70 results after applying filter
In complete archive
This document is a review of scientific information pertaining to wolves, wolf-related issues, and wolf-management options in Michigan. Consideration and integration of this information will be critical to efforts to plan wolf management in the State. Evaluation of available science is a necessary component of decision-making; however, wolf management decisions must also address value conflicts among stakeholders and the acceptability of risks associated with uncertainty. Accordingly, this document does not provide answers to questions of how wolves should be managed in Michigan. Rather, this document facilitates understanding of the potential consequences of certain management approaches, and will thus help managers make decisions based on the best available science.
Report on the conditions of the deer herd in 1938, paying particular attention to the problems of a rising herd population and the effects of extreme winter weather.
In 2000, work was carried out under federal permit from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to control damages from resident giant Canada geese utilizing translocation, nest and egg destruction, and permits to kill free-flying birds. Translocation was utilized in most Wildlife Division administrative units; however, the majority of goose conflicts occurred in the Southeastern Management Unit (SEMU). This report summarizes the translocation and egg destruction activities carried out in 2000. Michigan was permitted to destroy Canada geese to reinforce harassment efforts in 2000. but no geese were destroyed. For the third year in a row. there has been a decrease in the number of geese translocated from SEMU sites. A total of 3,432 geese was captured during the summer of 2000, as compared to 4,703 and 4,864 geese captured in 1999 and 1998, respectively. Iowa was sent 2,405 geese in 2000 (1,974 in 1999, 576 in 1998); the remaining 1,016 geese were relocated to other areas within Michigan (2,667 in 1999). A total of 109 permits was issued for egg removal in 2000, which was 46 more permits than in the previous year, and 58 more than 1998. Of the 109 permits issued in 2000, all of these returned usable data summarizing their activities. Under the 2000 permit, 3,875 (>99%) of 3,882 eggs were removed from 741 nests. A total of 1,408 artificial eggs were deployed in 2000 compared to 1,044 in 1999 and 681 in 1998. In 2000, four permits were issued for lethal control of giant Canada geese. Saginaw Bay and the Southeast Management Units each issued one permit, and the South Central Management Unit issued two. None of the permits for lethal control were used.
Report on observations of and possible control measures for gulls and terns, whose population increased as a result of recent dredging operations.
Report on farmer's cooperative pools - a cooperative hunting club system known as the Williamston Plan.
Report on project to transfer deer from over-populated areas in the northeast Lower Peninsula of Michigan to areas with plenty of food but few deer in Presque Isle, Alpena and Alcona counties.
Survey to estimate moose abundance in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan from January 2 to February 2, 2013.
A Wildlife Services employee from the U.S. Department of Agriculture oils double-crested cormorant eggs in a nest to prevent young from hatching as part of a population control measure on the Les Cheneaux Islands in Lake Huron. The booming cormorant population has been pointed to as a reason behind the decline of certain sport fisheries. The DNR works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in recommending sites for population control.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) received authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1977 to expand goose-hunting opportunities in areas where significant conflicts existed between people and resident giant Canada geese. Initial steps to regulate local goose populations included more hunting days and an increased daily limit starting at the end of the regular goose season (1977-1981). However, a three-county area in Michigan's Saginaw Bay region (Figure 1) was closed to early goose hunting after 1987 due to the high proportion (60%) of interiors in the special season harvest; these three counties, containing the Saginaw County Goose Management Units (GMU) and the Tuscola-Huron GMU, traditionally managed to attract interior Canada geese. In February 2000 a proposal was submitted to the Mississippi Flyway Council Technical Section (MFCTS) to conduct an experimental 1-15 September early season in the Saginaw Bay area for the 2000-2002 seasons with a 5-bird daily limit. Based on mail surveys results, an estimated 5,529 (± 1,271: 95% confidence interval) Canada geese were harvested in 8,059 hunter-days (± 1,700) during the 2000 season; 5,931 (± 1,175) geese were harvested during 8,355 <± 1,239) hunter-days during the 2001 season, and 6,274 geese were harvested during 8,456 hunter-days during the 2002 season. Combining these data with estimates of proportional contribution of giants in the early season harvest, we estimate that a range of about 5,360 to 6,090 giant Canada geese per year and 165 to 190 interior Canada geese per year were harvested during the early season on the study area.
Results of investigation of reports of damage to trees by muskrats at Hayes State Park.
This report contains draft Wildlife Division policy and procedure statements for the management of white-tailed deer in urban and suburban areas in Michigan. Appendix I lists reasons that urban and suburban deer may have increased in Michigan during the past 20 years. Appendix II includes information about potential methods to control urban and suburban deer. Reasons that these potential methods are recommended or not recommended by the Wildlife Division are discussed. Appendix III is an annotated bibliography of select literature on this subject, indexed by potential methods of herd control.
Report on using antlerless deer and special licenses to control the number of deer removed from certain areas.
Regional variation in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawn productivity rates has been observed in many states. Michigan is no exception, with fawn productivity rates of 0.65 fetuses/doe in Region III and 0.07 for Region I. This study was initiated to investigate the effects of different photoperiods (ESD = early short day, LSD = Late Short Day) on the onset of puberty in white-tailed deer fawns. Differences in growth rates and body weights were recorded for the ESD and LSD treatments within 2 weeks after the decreased light (8L-16D) regime was initiated. During the period of 8 August - 15 October, when both light regimes were 16L-8D. weights of the paired fawns were not statistically different. During the period 16 October - 5 December, when the ESD group was on a 8L-16D regime, ESD weights were heavier. LSD weights were heavier during the period 6 December - 6 February when they were switched to the 8L-16D photoperiods. Examination of blood progesterone levels, and ovarian and uteral development indicated that 7 of 8 fawns in the ESD treatment had undergone estrus in late January-early February, while none of the 8 in the LSD treatment had sexually matured.
This booklet was prepared as an aid to landowners interested in managing their land for white-tailed deer, but it should be of interest to anyone seriously concerned about the long-term welfare of the species. Discussed in this booklet is the behavior of deer, their basic needs, management practices designed to improve habitat conditions, and harvest strategies to regulate deer herd size and composition. In general, basic information is provided which must be considered to effectively manage deer populations.
Results of a survey of wolf hunters contacted after the 2013 hunting season to estimate hunter participation, hunter satisfaction, and wolves seen and harvested.
Giant Canada goose (Branta canadensis maxima) populations in Michigan grew fourfold from 1977-85 in Michigan with a 1985 fall flight estimated at 54,800. From 1972-89, 18,500 nuisance Canadas were translocated. Regular Canada goose hunting seasons were not controlling populations. During 1986-89, Michigan conducted four experimental early September (1-10) hunting seasons across most of the Lower Peninsula and a small part of the Upper Peninsula, with concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The purpose was to assess impacts of the special seasons on local giant Canada goose and B. c. interior populations, Canada goose harvest, and hunter participation. State small game surveys and USFWS harvest reports, banding records and tail fan collections supplied data for analysis. State personnel observed Canada goose concentrations to record neck collars for population affiliation, and obtained culmen measurements from geese shot by hunters for determining giant Canadas in the harvest. About 24 percent of Michigan's waterfowl hunters participated in the seasons, on average taking 18.1 percent of the state's total annual Canada goose harvest, a mean of 13,132 birds. Over 148,000 geese were observed for collars. Weighted collar data and 750 culmen measurements both verify a high proportion of the in-season populations and harvest (84 percent) were giant Canadas, mostly from Michigan. Recoveries of Michigan-banded giants were most concentrated in the southern lower Peninsula in areas with abundant lakes and marshes. Recoveries of foreign-banded geese that may have been B. c. interior tended to concentrate in three counties with migrant goose management projects. These areas may warrant some changes in special seasons regulations. Nonetheless, the experimental seasons were imminently successful in targeting giant Canadas and consideration should be given to making the September 1-10 season operational.
By October 1. 1989, Michigan's deer population was estimated to be 2,000,000 deer. which was about four times the number of deer in Michigan in 1971. This herd was causing unacceptable societal costs through damage to agricultural crops and car/deer accidents. For 1990, the State Deer Damage Task Force recommended, and the Michigan Natural Resource Commission adopted, the experimental Deer Crop Damage Block Permit (DCDBP) Program to reduce the number of out-of-season deer damage control permits; increase antlerless deer harvest on sites of chronic deer crop depredation; and utilize licensed hunters to resolve crop damage problems during regular deer seasons. In 1991, the Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) contracted with the Department of Park and Recreation Resources of Michigan State University to impartially examine the attitudes and reported behaviors of the following groups affected by the program: farmers eligible for the program, neighbors of farmers in the program., and deer hunters who did and did not hunt with DCDBP. Mail questionnaires were used to solicit the information. The majority of farmers, landowners adjacent to participating farmers, and hunters who hunted with DCDBP had favorable attitudes about the program.. Hunters who did not hunt with DCDBP were evenly divided between those with favorable attitudes and those who had negative attitudes about the program. The majority of farmers rated the DCDBP program as highly or moderately effective in controlling deer crop damage. The reported harvest of antlerless deer on DCDBP participating farms increased 138% between 1988 and 1990, while the reported harvest of antlerless deer on non-participating farms increased 75%. When asked if they would participate in the DCDBP if offered in 1991, the large majority of the participating farmers (84%) and a sizeable minority of the non-participating farmers (34%) responded they would.
Report on investigations into the relationship between an apparent abundance of mink and skunk in Sanilac County and their supposed menace to other small game, brought on by a petition purporting such in an effort to get an open season on skunk and mink.
Michigan's resident goose population originated from giant Canada geese (Branta canadensis maxima) that were released or escaped from captive collections. Initial growth of both populations was slow but accelerated in the 1950's and early 1960's with a Department of Conservation operated propagation and release program. Giant Canada geese currently nest throughout the state. In Michigan's southern Lower Peninsula, goose numbers increased to the point of causing conflict with the public. Complaints of geese and goose droppings on lawns, beaches, and golf courses have become common at Wildlife Division field offices, especially in the southeast. In response to public demand, about 16,000 "nuisance geese" were translocated from 1972 to 1987. However, local goose populations continued to increase as did the number of complaints of nuisance geese. In 1977, Michigan received authorization from the Mississippi Flyway Council for an increase in goose harvest. To measure the effectiveness of special seasons at targeting and reducing resident goose populations, a method was needed to determine the proportion of these geese in the harvest. The objectives of this study were to (1) find a practical method of distinguishing locally-produced giant Canada geese from migrant interior Canada geese that use Michigan, (2) estimate what proportion of the harvest during special seasons consisted of giants vs. interiors, (3) estimate the percent of giants in the regular season (October - November) harvest at goose management areas, and (4) report age and sex ratios of geese harvested during all three (early, regular, and late) seasons. The Culmen Cutoff method provided estimates of the percent giant Canada geese in harvest samples that were consistent with or more accurate than other, more complex, single-measurement techniques. The sample from the 1986 early season was 94% giants compared to 78% giants in 1987.
The primary purpose of special Canada goose seasons is to provide additional harvest opportunity on specific flocks of Canada geese in areas where these birds are responsible for human-goose conflicts. Stabilizing or reducing goose-related conflicts in an environment with expanding human and goose populations demands maximum use of creative management tools like special seasons. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires that special seasons conform to specific criteria. Primary among these criteria is the requirement that special seasons have minimal impact on non-target goose populations; migrant Canada geese can not exceed 10% of the early or 20% of the late season harvests. After apparent failure to meet the 80% giant harvest criteria with season extensions during the early 1980's, the special late season was continued experimentally in Michigan. An interim late season evaluation was developed following adjustments to open-area boundaries and season dates. This is the final report, which provides a review of all late seasons and emphasis on evaluation of those conducted in recent years. Specifically, the report documents hunter participation, harvest, and success at targeting giant Canada geese in the harvest.
In 1989, Michigan participated in the fourth year of early experimental Canada goose hunting to control local populations of giant Canada geese. The purpose of this report is to describe the turnover in Canada goose populations in Michigan during early fall (August 21 to September 20) and to estimate what proportion of the early goose harvest consisted of local giant Canada geese. In 1989, a high proportion of the neck-collared geese observed in Michigan before (84 percent) and during (71 percent) the early September 1-10 hunt in 1989 were resident birds. An estimated 91 percent of the harvest were found to be giant Canadas.
This volume contains summaries of research activities within the Wildlife Division of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources. Each summary reports on its associated study in general, but focuses on research conducted from October 1, 1996 to September 30, 1997. The Principal Investigator(s) for each study is identified by a "PI" following his or her name. Requests for additional information should be directed to an appropriate PI. All summaries are intended to be factual and as complete as a 2-page format will allow. However, many of the summaries report on ongoing studies and discuss findings that may be interpreted differently once data collection is completed. Therefore, the findings presented in these summaries should be considered "preliminary" at this time.
This report contains summaries of studies conducted by members of the Research/Technology Section of the Wildlife Bureau, Partnership on Ecosystem Research and Management (PERM) faculty at Michigan State University, and other university cooperators. Each summary reports on its associated study in general, but focuses on research conducted from October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999. Several summaries are for studies that are just beginning in the year 2000, but are included to increase awareness of these new studies. The Principal Investigator(s) for each study is identified by a "PI" following his or her name. Requests for additional information should be directed to an appropriate PI. All summaries are intended to be factual and as complete as a 2-page format will allow. However, many of the summaries report on ongoing studies and discuss findings that may be interpreted differently once data collection is completed. Therefore, the findings presented in these summaries should be considered "preliminary" at this time.
Report summarizing issues relating to predator management, with particular attention to bobcat control.
