Maryland s White-tail Hunting: Region A - Western Maryland

Maryland s White-tail Hunting: Region A - Western Maryland By E. W. Grimes, Director/President, Maryland State Chapter of the Quality Deer Management Association A Series of Articles Written in an Effort to Share Concerns, Successes and Challenges that are Shaping the Future of Whitetail Deer Hunting in Maryland. Introduction The Maryland Quality Deer Management Association (MD QDMA) is launching this series in an effort to share what we have learned about the successes, concerns, threats and challenges that are shaping the future of whitetail deer hunting in Maryland by taking a look into past deer harvest trends and recognizing future projections. We dug into the numbers and percentages of several categories; Antlered Buck Harvest, Age Structure of Buck Harvest and Antlerless Harvest by regions and by counties. We looked at Management Strategies, Antlered Buck Management and Population Management on both private and public lands. We will be looking at whole picture state-wide and we will break our series into regions. While we do compare the data we have to some national data, our goal is to explain how it s affecting your hunting area. Sources and references include facts from QDMA s Whitetail Report, Maryland s Annual Deer Report(s), QDM Co-op harvest data and collected views and opinions from Maryland deer hunters (deer managers). Part: II The Western Area Region A. This part of the series has a lot of information, charts and biological data. More so then others parts of this series our reason is due to misinformation limited or unfounded opinions over past years. We gathered all of the useful and best information that s available. With this hopefully you will be able to form a sound opinion that s helpful in making management decisions. Western Maryland known mostly as Garrett and Allegany Counties however Washington Co (western portion zone 2) is included in Region A. White-tailed deer inhabited only limited sections of Western Maryland by the 19 s. Since the beginning of modern wildlife management in the early 19 s, Maryland s deer population has expanded dramatically to fill (in some areas over filled) all available habitats statewide. Early hunting seasons of the 193s and 194s prohibited the taking of antlerless deer in order to allow growth and expansion of deer herds. Now current deer season and bag limits encourage the harvest of antlerless deer to manage populations. At the same time these regulations encourage hunters to be more selective with antlered bucks Western Maryland Hunters for the most part have not voluntarily embraced this part of modern deer management or are the regulations not sending a clear enough message? Let s take a real and hard look into the white-tailed deer hunting and managing in Region A. Restoration records of deer in Maryland are incomplete, as per A History White-tail Deer Restocking in the United States 1878-24 from QDMA. Remnant populations persisted in Allegany, Garrett and Washington counties in extreme western Maryland. The initial stocking in

the state was made by concerned sportsmen in the Woodmont Rod and Gun Club, a private club with a 5,-acre fenced enclosure. This stocking consisted of 13 deer from Michigan in 1914. When the herd in this enclosure expanded to the limits of the vegetation, the deer were released into Washington County. By the 193 s regulated hunting was started. This chart is state-wide but gives an idea of harvest numbers which indicates population growth. With the large tracks of public lands in Western Maryland much focus tends to dominate opinions. Deer management in Garrett County is complicated by the abundant (78,142 acres) public land hunting opportunities presents. Public land in Region A (151,34 acres) traditionally receives intense hunting pressure which results in an aggressive deer harvest rate. Quotes seminar to this tends to be spoken and written often. Harvest Numbers from public lands: Charts of Garrett County public hunting lands below shows trends of declining harvest numbers but do seem to be stabilizing? If Public Land Hunters are declining, this also may show up in harvest numbers. See the charts below.

75 91 85 76 92 135 126 113 98 15 86 73 162 147 172 163 148 139 129 129 112 14 59 48 81 112 98 93 73 128 95 118 96 82 78 88 62 16 111 114 18 135 97 191 152 286 23 247 248 231 266 273 231 159 44 448 547 556 58 434 181 131 71 663 619 675 65 622 179 174 134 169 152 25 185 275 383 377 119 193 345 411 239 275 326 32 318 52 Savage River State Forest Total Deer Harvest - Antlered and Antlerless 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 Antlered Harvest Antlerless Garrett State Forest Total Deer Harvest - Antlered and Antlerless 4 3 2 1 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 Antlered Harvest Antlerless

18 32 28 26 37 33 29 31 31 3 39 36 49 47 42 39 42 56 63 23 69 72 76 18 28 32 21 23 24 33 15 29 26 21 28 48 38 19 4 44 25 47 53 68 29 58 48 59 51 45 39 57 52 48 44 43 8 79 78 35 99 117 113 18 119 143 131 37 27 44 53 39 4 38 4 42 54 48 15 49 54 34 3 3 61 65 55 128 Potomac State Forest Total Deer Harvest - Antlered and Antlerless 3 25 2 15 1 5 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 Antlered Harvest Antlerless Mt. Nebo WMA Total Deer Harvest - Antlered and Antlerless 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 Antlered Harvest Antlerless

It s been said that public lands either have a hunter behind every tree or hardly anyone hunts public lands because there just isn t any deer. Both of these statements have a negative view and effect on hunting in these areas. I look at it as where there tends to be easy excess will have more hunters which harder excess having less hunting pressure. I would like to see additional information on how many deer will the habitat support in these areas? Consequently, hunters can take no more than two antlerless deer each year from public land in Region A, a regulation proposed by sportsmen groups of Western Maryland designed to avoid the over-harvest of antlerless deer. Will this change fix or add to the problem if the habitat will not support additional deer, or does it have any effect at all? Has this change shown measurable results in harvest numbers and/or hunter satisfaction?

6 Allegany Co. 5 4 3 1 Total Harvest Antlered Harvest Antlerless Harvest Public Antlered Public Antlerless Harvest charts shows (public land harvest numbers have not been released for 212-13 yet) public harvest declined or is stable and private land is the larger part of harvest numbers. 6 Garrett Co. 5 4 3 Total Harvest Antlered Harvest Antlerless Harvest Public Antlered Public Antlerless 1 24-5 25-6 26-7 27-8 28-9 29-1 21-11 211-12 212-13

1 Washington Co. 1 8 6 4 Total Harvest Antlered Harvest Antlerless Harvest Public Antlered Public Antlerless The change in Washington County chart 21-11 was when added in part to region A, yet antlered harvest remained nearly the same. With this change more does (female) should be surviving to have more fawns, 5/5 male-female = more Antlered Deer? By looking at percentages of yearling bucks in antlered harvest history of all Maryland by county indicates that this region has a deep history of high percentage of yearling buck s being harvested.

By looking closer at this region, the percentages of yearling buck s in the antlered harvest, note Washington County was in Region B till after 29-1 season then in part Region A west side, east side in Region B with different bag limits. 1% Yearling Buck%of Antlered Harvest 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% Allegany Garrett Wash. 2% 1% % 24-5 25-6 26-7 27-8 28-9 29-1 21-11 211-12 Compare these percentages to the national average. Percentages of yearlings sample is the way DNR and W&HS collects and measures valuable information (Table 9 Maryland Annual Deer Report) that is used to estimate deer population numbers and to detect any changes in the deer herd reproductive potential. It s is also used to monitor the overall health of deer and the effects of changes to seasons and bag limits made to better manage deer populations. This is how mandatory deer check-in and biological data collected at deer processors are used in a reconstruction model (Downing 198) to estimate antlered male (yearling) population size. Adult sex ratio and female productivity rate is estimated using a model by Lang and Wood (1976) and then combined with the antlered male estimate to

generate a total population estimate. THIS is the reason it VERY IMPORTANT to check-in ALL harvested deer correctly. While percentages are needed for biological data and population models, it is my opinion that the percentages collected most likely are on the light or very light side. Why? Deer that are home processed Vs Deer Processors is most likely different. 25 Yearling No# in Antlered Harvest 15 1 Alleg Garrett Wash 5 26 27 28 29 21 211 Clearly numbers Vs percentages of yearling bucks (left side of chart) illustrates the effect of male deer that will not make it into adult classes. What would happen if AR s (Antler Restrictions) where regulated? Best scenario, by using the percentages converted to numbers for 21-11 and 211-12 seasons, with using percentages of yearlings if protected by 3 points one side regulated around 75% and 14-15 outside spread regulated around 9% being able to survive. (An Estimation) Region A Yearling Harvest for 21-11 = 4,792 yearlings: if protected by AR, 3pts =3,594 surviving, 14-15 spread, AR =4,312 able to live for the next year. This would have an impact on total antlered harvest because it would be the first time yearling bucks have been protected. Resulting in a decline in some hunter satisfaction for sure, if they are not willing to make the change to manage for the future. This would also have an increased effect on antlerless harvest or maybe not with bag limits as they are. But if there were increased antlerless harvest, this would make room in the population for surviving yearlings within the habitat. Region A Yearling Harvest for 211-12 = 5,797 yearlings: if protected by 3pts = 4,348 surviving, 14-15 spread = 5,217. The 3,594 yearlings surviving the 21-11season are now available for harvest; 14-15 survivors from 21-11 yearlings 4,312 are available for harvest. Hunter satisfaction would greatly increase. Older class bucks in the herd, biologically sound, results would gain support by hunters and land managers. Just in these 2 years, with 3 point regulations. a large percentage of 7,942 yearlings passed up survived to get older. A larger percentage with the Spread regulation of 14 -

15 = 9,529 passed yearlings would survive. A 1,587 difference within the regulations survival rate. The average antlered harvest for these 3 counties in 21-11 and 211-12 was 7,447 (best scenario) more yearling bucks would survive in 2 years then the total antlered harvest average for these two seasons. Even cutting the best scenario in half would result in a positive effect. The reason that I m using a spread regulation of 14-15 is because the presentation at public regulations hearing data collected at deer processor with this chart; QDMA managed (in Maryland and other states) properties use a 15 Outside Spread rule because this nets the quickest and best results along with doe harvest as needed for our management plan. The results are reduced deer numbers (reduced crop damage) with better buck to doe ratio and older bucks available for harvest, which is good for property owner s (farmer) and hunters. Spread regulations has better and faster results but harder to enforce without hunter support. As seasons continue, smarter, older bucks will become available for harvest, increasing hunter enthusiasm to manage for the future on public and private lands.

1988 1989 199 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 No#Deer HOLD ON! Management goals were to decrease and/or stabilize population growth, now we are passing deer (yearling bucks). How will adding surviving yearlings effect the overall population of the herd? As I stated earlier; This would also have an increased effect on antlerless harvest or maybe not with bag limits as they are. But if there were increased antlerless harvest, this would make room in the population for surviving yearlings within the habitat. Also The results are reduced deer numbers (reduced crop damage) with better buck to doe ratio and older bucks available for harvest, which is good for property owner s (farmer) and hunters. Deer Management Regulation Changes should be made using science and good data, not opinions! Sound deer management should be based upon: Habitat Carrying Capacity, Harvest Data, Total Harvest Antlered and Antlerless data shown above. Population Estimates (Chart below) 35 3 25 Estimated Deer Population by Statewide and Regions 15 1 State Region A Region B 5 Fawn: Doe Recruitment, by far the hardest to estimate. Tools used on QDMA managed properties are; observation log data, Lactation presentment of Harvested doe and Trail Cameras Surveys. DNR and W&HS estimates (in part) with harvest of button bucks times two (because the sexes are born in approximately equal numbers) = fawns. Subtract this number from antlerless harvest numbers = Adult Doe. Fawn numbers

divided by adult doe = Fawn: Adult Doe Ratio. This collection of Adult Doe numbers also can be used to measure Adult Bucks (older then 1.5yrs) to Adult Doe which is another part of measuring management goals. The Focus on Coyote Predation? This chart alone creates concerns and should! BUT other charts don t agree however this is part of the management process.

Bow Hunters Survey

To summarize, this region has always enjoyed a rich hunting heritage. Hunters, who were indoctrinated to take only bucks and any buck, recognize the need to harvest female deer to manage population growth. To quote from Maryland s White-tailed Deer 29-18 Deer Plan: Deer harvest regulations provide the framework to accomplish management objectives. Changes to deer hunting regulations most often are spurred by: 1. The need to alter deer population trends via season and bag limit changes; 2. The need to accommodate new recreational opportunities for hunters and wildlife-watchers; 3. The need to minimize risk of disease introduction/transmission into the deer herd. We have provided a lot of data and charts and attempted to gather the most reliable sources of collected data possible without a lot of opinions. I for one have been told that I m always looking through my QDM blinders, I must agree because the QDM management strategy has achieved management objectives while providing awesome hunting opportunities year after year for me and many other QDMA ers. Conversations when talking of Region A seems like always comes up; tremendous amount of hunting pressure (I m not sure what is meant by this) and deer numbers are way down and most the time followed with who is to blame. As it was back in the early 19 s, concerned sportsman and women will have to put the politics and opinions aside and support DNR and W&HS by checking in ALL harvested deer. State agencies collects around 5% of harvest as bio-checked at deer processing shops, your tele-checked deer numbers are VERY important as reliable harvest data collection. On the other hand, Regulation Changes if applied should be with a three part test. First, is the change biologically sound? YES! When mature bucks are absent, young bucks participate more strenuously in rut activities. This drains resources that could have been invested in reaching physical maturity more quickly. So, can deer herds exist without mature bucks? Sure they can, but remember: Whitetail populations evolved with mature bucks. Their social order works best with mature bucks. Young bucks fitness can be enhanced by the presence of mature bucks. Hunting interest increases when mature bucks are present. All of these points are good for the deer herd, for deer management and for the future of hunting. The next time you pass a young buck, know that you did your part to improve the health of the deer herd as well as increase your chance of taking a mature buck in the future. Second, is/will it be supported by the majority of effected hunters? Last but not less can/will it be objectively monitored to determine success?

Regardless of strategy used to protect yearling bucks, we recommend wildlife agencies conduct extensive education and outreach programs to inform hunters (managers) about the benefits of protecting yearling bucks and to garner their support for sound deer management program. After all hunters are the managers that harvest and provide the reliable account of harvested deer. Part III, Eastern Shore Counties. Part IV, Southern Maryland. Respectfully, E. W. Grimes, Director/President of the Maryland State Chapter Quality Deer Management Association