Relationship between Deer Kill and Ratings of the Hunt

Langenau, Edward E.; Moran, Richard J.; Terry, James R.; Cue, David C.

doi:10.2307/3808103

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Heberlein and Kuentzel (2002) found harvesting a deer had the largest direct effect on satisfaction, whereas seeing deer had the second largest effect. Langenau et al (1981), Hammitt et al (1990), and Holbrook and McSwain (1991) reported deer seen and deer harvested were important factors to hunter satisfaction. In Pennsylvania, Miller and Graefe (2001) found that successful harvest predicted satisfaction among archery, rifle, and muzzleloader deer hunters.…”

Section: Hunter Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological and social outcomes of antler point restriction harvest regulations for white‐tailed deer

Wallingford¹,

Diefenbach

Long

et al. 2017

Wild. Mon.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selective harvest criteria, such as antler point restrictions (APRs), have been used to regulate harvest of male ungulates; however, comprehensive evaluation of the biological and social responses to this management strategy is lacking. In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted new APRs for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) that required, depending on wildlife management unit, !3 or !4 points on 1 antler for legal harvest. Historically, harvest rates of subadult (1.5 yr old) and adult (!2.5 yr old) antlered males averaged 0.80. Antler point restrictions were designed to protect !50% of subadult males from harvest. Most adult males remained legal for harvest. We estimated harvest rates, survival rates, and cause-specific mortality of radio-collared male deer (453 subadults, 103 adults) in 2 wildlife management units (Armstrong and Centre counties) to evaluate biological efficacy of APRs to increase recruitment of adult males during [2002][2003][2004][2005]. We administered statewide deer hunter surveys before and after each hunting season over the same 3 years to evaluate hunter attitudes toward APRs. We conducted 2 types of surveys: a simple random sample of all license buyers for each survey and a longitudinal panel of hunters who completed all 6 surveys. At the same time APRs were implemented, the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) increased antlerless harvests to reduce deer density to meet deer management goals.Survival rates varied by month and age but not between study areas or among years after implementation of APRs. Monthly survival rates for subadults ranged from 0.64 to 0.97 during hunting seasons and 0.95 to 0.99 during the non-hunting period. Annual survival of subadults was 0.46 (95% CI ¼ 0.41-0.52). Adult monthly survival rates ranged from 0.36 to 0.95 during hunting seasons and we had no mortalities during the non-hunting period. Annual survival of adults was 0.28 (95% CI ¼ 0.22-0.35). Antler point restrictions successfully reduced harvest rate for subadults to 0.31 (95% CI ¼ 0.23-0.38), and approximately 92% of these deer survived to the following hunting season. Vehicle collisions were the greatest source of mortality outside the hunting season for subadults and adults. Also, we observed decreased harvest rates for adults (0.59, 95% CI ¼ 0.40-0.72), although nearly all were legal for harvest. Of radio-collared subadults, 6-11% were harvested with sub-legal antlers, indicating hunters generally complied with APRs. Overall, antlered harvest declined statewide and in our study areas, in part because of APRs but also because of increased antlerless harvests that reduced the statewide population from 1.49 million deer in 2000 to 1.14 million deer in 2005. However, between 2000 and 2005, harvest of adult males increased by 976 (112%) in Armstrong County, decreased by 29 (À3%) in Centre County, and increased by 14,285 (29%) statewide because more males survived to the 3-and 4-year-old age classes.Proportion of hunters from the random sample surveys who supported statewide APRs varied among years...

show abstract

Section: Hunter Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological and social outcomes of antler point restriction harvest regulations for white‐tailed deer

Wallingford¹,

Diefenbach

Long

et al. 2017

Wild. Mon.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past research has demonstrated that some hunters do not consider harvest or size of buck harvested to be major factors affecting their overall hunt satisfaction (Potter et al 1973, Brown et al 1977, Decker et al 1980, Langenau et al 1981. In 1991, 87% of surveyed Colorado deer hunters expressed satisfaction with harvesting any deer, whether male or female, and these hunters also expressed a desire to manage only 20% of the mule deer hunting opportunity for limited harvest (Freddy et al 1993).…”

Section: Effect Of Limited Harvest On Deer Ratiosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of limited antlered harvest on mule deer sex and age ratios

Bishop

White

Freddy

et al. 2005

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to apparent declining mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) numbers in Colorado during the 1990s, buck harvest limitations were identified as a possible mechanism to increase fawn:doe ratios and hence population productivity. Beginning in 1991, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) reduced buck harvest in 4 deer management units to provide quality hunting opportunities. We examined effects of limited harvest on December ratios of bucks:100 does and fawns:100 does using data from limited and unlimited harvest units. Annual buck harvest was reduced by 359 bucks (SE = 133) in limited harvest units as a result of limiting licenses. Fawn:doe ratios declined by 7.51 fawns:100 does (SE = 2.50), total buck:doe ratios increased by 4.52 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.40), and adult buck:doe ratios increased by 3.37 bucks:100 does (SE = 1.04) in response to limited harvest. Based on our analysis, factors other than buck harvest were regulating population productivity, and limiting buck harvest to enhance fawn recruitment is not justified in Colorado. Limited buck harvest should be considered an issue of quality hunting opportunity rather than deer productivity.

show abstract

“…Aesthetic and psychological issues may play a role in hunter satisfaction (Decker et al , Hammitt et al , Holbrook and McSwain , Manfredo et al , Roemer and Vaske ). However, as we observed in Missouri, deer observations and harvest are critical to hunter satisfaction (Langenau et al , Miller and Graefe , Heberlein and Kuentzel , Schroeder et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Effects of an antler point restriction on deer hunter perceptions and satisfaction in Missouri

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antler point restrictions (APR), intended to create an older male age structure of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), have been implemented in many states, but effects of APR on hunters’ satisfaction and activities often have not been measured. During 2004–2008, we conducted mail surveys of firearms deer hunters in Missouri, USA, to measure effects of an APR on respondents including 1) perceptions of deer population trends and availability of large males; 2) satisfaction with the hunting experience and deer management; and 3) support of the APR. There was no effect of the APR on how respondents perceived deer population trends, but respondents hunting under the APR believed there were more large males in both central and northern Missouri. Respondents were less satisfied with their hunt and deer management in central Missouri areas under the APR during years when hunter success was reduced. There was no effect of the APR on how respondents rated their most recent deer season in the northern areas under the APR, although respondents there were less satisfied with deer management prior to implementation of the APR and for the first 2 years after implementation with no differences after that time. In all areas, generally >70% of respondents supported the APR; presence of the APR where a respondent hunted did not affect support of the APR. Respondents supporting the APR were more likely to have less deer hunting experience, hunt counties where harvest of antlered males was relatively greater, rate Missouri deer management as good or excellent, hunt private land during at least part of the season, and select for antlered males while hunting. An APR may be most appropriate where deer densities are moderate or large and harvest rates of antlered males are excessive. Use of APRs in areas with low‐density deer populations where harvest opportunity is low may not be popular with hunters. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Relationship between Deer Kill and Ratings of the Hunt

Cited by 12 publications

References 2 publications

Biological and social outcomes of antler point restriction harvest regulations for white‐tailed deer

Biological and social outcomes of antler point restriction harvest regulations for white‐tailed deer

Effect of limited antlered harvest on mule deer sex and age ratios

Effects of an antler point restriction on deer hunter perceptions and satisfaction in Missouri

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About