Hunter cooperation with requests to avoid a visibly marked ungulate

Abstract

Studies utilizing radio tags to examine animal space use are widespread and often require the survival of marked animals over the entirety of a specified study period to answer movement-related questions. When studying the space use of game species, tactics such as applying visible markings to research animals and communicating with hunters may be needed to mitigate unwanted losses due to hunter harvest. Information regarding the effectiveness of visible markings and communication efforts in reducing harvest, as well as examples of hunter cooperation with requests to avoid harvesting marked animals, are lacking but could be quite useful when designing movement studies and planning capture efforts. Across 3 studies conducted during 2009-2015 on public and private land in the southeastern United States, adult white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were captured and marked in 1 of 3 ways: via conspicuous (Global Positioning System [GPS]) radiocollar; conspicuous radiocollar combined with visible ear tags; or cryptic (very-high-frequency [VHF]) radiocollar. Hunters were asked not to harvest visibly marked deer (GPS radiocollars, with or without ear tags) and survival was compared with that of cryptically marked (VHF) animals. Visibly marked deer were less likely to be harvested than were cryptically marked individuals on private land, but collar types were treated similarly on public land. Additionally, visibly marked males were more likely to be harvested than visibly marked females and the likelihood of harvest increased with male deer age. Our findings suggest that hunter cooperation decreases with the opportunity to harvest a "trophy" and that cooperation is lower on public land compared with private land. Insight into hunter treatment of visibly marked deer can inform researchers and managers about expected losses when conducting long-term spatial monitoring of ungulates and other game species. Ó 2017 The Wildlife Society.

Reliable methods for identifying animal deaths in GPS‐ and satellite‐tracking data: Review, testing, and calibration

“…Satellite and GPS‐tags are increasingly used in conservation and management‐based projects to monitor the well‐being of individuals of threatened species (e.g., individuals released during reintroductions), to assess their mortality threats, to uncover illegal activities that may be hidden by perpetrators and thus pass under‐reported or to detect cryptic sources of mortality concentrated in remote areas of difficult access or under‐reported because politically conflictual (e.g., deaths of threatened species at wind energy facilities) (reviews in Cooke, ; Kays et al., ). In addition, these tagging devices are used to evaluate specific procedures of management or research (e.g., angling methods, hunter cooperation with legal prescriptions, predator removal, techniques of tag attachments: Bengsen, ; Donaldson, Arlinghaus, Hanson, & Cooke, ; Sexson, Mulcahy, Spriggs, & Yers, ; Wiskirchen, Jacobsen, Sullivan, & Ditchkoff, ). In all these contexts, improved precision in proper identification of remotely sensed casualties would yield marked advances in management planning, implementation, and efficiency.…”

Land use and dispersal influence mortality in white‐tailed deer

“…Previous research has reported that telemetry studies provide unbiased survival estimates for white‐tailed deer and the presence of VHF collars does not influence hunter harvest selection (Buderman et al , Wiskirchen et al ). We informed landowners and hunters on and adjacent to private properties where we captured deer about the possibility of encountering collared deer and encouraged hunters not to let the presence of the collar influence their harvest decision.…”

A novel method for detecting extra-home range movements (EHRMs) by animals and recommendations for future EHRM studies

“…The GPS collars were fluorescent orange in color and ear tags were bright yellow to aid hunters in identification of GPS-collared deer. We asked hunters on all study areas not to harvest GPS-collared deer [ 63 ]. Once collaring was complete, we reverse-immobilized deer via intramuscular injection of the antagonist Tolazine (100mg/ml tolazoline hydrochloride administered at 2.0 mg/kg, Lloyd Laboratories).…”