challenge. The experimental flock concerned contained at times various crosses of Mouflon and Barbados (wild-type sheep) on the more common breeds. These were often preferentially killed and several would often be taken (at one time 9 head) apparently for the sport of killing.

4. Wolves or coyotes have been repeatedly taken (killed or captured) in areas where predation was occurring. When this happened predation would invariably cease until new predators moved into the area. By analogy dogs were identified as the cause of a problem only three times in eight years, and in each case they were also observed to be active during the daylight hours.

Extent of losses:

In tables 1 and 2 the losses to predators are shown for the five year period (1907 to 1971, inclusive). These losses are shown in actual numbers and also a a function of the total losses and the total flock size. These data indicate that 3.4 and 4.9 percent of the total inventory of sheep and goats, respectivley, were lost to predators annually. Losses to predators represented 36.3 and 40.8 percent

[ocr errors]
of the total losses for the two species. Interpretation of these data in proper perspective requires some additional information. Losses to predators are considerably underestimated. Unless the carcasses were observed early after kill and before vultures arrived on the scene, death due to predation could not be accurately determined. Many lambs, which were simply reported as missing, were actually lost to predators but the carcasses were not observed.