To the Graduate Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Christopher Edward Shaw entitled “An Evaluation of Quality Deer Management Programs in Tennessee.” I have examined the electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. Craig Harper___________________ Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Gary Bates________________ Allan Houston_____________ J. Mark Fly________________ Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges______________ Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) AN EVALUATION OF QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN TENNESSEE A Thesis Presented for the Master of Science Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Christopher Edward Shaw May 2008 DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my parents who were there to watch me kill my first deer and have supported me throughout life. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completion of this project would not have been possible without the help of several funding sources including the University of Tennessee, Department of Forestry Wildlife, and Fisheries, Hobart Ames Foundation, Sequatchie Forest and Wildlife, Quality Deer Management Association, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and Rocky River Farms. I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Craig Harper, for providing me the opportunity to work on a project involving white-tailed deer. The knowledge and experience gained in deer and habitat management are much appreciated, as well as the hunting trips. I would also like to thank committee members, Dr. Gary Bates, Dr. Mark Fly, and Dr. Allan Houston, for their assistance and support. Special thanks go to staff (Becky Stephens, April Griffin, Liz Didier) of the Human Dimensions Lab for their assistance with hunter surveying. I especially appreciate the patience and assistance provided by Becky throughout the project. Finally, I would like to thank Billy Minser for his conservation efforts and company on the occasional outdoor adventure. Valuable statistical support was provided by several people, especially Ann Reed. Bob Muenchen and Cary Springer assisted with analysis of survey data. I would also like to thank Dr. Frank Van Manen for assistance with habitat analysis, and Dr. Arnold Saxton for answering statistical questions and assistance with other data analysis. Logistical support was provided by several individuals. Mike Black provided help throughout the project and provided harvest data from Cumberland Plateau clubs. Several employees at Ames Plantation assisted with various aspects of this project, including James “Hooch” McDonald, Larry Teague, Beth Hanna, James Morrow, and Jimmy iii Simons. Ben Layton compiled harvest data for Wildlife Management Areas and assisted with collection of harvest data. Bernie Swiney, Jim Evans, Jim Zimmerman, and several other Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency personnel assisted with preparation of food plots and collection of biological data at check-in stations. I would also like to thank Dave Kincer and Bobby McKee for their assistance. Dwayne Estes provided assistance with plant identification. Several individuals assisted with collection of browse and food plot data including Greg Julian, Barry Baird, Dave Carpenter, and Tim Ward. I would also like to thank fellow graduate students who provided assistance with the project and shared in hunting and fishing experiences. John Gruchy helped with collection of project data and shared in some enjoyable hunts. Kenton Brotherton and John Laux also shared in memorable outdoor experiences. Finally, I would like express my appreciation to my parents and other family members for their support and encouragement. iv ABSTRACT Several properties within Tennessee were managed under a quality deer management (QDM) philosophy from 1998 to 2006. Harvest characteristics of three private properties and three Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) were compared to determine effects on buck harvest rates and the age structure and sex ratio of the harvest. Average annual buck harvest decreased at most areas following antler restrictions and ranged from 55 to 68% of pre-QDM levels because younger bucks were protected. Although the raw numbers showed an increase in older-aged bucks harvested following antler restrictions, when calculated on a per hunter or per permit issued basis, statistical increases were not observed at all study areas. Regardless, hunters at each area felt QDM restrictions were working toward their goal and planned to apply to hunt that area the following season. Most hunters regarded themselves “somewhat knowledgeable” with QDM and considered it a sensible management philosophy. The majority of club hunters (55.5%) and plurality of sportsman license holders (36.9%) and WMA hunters (34.7%) favored a statewide limit of two bucks, and the majority of all hunters favored including does in the harvest and protecting young bucks from harvest. The production and nutritional quality of twenty forages used in food plots and the effects of prescribed burning and understory fertilization on browse production in closed-canopy hardwoods one growing season after treatment were also evaluated. Crimson clover and a cool-season grain (wheat or oats) are recommended to address the mid-late winter stress period, and can be planted with arrowleaf clover to further extend forage availability in the spring. Warm-season annual forages (cowpeas, lablab, and soybeans) supplied forage during the late summer stress period when natural forage v quality is low. Ladino clover and chicory supplement production gaps of annual forages. Because of variable results among two sites and because the cost per pound of forage produced following fertilization exceeded $26 per pound, understory fertilization and prescribed fire in closed-canopy hardwood stands are not recommended for increased deer browse. Treatments providing increased sunlight through a reduction in percent canopy cover are much more effective and efficient in providing increased browse. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 I. EFFECTS OF VARIOUS APPROACHES TO QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT ON WHITE-TAILED DEER HARVEST CHARACTERISTICS..................................... 3 Abstract........................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 5 Study Areas..................................................................................................................... 7 Materials and Methods.................................................................................................. 10 Results........................................................................................................................... 12 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 15 Management Recommendations................................................................................... 20 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................. 24 Appendix....................................................................................................................... 26 II. AN EVALUATION OF COOL- AND WARM-SEASON FORAGES FOR WHITE- TAILED DEER FOOD PLOTS........................................................................................ 44 Abstract......................................................................................................................... 45 Introduction................................................................................................................... 45 Study Areas................................................................................................................... 47 Materials and Methods.................................................................................................. 48 Results........................................................................................................................... 52 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 53 Management Recommendations................................................................................... 56 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................. 63 Appendix....................................................................................................................... 66 III. BROWSE PRODUCTION IN CLOSED-CANOPY HARDWOOD STANDS ........ 73 Abstract......................................................................................................................... 74 Introduction................................................................................................................... 74 Study Areas................................................................................................................... 76 Materials and Methods.................................................................................................. 77 Results..........................................................................................................................