Mule Deer Informational AGENDA #19-C MODELS AND POPULATION - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mule Deer Informational

AGENDA #19-C MODELS AND POPULATION ESTIMATES CODY SCHROEDER – NDOW GAME DIVISION

Harvest Data Survey Data Population Models Quota Array

The Process: How do we develop quota recs?

Population Models: Why do we estimate numbers?

No survey method has perfection detection to count all animals Populations constantly change because of mortality, births, immigration, emigration To provide an estimate of abundance for tag allocation (quota) Limiting factors

Harvest Data

▪ Mandatory harvest reporting for all big game species ▪ New system, 98% reporting rate ▪ Sex ▪ Age ▪ Hunt Unit or Unit Group ▪ # of antler points ▪ # animals wounded or tracked

Deer Status: Harvest Trends

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

% 4 Point or greater

Statewide % 4-Point or greater

% 4 point or greater

▪ NDOW uses a deterministic spreadsheet model ▪ Deterministic = no stochasticity (random variation) ▪ Basic input parameters ▪ Initial population size ▪ Recruitment data (fawn:doe ratio) ▪ Harvest data (we subtract bucks, does, and fawns) ▪ Survival rates ▪ Buck:doe ratio used a qualitative measure to calibrate models

Population Models: How do we estimate populations?

Population Models: Integrated Population Models

Count Data Telemetry Data Harvest Data Environmental Covariates

Integrated Population Model

PopR software developed by Dr. Paul Lukacs and Josh Nowak University of Montana Contracted through 2021

5 10 15 20 25 30 50 100 150 200 250 300 1976 1983 1990 1997 2004 2011 2018 Deer Harvest (Thousands) Population Esimate (Thousands)

Pop Estimate Deer Harvest Selleck-Hart Estimator Change-in-Ratio Model Spreadsheet Model

NDOW Heritage Program $25 million spent to date

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Bucks per 100 Does Year Statewide Fall Deer Survey (1975- Current)

Observed Buck Ratio 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Observed Buck Ratio)

20 40 60 80 100 120 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Fawns per 100 Does Survey Year

Statewide Fall Deer Survey (1975-Current)

Fawn:Doe Ratio 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Fawn:Doe Ratio)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Fawns per 100 Adults Year

Statewide Spring Deer Survey (1975-Current)

Fawn:Adult Ratio 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Fawn:Adult Ratio)

Summary of Agenda Item #19-C

q Process of quota development q NDOW uses models to estimate populations q Inputs include survey data, harvest data, survival rates q Population trends have fluctuated over time q In process of developing new web-based models

Mule Deer Informational

AGENDA # 19-D DEVELOPMENT OF QUOTAS FROM SURVEY AND POPULATION DATA CODY SCHROEDER – NDOW GAME DIVISION

/

1

Determine # animals available for harvest

• Population estimate
• Buck to Doe Ratio

2

Distribute harvest into weapon classes

• Based on previous

year’s demand

3

Expand harvest to quotas

• Divide harvest rate

by hunt success (%)

Quota Development Process:

Demand:

Measure of interest based on 1st Choice applications from year prior

ARCHERY MUZZELOADER ANY LEGAL WEAPON

Mule Deer : Hunt Success

10 20 30 40 50 60 2016 2017 2018

Hunt Success Rate (%) Resident Antlered Mule Deer Hunt Success

Archery Muzzleloader ALW

Quota Development Process:

2019 MULE DEER QUOTA ARRAY UNIT GROUP: 171-173 - Northwestern Nye and Southern Lander Counties

PREHUNT ESTIMATE % YOUTH HUNT HUNT ADULT ADULT BUCK HARVEST Comp. 1235 1235 BUCKS DOES RATIO AS DOES Tags % Success Early Late 1150 2543 45 39% 16 4 TOTAL 3693 RATE DESIRED HUNT FIRST CHOICE Antlerless OF DOE DOE 1181 APPLICATIONS--DEMAND HUNTER HARVEST HARVEST QUOTA RIFLE MUZZL. ARCH. YOUTH RIFLE MUZZL. ARCH. SUCCESS 0% 53.7% 6.1% 15.1% 53.5% 32.0% 26.3% 9.3% POST HUNT HUNT HUNT HUNT HUNT HUNT HUNT HUNT 1331 1371 1341 1107 1331 1371 1341 BUCK DESIRED REPRTD. RES. RES. RES. RES. NR. NR. NR. RES. NR RATIO BUCK BUCK RIFLE MUZZL. ARCH. RIFLE MUZZL. ARCH. TOTAL TOTAL OBJ. HARVEST HARVEST QUOTA QUOTA QUOTA QUOTA QUOTA QUOTA QUOTA QUOTA QUOTA 30 387 322 487 75 180 144 34 8 20 886 78 THREE YEAR AVERAGE HUNTER SUCCESS RATES

Mule Deer Harvest Guidelines

25 – 35 Bucks per 100 Does Standard

• Most Units across the state

30 – 40 Bucks per 100 Does Alternative

• WR – 014, 194-196
• ER – 065, 081, 114-115, 131-134
• SR – 221-223, 241 - 245

Hunt Success (3 yr avg) Non-Standard

• 35 – 45% for 6 Unit Groups
• ≥ 45% for 8 Unit Groups

Public Process

NDOW CABs General Public Wildlife Commission

QUOTA

Public Review and Wildlife Commission Process

• NDOW posts official quota recommendations in late

April

• County Advisory Boards (CAB’s) receive NDOW quota

recommendations

• CAB’s hold public meetings to discuss quota

recommendations

• Nevada Board of Wildlife Commission meeting in May to

approve NDOW’s quota recommendations

• General public and CABs provide input
• Commission makes final decision on tag quotas

Mule Deer Restoration Efforts

• $25 million dollars spent on sagebrush habitat

restoration by Heritage Program since 1996

• Benefits mule deer and many other wildlife

species

• Over 800 mule deer radio-collared by NDOW

since 2010

• Map crucial habitat and corridors
• Survival rates
• Collect information on body condition

Summary of Agenda Item #19-D

q Quota process is a 3-step process q Quota array based on demand/success q Population estimate q Demand (previous year) q Hunt success (3-year avg) q Resident (90%) Non-resident (10%) split q Public process involving NDOW, CABs, Wildlife Commission q NDOW has spent millions of $$ in habitat and research on mule deer over last two decades

Thank You