Effectiveness of a Selective Harvest System in Regulating Deer Populations in Ontario

Abstract

Although wildlife management agencies commonly employ sex‐selective harvests to regulate white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations, few studies have documented the effectiveness of these harvests. Using data from 1980 to 1997 for the Algonquin Highlands region of Ontario, Canada, we assessed (1) the ability of wildlife managers to control the size of the antlerless harvest using sex‐selective permits, and (2) the ability of antlerless harvest to control changes in deer density. Antlerless harvest was related only to the number of permits issued when <40% of hunters had antlerless permits; above this threshold, kill was related only to hunter numbers, not the number of antlerless permits. Factors such as deer encounter rates and hunter selectivity or behavior also may influence the size of the kill. Historically, antlerless kill showed little detectable effect on deer population density, which appears to be regulated primarily by density‐dependent factors. This implies that antlerless kill historically occurred at levels too low to depress populations, or that existing data are simply too noisy to allow detection of a kill effect. Either way, the current harvest management system appears to have little ability to regulate deer populations in Ontario. Declining hunter participation and/or increasing deer populations will only decrease the effectiveness of the current sport harvest for management, and wildlife managers may need to look to other means of managing the population.

Harvesting and predation of a sex- and age-structured population

“…Note that the expression of B * here is the same as for the system without predator (7). In general, there is no explicit solution of Equation (39).…”

Understanding Peer Influence in Hunter Harvest Decisions Using Social Network Theory and Analysis

“…State wildlife managers, using traditional management approaches, have struggled to effectively promote sufficient harvest of antlerless deer to control overabundant populations (Brown et al, 2000;Cote et al, 2004;Giles & Findlay, 2004). We present some evidence that peer influence (i.e., egocentric networks) in deer cooperatives affect individual members' doe harvest behaviors.…”

“…Moreover, recreational hunting, as a tool for population control, is constrained by hunters' low demand for antlerless harvest, a decrease in hunter numbers, and declining hunter access (Poudyal, Cho, & Bowker, 2008;Riley et al, 2003;VerCauteren et al, 2011). In Michigan and elsewhere, a strategy widely recognized (Brown et al, 2000;Giles & Findlay, 2004) and commonly employed to address this problem is to encourage the harvest of antlerless deer. For several years, for example, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has allowed the purchase of 10 antlerless licenses per hunter in some regions and liberal quotas.…”

An integrated modeling approach for assessing management objectives for mule deer in central British Columbia

“…When these approaches are not successful, additional hunting methods such as special weapon seasons or baiting have also been used (Brown et al , Weckerly et al , Van Deelen et al ). All of these approaches, however, can have limited effectiveness if hunters are not willing to participate in hunting opportunities targeted to manipulate population size and composition (Decker and Connelly , Giles and Findlay ). In our study, both landowners and hunters were concerned with the large number of antlerless permits, which influenced the decision to reduce permits starting in 2008.…”