Movements, space use and site fidelity of translocated and resident mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Smedley, David C.; Kerk, Madelon van de; McMillan, Brock R.; Hersey, Kent R.; Whiting, Jericho C.; Larsen, Randy T.

doi:10.1071/wr19043

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Home range sizes were not significantly different between non‐urban and translocated deer from the end of fall migration to 31 January (winter 2), which for these translocated deer was at least 7 months to 1 year after their translocation. By this time translocated deer appear to have stabilized within their new areas, and begin to move similarly to non‐urban deer (Jones et al 1997, Smedley 2016). The expansive movements of translocated deer during these first 6 months brought them into contact with more paved roads than non‐urban deer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Survival and Movements of Non‐Urban and Urban Translocated Mule Deer

Wright

Adams²,

Stent

et al. 2020

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many parts of North America, deer (Odocoileus spp.) have adapted to live in urban areas and are a source of negative human-wildlife interactions. Management strategies such as culling, immunocontraceptives, sterilization, and translocation have been implemented to manage urban deer populations. In the East Kootenay region of southern British Columbia, urban mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations have been increasing, whereas non-urban mule deer populations have decreased. In 2014 a non-urban mule deer research project began in the area and in 2016 an urban deer translocation trial was approved in the same region. We fit 121 non-urban deer with global positioning system (GPS)-collars and translocated 135 urban mule deer to non-urban areas, of which 57 were fit with GPS-collars. We tested if annual survival between urban translocated (i.e., translocated) and non-urban deer differed, and if translocated deer survival increased in subsequent years after translocation. We also determined if age, body condition, release site, capture area and distance between capture and release sites affected translocated deer survival. We evaluated if translocated deer exhibited different movement behaviors than non-urban deer by comparing probability of migration, maximum net displacement, home range size, and probability of crossing a paved road. Finally, during our study we observed some translocated deer return to a municipal area after translocation and assessed if any covariates such as age, release site, or capture city could help predict this behavior. Annual survival of translocated deer was 0.48 and was significantly lower than survival of non-urban deer, which was 0.77. We observed 20 of 57 collared translocated deer return to a town after translocation. Translocated deer had larger net displacements and larger seasonal home range sizes than non-urban deer. Non-urban deer were more likely to migrate than translocated deer and crossed fewer paved roads than translocated deer. The management effectiveness of translocation to reduce urban deer densities is mixed because annual survival of translocated deer may be lower than may be acceptable to some stakeholders. Additionally, some translocated deer returned to an urban area, and the large distances traveled by deer after translocation may unintentionally spread disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Survival and Movements of Non‐Urban and Urban Translocated Mule Deer

Wright

Adams²,

Stent

et al. 2020

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ungulate reintroductions and translocations are a common practice used to re-establish populations (Berger-Tal et al, 2019;Griffith et al, 1989;Seddon et al, 2007), and often adult females and yearlings are used for reintroductions and translocations (Douglas et al, 1999;Smedley et al, 2019;Whiting et al, 2012). Removing adult, female bighorn sheep can have detrimental effects on the source population if that population is small (Stevens & Goodson, 1993).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using camera traps to estimate ungulate abundance: a comparison of mark–resight methods

Taylor

Bates²,

Whiting

et al. 2021

Remote Sens Ecol Conserv

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many global wildlife populations are experiencing unprecedented declines. Estimates of population abundance are needed to effectively manage common species and to conserve vulnerable species. Camera traps have advanced as wildlife monitoring tools for ungulates and can provide improved methods of estimating population abundance. Little is known, however, about how camera traps set for ungulates compare with traditional methods (e.g., ground and aerial surveys) used simultaneously. From 2012 to 2014, we captured and radio collared 34 female and 32 male bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) in a closed population in Utah, USA. Each collar had a unique letter and number combination. We then estimated number of young, females and yearlings, males and population abundance using multiple methods simultaneously: helicopter surveys, resight surveys performed from the ground, camera trap surveys using marked but not individually identifiable individuals and camera trap surveys using marked and individually identifiable animals. All methods estimated similar abundance. Across years, ages and sexes, however, camera trap surveys produced the most consistent and precise estimates of abundance for adult females and yearlings, lambs and the population. That method was less intrusive and safer than helicopter surveys. Our results indicate that camera trap surveys using photographs of marked animals in which the majority of the population visits a specific resource can produce precise estimates of abundance that are safer, as well as less intrusive and expensive than traditional methods. Using camera traps also creates a permanent record of photographs that can be archived and reanalyzed to answer future ecological and population questions. Finally, this method of estimating abundance can be used in other areas with ungulates that congregate around resources (e.g., watering sites or mineral licks).

show abstract

“…This increased demand ostensibly will continue to affect wild populations, and protection of cervids on winter range has become more difficult as shed antler hunting grows in popularity (Koshmrl 2019). Additionally, mule deer are an important species in western North America, and are an integral part of the ecosystems of the western United States (Kie et al 2002, Bishop et al 2009, Smedley et al 2019). Many populations of mule deer have declined in the past few decades (Ballard et al 2001, Forrester and Wittmer 2013, Bergman et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Effects of Shed Antler Hunting and Helicopter Surveys on Ungulate Movements and Space Use

Bates¹,

Whiting

Larsen

2021

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shed antler hunting (i.e., collecting cast cervid antlers) has increased in popularity during the past decade, but little is known about how this recreational activity affects ungulate movements and space use. We placed geographic positioning system (GPS)‐collars on 133 female and male bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), bison (Bison bison), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) to quantify their movements and space use during shed antler hunts compared with those behaviors during helicopter surveys in Utah, USA, from 2012 to 2015. For each species, we calculated means and 95% confidence intervals for distance moved during 90‐minute segments (16 points/day) pre‐event (control, 7 consecutive days prior to event), event (1–2 days), and post‐event (7 consecutive days after event) for shed antler hunts and helicopter surveys. We also compared use of space for each species during these events. Female bighorn sheep did not increase distance moved or substantially change space use during shed antler hunts and helicopter surveys. Male bighorn sheep increased distance moved 41% on average during shed antler hunts and by 2.02 times during helicopter surveys but did not change space use during those events. Female bison increased distance moved 15% on average during shed antler hunts and 30% during helicopter surveys. Mule deer increased distance moved and altered space use the most during shed antler hunts; females increased distance moved 97%, and 54% of females moved a mean distance of 742 ± 642 (SD) m (range = 9–3,778 m) outside of their home ranges during those hunts for a mean of 9.2 ± 9.4 hours (range = 1.5 to 41 hr). Male mule deer increased distance moved by 2.10 times on average during shed antler hunts, and 82% of males moved a mean distance of 1,264 ± 732 m (range = 131–3,637 m) outside of their home ranges during those hunts for a mean of 12.6 ± 7.6 hours (range = 4.5–33 hr). Our results provide timely information about how legal shed antler hunting affects movements and space use of female and male ungulates, especially mule deer, and can guide the conservation of ungulate populations and their habitat. © 2021 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Movements, space use and site fidelity of translocated and resident mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Cited by 8 publications

References 46 publications

Comparing Survival and Movements of Non‐Urban and Urban Translocated Mule Deer

Comparing Survival and Movements of Non‐Urban and Urban Translocated Mule Deer

Using camera traps to estimate ungulate abundance: a comparison of mark–resight methods

Comparison of Effects of Shed Antler Hunting and Helicopter Surveys on Ungulate Movements and Space Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About