FORT A.P. HILL DEER HARVEST REPORT

Transcription

1 FORT A.P. HILL DEER HARVEST REPORT U.S. Army Garrison Fort A.P. Hill Directorate of Public Works Environmental and Natural Resources Division Fisheries & Wildlife Branch Date: February 2017 Page 1 of 19

2 Fort A.P. Hill Deer Harvest Report The deer season harvest at Fort A.P. Hill (FAPH) was 310. That is down twenty-four deer from the season s 334 despite an increase in either-sex hunting days. There were 246 bucks harvested and 64 does. Hunters made 8561 hunting trips this season compared to 8558 last year and totaled 52,461 hours of hunting. It took an average 27.6 trips per deer harvested or hours. These numbers are up from s 25.6 hunt trips per deer or hours hunted per deer harvested. This past fall s oak mast crop was very heavy and as a result our herd had plenty nutritious acorns to eat through the season. Last year s acorn production was rather poor and as expected this was evident in slight reductions in overall antler production in older bucks. Next season s antler production and weights should reflect this falls prolific acorn production. FAPH s deer herd suffered again from an outbreak of Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease (EHD) in This is the third outbreak of the disease in six years. The rapid succession of these outbreaks is unprecedented in the recorded history of white-tailed deer in Virginia. EHD typically cycles occurrences every 6 10 years and often longer. It is unknown why the disease is reoccurring in Virginia s herds at such a rapid interval. Despite continuingly reducing the number of either sex days during the hunting seasons since 2010 the deer population numbers have continued to decrease. Fawn recruitment into the herd has not been sufficient to offset the loss from EHD deaths and coyote predation in addition to the various other reasons of deer mortality. Coyote sign, sightings, and harvest continued to increase. While the impacts of coyotes on deer populations is well documented, coyotes alone cannot be blamed for FAPH s deer population decline. Adding coyote predation to a recuperating herd is slowing the population recovery. Coyote populations are almost impossible to control except under the most intense management conditions. Coyotes being a new predator on the landscape is a factor that biologist must now manage as a loss of the deer population. Managing deer populations in an era of change is a formidable but exciting challenge for biologists. Disease and predators impacts will be taken into account when hunting regulations are proposed. Unfortunately, achieving population numbers that approach our goals becomes tougher with each EHD outbreak. The last section of this deer report are populations models from Matt Knox, Deer Project Coordinator of VDGIF. These models compare FAPH, Quantico and Fort Pickett. The comparisons of the Installations are very interesting. Page 2 of 19

3 Table 1: Harvest Totals and Percentage by Area and Sex Harvest % of Total Harvest Males % TA % 59.4% CA % 20.0% Females % TA % 11.0% CA % 9.6% Total Harvest % TA % CA % Table 2a: Age Distribution Age Class Male Female Total NO. (%) NO. (%) NO. (%) 0.5 year-olds (Fawns) year-olds (Yearlings) year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds year-olds Unknown Totals Page 3 of 19

4 Table 2b: Age Distribution Historical Comparison Age Class Male Female Total year-olds (Fawns) 4.9% 4.8% 7.8% 10.9% 16.4% 10.4% 6.1% 6.9% 8.6% 1.5 year-olds (Yearlings) 22.8% 12.5% 9.9% 18.8% 16.4% 11.1% 21.9% 13.2% 10.2% 2.5 year-olds 25.2% 25.3% 40.6% 12.5% 26.2% 33.3% 22.6% 25.4% 38.4% 3.5 year-olds 22.0% 36.3% 23.9% 18.8% 18.0% 15.3% 21.3% 32.9% 21.3% 4.5 year-olds 12.2% 10.6% 9.9% 10.9% 11.5% 9.7% 11.9% 10.8% 9.8% 5.5 year-olds 9.8% 7.7% 4.8% 17.2% 6.6% 12.5% 11.3% 7.5% 7.1% 6.5 year-olds 2.8% 1.8% 2.7% 6.3% 3.3% 4.2% 3.5% 2.1% 3.1% 7.5 year-olds 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 3.1% 0.0% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.8% 8.5 year-olds + 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Unknown 0.4% 1.1% 0.0% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 0.6% 1.2% 0.4% Table 2c: Age Distribution Historical Comparison Year Bucks - Age % Does - Age % % 10% 82% 10% 11% 79% % 12% 82% 16% 16% 66% % 23% 72% 11% 19% 80% Table 3: Statistics for Females Age Class Dressed Weight Lactation Rates (October) Avg. No. Percent No. 0.5 year-olds (Fawns) year-olds (Yearlings) year-olds year-olds % 3 Page 4 of 19

5 Table 4: Statistics for Males Age Class % of Total Dressed Weight Antler Points Beam Diameter (mm) Outside Spread (in) Beam Length (in) Avg. No. Avg. No. Avg. No. Avg. No. Avg. No. 0.5 year- olds (Fawns) 1.5 year-olds (Yearlings) 4.9% % year-olds 25.2% year-olds % Table 5: Buck Harvest by Area and Number of Antler Points # of Points Total TA CA # D # D # D BB SHED D = Density (# deer harvested per square mile) Page 5 of 19

6 Table 6: Antler Measurements Total TA CA # Antlered # 8pt % 8pt % 23.4% 53.4% Harvest Density (8pt+ per SQ Mi) % 1.5 w/ Spikes 71.4% 72.7% 0.0% Avg 1.5 Beam Diameter (mm) Avg 2.5+ Beam Diameter (mm) Avg 1.5 Beam Length (in) Avg 2.5+ Beam Length (in) Avg 1.5 Outside Spread (in) Avg 2.5+ Outside Spread (in) Total TA CA # Antlered # 8pt % 8pt % 26.6% 56.0% Harvest Density (8pt+ per SQ Mi) % 1.5 w/ Spikes 67.6% 71.9% 0.0% Avg 1.5 Beam Diameter (mm) Avg 2.5+ Beam Diameter (mm) Avg 1.5 Beam Length (in) Avg 2.5+ Beam Length (in) Avg 1.5 Outside Spread (in) Avg 2.5+ Outside Spread (in) Page 6 of 19

7 Training Area Total Count Table 7a: TA Harvest Totals and Average Weight in lbs (W) by Area, Age and Sex Males Females All 0.5 W 1.5 W 2.5+ W Unkn W All 0.5 W 1.5 W 2.5+ W Unkn W TA Total NA TOTAL NA Page 7 of 19

8 Training Area Total Count Deer Harvest: Fort A.P. Hill, VA Table 7b: CA Harvest Totals and Average Weight in lbs (W) by Area, Age and Sex Males Females All 0.5 W 1.5 W 2.5+ W Unkn W All 0.5 W 1.5 W 2.5+ W Unkn W CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA10A CA10B CA11A CA11B CA CA CA14A CA14B CA CA CA CA CA19A CA19B CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA Total NA TOTAL Page 8 of 19

9 Training Area Area Size (SQ Mi) Total Count Total D Table 8a: TA Harvest Density (D) per Huntable Square Mile by Area, Age and Sex Males Females 0.5 D 1.5 D 2.5+ D Unkn D 0.5 D 1.5 D 2.5+ D Unkn D TA Total TOTAL Page 9 of 19

10 Table 8b: CA Harvest Density (D) per Huntable Square Mile by Area, Age and Sex Training Area Area Size (SQ Mi) Total Count Total D Males Females 0.5 D 1.5 D 2.5+ D Unkn D 0.5 D 1.5 D 2.5+ D Unkn D CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA10A CA10B CA11A CA11B CA CA CA14A CA14B CA CA CA CA CA19A CA19B CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA Total TOTAL Page 10 of 19

11 Table 9a: Hunter Effort and Success Rates by Area for TA areas Training Area # Deer Harvested # of Hunt Trips # of Hours Hunted Hunt Trips per Deer Harvested Hours per Deer Harvested TA Total Total Page 11 of 19

12 Table 9b: Hunter Effort and Success Rates by Area for CA areas Training Area # Deer Harvested # of Hunt Trips # of Hours Hunted Hunt Trips per Deer Harvested Hours per Deer Harvested CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA10A CA10B CA11A CA11B CA CA CA14A CA14B CA CA CA CA CA19A CA19B CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA Total Total Page 12 of 19

13 Historical Data Comparison Chart 1: Harvest Sex Ratio % Bucks 79% Does % 82% Bucks Does 30% 70% Bucks Does Page 13 of 19

14 Historical Data Comparison Chart 2: Harvest Age Structure 1% % % Unknown 71% 1% % % 13% % 10% % Unknown 81% Unknown Page 14 of 19

15 Historical Data Comparison Chart 3: Doe Harvest Age Structure 1% % % % Unknown 66% 2% % 16% Unknown 77% 1% % 11% Unknown Page 15 of 19

16 Chart 4: Training Area and Controlled Access Area Comparison Average Outside Spread (in) 2.5+ Bucks Average Beam Length (in) 2.5+ Bucks Average Beam Diameter (mm) 2.5+ Bucks CA TA Harvest Density of 8pt+ (Deer per SqMi) Harvest Density (Deer per SqMi) CA TA % of 8pt+ in Total Antlered Buck Harvest Average Weight (lbs.) 2.5+ Bucks Hours Hunted per Deer Harvested CA TA Page 16 of 19

17 # Deer Harvested Deer Harvest: Fort A.P. Hill, VA Chart 5: Historical Buck to Doe Harvest Ratios Historical Buck to Doe Harvest Ratios Does Bucks Page 17 of 19

18 Chart 6: Yearling Weights and White Oak Mast Survey Dressed Weight (lbs) Yearling Bucks Weight Yearling Does White Oak Mast Survey White Oak Mast Survey Index (Prior to 2009 all weights are for CA areas only) Page 18 of 19

19 Table 10: Reproductive Statistics Comparison Fawn to Doe Ratio: # of fawns per bearing age (2.5+ yr old) doe harvested % Fawns in antlerless harvest 24.7% 29.9% 23.9% % Fawns in the total deer harvest 6.1% 6.9% 8.6% Lactation Rate: for 2.5 yr olds 0.0% 66.7% 45% Lactation Rate: for 3.5+ yr olds 27.3% 54.5% 50% Chart 7: Comparison Hunting Trips Total Hunting Trips Page 19 of 19

20 Figure 033. Caroline County public land deer kill (AP Hill). Deer Kill Percent Female This data is from the AP Hill natural resources staff and does not represent any other public land(s) in Caroline County.

21 Figure 033. Caroline County public land deer kill (AP Hill). Deer Kill Percent Female This data is from the AP Hill natural resources staff and does not represent any other public land(s) in Caroline County.

22 Figure 135. Nottoway County public land deer kill (Fort Pickett). Deer Kill Percent Female This data is from Fort Pickett and represents the total Fort deer kill including deer killed in Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Lunenburg counties.

23 Figure 135. Nottoway County public land deer kill (Fort Pickett). Deer Kill Percent Female This data is from Fort Pickett and represents the total Fort deer kill including deer killed in Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Lunenburg counties.

24 Figure 179. Stafford County public land deer kill (Quantico). Deer Kill Percent Female This data is taken directly from the Quantico biological data and represents the total base deer kill including deer killed in Fauquier and Prince William counties also.

25 Figure 179. Stafford County public land deer kill (Quantico). Deer Kill Percent Female This data is taken directly from the Quantico biological data and represents the total base deer kill including deer killed in Fauquier and Prince William counties also.

26 TAP ~ H.L Oarotme Pwktk' Land Deer Population Index to.;.e I II l.. G Q ~ I :s.. L ! ! & IDdell I.It L !i &!i L4I L l l.59 l.112 2,72 Caroline Public Land Deer Population Index I ~~:~Recka "":"-"-.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----l~"4-~~...,,, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-I t L : IMoc1er11le ID Hejl: Slzlbize IDRedlCI! 3 ;-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... ~-t a ~ 2.S lo 1 ID Moden1le: ~IDs~ ~ 2 ~ ~-1 W: 1ncrease I L = t CICI CllM t 3 21' tt6 Index & t i...3 '"-/~ - o.osott o.so~t_ ~ bt; 0 lo 'St~~ \'.D ~ - o. 018'6 o. bss; ~ ~~~o 5 ~Wt~ '5 '.pf:ltl(l - o. 0., 0-1'+t ~ "!'~o...-.; SI ~'ftt.ty-«1

27 ~-f~f Ne'MV'i\ Pnbtic: Land Deer Population Index 6 SS. s.. H I 4 C'. t 3.5 l &. ~ 3! i J t IL 2 t.s Rmilm H I tt Index M D A 2.t2 'l-~~ D. l24~ ~ 7lpk 'S~~~ lo Yrs()!(L - D- o>ct I 0. 7 l l \ ~4?% 5ffst..Jlfl~? 'j(so(l -D.)]Pb tj.btf-1-tf Jt lt1-'j> ~~

28 ""Slaffcf4 Pwhlie Land Deer Population Index 1.s l osr i1, 1i9194 ;J'tj 1995 it T, 1i9!99& ;sj';1d;997l fii 1991 ;;r.1;;999 ;;-r:;: 2000 ;;;;;t:;;;200 ;;1-r:;200 :;;;;:;i 2 r:: 200 :::3:T, 2004 =:'T.:2005::::'1'::200& ::-r: 1 200=-1 r:: 200a :::T::':":' 2009T.:201~0 r"'."' "T"20 _ 1_2, r r' Index ti et M u 3.e y~ ltj ~ 5 VJ<t;f.)A_ - Q.02..~l -D v. lt:,\s 0- ~1,."'L D,.big& 0. 'l1-5t;