Annual performance report, wildlife management |
Previous | 8 of 8 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Annual Performance Report
Wildlife Management
July 2004 – June 2005 Volume LXXVIII
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Wildlife Management
ii
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
GRANT W- 57, SEGMENT 30
JULY 1, 2004 – JUNE 30, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I COORDINATION
Coordinators Report 1
II SURVEYS AND INVENTORIES 6
Coordinators Report 6
Study A2 Status of Mourning Dove Populations 7
Study A4 Status of Upland Bird Populations 9
Study A5 C. U. R. E. Quail Monitoring 38
Study B1 Status of Black Bear in North Carolina 39
Study B3 Status of White- tailed Deer in North Carolina 58
Study B4 Status of Black Bear in North Carolina 77
Study C7 Status of Furbearers in North Carolina 79
Study E1 Waterfowl Surveys 94
Study F3 Mail Surveys of North Carolina Hunters 112
Study G1 Wildlife Diseases in North Carolina 120
III TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 128
Coordinator’s Summary 128
Category 1: To provide technical guidance to government agencies 129
Category 2: To provide technical guidance to private landowners 133
Category 3: To provide technical guidance to manage wildlife populations 136
Technical Guidance Conducted by Agriculture Liaison Biologist and
Private Lands Coordinator 140
IV OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ON GAMELANDS 141
Coordinator’s Summary 141
Coastal Game Lands 142
Central Game Lands
159
Western Game Lands 172
V MISCELLANEOUS STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES 196
Coordinator’s Summary 196
Study V1 Canada Goose Protection and Habitat Protection 197
1
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
PROJECT W- 57, SEGMENT 30
July 1, 2004- June 30, 2005
State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30
Project Title: Coordinators Report
Period Covered: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005
The following is an outline of accomplishments for the year by objective.
Objective 1:
To maintain the State’s eligibility for participation in Federal Aid Programs.
Planned Activities – The following activities were planned for completion during the
year:
Annually provide notice of desire to participate in the P- R Program.
Annually provide certification of paid license holders.
Furnish information, upon request, regarding the State’s authority to participate in U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service grant programs.
Accomplishments:
Renewal documents for the upcoming segment were submitted and approved. This
application for funds satisfied the requirement to provide notice of desire to participate.
Certification of paid license holders is prepared and submitted each year by the
Commission’s Division of Administrative services. The annual report of license holders
was filed as required for the 2005 funding period. A non- duplication survey of paid
license holders will no longer be necessary under the Point- of- Sale system that was
implemented in recent years.
No information concerning the State’s authority to participate in the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service grant program was requested.
2
Objective 2:
To submit for federal aid participation, only those projects that meet program
standards and are consistent with State fish and wildlife management goals.
Planned Activities – The Coordinator’s planned activities included the following:
Coordinate P- R planning to ensure that Program objectives are consistent with agency
goals.
Accomplishments:
Grant performance was monitored through field inspections, monthly coordination
meetings with field supervisors and quarterly coordination reports. The W- 57 Grant
projects generally remained on schedule. Equipment purchases, which have been
delayed in the past, are generally back on schedule due to special allocations from the
Endowment fund and other sources.
The P- R Coordinator conducted informal reviews of program activities during the year.
No major shortcomings were observed. Supervisors submitted quarterly coordination
reports, and no major deviations were noted during the year. Most deviations were minor
and involved routine adjustments to make best use of available manpower and
equipment.
Objective 3:
To ensure that project documents are consistent with program standards and
Procedure and are submitted in a timely manner.
Planned Activities – The following activities were planned:
Performance reports for Segment 30 were scheduled for preparation and submission to
the Regional Office by October 1, 2005.
Accomplishments:
All required documents ( performance reports, agreements and supporting information)
were reviewed and submitted on time. There were no significant deviations this project
period.
Objective 4:
To assure that projects are accomplished in an efficient manner.
Planned Activities – The following activities were planned for completion this year.
Minor work force and request adequate resources to accomplish project objectives.
3
Minor support services and request adequate equipment, supplies, etc., to carry out
necessary work.
Conduct on- site inspections to monitor performance.
Initiate actions necessary to correct deficiencies.
Accomplishments:
Coordination with the Archeology and Historic Preservation Branch was required on
several occasions to ensure that agency federal and activities are in compliance with
federal and state guidelines.
Contacted USFWS Ecological Branch on several occasions to coordinate program
activities.
Objectives 5 and 6:
To maintain adequate financial and property management systems.
Planned Activities – Work plans this year were as follows:
Major jobs to be accomplished were: the monitoring of program costs and the accurate
coding of federal aid activities. The coordinator also planned to meet with the
Commission’s Division of Administrative Services, as needed, to review maintenance of
accurate financial and property records in accordance with federal standards. The
records system has been computerized, and centralized procedures are in effect that
reduces the need for monitoring by the Coordinator. Monitoring is done by
Administrative Services personnel who are familiar with federal standards for the
program.
Accomplishments:
The Coordinator met with Administrative Services personnel to discuss costs and coding
of activities on several occasions. The coding system was reviewed by the Coordinator
to reflect new project activities as needed.
The coordinator discussed the property management system with appropriate staff and
discussed the coding system’s ability to identify federal property for inventory and
control purposes.
4
Objective 7:
To coordinate the federal aid program with other State activities and those of other
governmental agencies to eliminate duplication and to minimize conflicts.
Planned Activities – The following activities were planned:
During the year, plans were to schedule necessary coordination with other agencies to
ensure a minimum of conflicts and duplication. Program information is to be provided to
other agencies upon request.
Select and submit only those projects that are eligible under the P- R Act and conform
with NEPA guidelines.
Accomplishments:
The Coordinator submitted during the period only those projects that reflects approved
program activities. The Coordinator participated in agency meetings to review Wildlife
Division goals and objectives. No changes from those reflected in the five- year work
plan were noted.
The annual Grant Agreement ( Segment 30) and AFA Amendment No. 4 ( Grant W- 57)
were evaluated for eligibility. NEPA and Section 7 assessments were submitted as
required.
Minor support services and request adequate equipment, supplies, etc., to carry out
necessary work.
Conduct on- site inspections to monitor performance.
Initiate actions necessary to correct deficiencies.
Objective 8:
To insure that the Program is in compliance with all applicable federal laws
and regulations.
No specific activities were scheduled during the reporting period.
Federal laws and regulations were reviewed as necessary to ensure compliance. The
Coordinator conferred with the Regional Office staff frequently during the year to resolve
questions about various rules.
The Coordinator attended the 2005 Annual Federal Aid Coordinator’s Meeting in
Georgia.
Objective 9:
5
To assist the Hunter Safety Coordinator upon request.
The Coordinator was assisted as necessary; the major assistance involved questions about
documentation and reporting. The Coordinator corresponded with the Hunter Safety
Coordinator on several occasions to assist with questions regarding the program’s federal
aid requirements.
SURVEYS, INVENTORY AND RESEARCH PROJECTS
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
PROJECT W- 57, SEGMENT 30
July 1, 2004- June 30 2005
6
State: North Carolina
Grant: W- 57
Project leaders assigned to the Division of Wildlife Management’s Research Section coordinate
research, surveys and inventories. There are currently 10 active projects, one of which is
assigned to North Carolina State University as a research project on a contractual basis.
Categories of work include: Upland game birds, big game mammals, furbearers, hunter surveys
and wildlife diseases. Costs this segment are estimated at $ 738,300 for surveys and inventories
and $ 50,000 for research for an estimated total of $ 788,300. .
Annual reports as listed below, are attached.
A2: Status of Mourning Dove Populations
A4: Status of Upland Bird Populations
A5: C. U. R. E. Quail Monitoring
B1: Status of Black Bear in North Carolina
B3: Status of White- tailed Deer in North Carolina
B4: Status of Black Bear in North Carolina
C7: Status of Furbearers in North Carolina
E1: Waterfowl Surveys
F3: Mail Surveys of North Carolina Hunters
G1: Wildlife Diseases in North Carolina
Prepared By:____________________________
Date___________
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30
7
Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina
Period Covered: July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005
SECTION II RESEARCH
Subsection A: Upland Game Birds
Study A2: Status of Mourning Dove Populations
Study Objective: To develop indices to dove breeding populations.
A. Activity
Job A2- 1: Dove Call Count Census
Twenty- one random breeding transects, each 20- miles- long, were run in May and early June
during which the doves seen and heard were recorded. The results were reported to the US Fish
and Wildlife Service.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishment
May 20, 2005- June 5, 2005. All transects were completed on schedule.
C. Significant Deviations
No significant deviations.
D. Remarks
None
E. Recommendations
No changes are recommended.
F. Cost
8
$ 3,000.00
Prepared by: Joseph Fuller, Migratory Game Bird Coordinator
Date: August 15, 2005
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30
Project Title: Status of Upland Game Bird Populations
9
Period Covered: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005
SECTION II RESEARCH
Study A4: Status of Upland Game Bird Populations
Study Objective: The objective of this study is to survey and monitor the status and
trends of upland game bird populations and habitats in North
Carolina to enable the establishment of sound regulations and
habitat treatments for effective statewide management.
A. Activity
Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring
Upland game bird populations and habitat trends in North Carolina were monitored in a variety
of ways. Reliable observational and hunter experience data were noted from throughout the
State. Observational data and harvest reports provide information in regard to population status
by area and for the State. The number, age structure, and location of hunter- harvested wild
turkeys reported over the telephone reporting system and over the Internet were compiled and
analyzed for each county. Additional data for wild turkeys and for other upland game birds from
hunter mail surveys were compiled and analyzed as well.
Job A4- 2: Restoration
Potential wild turkey restoration sites were investigated and evaluated using established criteria
and procedures. Selected restoration sites were prioritized and submitted to the Staff for
approval. Wildlife management crews and biologists utilized standard trapping procedures to
live- trap birds from established populations. Birds were released on approved sites in the
appropriate numbers and sex ratios as delineated in the established restoration guidelines. An
annual report was prepared summarizing restoration accomplishments. The status of each
restoration site was assessed by reviewing observation reports, interviewing site cooperators,
hunters, and/ or agency personnel, and analyzing appropriate survey data. An annual report was
prepared listing the status of each restoration site and is used in making appropriate management
and regulatory decisions.
Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys
The Avid Quail Hunter Survey and the Avid Grouse Hunter Survey were utilized to monitor
regional trends in these upland game bird populations in North Carolina. Mailing lists of
participants were developed and maintained from names provided by District Wildlife
Biologists, referrals from current survey participants, and from the current Quail Unlimited
roster. Survey cards with instructions were mailed to survey participants. Returned survey cards
10
were edited and submitted to NCWRC Data Processing Section for data entry. Data files were
edited and analyzed. Survey results were compiled and analyzed by species and location to
assess trends in game bird populations and hunter success. Participants in the surveys
periodically received copies of a small game newsletter entitled “ The Upland Gazette”.
Participants in these surveys are given caps recognizing their assistance along with annual
summaries of the survey results.
Hunter success on selected Game Lands was monitored by hunter interviews and review of hunt
participation forms. This includes the “ Sandhills Field Trial Report Form” where participants
recorded coveys observed to annually assess changes in quail flush rates on the J. Robert Gordon
Field Trial Area. Data were compared with other study results and an annual summary of the
survey results was developed for use in making management decisions and assessing population
status. Division personnel and the public were informed of survey results.
Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys
Long- term productivity surveys were utilized to collect data to detect regional trends in upland
game bird productivity in North Carolina. These surveys included wild turkey brood surveys
and bobwhite quail call- count surveys.
Mailing lists of wild turkey brood survey participants were maintained from names provided by
project personnel and through contacts with private conservation organizations and other State
and Federal agencies. Survey cards with instructions were mailed to participants for recording
recruitment observations. Survey results were compiled and analyzed by geographical region to
assess trends in wild turkey productivity.
Quail call counts were conducted along established survey routes on private lands and on
selected Game Lands during late June. Calling individuals heard per station were used to
provide an index to breeding populations. Data were compared with other study results and an
annual summary of the survey results was developed for use in making management decisions
and assessing population status. Division personnel and the public were informed of survey
results.
B. Target Dates for Achievements and Accomplishments
Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring
All activities were accomplished on schedule as follows:
Annual Report - August 2004
Harvest Tabulation – May 2005
Observational Data - Received year- round
Job A4- 2: Restoration
All activities were accomplished on schedule as follows:
11
Investigation of potential restoration areas – Year- round
Submission of Priority Restoration Area List – September 2004
Wild Turkey Restoration Area Status Report – November 2004
Trapping and Relocation of Wild Turkeys – January & February 2005
Wild Turkey Restoration Accomplishments Report – March 2005
Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys
All activities were accomplished on schedule as follows:
Updated and maintained Avid Grouse and Quail Hunter Survey mailing lists – September 2004
Mailed survey cards to Avid Grouse Hunters – October 2004
Mailed survey cards to Avid Quail Hunters – November 2004
Edited Avid Grouse and Quail Hunter Survey cards and deliver to DP – March and April 2005
Completed data analysis of Avid Grouse and Quail Hunter Surveys – May 2005
Completed & distributed Avid Grouse and Quail Hunter Survey Summaries – June 2005
Compiled and distributed Sandhills Field Trial Summary Report - June 2005
Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys
All activities were accomplished on schedule as follows:
Edited wild turkey brood survey cards – September 2004
Compiled and distributed wild turkey brood survey results – October 2004
Updated and maintained wild turkey brood survey cooperator list – May 2005
Mailed wild turkey brood survey cards to cooperators – June 2005
Distributed quail call count data sheets and instructions to biologists – June 2005
Compiled and distributed quail call count data summary – July 2005
C. Significant Deviations
Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring
None.
Job A4- 2: Restoration
None.
Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys
None.
Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys
None.
12
D. Remarks
Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring
Information regarding population status is collected in several forms. Observational data and
harvest reports are the primary means of collecting this information. Observations made by
Commission personnel and/ or other cooperators are monitored statewide. Specific observations
provide valuable information regarding the success of restoration projects and enhance
knowledge about range expansion and population growth.
A one- week winter either- sex wild turkey season was held in January 2005 in ten counties. This
was the second year of the winter season. The telephone reporting system and the Internet were
utilized to record harvests. The reported harvest was 151 birds; 83 gobblers ( 47 adult gobblers
and 36 jakes) and 68 hens. Table 1 presents the reported harvest for the winter season by county.
The reported wild turkey harvest for the 2005 spring season was 9,824 birds and represents an
11% increase over the 2004 reported spring gobbler harvest. The telephone reporting system
and the Internet reporting system were utilized this year to record harvests. Table 2 presents the
reported spring gobbler harvest by county for 2005. The increase in the harvest can be attributed
to a good hatch in the summer of 2004. Table 3 presents the age structure of the harvest by
region and shows the percentage of juvenile birds in the harvest. Percentage of juvenile birds in
the harvest is an indicator of the reproductive success from the previous year.
Job A4- 2: Restoration
The initial phase of our wild turkey restoration program was completed in 2000. Secondary
guidelines for supplemental releases of birds to fill the remaining gaps of unoccupied habitat
were implemented in 2002. The secondary phase of the restoration program was completed in
February 2005. A total of 50 wild turkeys were relocated to 3 different restoration sites. Two
sites were completed in the Coastal Region and one site in the Central Region.
Table 4 is the 2005 regional summary of wild turkey restoration and Table 5 shows the 2005
wild turkey restoration accomplishments by restoration area.
Five potential wild turkey restoration areas were investigated and evaluated during the reporting
period.
Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys
Avid Quail Hunter Survey
During the 2004- 05 season, 87 quail hunters provided data from 1,201 hunts ( Table 6).
Statewide, the reported coveys per party per trip increased 5% from 1.90 during the 2003- 2004
season to 1.99 during the 2004- 05 season ( Table 7). Hunts reported from the central Coastal
Plain counties continued to have the highest success rate in the state. During 2004- 05, hunters in
the central Coastal Plain counties reported 2.56 coveys/ party/ trip on 289 trips, while northern
13
Coastal Plain counties reported 2.55 coveys/ party/ trip on 234 trips and southern Coastal Plain
counties reported 2.54 coveys/ party/ trip on 202 trips ( Figure 1).
Hunts reported from southern Piedmont counties averaged 1.26 coveys/ party/ trip on 202 hunts,
while central Piedmont hunts averaged 1.12 coveys/ party/ trip on 58 hunts and northern Piedmont
hunts averaged 0.99 coveys/ party/ trip on 170 hunts ( Figure 1).
Few hunts were reported from Mountain counties. Southern Mountain hunters reported finding
1.12 coveys/ party/ trip on 25 hunts; northern Mountain hunters averaged 1.10 coveys/ party/ trip
on 21 hunts ( Figure 1).
Hunter success by month was 2.33 coveys/ party/ trip during November, 2.04 coveys/ party/ trip
during December, 2.01 coveys/ party/ trip during January, and 1.78 coveys/ party/ trip during
February ( Figure 2.).
Figure 3 depicts the climatalogical regions used in the Avid Quail Hunter Survey while Figure 5
graphically displays the long- term trend in coveys/ party/ trip.
Avid Grouse Hunter Survey
During the 2004- 05 season, 56 avid grouse hunters reported on 795 hunts ( Table 8). Although
the long term trend has been downward, the grouse flush rate was up slightly while the harvest
rate decreased slightly from the 2003- 04 season. The grouse flush rate increased from 3.79 to
4.07 flushes/ party trip (+ 8%), while the harvest rate declined slightly (- 2%) from 0.51 to 0.50
grouse bagged/ party trip ( Table 9).
The grouse flush rate in the southern Mountains ( 4.59 flushes/ party trip; up 12%) was
considerably higher that the flush rate in the northern Mountains ( 2.89 flushes/ party trip; up
< 1%) ( Figure 6).
Flush rates were lowest in October ( 1.70 flushes/ party trip) when the leaves were still on the
trees, increased in November ( 3.81 flushes/ party trip) and December ( 4.46 flushes/ party trip),
and then dropped slightly during January ( 3.69 flushes/ party trip) before increasing again in
February ( 4.58 flushes/ party trip) ( Figure 7).
Flush rates were considerably higher on private lands ( 4.94 flushes/ party trip) than on game
lands ( 3.17 flushes/ party trip) ( Figure 8).
Figure 4 depicts the climatalogical regions used in the Avid Grouse Hunter Survey. Figure 9
graphically displays the long- term trend in flushes/ party/ trip and harvest per hunter trip while
Figure 10 displays the regional trends.
Sandhills Game Land
Results from Game Land hunts reported for Moore, Scotland, and Richmond Counties are
reported in Table 10 ( hunts from Pee Dee Game land in Richmond County also are included in
the 2004- 05 season data.). The number of cooperators who report on Sandhills Game land hunts
14
continues to dwindle. Additionally, hunter success declined 43% this year to 0.64
coveys/ party/ trip ( Table 11).
Field trial clubs using the 8,000- acre Field Trial Facility on Sandhills Game Land have
maintained records of covey observations during the past 22 seasons. Covey observation reports
submitted by clubs using the area and summer call- counts provide a means to evaluate the
success of management activities conducted on the area by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission ( NCWRC) and the North Carolina Field Trial Association ( NCFTA).
Covey observation report books were mailed to each field trial club scheduled to use the Field
Trial Grounds during the 2004- 05 season. An additional supply of report books was maintained
in the Field Trial Clubhouse. The North Carolina Field Trial Association was provided with
summary information from covey observation records.
Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys
Wild Turkey Brood Survey
Brood surveys have been used since 1988 to assess annual wild turkey productivity. They are
conducted each year during July and August. The information collected provides a wild turkey
productivity index for the various regions of the State. Another real value of the brood survey is
to determine the status of restoration projects at an early stage. Areas that produce several
broods the first year usually succeed. Tables 12 and 13 summarize the information received for
2004. An average of three poults per hen is considered good productivity.
During the 2004 survey period, 9,265 wild turkeys were observed. Statewide, the percentage of
hens with poults ( 70%) indicated excellent nesting success; the average number of poults/ brood
( 4.1) indicated good poult survival; and the average number of poults/ hen ( 2.8) indicated good
overall productivity. All three geographical regions experienced good productivity with the
Coastal Region averaging 2.8 poults/ hen, the Piedmont Region averaging 3.0 poults/ hen, and the
Mountain Region averaging 2.7 poults/ hen. The primary factor in the good productivity during
2004 was good weather during the nesting and brood rearing periods.
Wild turkey productivity was down in all three geographical regions in 2003 with a statewide
average of only 1.6 poults per hen ( the poorest on record since brood surveys began in 1988).
This year’s results, therefore, are especially encouraging. Figure 11 graphically depicts the wild
turkey brood survey results by region for 2004 while Figure 12 shows the statewide wild turkey
brood survey results from 1988 through 2004.
Quail Call Count Survey
Quail call count surveys have been used to monitor quail abundance and population trends in
North Carolina since 1957. Call counts provide a valuable long- term index to quail populations
( Figure 13). They provide an independent index to breeding populations that is valuable to
verify our hunting indices and are especially important to document trends in areas where we
15
have little or no information based on hunter success rates. A comparison of 2002- 2005 results
is contained in Table 14.
In 2005, 25 routes were surveyed - 10 in the Coastal Region, 11 in the Piedmont Region, and 4
in the Mountain Region. Analyzing the results of all 25 survey routes reveals that in the Coastal
Region, the average number of quail heard per route ( 28.1) was down 3% from the previous
year. In the Piedmont Region, the average number of quail heard per route ( 6.4) was down 11%
from the previous year. In the Mountain Region, the average number of quail heard per route
( 1.5) was down 57% from the previous year. The number of quail heard per route in the Coastal
Region has been up in two of the last four years while the number of quail heard per route in
both the Piedmont and Mountain Regions has been down in three of the last four years. Figure
14 shows the results of the quail call count surveys by geographical region from 1957 through
2005.
Northern bobwhite quail populations have declined drastically throughout the southeastern
United States during the last 40 years. North Carolina’s quail population has followed this same
downward trend. Quail were once an abundant byproduct of rural landscapes and a mainstay for
North Carolina’s small game hunters. Large- scale changes in both land use and farming
practices, with the resultant loss and/ or degradation of habitat, have been major contributing
factors. Urban sprawl and fragmentation of remaining habitats have further exacerbated an
already dire situation for quail by increasing their susceptibility to predation and other limiting
factors.
The long term trend in quail numbers in North Carolina is obviously downward. Although there
have been minor annual fluctuations, survey results over the last six to eight years seem to
indicate that quail abundance in the Coastal Region may be stabilizing at a relatively low level
consistent with the limited amount of available habitat. The downward trend in quail abundance
in the Piedmont and Mountain Regions appears to be continuing.
E. Recommendations
Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring
The wild turkey population in the State is generally on an upward trend. After a poor hatch in
2003, the reported harvest declined in the spring of 2004. However, following a good hatch in
2004, the reported harvest in the spring of 2005 was up again almost to the 2003 level. Annual
fluctuations such as these are to be expected when poor hatches are encountered. Overall,
populations and harvests in all three geographical regions are on the rise. Intensified restoration
efforts in the Coastal Region in recent years should accelerate both population growth and
harvest increases in the future. In the Central Region this upward trend is expected to continue
in the near future. However, in the long term, development will continue to eliminate more
habitat in this region. The Western Region, with undeveloped private and National Forest lands,
offers the greatest potential for the wild turkey over the long term.
16
By continuing to monitor populations and habitats, information will be available to assist in
making sound regulatory and management decisions regarding upland game birds in North
Carolina.
It is recommended that this project be continued.
Job A4- 2: Restoration
The initial phase of North Carolina’s wild turkey restoration program was completed in 2000.
Secondary guidelines for supplemental releases of birds to fill the remaining gaps of unoccupied
habitat were implemented in 2002. This secondary phase was completed in February, 2005 with
the stocking of three sites. Monitoring of these three sites and several others stocked during
2003 and 2004 should continue until populations are established. Additionally, requests from
the public for the investigation and evaluation of potential restoration sites for wild turkeys
and/ or other game birds will continue to be the responsibility of the upland game bird program.
It is recommended that this project be continued, though at a much scaled down level.
Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys
Avid grouse hunter surveys and avid quail hunter surveys have been used since 1984. These
long- term avid hunter surveys provide valuable trend information that is used to monitor upland
game bird populations and hunter success in North Carolina.
It is recommended that this project be continued.
Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys
Productivity surveys have been used to monitor upland game bird abundance and population
trends in North Carolina for many decades. Quail call counts have been used since 1957 and
wild turkey brood surveys have been used since 1988. They provide valuable long- term indices
to upland game bird populations. They also provide independent indices to breeding populations
that are valuable to verify our hunting indices and are especially important to document trends in
areas where we have little or no information based on hunter success rates.
It is recommended that this project be continued.
F. Costs
Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring
$ 25,000
Job A4- 2: Restoration
$ 50,000
17
Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys
$ 11,000
Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys
$ 14,000
Prepared by: / s/ Michael H. Seamster August 5, 2005
Michael H. Seamster Date
Upland Game Bird Biologist
Table 1. Reported Winter Either- sex Wild Turkey Harvest ( January, 2005)
County Total Reported Adult Males Jakes Hens
Alleghany 19 6 4 9
Ashe 19 6 4 9
Caswell 11 2 1 8
Granville 17 6 5 6
Person 7 5 1 1
Rockingham 12 5 2 5
Stokes 23 7 7 9
Surry 7 2 3 2
Watauga 17 5 3 9
18
Wilkes 19 3 6 10
Totals 151 47 36 68
Table 2. Reported Spring Wild Turkey Harvest by County, 2005.
County
Adult
Gobblers Jakes
Total
Turkeys
Game
Lands
Other
Lands
Alamance 58 9 67 0 67
Alexander 24 28 52 0 52
Alleghany 201 52 253 1 252
Anson 173 40 213 7 206
Ashe 152 57 209 4 205
Avery 61 33 94 14 80
Beaufort 41 20 61 3 58
Bertie 121 36 157 6 151
Bladen 102 33 135 11 124
Brunswick 47 13 60 1 59
Buncombe 126 56 182 25 157
Burke 103 79 182 40 142
Cabarrus 25 35 60 0 60
Caldwell 66 43 109 27 82
Camden 31 5 36 1 35
Carteret 37 17 54 10 44
Caswell 267 53 320 36 284
Catawba 28 40 68 2 66
Chatham 45 13 58 8 50
Cherokee 98 18 116 67 49
Chowan 21 8 29 1 28
Clay 22 5 27 8 19
Cleveland 75 61 136 6 130
Columbus 74 24 98 4 94
Craven 87 39 126 9 117
County
Adult
Gobblers Jakes
Total
Turkeys
Game
Lands
Other
Lands
Cumberland 27 15 42 0 42
Currituck 40 27 67 0 67
Dare 1 0 1 0 1
Davidson 38 22 60 14 46
Davie 54 64 118 11 107
Duplin 52 20 72 1 71
Durham 55 7 62 17 45
Edgecombe 65 38 103 0 103
Forsyth 22 21 43 0 43
Franklin 51 29 80 2 78
Gaston 18 18 36 0 36
19
Gates 84 23 107 5 102
Graham 49 18 67 48 19
Granville 252 53 305 13 292
Greene 11 5 16 0 16
Guilford 46 24 70 0 70
Halifax 183 81 264 2 262
Harnett 51 19 70 3 67
Haywood 48 22 70 27 43
Henderson 63 10 73 12 61
Hertford 101 27 128 0 128
Hoke 12 2 14 0 14
Hyde 11 4 15 0 15
Iredell 34 53 87 0 87
Jackson 33 16 49 30 19
Johnston 12 5 17 0 17
Jones 80 54 134 15 119
Lee 28 13 41 3 38
Lenoir 26 11 37 0 37
Lincoln 34 34 68 0 68
Macon 83 18 101 49 52
Madison 91 61 152 24 128
Martin 30 7 37 4 33
McDowell 97 47 144 28 116
Mecklenburg 9 1 10 0 10
Mitchell 50 40 90 15 75
Montgomery 99 58 157 31 126
Moore 63 38 101 0 101
Nash 17 8 25 0 25
New Hanover 10 1 11 0 11
Northampton 165 62 227 2 225
Onslow 65 30 95 0 95
Orange 96 15 111 2 109
County
Adult
Gobblers Jakes
Total
Turkeys
Game
Lands
Other
Lands
Pamlico 18 10 28 1 27
Pasquotank 9 5 14 0 14
Pender 101 42 143 15 128
Perquimans 26 7 33 0 33
Person 207 34 241 8 233
Pitt 38 14 52 0 52
Polk 74 37 111 11 100
Randolph 41 17 58 12 46
Richmond 87 28 115 9 106
Robeson 32 11 43 0 43
Rockingham 240 51 291 0 291
Rowan 78 80 158 16 142
20
Rutherford 170 69 239 18 221
Sampson 73 25 98 1 97
Scotland 34 15 49 8 41
Stanly 27 25 52 2 50
Stokes 244 62 306 0 306
Surry 112 59 171 0 171
Swain 44 9 53 30 23
Transylvania 47 8 55 34 21
Tyrrell 11 2 13 3 10
Union 14 10 24 0 24
Vance 81 20 101 4 97
Wake 33 6 39 6 33
Warren 67 26 93 2 91
Washington 15 5 20 2 18
Watauga 84 29 113 5 108
Wayne 11 7 18 0 18
Wilkes 200 134 334 10 324
Wilson 26 8 34 0 34
Yadkin 66 60 126 0 126
Yancey 70 50 120 8 112
Totals 6921 2903 9824 854 8970
Table 3. Age Structure of Spring Wild Turkey Harvest, 2005.
Region
Adult
Gobblers
Juvenile
Gobblers
Total
Percent
Juveniles
Coastal 1519 576 2095 27%
Central 2659 916 3575 26%
Western 2743 1411 4154 34%
State 6921 2903 9824 30%
Table 4. 2005 Regional Summary of Wild Turkey Restoration Accomplishments.
21
NUMBER OF WILD TURKEYS RELOCATED
REGION RESTORATION SITES MALES FEMALES TOTAL
Coastal 2 12 20 32
Central 1 6 12 18
Total 3 18 32 50
Table 5. 2005 Wild Turkey Restoration Accomplishments by Restoration Area.
COASTAL REGION
RESTORATION MALES FEMALES
AREA COUNTY CAPTURE SITE COUNTY AD IM AD IM
Cedar Fork Duplin Hill Farm Jones 3
Buck Busters Pender 2
Sugarloaf Bladen 1 2 6
Caswell GL Caswell 2
Totals 2 4 4 6
Goose Creek Island Pamlico Wells Club Pender 4 1
Sledge Property New Han. 3 3 5
Totals 3 3 9 1
CENTRAL REGION
RESTORATION MALES FEMALES
AREA COUNTY CAPTURE SITE COUNTY AD IM AD IM
Cox Union Tabernacle Church Montgom. 2
Wells Club Pender 2
Yates Pl. – USFS Montgom. 2
Caswell GL Caswell 5 1 5 1
Totals 5 1 11 1
22
Table 6. Summary of statewide Avid Quail Hunter Survey data from 1984- 85 season through 2004- 05 season.
YEAR
COOP.
TRIPS
PARTY
PARTY
HOURS
HUNTER
HOURS
COVEYS
COVEYS/
TRIP
HARVEST
RABBITS
OBSERVED
WOODCOCK
OBSERVED
84- 85 214 3736 7231 14960.6 31569.2 8940 2.39 15095 - -
85- 86 133 2605 5076 9963.1 20948.0 7859 3.02 12785 - -
86- 87 146 2849 5446 10784.9 22322.8 7369 2.59 12565 - -
87- 88 148 3062 5810 11759.5 24076.5 8805 2.88 14574 - -
88- 89 140 2789 5334 10820.5 22273.2 6405 2.30 10881 - -
89- 90 173 3282 6216 12677.3 25869.5 8690 2.65 13455 - -
90- 91 154 2924 5552 11069.7 22608.2 7623 2.61 11359 - -
91- 92 138 2566 4747 9213.4 18459.0 4744 1.85 6739 - -
92- 93 244 4241 7822 15264.4 30493.5 8504 2.01 11977 2463 -
93- 94 189 3184 5934 11529.9 23050.5 6724 2.11 9823 2016 -
94- 95 203 3499 6532 12270.2 24577.2 6188 1.77 8762 1788 -
95- 96 162 2628 4892 8828.6 17567.1 4800 1.83 6308 1122 -
96- 97 157 2581 4771 8677.0 17414.4 4435 1.72 6157 991 -
97- 98 149 2142 3969 7617.9 15260.7 3526 1.65 4615 1056 -
98- 99 129 1874 3382 6602.0 12975.5 3191 1.70 4038 1007 -
99- 00 116 1560 2717 5612.8 10621.1 2161 1.38 2794 830 816
00- 01 106 1508 2637 5462.9 9552.8 2129 1.41 2841 779 670
01- 02 96 1478 2666 5194.0 9368.9 2495 1.69 2738 870 678
02- 03 99 1405 2414 5068.5 9402.0 2531 1.80 2675 872 750
03- 04 71 1103 1985 4119.5 7413.6 2100 1.90 2355 549 536
04- 05 87 1201 2117 4255.0 7500.3 2388 1.99 2691 598 558
23
Table 7. Regional and statewide means for the major variables in the 2004- 05 Avid Quail
Hunter Survey and percent change from 2003- 2004 values.
Coastal Piedmont Mountains Statewide
Coveys/ Party/ Trip 2.55 1.13 1.11 1.99
% Change + 5 - 7 - 19 + 5
Bag/ Hunter/ Trip 1.70 0.63 0.63 1.27
% Change + 12 - 9 - 48 + 7
Rabbits/ Party/ Trip 0.53 0.45 0.46 0.50
% Change - 7 + 7 + 53 0
Woodcock/ Party/ Trip 0.46 0.46 0.61 0.46
% Change + 7 - 19 + 65 - 6
24
Table 8. Summary of statewide Avid Grouse Hunter Survey data from 1984- 85 season through 2004- 05 season.
YEAR
COOP.
TRIPS
PARTY
PARTY
HOURS
HUNTER
HOURS
FLUSHES
FLUSHES/
TRIP
HARVEST
WOODCOCK
OBSERVED
RABBITS
OBSERVED
84- 85 80 2702 4986 11234.4 21844.0 11946 4.42 1864 - -
85- 86 56 1976 3772 8603.8 17405.2 9122 4.62 1264 - -
86- 87 46 1715 3082 6974.4 13360.6 8526 4.97 1026 - -
87- 88 53 1897 3404 7900.4 14993.8 9669 5.01 1225 - -
88- 89 67 1082 2079 4639.3 9546.6 5618 5.19 769 - -
89- 90 80 1259 2304 5479.3 10638.5 7890 6.27 1151 - -
90- 91 68 1286 2444 5567.2 11070.7 8036 6.25 1142 - -
91- 92 68 1244 2434 5253.4 10810.3 6749 5.43 1008 - -
92- 93 84 1401 2579 5642.2 10951.3 5706 4.07 817 - -
93- 94 80 1158 2126 4524.5 8768.4 5055 4.37 769 - 365
94- 95 83 1558 2843 6309.5 12173.3 8642 5.55 1212 - 519
95- 96 83 1299 2290 5041.6 9577.4 6038 4.65 865 - 370
96- 97 92 1647 2876 6523.7 11908.8 8898 5.40 1152 - 363
97- 98 87 1451 2667 5932.3 11507.0 7071 4.87 1008 - 401
98- 99 77 1190 2115 4787.8 8946.2 4160 3.50 512 - 289
99- 00 83 1286 2319 4986.8 9435.8 5245 4.08 713 81 396
00- 01 82 1234 2109 4809.8 8220.2 5045 4.09 675 81 407
01- 02 74 1181 2034 4515.4 7776.6 5228 4.43 692 163 309
02- 03 68 956 1628 3732.6 6546.6 4128 4.32 564 94 269
03- 04 51 847 1392 3355.5 5514.6 3212 3.79 434 92 159
04- 05 56 795 1336 3155.9 5303.5 3238 4.07 400 83 138
25
Table 9. Regional and statewide means for the major variables in the 2004- 05 avid grouse
hunter survey and percent change from 2003- 04.
SOUTHERN
MOUNTAINS
NORTHERN
MOUNTAINS
STATEWIDE
Flushes/ Party/ Trip 4.57 2.89 4.09
% Change + 12 +< 1 + 8
Bag/ Hunter/ Trip 0.56 0.36 0.50
% Change + 2 - 12 - 2
Rabbits Obs/ Party/ Trip 0.09 0.38 0.17
% Change - 18 - 14 - 11
Woodcock/ Party/ Trip 0.11 0.09 0.10
% Change - 27 0 - 9
26
Table 10. Sandhills Game Land Quail Hunter Survey Summary information for the 1982-
83 season through the 2004- 05 season.
Season Cooperators Trips Party
Hours
Hunters Hunter
Hours
Coveys Bag
82- 83 26 64 304.50 127 653.00 172 289
83- 84 12 36 141.60 62 261.00 64 108
84- 85 15 19 109.50 35 211.00 13 15
85- 86 17 25 130.50 47 248.00 35 61
86- 87 80 181 932.25 358 1943.75 228 359
87- 88 13 35 172.75 70 362.25 49 84
88- 89 14 42 198.00 78 386.00 50 87
89- 90 15 94 446.50 161 788.50 157 248
90- 91 16 77 381.75 132 683.75 127 226
91- 92 19 92 512.70 168 954.20 145 248
92- 93 15 74 371.45 124 647.95 77 144
93- 94 13 72 350.20 112 583.70 75 94
94- 95 10 56 268.75 87 442.25 53 65
95- 96 15 57 234.50 82 405.00 53 47
96- 97 19 73 355.25 120 634.75 92 135
97- 98 14 53 273.80 94 512.30 54 93
98- 99 16 59 289.75 101 529.75 48 75
99- 00* 11 83 434.50 142 764.50 95 137
00- 01* 11 68 476.50 113 628.00 77 107
01- 02* 14 75 378.50 123 620.74 93 130
02- 03* 10 47 214.00 63 289.5 28 24
03- 04* 6 75 349.5 104 498.6 85 110
04- 05* 8 64 298.5 99 461.7 41 55
MEAN 16.8 65.9 333.03 113.36 593.11 85.36 131.2
* Data from avid quail hunter survey ( contains some hunts from Pee Dee Game Land).
27
Table 11. Summary of hunting success of bobwhite quail survey participants on Sandhills
Game Land.
SEASON Trips Coveys/ Party/ Trip
1982 64 2.69
1983 36 1.78
1984 19 0.68
1985 25 1.40
1986 181 1.26
1987 35 1.40
1988 42 1.19
1989 94 1.67
1990 77 1.65
1991 92 1.58
1992 74 1.04
1993 72 1.04
1994 56 0.95
1995 57 0.95
1996 73 1.26
1997 53 1.02
1998 59 0.81
1999* 83 1.14
2000* 68 1.13
2001* 75 1.17
2002* 47 0.60
2003* 75 1.13
2004* 64 0.64
* Data from the avid hunter survey ( contains some hunts from Pee Dee Game Land).
28
Table 12. 2004 Wild Turkey Summer Brood Survey Data.
Region
Observations
Hens
W/ O Poults
Hens
W/ Poults
Total
Hens
Total
Poults
Total
Gobblers
Total
Unk.
Coastal 331 133 428 561 1585 400 385
Piedmont 391 210 478 688 2077 316 327
Mountains 385 222 467 689 1890 188 159
State 1107 565 1373 1938 5552 904 871
Table 13. 2004 Wild Turkey Summer Brood Survey Results.
Region*
% Hens
W/ Poults
Average
Poults/ Brood
Average
Poults/ Hen
Coastal 76 3.7 2.8
Piedmont 69 4.3 3.0
Mountains 68 4.0 2.7
State** 70 4.1 2.8
* Geographical regions, not NCWRC regions.
** The State percentages and averages in Table 13 were calculated by weighting the regional
data by the percentage of the total wild turkey population in that region.
29
Table 14. Summary of 2002- 2005 bobwhite quail call- count indices.
2002 2003 2004 2005
Quail
Heard
Quail
Heard
Quail
Heard
Quail
Heard
District County Per Stop Per Stop Per Stop Per Stop
1 Hertford/ Bertie 0.62 0.43 0.71 1.24
1 Washington/ Hyde 2.05 2.00 2.43 3.86
1 Perquimans 1.05 1.57 2.33 1.00
2 Wayne/ Duplin 1.48 0.71 0.90 0.86
2 Greene 1.81 1.05 1.10 1.24
2 Pitt- Beaufort 0.52 0.76 0.62 0.29
3 Edgecombe- Halifax 0.71 0.19 0.29 0.10
4 Sampson 2.14 2.43 2.57 2.33
4 Cumberland 0.71 1.19 0.86 1.29
4 Robeson 1.33 1.33 2.00 1.19
COASTAL MEAN 1.24 1.17 1.38 1.34
3 Wake/ Johnston 0.33 0.24 0.38 0.19
3 Wake 0.24 0.38 0.15 0.24
5 Rockingham( 5A) 0.10 0.10 0.19 0.19
5 Guilford/ Caswell 0.05 0.14 0 0.05
5 Rockingham( 5C) 0.05 0.10 0 0.29
6 Moore/ Montgomery 0.57 0.67 1.05 0.76
6 Meck./ Cabarrus 0.14 0.29 0.05 0.10
6 Stanly 0.10 0.29 0.14 0.05
7 Yadkin 0.33 0.24 0.19 0.05
7 Alexander 0.33 0.19 0.14 0.05
8 Lincoln 1.24 0.95 1.48 1.38
PIEDMONT MEAN 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.30
7 Ashe 0.05 0.05 0.10 0
8 Caldwell/ Wilkes 0.29 0.43 0.33 0.05
8 Burke* 0.52 0.29 0.14 0.24
9 Buncombe/ Madison 0 0.29 0.10 0
MOUNTAIN MEAN 0.21 0.26 0.17 0.07
STATEWIDE MEAN 0.67 0.65 0.73 0.68
30
Figure 1. Avid Quail Hunter Survey by Climatological Region
2004- 05 NC AVID QUAIL HUNTER DATA BY
CLIMATOLOGICAL REGION
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
CENTRAL
COASTAL
NORTHERN
COASTAL
SOUTHERN
COASTAL
CENTRAL
PIEDMONT
NORTHERN
PIEDMONT
SOUTHERN
PIEDMONT
SOUTHERN
MOUNTAIN
NORTHERN
MOUNTAIN
COVEYS/ PARTY/ TRIP
Figure 2. NC Avid Quail Hunter Data by Month, 2004- 2005.
2004- 05 NC AVID HUNTER DATA BY MONTH
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
NOV DEC JAN FEB
COVEYS/ PARTY/ TRIP
31
Figure 3. Avid Quail Hunter Survey map depicting climatalogical regions.
NORTHERN MOUNTAINS
SOUTHERN MOUNTAINS
NORTHERN PIEDMONT
SOUTHERN PIEDMONT
CENTRAL PIEDMONT
NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN
SOUTHERN
COASTAL PLAIN
CENTRAL
COASTAL
PLAIN
32
Figure 4. Avid Grouse Hunter Survey map depicting climatalogical regions.
NORTHERN MOUNTAINS
SOUTHERN MOUNTAINS
33
Figure 5. North Carolina Avid Quail Hunter Survey Trend, 1984- 85 through 2004- 05.
NC AVID QUAIL HUNTER DATA SUMMARY
1984- 2004
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
COVEYS/ PARTY/ TRIP
Linear
Figure 6. NC Grouse Flush Rates by Region, 2004- 05.
2004- 05 NC Grouse Hunter Success By Region
0
1
2
3
4
5
Northern Mountains Southern Mountains
Flushes/ Party/ Trip
34
Figure 7. NC Grouse Flush Rates by Month, 2004- 05.
2004- 05 NC Avid Grouse Hunter Success
by Month
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY
Flushes/ Party/ Trip
Figure 8. NC Grouse Flush Rates by Location, 2004- 05.
2004- 05 AVID GROUSE HUNTER SUCCESS
BY LOCATION
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Private Land Game Land
Flush/ Party/ Trip
35
Figure 9. North Carolina Avid Grouse Hunter Survey Trend, 1984- 85 through 2004- 05.
NC AVID GROUSE HUNTER SURVEY SUMMARY
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
19841986198819901992199419961998200020022004
FLUSH/ PARTY/ TRIP
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
BAG/ PARTY/ TRIP
Flush/ party/ trip
Bag/ party/ trip
Linear
Figure 10. North Carolina Avid Grouse Hunter Survey, Regional Trends, 1984- 85 through
2004- 05.
NC Avid Grouse Hunter Flush/ Party/ Trip
by Region
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
19841986198819901992199419961998200020022004
FLUSH/ PARTY/ TRIP
N. Mountains
S. Mountains
36
Figure 11. 2004 Wild Turkey Brood Survey Results by Region.
2004 Wild Turkey Summer Brood Survey Results
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
COAST PIEDMONT MOUNTAINS
Poults/ Hen
Figure 12. Wild Turkey Brood Survey Results, 1988- 2004.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
AVERAGE POULTS/ HEN
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
YEAR
WILD TURKEY
SUMMER BROOD SURVEY RESULTS
37
Figure 13. North Carolina Quail Call- Count Survey Trend, 1957- 2005.
NC QUAIL CALL- COUNTS
ORIGINAL 17 ROUTES
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005
YEAR
QUAIL PER STOP
STATEWIDE
Linear ( STATEWIDE)
Figure 14. North Carolina Quail Call Count Trends by Geographical Region, 1957- 2005.
NC QUAIL CALL COUNTS
1957- 2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
YEAR
QUAIL HEARD/ ROUT
Coastal Mean
Piedmont Mean
Mountain Mean
38
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30
Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina
Period Covered: 1 July, 2004 to 30 June, 2005
SECTION II ( RESEARCH)
Subsection A: Upland Game Birds
Study A5: C. U. R. E. Quail Monitoring
Study Objective: Monitor quail population response to habitat treatments in the
intensively managed cooperatives.
There were no federal funds spent on this activity in the past fiscal year. Other sources of
funding were used
Annual Performance Report
39
State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30
Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina
Period Covered: 1 July, 2004 to 30 June, 2005
SECTION II ( RESEARCH)
Subsection B: Big Game Mammals
Study B1: Status of the Black Bear in North Carolina
Study Objective: Collect the biological data necessary to assist in making management
decisions that will ensure the long- term viability of black bear populations and provide a high
quality sustained annual harvest. ( This report covers activities and accomplishments for Jobs
B1- 1: Collection of Black Bear Teeth and Reproductive Tracts, B1- 2: Analyses of Black Bear
Mortality Data, B1- 3: Hard and Soft Mast Surveys, and Job B1- 4: Monitoring Black Bear
Population Trends.)
A. Activity
Total known black bear mortality for 2004 was 1,588 ( 1,125 Eastern NC, 463 Western NC)
including a state- wide harvest of 1,497 bears. This number is derived from total registered
harvest ( Tables 1 and 2) plus all observed non- harvest mortality ( Table 3). A total of 745 usable
premolar teeth and 115 usable female reproductive tracts were collected from bears dying of all
causes in 2004 ( some teeth and tracts must be discarded if broken, incomplete, etc.). Both field
personnel and the general public continued to report observations of bears in areas of the
Piedmont outside established range. Much of this activity occurs in counties in the northern
Piedmont along the Virginia border. Mountain hard mast surveys were conducted along 11
routes, and soft mast surveys were conducted during hard mast and sardine bait line surveys.
Mountain personnel set out 789 sardine bait stations to monitor bear populations trends in
western North Carolina. Biologists recorded 292 nuisance complaints statewide. As usual, the
majority ( 63%, 184) of these complaints came from the far western counties of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s District 9.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishments
All activities were accomplished as follows:
2004 Trend Indicator Report October 5, 2004
2004 Hard Mast Survey Report December 3, 2004
2004 Summary of Observations February 28, 2005
2004 Harvest Compilation March 28, 2005
2004 Reproductive Analyses July 1, 2005
2004 Sex and Age Structure Analyses August 9, 2005
40
C. Significant Deviations
All projects are on schedule with no significant deviations.
D. Remarks
1. Harvest and Other Mortality: During the 2004- 2005 season, hunters reported 1,497 bears.
This represents a 17.4% decrease over last year’s all- time record harvest of 1,812 bears and a
2.7% decrease over the 5- year average harvest ( 1,537) from 1999- 2003. Of the harvested bears
registered, 1,053 were reported in the Coastal Region ( Table 1) and 444 were reported in the
Mountain Region ( Table 2). The Coastal harvest was above the average seen over the last 5
years while the Mountain harvest was actually below the 5- year average ( means of 993 and 544,
respectively). The percentage of males reported was 61.1% in the Coastal Plain and 68.5% in
the Mountains. The majority of the harvest from the coast ( 94.8%) came from private lands,
whereas most of the Mountain harvest came primarily from Game Lands. However, private
lands accounted for 32.7% of the Mountain harvest. Although public lands are important to
bears in western North Carolina, this is only the second year out of the last five in which less
than 43% of the Mountain harvest has occurred on private lands. I expect this is due to the
adequate mast crop in the Mountains which allowed bears to remain in core areas on public lands
and not venture onto adjacent private lands at rates seen in some recent years. The importance of
private lands to bears in the Mountains represents an important development in black bear
population management in the region because approximately two- thirds of the Mountain harvest
had occurred on public lands during most seasons prior to the last 5 years.
Bear harvest in coastal North Carolina was fairly stable until 1986. Since 1986, seasons have
been established in 14 counties in the east- central and northeastern section of the state. The last
of these counties opened in 1995. From 1991- 1994, harvests were fairly stable. Three additional
days were added to the season in 1995 in order to provide additional opportunity for hunters and
to slow population growth in some areas where populations appeared to be approaching “ cultural
carrying capacity”. In 1999, seasons in the central and northeastern Coastal Region were
expanded to 18 days. Our emphasis is now on monitoring the stability and nature of the harvest.
The harvests of 879, 881, 929, 1,107, 955, 1,095, and 1,053 in the years of 1998- 2004,
respectively, are the highest harvests ever reported. Population models indicate that the Coastal
Region’s bear population may be stabilizing following these increased harvests over the last 7
seasons.
Mountain black bear harvests are closely tied to mast production. During very poor mast years,
harvests tend to increase significantly, and during better years harvests tend to be lower.
Average harvests over the 4 years of normal mast crops from 1988- 1991 and from 1993- 1996
were 286 and 321 bears, respectively. However, during the 1992 and 1997 mast failures,
harvests climbed to 610 and 726 bears, respectively. The 2003 Mountain harvest of 717 was
close to the all- time record set during the 1997 mast failure when 726 bears were harvested. We
predicted this high 2003 harvest level prior to the season because our mast survey indicated the
mast crop in western North Carolina rated poor and was the third worst ever recorded. Prior to
the 2004 season, we predicted reduced harvest levels in some areas due to adequate mast
resources representing the second best mast crop since 1998 ( see Section 6, Part b). Our
41
prediction came true as 444 bears were harvested in the Mountains representing 100 bears less
than the 5- year average harvest for the region.
The “ observed mortalities” reported in Table 3 include those documented by agency biologists
and represent all known mortalities due to vehicles, depredation, illegal kills, and unknown
causes. The harvest results in this table only include those verified by biologists and do not
include telephone or internet reporting ( refer to Tables 1 and 2 for total “ registered” harvest). Of
statewide observed mortalities in 2004, 91 of 1,588 ( 5.7%) were caused by non- harvest factors.
This compares to 135 of 1,947 ( 6.9%) caused by non- harvest factors in 2003. In 2004, vehicle
mortalities accounted for 5.2% ( 83 of 1588) of reported mortalities compared to 6.2% ( 121 of
1,947) of total known mortality in 2003 and 6.4% of total known mortality in 2002. This trend is
nearly identical to the 5.7% reported in 2001. However, prior to 1999, vehicles accounted for an
average of 9- 11% of total mortality. In the Coastal Plain, roadkills accounted for 68 bears in
2004. The 2004 number is near average ( 74.6) for coastal roadkills over the last 9 years with 67,
47, 93, 95, 63, 67, 74, 76, and 89 bears killed by vehicles from 1995- 2003, respectively. The
opening of new seasons and an increase in season length may account for some bears that might
otherwise die in vehicle- related accidents. Continued monitoring may reveal whether the data
support a compensatory or an additive mortality hypothesis when relating harvest to vehicular
mortality. In the Mountains, there were 15 road kills in 2004 compared to 3, 8, 82, 7, 16, 22, 25,
26, and 32 in 1995- 2003, respectively. Any averages of vehicle mortality for the Mountains or
entire state must be carefully considered because of the uncertain effects of mast crops in the
Mountains. Coastal vehicular mortality trends may be more useful for evaluating a trend
because bear food resources are more stable on a year to year basis.
2. Reproduction: Reproductive information was obtained from 112 females in 2004 ( 72 Coast,
40 Mountains, Tables 4 and 5). The average ovulation incidences of 2.71 and 2.67 for 5+- year-old
females in the Coastal Plain and Mountains, respectively, are comparable to previous good
years. In 2004, 100% of coastal and 81.8% of mountain females in the 2.75 age class showed
evidence of breeding activity. In addition, 55.6% of the coastal 3- year- olds had placental scars
indicating implantation of a fertilized egg during the winter of 2003- 2004. These young ages of
first breeding and reproduction have a tremendous positive impact on the population dynamics of
black bears and may partially explain the population increase seen in the coast during the 1990’ s.
Placental scars were evident in 10 of 12 ( 83.3%) mountain 4- and 5+- year- old females indicating
good reproductive effort in the winter of 2003- 2004 despite a poor mast crop in the fall of 2003.
The effects of 2004’ s fair mast crop on mountain females will not be apparent until we evaluate
reproductive tracts taken during the 2005 black bear season.
Tracts with evidence of both ovulation and implantation may represent breeding in successive
years, litter mortality, or persistence of placental scars for greater than one year. Litter failure
may be the best explanation of tracts with this characteristic. It is important that placental scars
be classified as faint, very faint, or distinct so that such determinations can be made. Bear
Project personnel have saved reproductive tracts with unusual characteristics such as evidence of
both ovulation and implantation. In the future, we intend to compare these tracts to tracts from
captive bears with known reproductive histories at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University where research on bear reproduction has been conducted for over a decade.
42
3. Observations: Observations are primarily used for documenting presence of bears outside of
established bear range. Because we have well established populations in most suitable habitat in
the Coastal and Mountain Regions, our primary interest in observations relates to documenting
bears in the Piedmont counties, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC)
personnel regularly receive reports of bears in these areas. With the recent establishment of an
on- line system, NCWRC personnel are able to enter observations into a computerized system.
NCWRC personnel received 11 bear complaints from northern Piedmont counties in 2004.
Numerous citizens reported bears in northern Piedmont counties as well. We expect bear
populations are slowly moving into Piedmont areas from established Mountain and Coastal Plain
populations in North Carolina. Some bears are also moving into the North Carolina Piedmont
from Virginia where populations are firmly established along the North Carolina border.
4. Age and Sex Structure: We collected 759 black bear teeth in 2004 and determined usable
ages from 745 of these teeth; 490 from coastal bears and 255 from mountain bears. This
represents a sample of 43.6% of total ( 1,125) known coastal bear mortality and 55.1% of total
( 463) known mountain bear mortality. Given this distribution and number of samples, the data
should represent a good cross- section of the actual age classes of mortality. Therefore, the
samples are considered to be representative of the ages at death of bears in North Carolina.
Males in the 1.75- and 2.75- year- old age classes ( subadults) made up 64.9% ( 111 of 171) of the
sampled male mortality in the Mountains and 41.8% ( 140 of 335) in the Coastal Plain ( Figures 1,
2). Subadult males have accounted for the majority of recorded mortality for over 15 years in
both regions. Overall, males continue to be more prone to mortality in both regions as evidenced
by both our registered harvest and our sampling rates. For example, in 2004, 67.1% of the
sampled mountain mortality ( 171 of 255) and 68.4% ( 335 of 490) of the sampled coastal
mortality were males. Sample rates of approximately two- thirds males may be related to hunter
selectivity and a desire by hunters to have larger male bears weighed by NCWRC personnel. We
also see evidence of hunters attempting to select larger “ trophy” male bears as the Coastal
Region’s reputation for heavy bears continues to grow nationwide. Significant numbers of 2004
coastal males and females reached the older age classes as 34 of 155 females ( 21.9%) and 53 of
335 ( 15.8%) males were documented in the 8+- year- old age class. We believe this is related to
an extensive sanctuary system in central and northern areas of eastern North Carolina comprised
of Federal National Wildlife Refuges, NCWRC- designated sanctuaries, and private lands where
hunting is limited or tightly controlled. In the Mountains in 2004, 8+- year- old females
comprised 15.5% of the sampled mortality ( n= 84). However, males in the 8+- year- old age class
comprised a relatively small percentage ( 2.9%) of the sampled mortality ( n= 171). The age
structure characteristics of both regions are comparable to previous years. It is clear following
numerous years with similar results that both males and females in the Coastal Region have an
older age structure than their counterparts in the Mountains.
5. Hard and Soft Mast Surveys: Wildlife Commission personnel have surveyed hard mast in the
Mountain Region since 1983. The 2004 hard mast survey was conducted on 10 routes in western
North Carolina. A total of 1,101 trees were sampled including 375 from the white oak group,
589 from the red oak group, 91 hickories, 31 beeches, 14 black walnuts, and 1 pecan.
Combining all groups of species, mast was rated as “ fair” in the mountains with an overall index
of 3.09 ( Table 6). With the exception of 2001’ s banner crop, this “ fair” mast index is the best
index we have had since 1998. White oak production ( 3.99) was almost in the “ good” range and
43
actually represents the best white oak crop we have ever documented. Red oak production
( 2.93) was much better than last year’s index of 0.68. Hickory and beech production were lower
than their long- term averages. As in previous years, hard mast production varied significantly by
location and species ( Table 7). Five areas ( Avery Creek, Fires Creek, Linville Mountain,
Santeetlah, and Sherwood) produced “ good” white oak, and the remaining five areas experienced
“ fair” white oak production. In terms of red oak production, Santeetlah produced a “ good” crop
while Nantahala produced a “ poor” crop. The other eight areas produced “ fair” red oak.
Hickory production was “ poor” in all areas. As in most years, sample sizes were a problem for
beech trees in all but 4 areas. Beech has the highest long- term average ( 4.25) of any major
group, and we should consider putting more effort into monitoring this mast resource where
possible. In years with “ poor” oak production, beech may be a critical species for wildlife.
A soft mast survey was implemented during the summer and fall of 1993 to document berry
production and abundance. During summer 2004, blackberry production was good while
blueberry, huckleberry, and pokeberry production were poor ( Table 8). All summer soft mast
species, except blackberry, produced fruit below long- term averages in 2004. As usual, summer
soft mast production varied significantly on a local basis with some areas failing to produce any
significant fruit of certain species while producing “ fair” to “ excellent” crops of others ( Table 9).
The 2004 summer soft mast crop appears to have been below average overall but produced
varying results across different areas in the Mountain region.
As usual, the 2004 fall soft mast indices yielded varying results by species ( Table 10). Cherry,
grape, and blackgum were near long- term averages while pokeberry produced at levels below
long- term averages. As always, local areas experienced variable production of fall soft mast
with levels from 0 to 6 depending on species and area ( Table 11). As with summer soft mast, the
fall soft mast resource varied by species and location and may have supplemented the hard mast
crop in some areas.
The 2004 hard mast crop was the second best we have seen since 1998 and much better than the
crops of 2002 and 2003. An all- time record white oak production coupled with normal red oak
production provided substantial amounts of favored food resources for bear, deer, grouse,
squirrels, turkey, and many other species this winter despite the poor performance of hickory and
beech. Inconsistent soft mast crops probably did little to supplement the hard mast crop in some
areas but may have provided some resources in other areas. Based on results of past seasons, we
were able to accurately predict a reduced bear harvest due to the abundant oak crops of 2004.
6. Population Trend Indicator Surveys: Sardine bait station routes were conducted in the
Mountains in July 2004. In addition, all District Biologists maintained a log of all nuisance
complaints. Results are as follows:
a) Sardine Bait Station Index. A total of 789 bait stations were set in areas of occupied bear
range in western North Carolina during July 2004. After removing 30 stations disturbed by non-target
animals, 759 stations were visited 368 times by black bears for a visitation rate of 48.5%
( Table 12). This visitation rate is the 4th highest recorded since we began the survey in 1992.
Any trend indicator survey must be conducted for several years before any interpretations can be
made. Visitation rates can vary annually due to a variety of factors such as weather, food
44
availability, and human disturbance. Hiking, horse traffic, logging, and clearing of right- of- way
were noted as affecting some of the lines. Over the long- term, such perturbations should be
minimized. The same factors that cause yearly variation can confound comparisons between
areas. Other factors such as elevation, habitat type, and aspect of the sites, as well as number of
sites along roads vs. trails, can also account for differences in visitation between areas. For
example, if area A has an index of 40% and area B a rate of 20%, there are not necessarily twice
as many bears in area A. Therefore, rather than attempting to compare visitation rates between
areas, it is the overall trend observed throughout the region that is important.
We now have 13 years of visitation data and can begin examining trends. The visitation rate was
in the low- mid 20% range over the first 3 years we conducted the survey and increased
substantially from that level from 1995- 2000. Following a slight decline in 2001, the 2002 index
was the highest recorded since we started the survey. The overall trend since 1992 is clearly
increasing despite a leveling in recent years. Results from the last 13 years suggest that western
North Carolina black bear numbers have increased over the last decade. These results also
correspond to bait station data from other agencies in the Southern Appalachian region ( GA
DNR, SC DNR, TWRA, and GSMNP). North Carolina’s Mountain occupied bear range
increased from 950,000 acres in 1971 to nearly 4.8 million acres by 2001. Areas once thought to
be on the periphery of bear range, such as Thurmond- Chatham and South Mountains, recorded
substantial activity in recent years. This suggests continued expansion of bears into previously
low- density areas. Over the period 1981- 2004, bait index values have also increased over the
entire Southern Appalachian region. All the various types of data we have for the Southern
Appalachian Region indicates that the bear population is growing or stable in most areas.
b. Nuisance Complaint Index. In order to provide supplemental information about bear
populations and Cultural Carrying Capacity, a new index was implemented in 1993. District
biologists now keep records of the number of nuisance complaints received in their District each
year. In 2004, 292 complaints were received by District Biologists compared to 352, 377, 273,
248, and 148 complaints for the years 2003- 1999, respectively ( Table 13). As usual, District 9
accounted for about two- thirds of statewide nuisance complaints in 2004, and the Mountain
Districts ( 7- 9) accounted for 80.8% of all statewide complaints. As demonstrated in Table 13,
there is a clear upward trend in nuisance complaints from the Mountain counties over recent
years. The slight decline in 2004 probably was related to the better than normal mast crop which
provided abundant food resources for bears. Complaints from Districts 1- 4 have been more
consistent ranging from 20- 45 over the period of 1995- 2004.
The high rate of mountain nuisance calls is interesting considering the fact that the coastal black
bear population is actually more numerous and occupies more area than the mountain population
( 7,000 bears on approximately 9,398,555 acres versus 4,000 bears on approximately 4,798,774
acres; numbers based on Downing Population Reconstruction and occupied range estimates by
NCWRC staff). One reason for this is the fact that North Carolina’s Mountains have become a
popular place for second homes and retirement homes. “ Newcomers” to North Carolina often
move into bear habitat and buy or build houses. These citizens are more prone to “ complain”
about bears in the area than Coastal farmers or rural residents raised with bears. The higher
Mountain complaint rate may result from a combination of human development of bear habitat
and bears expanding into rural areas inhabited by these “ newcomers” to North Carolina’s
45
Mountains. Historically, complaints in both regions have involved damage to bee- hives, bears
coming into towns or yards, bears getting into garbage, and damage to agricultural crops
( primarily a Coastal problem).
Nuisance complaints probably are not useful indicators of actual bear population trends.
Increasing human populations and increasing homebuilding in rural areas are factors in the bear
nuisance equation. However, the nuisance complaint trends do demonstrate " cultural carrying
capacity” or the population level with which local people can or will peacefully coexist with
bears. Complaints can be used to assist in evaluating management strategies aimed at finding a
balance between bear population levels and tolerance of bears by people. It is important to
remember that nuisance complaints in North Carolina are still relatively low compared to smaller
states like Maryland and New Jersey where no or limited hunting is established at this time.
E. Recommendations
I recommend all surveys and activities continue in order to monitor black bear population trends,
Mountain hard and soft mast production, black bear observations outside established range,
black bear mortality and reproduction, and black bear sex and age structure.
F. Cost
Job B1- 1: Collection of Bear Teeth and Reproductive Tracts
$ 70,000
Job B1- 2: Collection of Bear Mortality Data
$ 12,000
Job B1- 3: Hard and Soft Mast Surveys
$ 12,000
Job B1- 4: Monitoring Bear Population Trends
$ 55,000
Job B1- 5: Dissemination of Bear Data and Information
$ 8,000
Prepared by: Mark D. Jones, Black Bear Biologist
Date: August 16, 2005
46
Table 1. Reported Black Bear Harvest in the Coastal Region, 2004- 2005.
Number Harvested Location
County Male Female Total Game Lands Other Lands
BEAUFORT 62 56 118 5 113
BERTIE 25 15 40 1 39
BLADEN 40 34 74 4 70
BRUNSWICK 24 14 38 0 38
CAMDEN 35 15 50 0 50
CARTERET 14 10 24 11 13
CHOWAN 2 3 5 0 5
COLUMBUS 17 5 22 0 22
CRAVEN 38 31 69 4 65
CUMBERLAND 10 4 14 0 14
CURRITUCK 6 14 20 0 20
DARE 2 1 3 0 3
DUPLIN 3 3 6 0 6
GATES 28 23 51 5 46
HALIFAX 3 1 4 0 4
HERTFORD 7 5 12 0 12
HYDE 73 28 101 1 100
JONES 40 32 72 4 68
MARTIN 13 8 21 0 21
NEW HANOVER 3 0 3 0 3
NORTHAMPTON 7 2 9 0 9
ONSLOW 26 8 34 0 34
PAMLICO 11 10 21 0 21
PASQUOTANK 6 2 8 0 8
PENDER 39 15 54 10 44
SAMPSON 8 3 11 0 11
TYRRELL 54 30 84 4 80
WASHINGTON 47 38 85 6 79
Coastal Total 643 410 1,053 55 998
Percent of Total 61.1 38.9 100 5.2 94.8
47
Table 2. Reported Black Bear Harvest in the Mountain Region, 2004- 2005.
Number Harvested Location
County Male Female Total Game Lands Other Lands
ASHE 6 0 6 0 6
AVERY 2 4 6 2 4
BUNCOMBE 8 5 13 2 11
BURKE 4 2 6 5 1
CALDWELL 6 3 9 4 5
CHEROKEE 32 15 47 41 6
CLAY 19 11 30 28 2
GRAHAM 48 19 67 61 6
HAYWOOD 18 15 33 21 12
HENDERSON 5 3 8 0 8
JACKSON 18 8 26 18 8
MACON 35 18 53 48 5
MADISON 30 5 35 20 15
MCDOWELL 25 16 41 29 12
MITCHELL 11 2 13 3 10
RUTHERFORD 5 2 7 0 7
SWAIN 5 2 7 5 2
TRANSYLVANIA 7 4 11 8 3
WATAUGA 3 0 3 0 3
WILKES 6 0 6 0 6
YANCEY 11 6 17 4 13
Mountain Totals 304 140 444 299 145
Percent of Total 68.5 31.5 100 67.3 32.7
Statewide Totals 947 550 1,497 354 1,143
Percent of Total 63.3 36.7 100 23.6 76.4
48
Table 3. Observed Black Bear Mortality in North Carolina, 2004.
Cause of Mortality
District County Hunting Vehicle Depredation Illegal Other Total
1 Bertie 11 2 0 0 0 13
Camden 7 0 0 0 0 7
Chowan 3 1 0 0 0 4
Currituck 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dare 1 5 0 0 0 6
Gates 32 1 0 0 0 33
Hertford 3 0 0 0 0 3
Hyde 94 3 0 0 1 98
Martin 3 7 0 0 0 10
Pasquotank 2 0 0 0 0 2
Perquimans 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tyrrell 44 3 0 0 0 47
Washington 36 2 0 0 0 38
D- 1 Total 236 24 0 0 1 261
2 Beaufort 40 11 0 0 1 52
Carteret 1 0 0 0 0 1
Craven 18 7 0 0 0 25
Duplin 0 1 0 0 0 1
Jones 28 5 0 0 0 33
Lenoir 0 7 0 0 0 7
New Hanover 1 1 0 0 0 2
Onslow 11 1 0 0 0 12
Pamlico 6 0 0 0 0 6
Pender 23 1 0 1 0 25
Pitt 0 7 0 0 0 7
D- 2 Total 128 41 0 1 1 171
3 Edgecombe 0 1 0 0 0 1
Halifax 1 0 0 0 0 1
Northampton 1 0 0 0 0 1
D- 3 Total 2 1 0 0 0 3
4 Bladen 24 1 0 0 0 25
Columbus 0 1 0 1 0 2
Cumberland 7 0 0 0 0 7
Sampson 1 0 0 0 0 1
D- 4 Total 32 2 0 1 0 35
Eastern Totals 398 68 0 2 2 470
49
Table 3. continued.
Cause of Mortality
District County Hunting Vehicle Depredation Illegal Other Total
5 D- 5 Total No
Reports
6 D- 6 Total No
Reports
7 Ashe 2 0 0 0 0 2
D- 7 Total 2 0 0 0 0 2
8 Avery 2 0 0 0 0 2
Burke 5 2 0 0 0 7
Caldwell 5 0 0 0 0 5
McDowell 19 5 0 0 1 25
Mitchell 7 0 0 0 0 7
Rutherford 2 0 0 0 0 2
Yancey 21 0 0 0 0 21
D- 8 Total 61 7 0 0 1 69
9 Buncombe 0 2 1 0 1 4
Cherokee 34 0 0 0 0 34
Clay 17 0 0 0 0 17
Graham 39 0 0 0 0 39
Haywood 21 1 0 0 0 22
Henderson 0 2 0 0 0 2
Jackson 6 0 0 0 0 6
Macon 31 1 0 0 0 32
Madison 17 0 1 0 0 18
Polk 0 2 0 0 0 2
Swain 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transylvania 0 0 0 0 0 0
D- 9 Total 165 8 2 0 1 176
Central
and
Western
Totals 228 15 2 0 2 247
Statewide Totals 626 83 2 2 4 717
50
Table 4. Coastal Region Black Bear Reproductive Performance by Age Class, 2004.
Age
( Years + ¾ )
N
Percent
Ovulating
Ovulation
Incidencea
Percent w/
Placental
Scars
Percent w/
Placental
Scars & CL
1 7 28.6 1.0 0.0 0.0
2 10 100.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
3 9 66.7 1.83 55.6 22.2
4 7 42.9 1.33 71.4 14.3
5+ 39 61.5 2.71 61.5 25.6
Total 72
aDerived from females that ovulated
Table 5. Mountain Region Black Bear Reproductive Performance by Age Class, 2004.
Age
( Years + ¾ )
N
Percent
Ovulating
Ovulation
Incidencea
Percent w/
Placental
Scars
Percent w/
Placental
Scars & CL
1 8 25.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
2 11 81.8 2.11 0.0 0.0
3 9 77.8 2.43 33.3 22.2
4 2 50.0 3.0 100.0 50.0
5+ 10 60.0 2.67 80.0 40.0
Total 40
aDerived from females that ovulated
51
Table 6. Hard Mast Survey Results for Western North Carolina, 1983- 2004.
Year White Oak Red Oak Hickory Beech Total
1983 1.43 2.59 1.99 5.51 2.25
1984 1.08 2.73 3.05 4.28 2.30
1985 2.01 3.66 0.80 3.06 2.80
1986 1.32 1.98 2.25 5.22 1.90
1987 1.16 0.56 3.57 5.75 1.31
1988 3.16 4.07 2.04 4.25 3.57
1989 0.43 4.89 2.78 6.44 3.14
1990 1.85 2.62 1.20 1.89 2.17
1991 2.38 1.93 3.75 6.89 2.43
1992 1.07 2.45 0.72 1.17 1.78
1993 0.65 3.58 2.43 4.77 2.48
1994 2.06 3.48 2.02 6.20 2.85
1995 2.80 5.60 2.48 0.36 4.22
1996 3.70 1.99 2.81 4.31 2.72
1997 0.53 1.79 1.17 2.35 1.29
1998 2.26 4.68 3.27 4.70 3.69
1999 3.28 2.76 2.80 6.22 3.05
2000 0.50 2.11 2.73 5.71 1.82
2001 2.83 4.92 2.88 3.97 3.98
2002 1.90 3.01 1.75 3.44 2.47
2003 1.24 0.68 3.58 5.42 1.33
2004 3.99 2.93 1.32 1.65 3.09
1983- 2004
Average
1.89 2.96 2.34 4.25 2.57
The rating scale is as follows:
Numerical Rating Crop Quality
0 to 2.0 Poor
2.1 to 4.0 Fair
4.1 to 6.0 Good
6.1 to 8.0 Excellent
52
Table 7. Hard Mast Survey Results by Area, 2004.
Area White Oak Red Oak Hickory Beech*
Avery Creek 4.78 2.46 1.14 0.4
Edgemont 2.57 2.14 1.0 0.33
Fires Creek 6.14 3.54 0.73 1.82
Harmon Den 2.47 2.77 1.60 *
Linville Mtn. 4.79 2.07 1.44 *
Nantahala 2.65 0.57 0.75 *
Poplar 3.67 3.65 1.0 *
Santeetlah 4.49 5.48 0.27 2.0
Sherwood 4.05 2.66 1.86 *
Standing Indian 2.64 3.03 3.6 *
* Not enough data for a calculation
Table 8. Results of Mountain Summer Soft Mast Surveys, 1993- 2004.
Year Blueberry Huckleberry Blackberry Pokeberry
1993 3.20 3.60 3.80 2.40
1994 3.20 3.50 3.50 1.40
1995 1.90 2.50 3.10 1.20
1996 2.00 2.00 3.40 1.50
1997 2.80 3.00 3.80 2.00
1998 1.90 1.20 3.30 2.33
1999 2.72 2.45 2.90 1.78
2000 2.70 2.72 2.99 1.64
2001 2.27 2.73 2.87 0.87
2002 1.87 2.22 3.55 1.32
2003 2.27 2.74 3.20 1.02
2004 1.67 1.61 4.25 1.41
1993- 2004
Average
2.38 2.52 3.40 1.57
53
Table 9. Local Results of Mountain Summer Soft Mast Surveys, 2004.
Area Blueberry Huckleberry Blackberry Pokeberry
Daniel Boone Area 1.25 0.75 0.75 0.25
Fire’s Creek/ Santeetlah 1.40 2.80 6.00 1.60
Harmon Den 2.00 1.00 8.00 2.00
Pisgah 2.40 3.00 0.80 0.00
Rich Mountain 3.50 2.50 2.00 0.50
711 * * * *
Mount Mitchell 1.50 0.75 3.50 0.25
Flattop 1.00 1.00 6.00 4.00
Standing Indian * * * *
Thurmond Chatham 0.67 0.33 2.33 0.67
Other U. S. Forest Service 1.60 1.60 4.40 1.20
South Mountains 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00
Gorges State Park 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00
Average of All Areas 1.67 1.61 4.25 1.41
* Species was not rated because it was not fruiting or was still green
54
Table 10. Results of Mountain Fall Soft Mast Indices, 1993- 2004.
Year Pokeberry Cherry Grapes Blackgum
1993 2.00 2.70 2.10 0.40
1994 3.10 2.00 3.80 1.70
1995 2.70 5.00 2.20 1.80
1996 2.40 1.60 3.30 1.80
1997 4.20 1.30 3.10 0.80
1998 4.63 2.67 2.80 1.50
1999 2.40 2.70 3.25 1.10
2000 2.20 2.70 3.30 1.00
2001 2.80 3.30 4.18 2.33
2002 1.10 2.45 2.73 1.27
2003 2.33 3.00 2.55 2.22
2004 1.67 2.70 3.00 1.44
1993- 2004
Average
2.62 2.67 3.02 1.45
Table 11. Local Results of Mountain Fall Soft Mast Indices, 2004.
Area Pokeberry Cherry Grapes Blackgum
Avery Creek 1 2 3 0
Edgemont 2 2 2 1
Fires Creek 2 4 4 4
Harmon Den 2 0 2 0
Linville Mtn. 2 1 1 6
Nantahala 0 4 0 0
Poplar 2 2 4 0
Santeetlah 2 6 6 2
Sherwood 2 0 4 0
Standing Indian * 6 4 *
Average of All Areas 1.67 2.70 3.00 1.44
* Species was not rated because it was not fruiting or was still green
55
Table 12. Results of Sardine Bait Index1 Lines, North Carolina Mountains, 1994- 2004.
Area 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Daniel Boone Area 12.8 18.6 27.9 22.1 11.6 25.6 34.9 25.0 24.7 46.5 25.0
SW Mountains 29.3 60.7 42.3 58.2 51.0 57.9 72.1 49.0 53.5 48.3 48.6
Flattop/ Rich Mtn. 29.4 39.7 42.6 63.2 47.1 50.0 69.1 73.1 78.8 56.3 62.5
Harmon Den/ Pisgah 23.8 42.1 48.6 53.5 40.1 50.3 51.4 59.7 65.0 70.4 72.6
Mount Mitchell Area 36.9 60.0 53.8 56.9 56.9 63.1 57.8 61.7 73.0 82.3 73.8
Franklin Work Area 16.9 28.8 28.9 27.9 28.9 31.9 37.0 34.6 47.3 36.4 31.7
T. Chat/ Stone Mtn. 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 14.3 2.9 33.3 36.7 9.1 33.3
South Mountains N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3.3 0 14.8 21.4 8.0 7.1
Gorges State Park N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 6.3 6.3 12.5 18.8
TOTALS: 22.9 40.7 37.9 44.7 38.0 43.8 50.2 46.4 52.6 50.5 48.5
1 Index is the percentage of active sites visited by bears. Active sites are those not disturbed by non- target animals.
56
Table 13. Number of Black Bear Complaints Received by District Biologists, 1995- 2004.
District
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
1 15 12 14 22 7 9 7 2 6 9
2 20 12 16 7 8 3 10 10 8 12
3 0 2 6 4 4 2 4 3 0 16
4 3 6 7 3 5 6 5 6 7 8
5 0 0 0 0 1 4 9 10 8 11
6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
7 12 11 21 14 16 4 6 13 15 12
8 12 15 36 20 27 18 17 55 82 40
9 81 101 144 55 80 201 215 278 226 184
Totals 143 159 244 125 148 248 273 377 352 292
‘
57
Figure 1. Percentage of Known Black Bear Mortality by Age
Class, North Carolina Mountains, 2004.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.75 1.75 2.75 3.75 4.75 5.75 6.75 7.75 8.75 9.75 10.75+
Female n= 84
Male n= 171
Figure 2. Percentage of Known Black Bear Mortality by Age
Class, North Carolina Coast, 2004.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.75
1.75
2.75
3.75
4.75
5.75
6.75
7.75
8.75
9.75
10.75+
Female n= 155
Male n= 335
58
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30
Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina
Period Covered: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005
SECTION II ( RESEARCH)
Subsection B: Big Game Mammals
Study B3: Status of White- tailed Deer Populations
Study Objective: To monitor white- tailed deer populations in North Carolina by
observing various population parameters which will enable the
establishment of sound regulations and habitat treatments for
effective statewide deer management.
A. Activity
Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality
1. Reliable observational and hunter experience data were recorded from various areas
throughout the state.
2. Numbers of hunter- killed deer reported via Wildlife Cooperator Agents, telephone, and
internet were compiled and analyzed for each county.
3. Numbers and composition of deer dying from factors other than legal hunting were recorded
and analyzed with the reported kill to obtain an estimate of total deer mortality.
4. Certain harvest data were collected from hunter- killed deer to identify various population
characteristics for determining the structure and status of herds.
5. Data from all of the above activities were used to evaluate the status of deer populations. The
information was then utilized in the formulation of regulation proposals.
59
Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats
1. Density or relative abundance estimates were derived from track counts, spotlight counts, and
examination of harvest data. This information was used to evaluate Game Land and other
selected deer areas throughout the state.
2. Data on kidney fat, weights, and certain antler measurements were collected and used as
indicators of physical condition. This information then was used to evaluate the status of herds
in relation to certain habitat and population characteristics.
3. Data from all of the above activities were utilized in the formulation of recommendations for
deer seasons, i. e., area boundaries, bag limits, and season dates and length.
Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina
1. An annual study progress report was prepared to report on activities of various jobs.
2. Appropriate reports and summary information were prepared and distributed to biologists and
sportsmen who provided harvest data.
3. Papers were prepared on current and past study results to disseminate information to other
investigators and managers.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishments
Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality
All activities were accomplished by June 30, 2005, as scheduled.
Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats
All activities were accomplished by June 30, 2005, as scheduled.
Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina
All activities were accomplished by June 30, 2005, as scheduled.
C. Significant Deviations
Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality
There were no significant deviations.
Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats
There were no significant deviations.
Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina
60
There were no significant deviations.
D. Remarks
Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality
1. Big Game Harvest Record Books were distributed to approximately 1,500 Wildlife
Cooperator Agents ( WCA) throughout the state prior to the 2004- 05 hunting season. A toll- free
telephone reporting system and an internet- based reporting system also were used during the
hunting season. The 2004- 2005 hunting season was the second season big game harvests could
be reported via the internet- based reporting system. Of the 140,311 deer reported through all
systems, telephone reporting accounted for 81,718 deer ( 58.2%), while 53,912 deer ( 38.4%)
were reported through WCAs. Only 4,681 deer ( 3.3%) were reported through the internet- based
reporting system. Tables 1- 3 present results of deer harvested in the state during 2004- 05 as
reported via all three systems.
2. Information from 1,000 deer dying from causes other than legal hunting was compiled from
" White- tailed Deer Mortality Report" forms and our Big Game Depredation Permit form. The
results of deer dying in the period April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005 are presented in Table 4.
More information on non- harvest mortality, primarily vehicle kills, was obtained through county
DOT officials who provided reports on deer removed from highways in selected counties.
3. There were 109 participants in the Deer Management Assistance Program ( DMAP) during the
2004- 05 hunting season. These hunt clubs encompassed 458,495 acres and 4,245 deer were
harvested from DMAP areas. Participants were issued 7,452 antlerless tags, of which 42.6%
were utilized. Table 5 presents a summary of program results from 1997- 04. After peaking with
204 participants hunting over 1.1 million acres in 1988, there has been a marked decline in
participation ( primarily in the Coastal Plain). This apparently is due to the continued
liberalization of doe hunting opportunity that has made it easier to harvest does throughout the
season on all lands. In an attempt to increase participation in the program, the minimum acreage
requirement for enrollment in the program was reduced from 2,000 acres to 1,000 acres prior to
the 2004- 2005 hunting season for those areas in the Eastern and Central Deer Seasons. The
acreage requirement was reduced from 2,000 acres to 500 acres for those areas in the Western
and Northwestern Deer Seasons.
4. Analyses of harvest data, non- harvest mortality information, and fawn sex ratios indicated the
percent of the total annual deer mortality attributable to legal harvest was approximately 64% for
all deer ( Table 6). The percent of the total annual deer mortality attributable to legal harvest for
bucks and does was 75% and 52%, respectively ( Table 6). Based on the mail survey adjusted
harvest estimate, approximately 334,022 deer died from all causes during 2004 ( Table 6).
5. The data we obtain from participants in the DMAP and our efforts to monitor deer harvest on
North Carolina Game Lands continue to allow us to obtain important information on the
structure and characteristics of deer populations throughout much of the state. These data are the
basis for our management zone population models. During the last hunting season, project
61
personnel obtained harvest data from 5,384 deer ( 3.8% of the reported statewide harvest).
Harvest data were used to analyze population trends, examine effects of past harvest levels, and
make recommendations for regulations in 2005 and 2006. Table 7 presents the age and sex
structure of the 2004 harvest by management zone, and Table 8 depicts important population
parameters by zone.
6. Project personnel assisted numerous Federal refuges and military installations in the
management of their deer herds and interpreting results of harvest data.
7. Biologists throughout the state examined the results of deer data collected from their work
areas, reviewed the status of herds with their supervisors, the deer biologist, and the Raleigh
staff, and then submitted proposals for deer seasons. The approved proposals then were
presented to sportsmen at a series of public hearings held in each Wildlife Commission district.
Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats
1. No herd health checks were conducted during the year.
2. Deer surveys were conducted on a number of Game Lands. The results are presented in
selected regional annual performance reports.
3. Trends in condition by area, county, and region were determined by examination of selected
physical characteristics. Table 9 illustrates these results by region for the 2004 hunting season.
Examination of data from the last several years indicates weights and antler characteristics are
fairly stable within the various regions. Additionally, trends in the percentage of yearling bucks
in the antlered buck harvest continued to decline or remain stable in all three regions of the state
( Table 10). With more older bucks in the statewide population and harvest, overall herd quality
should continue to improve. Project biologists continue to relate to sportsmen the effects that
age structure of the harvest has on the quality of the deer that can be taken from any area of the
state. Overall habitat quality remains good in most areas.
4. With similar buck seasons, number of hunters, and effort over the last 10- 12 years, the trend
in the number of antlered bucks harvested ( Table 11) is one of our indices to changes in deer
densities. This 2004 index was slightly above the previous 5- year average harvest in all three
regions of the state. For the last 9 hunting seasons, about two- thirds of the state’s counties have
had either- sex opportunity for the entire deer season. The long- term statewide impact of this
increased opportunity and the resulting increase in antlerless harvest is readily apparent ( Table
11). In spite of increased doe hunting opportunity in the Mountains, doe harvest has fluctuated
because of poor weather and short seasons. Because of this, we included a number of northern
Mountain counties in the areas open season- wide for does. The percentage of does in the harvest
increased considerably in the Piedmont and Mountains following the 1997 liberalization of doe
seasons and following the implementation of a two- buck bag limit in that portion of the state in
2000 ( Table 10). The continues to be a favorable downward trend in the percentage of buck
fawns in the antlerless harvest in all regions ( Table 10). Project personnel have examined
numerous harvest strategies and continue to review others that can increase the number of does
in our harvest without impacting numbers of antlered bucks and buck fawns. Longer and earlier
62
either- sex opportunities seem to be the best mechanisms for reducing button bucks in the
harvest.
5. There were no reports of hemorrhagic disease during the year.
6. Project personnel throughout the state presented numerous programs to wildlife, civic, and
hunting clubs to educate sportsmen and landowners of proper deer management schemes and
harvest strategies.
7. All data collected from the job were evaluated for impact on the respective deer herds. The
information then was utilized to make recommendations regarding hunting seasons throughout
the state.
Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina
1. The annual progress report was prepared and submitted to the Atlanta office.
2. Summary reports for participants in the DMAP and for our Game Lands data stations were
prepared and submitted to affected sportsmen and employees throughout the state.
3. The Deer Biologist, Division Chief, Wildlife and Land Management Section Manager,
Surveys and Research Coordinator, Captive Cervid Biologist, and three Technical Guidance
Biologists attended the annual meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group in Shepherdstown,
West Virginia.
4. The Deer Biologist attended the Southeast Deer Managers’ Meeting in Montgomery,
Alabama. A status report was presented on deer management issues in North Carolina.
E. Recommendations
Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality
This job should be continued to completion as scheduled.
Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats
This job should be continued to completion as scheduled.
Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina
This job should be continued to completion as scheduled.
F. Cost
Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality
$ 78,000
63
Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats
$ 22,000
Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina
$ 5,000
Prepared by: Vincent Evin Stanford, Deer Biologist
Date: 13 August 2005
64
Table 1. 2004- 05 Reported White- tailed Deer Harvest ( WCAs, Telephone, and Internet)
Sex and Age of Harvest Antlered Harvest by Season Location
Antlered Button Bucks/ Muzzle- Game Other
County Bucks Bucks Does Total Sq. Mile Gun loader Bow Lands Lands
Alamance 779 104 752 1,635 3.24 1,265 253 117 0 1,635
Alexander 401 50 445 896 2.43 646 149 101 0 896
Alleghany 892 119 1,190 2,201 6.17 1,598 367 236 18 2,183
Anson 1,683 242 1,523 3,448 3.77 2,614 550 284 58 3,390
Ashe 827 119 1,045 1,991 2.92 1,352 412 227 30 1,961
Avery 219 21 115 355 1.01 220 45 90 65 290
Beaufort 1,451 95 884 2,430 2.19 2,288 109 33 124 2,306
Bertie 2,095 315 1,721 4,131 3.40 3,850 198 83 178 3,953
Bladen 1,715 135 1,131 2,981 2.35 2,865 68 48 147 2,834
Brunswick 1,153 129 711 1,993 1.68 1,875 91 27 69 1,924
Buncombe 206 9 152 367 0.47 272 30 65 79 288
Burke 630 61 377 1,068 1.79 762 208 98 95 973
Cabarrus 552 54 458 1,064 3.12 830 152 82 0 1,064
Caldwell 538 40 294 872 1.47 598 184 90 78 794
Camden 271 41 160 472 1.41 436 18 18 56 416
Carteret 349 27 180 556 1.10 480 52 24 122 434
Caswell 1,483 161 862 2,506 4.77 1,848 512 146 184 2,322
Catawba 494 53 392 939 2.20 570 245 124 17 922
Chatham 1,173 107 1,083 2,363 2.40 1,720 418 225 396 1,967
Cherokee 107 0 11 118 0.28 99 9 10 61 57
Chowan 431 29 288 748 3.34 731 10 7 17 731
Clay 80 4 6 90 0.49 80 4 6 35 55
Cleveland 474 42 337 853 1.81 681 106 66 13 840
Columbus 1,664 127 940 2,731 2.10 2,575 127 29 88 2,643
Craven 1,249 78 710 2,037 2.31 1,919 88 30 166 1,871
Cumberland 786 48 357 1,191 2.03 1,119 30 42 14 1,177
Currituck 465 89 409 963 3.62 871 51 41 67 896
65
Table 1.
( continued)
Sex and Age of Harvest Antlered
Bucks/
Sq. Mile
Harvest by Season Location
Antlered Button Bucks/ Muzzle-
County Bucks Bucks Does Total Sq. Mile Gun loader Bow
Game
Lands
Other
Lands
Dare 125 6 41 172 0.60 133 22 17 67 105
Davidson 637 72 484 1,193 1.74 932 176 85 78 1,115
Davie 503 66 535 1,104 3.27 812 202 90 24 1,080
Duplin 1,730 149 962 2,841 2.58 2,755 48 38 49 2,792
Durham 401 24 226 651 2.88 422 143 86 190 461
Edgecombe 1,372 189 1,068 2,629 3.09 2,475 120 34 0 2,629
Forsyth 339 28 245 612 2.08 382 123 107 0 612
Franklin 1,345 153 982 2,480 3.78 2,364 67 49 43 2,437
Gaston 249 20 153 422 1.43 286 83 53 0 422
Gates 899 135 674 1,708 3.12 1,638 44 26 29 1,679
Graham 29 2 1 32 0.11 28 2 2 28 4
Granville 1,476 164 822 2,462 4.53 1,864 458 140 126 2,336
Greene 485 28 286 799 2.32 750 34 15 0 799
Guilford 644 55 380 1,079 2.03 768 142 169 0 1,079
Halifax 2,555 458 2,471 5,484 4.57 5,192 234 58 87 5,397
Harnett 741 51 446 1,238 1.75 981 146 111 20 1,218
Haywood 48 1 9 58 0.10 52 4 2 27 31
Henderson 170 8 68 246 0.77 176 19 51 55 191
Hertford 899 138 648 1,685 3.13 1,615 49 21 0 1,685
Hoke 239 13 99 351 0.74 324 18 9 4 347
Hyde 974 181 975 2,130 2.04 1,667 302 161 172 1,958
Iredell 947 112 1,055 2,114 3.14 1,455 433 226 0 2,114
Jackson 35 1 2 38 0.09 31 7 0 31 7
Johnston 1,093 71 682 1,846 1.96 1,712 56 78 0 1,846
Jones 929 75 641 1,645 2.23 1,587 47 11 93 1,552
Lee 323 16 224 563 1.72 409 81 73 87 476
Lenoir 569 45 312 926 1.86 879 28 19 0 926
Lincoln 419 45 293 757 2.74 466 190 101 0 757
Macon 234 4 28 266 0.56 212 17 37 128 138
66
County Sex and Age of Harvest Harvest by Season Location
Antlered
Bucks
Button
Bucks Does Total
Antlered
Bucks/ Sq.
Mile Gun
Muzzle
Loader Bow
Game
Lands
Other
Lands
Madison 315 15 83 413 0.85 318 38 57 142 271
Martin 1,032 139 698 1,869 2.64 1,808 42 19 109 1,760
McDowell 421 30 267 718 1.13 511 117 90 81 637
Mecklenburg 224 19 185 428 1.54 301 57 70 0 428
Mitchell 358 19 192 569 1.93 325 81 163 62 507
Montgomery 1,201 138 995 2,334 2.89 1,723 478 133 321 2,013
Moore 959 85 457 1,501 1.72 1,017 295 189 22 1,479
Nash 989 99 619 1,707 2.29 1,638 42 27 0 1,707
New Hanover 78 2 41 121 0.93 101 4 16 1 120
Northampton 2,110 381 1,891 4,382 4.91 4,081 223 78 0 4,382
Onslow 1,137 129 759 2,025 2.00 1,833 112 80 37 1,988
Orange 989 95 749 1,833 3.64 1,420 251 162 25 1,808
Pamlico 517 24 244 785 2.26 731 36 18 39 746
Pasquotank 429 26 246 701 2.25 663 23 15 0 701
Pender 1,906 185 1,292 3,383 2.66 3,193 117 73 200 3,183
Perquimans 542 69 433 1,044 2.52 1,016 18 10 0 1,044
Person 979 82 491 1,552 3.77 1,156 329 67 69 1,483
Pitt 1,174 66 587 1,827 2.47 1,747 47 33 0 1,827
Polk 382 13 262 657 2.34 446 112 99 83 574
Randolph 857 86 654 1,597 1.55 1,266 213 118 76 1,521
Richmond 760 46 348 1,154 1.97 1,076 57 21 82 1,072
Robeson 658 32 247 937 0.88 890 33 14 7 930
Rockingham 1,028 108 816 1,952 2.75 1,411 327 214 0 1,952
Rowan 842 89 739 1,670 3.10 1,278 268 124 78 1,592
Rutherford 832 66 715 1,613 2.10 1,289 198 126 39 1,574
Sampson 1,283 124 742 2,149 1.61 2,078 39 32 41 2,108
Scotland 406 25 146 577 1.56 523 29 25 57 520
Stanly 719 95 666 1,480 2.90 1,187 198 95 30 1,450
Stokes 777 82 764 1,623 2.40 1,050 334 239 0 1,623
Surry 775 65 514 1,354 2.16 996 232 126 18 1,336
Swain 66 1 11 78 0.14 67 2 9 37 41
67
County Sex and Age of Harvest Harvest by Season Location
Antlered
Bucks
Button
Bucks Does Total
Antlered
Bucks/ Sq
. Mile Gun
Muzzle
Loader Bow
Game
Lands
Other
Lands
Transylvania 147 1 39 187 0.45 159 9 19 101 86
Tyrrell 457 71 331 859 1.33 744 95 20 79 780
Union 624 63 573 1,260 1.60 1,015 161 84 0 1,260
Vance 736 57 430 1,223 4.70 1,136 52 35 36 1,187
Wake 1,278 94 663 2,035 3.94 1,800 105 130 315 1,720
Warren 1,033 241 870 2,144 2.81 2,052 68 24 24 2,120
Washington 634 81 491 1,206 2.50 1,023 146 37 91 1,115
Watauga 526 39 285 850 2.33 592 138 120 14 836
Wayne 634 36 270 940 1.46 902 24 14 0 940
Wilkes 1,840 180 1,925 3,945 3.25 2,896 692 357 89 3,856
Wilson 537 44 336 917 1.77 889 17 11 0 917
Yadkin 651 68 731 1,450 3.12 1,075 263 112 0 1,450
Yancey 422 23 287 732 1.72 403 98 231 46 686
State 76,840 8,042 55,429 140,311 2.18 118,356 14,001 7,954 5,966 134,345
68
Table 2. Reported Deer Harvest on Game Lands, 2002- 2004
2004 as Percent
District 2002 2003 2004 of District Total
1 744 663 865 4.9
2 647 690 831 4.3
3 397 564 505 2.0
4 394 441 447 3.2
5 823 1,009 1,153 6.3
6 568 609 669 4.3
7 173 208 193 1.1
8 690 616 496 5.6
9 729 785 807 31.6
State Totals 5,165 5,585 5,966
Percent of
Total Harvest 4.4 4.2 4.3
Table 3. Reported Deer Harvest by Season, 1993- 2004
Percentage of Statewide Total
Muzzle-
Year Gun loader Bow
1993 83 10 7
1994 84 10 6
1995 83 11 6
1996 82 12 6
1997 82 12 6
1998 83 11 6
1999 82 11 7
2000 83 11 6
2001 85 9 6
2002 85 9 6
2003 84 10 6
2004 84 10 6
69
Table 4. Sex and Age Structure of Nonhunting Deer Mortality, April 2004- March 2005
Percentage Known Sex and Age
Mortality Agent
Number
Observed
Male
Fawns
Male
Adults
Female
Fawns
Female
Adults
Motor Vehicle 592 8.5 26.4 7.4 57.6
Predator 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Parasite/ Disease 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0
Illegal Kill 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7
Unretrieved Kill 3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Depredation ( all adults) 396 0.0 12.9 0.0 87.1
Unknown 3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1,000 4.6 20.8 3.9 70.7
70
Table 5. Deer Management Assistance Program ( DMAP) Statistics, 1997- 2004
Statistic 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Number Participants 95 107 103 93 91 95 99 109
Total Acres 453,299 543,593 532,242 569,693 456,462 454,902 447,723 458,495
Mean Permit Size ( ac) 4,772 5,080 5,167 6,126 5,016 4,788 4,522 4,206
Number Tags Issued 5,961 8,134 8,411 8,091 7,344 7,452 7,382 7,452
Mean Number Tags/ Sq. Mi. 8.42 9.58 10.11 9.09 10.30 10.48 10.55 10.40
% of Tags Utilized 58.9 46.2 43.3 43.3 45.3 38.0 32.5 42.6
Number Deer Harvested
Antlered Bucks 1,597 1,655 1,616 1,500 1,470 1,180 1,342 1,288
Button Bucks 487 429 407 362 353 327 194 302
Does 2,966 2,879 2,881 2,604 2,815 2,384 2,150 2,655
Total 5,050 4,963 4,904 4,466 4,638 3,891 3,686 4,245
% of Statewide Antlerless Harvest 6.5 5.8 6.5 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.7
Mean Antlerless Harvest/ Sq. Mi. 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.0 3.5 4.3
% Does in Harvest 58.7 58.0 58.7 58.3 60.7 61.3 58.3 62.5
71
Table 6. Percentage of Total Annual Deer Mortality Attributable to Hunting, 1983- 2004
Year Bucks Does Combined Total Mortality Estimate
1983 64 21 43 221,623
1984 56 18 37 281,231
1985 57 21 39 283,778
1986 61 21 42 320,385
1987 67 25 46 305,642
1988 62 26 44 332,908
1989 71 30 51 290,449
1990 77 38 58 305,243
1991 61 29 45 386,826
1992 75 37 56 316,006
1993 83 46 65 329,310
1994 69 37 53 379,736
1995 79 40 60 360,557
1996 62 33 48 394,806
1997 74 45 60 324,362
1998 73 43 58 370,250
1999 82 46 64 314,498
2000 85 57 71 297,588
2001 85 57 71 277,614
2002 82 57 70 268,638
2003 61 39 50 414,629
2004 75 52 64 334,022
72
Table 7. Composition of North Carolina's Deer Harvest, 2004
Antlerless Deer Harvest
Antlered Buck Harvest Percent by Sex and Age Class
Management Percent by Age Class Male Female
Zone n 1.5 2.5 3.5+ n 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5+
Albemarle 93 48 43 9 232 12 16 20 30 22
N. Pamlico 45 27 37 37 214 8 9 18 40 25
S. Pamlico 149 27 52 21 194 9 12 8 36 34
Roanoke 319 12 39 49 704 13 19 12 22 34
Neuse 38 20 57 23 278 11 24 18 22 25
Cape Fear 182 25 51 25 495 9 14 13 34 30
Sandhills 158 45 48 7 188 11 19 19 25 25
Coastal Plain 984 27 46 27 2,305 11 17 15 28 29
N. Piedmont 191 40 43 17 306 17 19 19 20 24
S. Piedmont 312 42 48 10 268 10 17 17 36 20
N. Foothill 45 27 50 23 49 2 8 16 43 31
S. Foothill 93 67 24 10 104 14 18 21 22 24
Piedmont 641 44 43 13 727 13 18 18 28 23
N. Mountain 112 33 34 34 195 10 20 21 17 32
N. Pisgah 167 49 34 17 103 16 14 17 18 36
S. Pisgah 85 40 36 24 32 3 3 20 27 47
Nantahala 33 47 22 31 0 - - - - -
Mountains 397 43 33 24 330 11 17 19 18 35
State 2,022 36 42 22 3,362 11 17 16 27 28
73
Table 8. Selected Population Parameters from North Carolina's Deer Harvest, 2004
% Yearlings % Does in
Management Fawns per Doe Adult Sex Ratiob in Adult Harvest Reported
Zone Observed Reporteda ( Does/ Buck) Males Females Harvest
Albemarle 0.38 0.43 1.61 48 28 39
N. Pamlico 0.20 0.45 1.14 27 22 42
S. Pamlico 0.27 0.29 2.36 27 11 36
Roanoke 0.47 0.46 0.62 12 18 42
Neuse 0.54 0.27 0.66 20 28 34
Cape Fear 0.30 0.34 1.31 25 17 36
Sandhills 0.44 0.33 1.51 45 27 30
Coastal Plain 0.38 0.38 1.22 27 21 38
N. Piedmont 0.57 0.37 1.23 40 30 38
S. Piedmont 0.37 0.32 1.67 42 23 43
N. Foothill 0.11 0.25 1.39 27 18 47
S. Foothill 0.49 0.27 1.96 67 31 41
Piedmont 0.44 0.32 1.54 44 26 41
N. Mountain 0.42 0.23 1.02 33 30 49
N. Pisgah 0.41 0.29 1.95 49 23 36
S. Pisgah 0.07 0.17 1.73 40 21 32
Nantahala - 0.51 - 47 - 9
Mountains 0.38 0.24 1.48 43 27 42
State 0.39 0.34 1.49 36 22 40
a Reported to Wildlife Cooperator Agents ( assumed 1: 1 fawn sex ratio) b Severinghaus and Maguire, 1955
74
Table 9. Selected Average Physical Characteristics by Management Zone, 2004 Season
Buck Fawn Yearling Bucks 2.5 Year- Old Bucks
Management Weights Weights Points Spikes Spread Weights Points Spikes Spread
Zone ( lb) ( lb) ( no) (%) ( mm) ( lb) ( no) (%) ( mm)
Albemarle 61.5 109.6 3.7 41 184 138.1 6.8 0 320
N. Pamlico 75.1 116.3 3.0 75 175 136.7 4.8 36 274
S. Pamlico 64.9 101.2 2.5 70 122 127.2 5.4 7 234
Roanoke 65.1 103.5 3.1 54 194 132.5 7.2 0 331
Neuse 61.5 108.2 3.6 40 150 143.9 6.8 13 337
Cape Fear 57.3 106.6 3.3 56 194 143.5 6.5 9 319
Sandhills 63.1 111.2 3.4 34 177 139.6 6.6 7 291
N. Piedmont 63.6 109.3 3.6 39 184 134.6 6.4 6 294
S. Piedmont 62.1 104.8 3.6 50 160 139.0 7.1 1 312
N. Foothill 69.0 118.0 4.2 13 220 153.2 7.2 0 350
S. Foothill 63.5 110.0 3.5 40 172 138.0 6.4 5 292
N. Mountain 61.5 108.2 3.0 52 168 135.1 6.7 3 299
N. Pisgah 62.8 103.8 3.1 57 153 125.8 6.1 2 283
S. Pisgah - 105.9 3.5 47 172 119.2 5.6 3 274
Nantahala - 106.8 3.1 47 170 132.0 6.4 14 313
75
Table 10. Regional Trends in Selected Population Parameters, 1988- 2004.
% 1.5 Bucks in Antlered Harvest % Does in Total Harvest % Button Bucks in Antlerless
Year Coast Piedmont Mountains Coast Piedmont Mountains Coast Piedmont Mountains
1988 66 75 45 32 25 19 21.0 22.1 22.3
1989 65 72 61 32 25 23 17.1 22.1 21.1
1990 60 74 46 36 26 22 17.9 22.3 20.4
1991 63 70 47 35 27 20 17.6 21.6 21.1
1992 57 68 48 34 30 29 18.1 21.1 21.6
1993 57 70 46 38 33 24 18.2 20.5 20.1
1994 56 66 49 37 32 26 17.1 19.9 19.9
1995 52 64 53 36 31 25 16.2 19.7 16.5
1996 44 67 58 36 32 28 15.9 18.2 17.8
1997 43 64 56 37 37 34 16.3 18.2 16.7
1998 42 66 44 36 36 30 15.9 18.1 17.9
1999 44 59 42 36 35 29 14.2 15.8 15.6
2000 37 60 45 37 41 42 14.0 13.1 10.5
2001 41 60 41 38 40 37 14.0 12.7 11.0
2002 36 50 43 39 42 42 14.7 13.1 10.9
2003 34 47 44 36 39 44 12.5 11.8 9.6
2004 27 44 43 38 41 42 13.8 12.2 9.7
76
Table 11. Trends in Regional Antlered Buck and Doe Harvests, 1988- 2004.
Total Antlered Bucks Harvested Total Does Harvested
Year Coast Piedmont Mountains Coast Piedmont Mountains
1988 32,799 14,821 5,557 17,326 5,553 1,377
1989 34,386 17,235 5,776 18,393 6,217 1,834
1990 37,664 19,765 6,504 23,622 7,585 2,006
1991 37,270 20,078 7,376 22,492 8,026 1,979
1992 39,188 23,975 7,818 22,932 11,916 3,549
1993 42,685 25,322 8,368 30,191 13,964 2,874
1994 39,269 24,633 8,691 26,371 13,002 3,255
1995 36,956 27,748 9,111 23,694 13,929 3,244
1996 36,036 24,996 8,477 22,179 13,320 3,686
1997 35,238 23,518 8,062 23,309 15,808 4,721
1998 40,333 27,177 8,290 25,832 17,196 3,975
1999 38,032 26,496 9,536 23,504 15,795 4,146
2000 40,366 24,138 8,128 26,458 18,844 6,394
2001 42,680 27,597 8,528 29,437 20,703 5,477
2002 34,120 20,543 8,232 24,289 16,956 6,494
2003 39,487 27,795 9,177 23,768 19,515 7,921
2004 40,481 27,466 8,893 26,974 21,361 7,094
77
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30
Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina
Period Covered: 14 August, 2004 to 31 July, 2005
Section II ( RESEARCH)
Subsection B: Big Game Mammals
Study B4: Status of the Black Bear in North Carolina
Study Objective: Collect the biological data necessary to assist in making management decisions
that will ensure the long- term viability of black bear populations and provide a sustainable
annual harvest. Specifically, “ monitoring black bear populations with hair sampling and genetic
identification”.
A. Activity
We conducted both molecular biology work in our labs and field work. In the field we collected
hair samples from hunter harvested bears. In the lab we continued genotyping all collected hair
samples, from barbed wire corrals, hunter harvested, and trapped bears.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishments
1. All activities were accomplished as follows:
Hair Collection from Bears Harvested by Hunters 8 November to 13 November
6 December to 18 December
Removal of 204 Barbed Wire Corrals Weeks in August thru November
6 March to 11 March
Processing of Hair in Lab Entire year when not in field
2. Hair Collection from Bears Harvested by Hunters
In cooperation with North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission personnel, we collected hair
from 95 bears harvested by hunters during the 2004 November and December hunting seasons.
These bears were killed in Hyde and Tyrrell counties and the collection area was the same as in
2003.
3. Removal of Barbed Wire Corrals
78
During the fall of 2004 and late Winter 2005, all 204 barbed wire corrals used in 2004 were
removed. Before removing them, digital pictures were taken of the corral from several angles to
analyze movements of individual bears through the corral, once genotypes are determined from
the hair samples. This analysis will help to determine effective sub- sampling techniques for
future research recommendations. The corrals were also located with a GPS unit.
4. Processing of Hair in Lab
For the entire research project there are a total of 3,468 hair samples to analyze. We continue to
use our lab in the Plant Pathology Department in the Gardner Addition for low volume DNA
work and run pcrs and acrylamide gels in the Genomic Research Lab on Centennial Campus.
For the entire project, we have run 66 gels to optimize the microsatellite amplification process
and have run 172 gels to genotype hair samples. We have genotyped 912 samples completely
and have run all other samples once for each of the 5 microsatellite primers we are using to
identify individual bears. Using hair samples of known and different bears, we determined that
only 4 primers were necessary to distinguish individuals. A fifth primer not only gives us more
genetic information for relatedness, but also helps to catch genotyping errors. We currently are
re- running the remaining samples for primers that did not work or were ambiguous the first time.
After this, all samples that vary at only 1 primer will be re- run to confirm results. Then, all
unique genotypes will be run to determine the sex of the individual bears.
5. Future Activities will be accomplished as follows:
We plan to have genotypes for all hair samples and sex identification for unique genotypes
completed by October 2005. After that we will generate population estimates and determine
genetic relatedness between individual bears for the final project report, due 31 December 2005.
C. Cost:
$ 50,000
Prepared by: Tim Langer and Dr. Phillip Doerr, North Carolina State University
Date: 31 July, 2005.
Annual Performance Report
79
State: North Carolina Project Number: C- 7 Segment Number: 30
Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina
Period Covered: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005
SECTION II ( RESEARCH)
Subsection C: Small Game Animals
Study C7: Population Status of Furbearers in North Carolina
Study Objectives: To conduct furbearer population surveys and harvest surveys in
North Carolina and to disseminate the information obtained from
this study.
A. Activity
Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends
1. Changes in legislation continued the permit fox seasons in 6 counties ( Caswell, Clay, Graham,
Macon, Stokes, and Tyrrell) indefinitely. Currently there are 28 counties where legislation has
opened harvest seasons where the sale of fox pelts or live animals is permitted. Twenty counties
have fox seasons created by legislation, which allow harvest but do not permit sale of pelts or
live animals.
2. An electronic intranet system for reporting wildlife observations was utilized during the period
to assess the status of selected furbearer species with less than statewide or unknown
distribution; these included bobcat, groundhog, nutria, river otter, spotted skunk, striped skunk,
and weasel. A survey of all technical guidance district wildlife biologists was conducted to
update the 2000 range maps.
3. Sheets were supplied to each raccoon hunt club which was scheduled to conduct a sanctioned
raccoon field trial. Requested data included dogs per cast, county hunted by each cast, hours
hunted per cast, and number of raccoons observed per cast.
4. All hunter check in data was edited then entered by our Data Processing section in preparation
for data analysis and comparisons with scent station survey data over the entire study period.
Data currently are being verified and prepared for analysis.
Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest
80
1. Number and species composition of furbearers sold to licensed fur dealers were compiled and
analyzed for each county to determine the distribution of the harvest. A harvest mail survey was
conducted by sending all licensed trappers a questionnaire asking the number trapped, number of
days trapped, average number of traps set per day for each species, and the counties where
harvest occurred. The numbers of trapping licenses sold were compiled by type for the past 30
years. Data from reports required for wildlife damage control agents ( WDCA) and
municipal/ governmental organizations obtaining long term depredation permits were compiled.
A database containing all information pertaining to furbearer harvest continues to be updated
annually.
2. The number of permit and legislative season fox tags and CITES bobcat and river otter tags
sold by direct sales was compiled.
3. Licensed fur dealers were contacted to determine average pelt prices paid to trappers and
hunters in an effort to monitor the effects of market price on harvest.
Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina
1. An annual progress report was prepared to report on activities of the study.
2. Work on a booklet to be published and distributed to the public on North Carolina furbearers
was suspended due to time required to attend to higher priority duties.
3. Data were entered and are being analyzed in preparation for writing a report on the results of
the canine distemper virus outbreak and scent station data analysis for the Cherry Point Marine
Corps Air Station gray fox project.
4. A manuscript was submitted on river otter restoration and handling techniques to be included
in the proceedings of the IXth International Otter Colloquium.
5. An annual report on the raccoon field trial survey was prepared for distribution to raccoon
hunt club presidents and Commission personnel.
B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishments
Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends
All activities were accomplished on schedule.
Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest
All activities were accomplished on schedule.
Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina
81
All activities were accomplished on schedule except for work on preparing the final draft of the
furbearer booklet which was postponed, as was work on scientific papers describing gray fox
population responses to a canine distemper epizootic and the river otter techniques paper, due to
higher priority activities.
C. Significant Deviations
Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends
There were no significant deviations.
Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest
There were no significant deviations.
Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina
There were no significant deviations.
D. Remarks
Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends
1. No new counties were included in the permit local law fox harvest areas during the reporting
period. Since baseline survey data exists for most of the counties and participation has been
extremely low, no surveys were conducted during the reporting period.
2. Observations of 1 bobcat, 6 river otters, 2 groundhogs, and 2 spotted skunks were reported via
the intranet observation system or directly to the furbearer biologist during the period. In
addition, information on the current distribution of furbearers was solicited from Commission
field wildlife biologists to aid in updating our 2000 range maps. This revision indicates that
beavers and river otters are now distributed statewide and striped skunks and groundhogs have
increased their distribution to the south and east.
3. Data were collected on raccoon field trials conducted from May 1987 through February 2005.
Furbearer management regions used for these analyses are shown in Figure 1. Since September
1997, all raccoon hunting clubs who conducted raccoon field trials were asked to provide data
from each hunt. When each club obtains a field trial permit from wildlife enforcement officers, a
copy of this permit is sent to the Furbearer Biologist who sends each club a survey form.
Problems with this method of obtaining hunt information dictated that United Kennel Club hunt
lists continue to be used to increase the number of hunts that are included in the surveys. Data
collected included total time hunted by each cast, the number of dogs in each cast, and the
number of raccoons observed. These data are presented in Table 1 for all 18 years of the survey.
The data represented for 2004- 05 is based on 396, 762, and 543 hours of hunting time for the
Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountain regions, respectively. The greatest number of raccoons
82
seen per hour was 1.14 in the Piedmont, followed by 0.98 in the Mountains and 0.84 in the
Coastal Plain. The number of participating raccoon hunting clubs each year has remained stable
ranging from a low of 21 to a high of 59. The number of casts upon which the index is
determined has varied from a low of 327 to a high of 1,406 over the past 18 years. Data
collection will continue and be used for regional and statewide raccoon population indices. All
sanctioned field trials for which field trial permits are required are included in the survey.
4. No further scent station surveys were conducted on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry
Point. All hunter effort information was entered into a database to be used in analysis of the fox
observations per hour hunted that will be compared with scent station survey results during the
study period. Results of the hunter observation rate should be available during the next reporting
period.
Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest
1. Record of Fur Transaction forms were distributed to licensed fur dealers prior to the 2004- 05
furbearer harvest season. Table 2 presents the result of licensed fur dealer reports by county and
Table 3 presents a comparison of recent years’ licensed fur dealer reports by species. The total
number of pelts reported sold to licensed fur dealers increased and was 36% higher than in 2003-
04. The difference between the actual and reported harvest may be increasing each year due to
trappers and hunters marketing their furs at auction, selling live foxes to fox pen operators, and
not marketing a significant portion of the harvest at all. A voluntary trapper mail harvest survey
was sent to all licensed trappers after the last 3 trapping seasons to obtain estimates of total
statewide furbearer harvest by species. The 2002- 03 survey identified individual trappers and
asked questions about marketing furs. The survey was not anonymous which likely resulted in
the low response rate of 39%. The survey was changed for 2003- 04 and trappers were asked to
return a postcard indicating that they had returned the anonymous survey form in a separate
envelope which resulted in an increased response rate of 53%. A similar anonymous survey was
sent for the 2004- 05 season and each trapper was asked to identify the counties from which
furbearers were harvested to obtain regional estimates. The response rate for this survey was
50%. Table 4 presents data obtained using the trapper harvest mail surveys for the past three
periods. Further refinement of the survey should result in a standard annual survey that can be
extrapolated to obtain valid estimates of statewide furbearer harvest by trappers. Harvest data
reported by wildlife damage control agents, federal wildlife damage control programs, municipal
animal control programs, and licensed fur dealers was compiled and is presented in Table 5.
Total depredation harvest for the current period is incomplete due to lag time in entering report
data. Table 6 presents the trapping license sales data over the past 30 years since the 1975- 76
trapping season. Trapping license sales increased slightly compared to the previous year.
83
2. A summary of the results of fox permit harvests is not presented in this report since this
information is no longer available. The numbers of legislative and permit fox tags and bobcat
and river otter CITES tags sold statewide were as follows: fox - 258, bobcat - 443, river otter –
3,202.
3. All licensed fur dealers were contacted to solicit average pelt prices paid to fur harvesters.
The average pelt values for 11 species since the 1997- 98 trapping season are listed in Table 7.
River otter pelt prices remain high and this is reflected in the harvest as indicated by the number
of CITES tags issued to trappers. This increased effort to harvest otters has resulted in
significant increases in beaver harvests that are not reflected in the number purchased by fur
dealers since they are purchasing only a limited number of beavers at relatively low prices.
Table 8 presents the numbers of North Carolina fur dealer licenses sold since the 1990- 91 season
and illustrates the decrease in furbearer market activity over the past several seasons.
Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina
1. Literature reviews on river otter, gray fox, mink, beaver, and population survey techniques
currently are being prepared and updated.
2. Text for a booklet on North Carolina furbearers continues to be updated and may be used to
provide information to the public on the Commission’s website.
3. Scientific papers on the results of the Cherry Point Gray Fox Study are being written on
several aspects of the study and should be completed during the next reporting period.
4. The manuscript submitted for publication on river otter restoration techniques is still being
reviewed by the editors.
5. The raccoon field trial survey annual report is being printed for distribution to raccoon club
presidents, and electronic versions will be sent to Commission personnel.
E. Recommendations
Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends
This job should be continued.
Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest
This job should be continued.
Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina
This job should be continued.
E. Cost
84
Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends
$ 17,000
Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest
$ 5,000
Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina
$ 9,000
Prepared by: / s/ Perry W. Sumner July 31, 2005
Perry W. Sumner
Furbearer Biologist
85
Table 1. Results of the North Carolina Raccoon Field Trial Survey from 1987- 88
through 2004- 05.
Raccoons Seen Per Hour Participation
Year Statewide Coastal Piedmont Mountain Clubs Casts
1987- 88 0.56 0.90 0.54 0.40 30 594
1988- 89 0.64 0.70 0.67 0.45 33 605
1989- 90 0.70 0.75 0.69 0.66 29 591
1990- 91 0.73 0.89 0.71 0.50 35 948
1991- 92 0.73 0.74 0.80 0.46 33 705
1992- 93 0.80 0.82 0.88 0.58 37 784
1993- 94 0.88 0.95 0.93 0.58 36 775
1994- 95 0.85 0.78 0.98 0.59 37 547
1995- 96 0.94 0.85 1.01 0.86 33 619
1996- 97 1.01 1.05 1.07 0.81 26 503
1997- 98 1.05 0.91 1.09 1.06 34 1406
1998- 99 0.92 0.90 0.86 1.13 21 327
1999- 00 0.97 1.02 0.99 0.87 48 783
2000- 01 1.06 0.82 1.13 1.11 53 808
2001- 02 0.90 1.20 0.80 0.97 50 970
2002- 03 0.91 1.24 0.88 0.92 59 1242
2003- 04 1.01 1.00 0.86 1.16 43 834
2004- 05 1.02 0.84 1.14 0.98 52 852
86
Table 2. Furs Reported Purchased By North Carolina Licensed Fur Dealers By County and Species, 2004- 05.
County
Beaver
Bobcat
Coyote
Gray
Fox
Red
Fox
Mink
Muskrat
Nutria
Opossum
Otter
Raccoon
Anson 30 11 19
Beaufort 69 29 24 4 3 171 6 47 376
Bertie 4 1 9 69 22
Bladen 21 2 1 86 99
Brunswick 12 10 14 24
Camden 42 69 81
Carteret 2 5
Chatham 10 1 7 43
Chowan 1 3 7
Columbus 151 13 8 40 68 80
Craven 103 2 139 1 72 75
Cumberland 34 4
Currituck 2
Dare 1 46 41
Davidson 18 25 2 140
Duplin 159 17 7 168 4 48 279
Edgecombe 2 31 13 34
Franklin 19 1 2 4 10
Gates 2 6 13 22
Granville 26 28 92 24
Greene 7 2 7
Guilford 15 2 31 12 25
Halifax 145 35 21
Harnett 19 2 23 10 28 76
Hertford 3 6 2 524 7 28
Hyde 251 36 170 13 21 370 6 18 148 594
Johnston 192 7 3 172 90 245
87
Table 2. continued
County
Beaver
Bobcat
Coyote
Gray
Fox
Red
Fox
Mink
Muskrat
Nutria
Opossum
Otter
Raccoon
Jones 19 3 46 18 60
Lee 30 10 8
Lenoir 12 3 1 12 32 20
Martin 19 32
Montgomery 1 1
Moore 1 32 56
Nash 68 2 108 26 61
New Hanover 1
Northampton 1 8 11 14
Onslow 1 36 12
Orange 4 14 2
Pamlico 10 3 1 14 8
Pender 58 6 1 26 47 50
Pitt 47 4 2 2 146 78 74
Randolph 60 2 4 1 9 73 80
Robeson 1 1 42 44
Rowan 7
Sampson 427 33 193 11 159 391
Stanly 2 1 29
Union 24 2 26 6 17
Vance 60 59 33 70
Wake 31 1 52 24 85
Washington 22 1 1 13 21 15
Wayne 66 4 12 228 3 127 252
Wilson 17 4 1 24 14 60
Unknown 1
Total 2,105 193 0 204 18 75 2,927 27 33 1,873 3,715
88
Table 3. Comparison of North Carolina Fur Dealer Reports, 1994- 95 through 2004- 05.
Reporting Period
Species 1995- 96 1996- 97 1997- 98 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05
Beaver 1,396 1,935 1,975 1,653 520 1,576 2,753 1483 1,736 2,105
Bobcat 42 111 82 47 25 12 29 77 128 193
Coyote 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Gray Fox 67 279 203 73 34 12 8 70 167 204
Red Fox 12 38 36 9 8 4 0 16 2 18
Mink 93 183 101 51 12 38 22 31 47 75
Muskrat 2,167 6,002 4,485 1,600 445 957 1,212 800 1,324 2,927
Nutria 13 126 202 14 2 0 0 0 5 27
Opossum 215 534 146 59 9 27 18 42 4 33
Otter 607 698 605 468 318 1,158 1,234 1,521 1,355 1,873
Raccoon 10,447 19,354 10,914 6,375 2,523 1,485 1,922 1,819 2,399 3,715
Skunk 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Weasel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 15,059 29,263 18,753 10,349 3,896 5,269 7,198 5,859 7,169 11,170
89
Table 4. Results of Trapper Harvest Mail Surveys for the 2002- 03, 2003- 04 and 2004- 05 Harvest Seasons.
2002- 03 Trapper Harvest Mail Survey
Species
Beaver
Bobcat
Coyote
Gray
Object Description
Description
| Title | Annual performance report, wildlife management |
| Other Title | Annual performance report; Wildlife management |
| Date | 2005 |
| Description | June 2004/June 2005 (Volume LXXVIII) |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 887 KB; 201 p. |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_annualperformancereportwildlife2005.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
| Full Text | Annual Performance Report Wildlife Management July 2004 – June 2005 Volume LXXVIII North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Division of Wildlife Management ii ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT GRANT W- 57, SEGMENT 30 JULY 1, 2004 – JUNE 30, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS I COORDINATION Coordinators Report 1 II SURVEYS AND INVENTORIES 6 Coordinators Report 6 Study A2 Status of Mourning Dove Populations 7 Study A4 Status of Upland Bird Populations 9 Study A5 C. U. R. E. Quail Monitoring 38 Study B1 Status of Black Bear in North Carolina 39 Study B3 Status of White- tailed Deer in North Carolina 58 Study B4 Status of Black Bear in North Carolina 77 Study C7 Status of Furbearers in North Carolina 79 Study E1 Waterfowl Surveys 94 Study F3 Mail Surveys of North Carolina Hunters 112 Study G1 Wildlife Diseases in North Carolina 120 III TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 128 Coordinator’s Summary 128 Category 1: To provide technical guidance to government agencies 129 Category 2: To provide technical guidance to private landowners 133 Category 3: To provide technical guidance to manage wildlife populations 136 Technical Guidance Conducted by Agriculture Liaison Biologist and Private Lands Coordinator 140 IV OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ON GAMELANDS 141 Coordinator’s Summary 141 Coastal Game Lands 142 Central Game Lands 159 Western Game Lands 172 V MISCELLANEOUS STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES 196 Coordinator’s Summary 196 Study V1 Canada Goose Protection and Habitat Protection 197 1 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT DIVISION OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PROJECT W- 57, SEGMENT 30 July 1, 2004- June 30, 2005 State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30 Project Title: Coordinators Report Period Covered: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 The following is an outline of accomplishments for the year by objective. Objective 1: To maintain the State’s eligibility for participation in Federal Aid Programs. Planned Activities – The following activities were planned for completion during the year: Annually provide notice of desire to participate in the P- R Program. Annually provide certification of paid license holders. Furnish information, upon request, regarding the State’s authority to participate in U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant programs. Accomplishments: Renewal documents for the upcoming segment were submitted and approved. This application for funds satisfied the requirement to provide notice of desire to participate. Certification of paid license holders is prepared and submitted each year by the Commission’s Division of Administrative services. The annual report of license holders was filed as required for the 2005 funding period. A non- duplication survey of paid license holders will no longer be necessary under the Point- of- Sale system that was implemented in recent years. No information concerning the State’s authority to participate in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant program was requested. 2 Objective 2: To submit for federal aid participation, only those projects that meet program standards and are consistent with State fish and wildlife management goals. Planned Activities – The Coordinator’s planned activities included the following: Coordinate P- R planning to ensure that Program objectives are consistent with agency goals. Accomplishments: Grant performance was monitored through field inspections, monthly coordination meetings with field supervisors and quarterly coordination reports. The W- 57 Grant projects generally remained on schedule. Equipment purchases, which have been delayed in the past, are generally back on schedule due to special allocations from the Endowment fund and other sources. The P- R Coordinator conducted informal reviews of program activities during the year. No major shortcomings were observed. Supervisors submitted quarterly coordination reports, and no major deviations were noted during the year. Most deviations were minor and involved routine adjustments to make best use of available manpower and equipment. Objective 3: To ensure that project documents are consistent with program standards and Procedure and are submitted in a timely manner. Planned Activities – The following activities were planned: Performance reports for Segment 30 were scheduled for preparation and submission to the Regional Office by October 1, 2005. Accomplishments: All required documents ( performance reports, agreements and supporting information) were reviewed and submitted on time. There were no significant deviations this project period. Objective 4: To assure that projects are accomplished in an efficient manner. Planned Activities – The following activities were planned for completion this year. Minor work force and request adequate resources to accomplish project objectives. 3 Minor support services and request adequate equipment, supplies, etc., to carry out necessary work. Conduct on- site inspections to monitor performance. Initiate actions necessary to correct deficiencies. Accomplishments: Coordination with the Archeology and Historic Preservation Branch was required on several occasions to ensure that agency federal and activities are in compliance with federal and state guidelines. Contacted USFWS Ecological Branch on several occasions to coordinate program activities. Objectives 5 and 6: To maintain adequate financial and property management systems. Planned Activities – Work plans this year were as follows: Major jobs to be accomplished were: the monitoring of program costs and the accurate coding of federal aid activities. The coordinator also planned to meet with the Commission’s Division of Administrative Services, as needed, to review maintenance of accurate financial and property records in accordance with federal standards. The records system has been computerized, and centralized procedures are in effect that reduces the need for monitoring by the Coordinator. Monitoring is done by Administrative Services personnel who are familiar with federal standards for the program. Accomplishments: The Coordinator met with Administrative Services personnel to discuss costs and coding of activities on several occasions. The coding system was reviewed by the Coordinator to reflect new project activities as needed. The coordinator discussed the property management system with appropriate staff and discussed the coding system’s ability to identify federal property for inventory and control purposes. 4 Objective 7: To coordinate the federal aid program with other State activities and those of other governmental agencies to eliminate duplication and to minimize conflicts. Planned Activities – The following activities were planned: During the year, plans were to schedule necessary coordination with other agencies to ensure a minimum of conflicts and duplication. Program information is to be provided to other agencies upon request. Select and submit only those projects that are eligible under the P- R Act and conform with NEPA guidelines. Accomplishments: The Coordinator submitted during the period only those projects that reflects approved program activities. The Coordinator participated in agency meetings to review Wildlife Division goals and objectives. No changes from those reflected in the five- year work plan were noted. The annual Grant Agreement ( Segment 30) and AFA Amendment No. 4 ( Grant W- 57) were evaluated for eligibility. NEPA and Section 7 assessments were submitted as required. Minor support services and request adequate equipment, supplies, etc., to carry out necessary work. Conduct on- site inspections to monitor performance. Initiate actions necessary to correct deficiencies. Objective 8: To insure that the Program is in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations. No specific activities were scheduled during the reporting period. Federal laws and regulations were reviewed as necessary to ensure compliance. The Coordinator conferred with the Regional Office staff frequently during the year to resolve questions about various rules. The Coordinator attended the 2005 Annual Federal Aid Coordinator’s Meeting in Georgia. Objective 9: 5 To assist the Hunter Safety Coordinator upon request. The Coordinator was assisted as necessary; the major assistance involved questions about documentation and reporting. The Coordinator corresponded with the Hunter Safety Coordinator on several occasions to assist with questions regarding the program’s federal aid requirements. SURVEYS, INVENTORY AND RESEARCH PROJECTS ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT PROJECT W- 57, SEGMENT 30 July 1, 2004- June 30 2005 6 State: North Carolina Grant: W- 57 Project leaders assigned to the Division of Wildlife Management’s Research Section coordinate research, surveys and inventories. There are currently 10 active projects, one of which is assigned to North Carolina State University as a research project on a contractual basis. Categories of work include: Upland game birds, big game mammals, furbearers, hunter surveys and wildlife diseases. Costs this segment are estimated at $ 738,300 for surveys and inventories and $ 50,000 for research for an estimated total of $ 788,300. . Annual reports as listed below, are attached. A2: Status of Mourning Dove Populations A4: Status of Upland Bird Populations A5: C. U. R. E. Quail Monitoring B1: Status of Black Bear in North Carolina B3: Status of White- tailed Deer in North Carolina B4: Status of Black Bear in North Carolina C7: Status of Furbearers in North Carolina E1: Waterfowl Surveys F3: Mail Surveys of North Carolina Hunters G1: Wildlife Diseases in North Carolina Prepared By:____________________________ Date___________ ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30 7 Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina Period Covered: July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 SECTION II RESEARCH Subsection A: Upland Game Birds Study A2: Status of Mourning Dove Populations Study Objective: To develop indices to dove breeding populations. A. Activity Job A2- 1: Dove Call Count Census Twenty- one random breeding transects, each 20- miles- long, were run in May and early June during which the doves seen and heard were recorded. The results were reported to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishment May 20, 2005- June 5, 2005. All transects were completed on schedule. C. Significant Deviations No significant deviations. D. Remarks None E. Recommendations No changes are recommended. F. Cost 8 $ 3,000.00 Prepared by: Joseph Fuller, Migratory Game Bird Coordinator Date: August 15, 2005 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30 Project Title: Status of Upland Game Bird Populations 9 Period Covered: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 SECTION II RESEARCH Study A4: Status of Upland Game Bird Populations Study Objective: The objective of this study is to survey and monitor the status and trends of upland game bird populations and habitats in North Carolina to enable the establishment of sound regulations and habitat treatments for effective statewide management. A. Activity Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring Upland game bird populations and habitat trends in North Carolina were monitored in a variety of ways. Reliable observational and hunter experience data were noted from throughout the State. Observational data and harvest reports provide information in regard to population status by area and for the State. The number, age structure, and location of hunter- harvested wild turkeys reported over the telephone reporting system and over the Internet were compiled and analyzed for each county. Additional data for wild turkeys and for other upland game birds from hunter mail surveys were compiled and analyzed as well. Job A4- 2: Restoration Potential wild turkey restoration sites were investigated and evaluated using established criteria and procedures. Selected restoration sites were prioritized and submitted to the Staff for approval. Wildlife management crews and biologists utilized standard trapping procedures to live- trap birds from established populations. Birds were released on approved sites in the appropriate numbers and sex ratios as delineated in the established restoration guidelines. An annual report was prepared summarizing restoration accomplishments. The status of each restoration site was assessed by reviewing observation reports, interviewing site cooperators, hunters, and/ or agency personnel, and analyzing appropriate survey data. An annual report was prepared listing the status of each restoration site and is used in making appropriate management and regulatory decisions. Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys The Avid Quail Hunter Survey and the Avid Grouse Hunter Survey were utilized to monitor regional trends in these upland game bird populations in North Carolina. Mailing lists of participants were developed and maintained from names provided by District Wildlife Biologists, referrals from current survey participants, and from the current Quail Unlimited roster. Survey cards with instructions were mailed to survey participants. Returned survey cards 10 were edited and submitted to NCWRC Data Processing Section for data entry. Data files were edited and analyzed. Survey results were compiled and analyzed by species and location to assess trends in game bird populations and hunter success. Participants in the surveys periodically received copies of a small game newsletter entitled “ The Upland Gazette”. Participants in these surveys are given caps recognizing their assistance along with annual summaries of the survey results. Hunter success on selected Game Lands was monitored by hunter interviews and review of hunt participation forms. This includes the “ Sandhills Field Trial Report Form” where participants recorded coveys observed to annually assess changes in quail flush rates on the J. Robert Gordon Field Trial Area. Data were compared with other study results and an annual summary of the survey results was developed for use in making management decisions and assessing population status. Division personnel and the public were informed of survey results. Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys Long- term productivity surveys were utilized to collect data to detect regional trends in upland game bird productivity in North Carolina. These surveys included wild turkey brood surveys and bobwhite quail call- count surveys. Mailing lists of wild turkey brood survey participants were maintained from names provided by project personnel and through contacts with private conservation organizations and other State and Federal agencies. Survey cards with instructions were mailed to participants for recording recruitment observations. Survey results were compiled and analyzed by geographical region to assess trends in wild turkey productivity. Quail call counts were conducted along established survey routes on private lands and on selected Game Lands during late June. Calling individuals heard per station were used to provide an index to breeding populations. Data were compared with other study results and an annual summary of the survey results was developed for use in making management decisions and assessing population status. Division personnel and the public were informed of survey results. B. Target Dates for Achievements and Accomplishments Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring All activities were accomplished on schedule as follows: Annual Report - August 2004 Harvest Tabulation – May 2005 Observational Data - Received year- round Job A4- 2: Restoration All activities were accomplished on schedule as follows: 11 Investigation of potential restoration areas – Year- round Submission of Priority Restoration Area List – September 2004 Wild Turkey Restoration Area Status Report – November 2004 Trapping and Relocation of Wild Turkeys – January & February 2005 Wild Turkey Restoration Accomplishments Report – March 2005 Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys All activities were accomplished on schedule as follows: Updated and maintained Avid Grouse and Quail Hunter Survey mailing lists – September 2004 Mailed survey cards to Avid Grouse Hunters – October 2004 Mailed survey cards to Avid Quail Hunters – November 2004 Edited Avid Grouse and Quail Hunter Survey cards and deliver to DP – March and April 2005 Completed data analysis of Avid Grouse and Quail Hunter Surveys – May 2005 Completed & distributed Avid Grouse and Quail Hunter Survey Summaries – June 2005 Compiled and distributed Sandhills Field Trial Summary Report - June 2005 Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys All activities were accomplished on schedule as follows: Edited wild turkey brood survey cards – September 2004 Compiled and distributed wild turkey brood survey results – October 2004 Updated and maintained wild turkey brood survey cooperator list – May 2005 Mailed wild turkey brood survey cards to cooperators – June 2005 Distributed quail call count data sheets and instructions to biologists – June 2005 Compiled and distributed quail call count data summary – July 2005 C. Significant Deviations Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring None. Job A4- 2: Restoration None. Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys None. Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys None. 12 D. Remarks Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring Information regarding population status is collected in several forms. Observational data and harvest reports are the primary means of collecting this information. Observations made by Commission personnel and/ or other cooperators are monitored statewide. Specific observations provide valuable information regarding the success of restoration projects and enhance knowledge about range expansion and population growth. A one- week winter either- sex wild turkey season was held in January 2005 in ten counties. This was the second year of the winter season. The telephone reporting system and the Internet were utilized to record harvests. The reported harvest was 151 birds; 83 gobblers ( 47 adult gobblers and 36 jakes) and 68 hens. Table 1 presents the reported harvest for the winter season by county. The reported wild turkey harvest for the 2005 spring season was 9,824 birds and represents an 11% increase over the 2004 reported spring gobbler harvest. The telephone reporting system and the Internet reporting system were utilized this year to record harvests. Table 2 presents the reported spring gobbler harvest by county for 2005. The increase in the harvest can be attributed to a good hatch in the summer of 2004. Table 3 presents the age structure of the harvest by region and shows the percentage of juvenile birds in the harvest. Percentage of juvenile birds in the harvest is an indicator of the reproductive success from the previous year. Job A4- 2: Restoration The initial phase of our wild turkey restoration program was completed in 2000. Secondary guidelines for supplemental releases of birds to fill the remaining gaps of unoccupied habitat were implemented in 2002. The secondary phase of the restoration program was completed in February 2005. A total of 50 wild turkeys were relocated to 3 different restoration sites. Two sites were completed in the Coastal Region and one site in the Central Region. Table 4 is the 2005 regional summary of wild turkey restoration and Table 5 shows the 2005 wild turkey restoration accomplishments by restoration area. Five potential wild turkey restoration areas were investigated and evaluated during the reporting period. Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys Avid Quail Hunter Survey During the 2004- 05 season, 87 quail hunters provided data from 1,201 hunts ( Table 6). Statewide, the reported coveys per party per trip increased 5% from 1.90 during the 2003- 2004 season to 1.99 during the 2004- 05 season ( Table 7). Hunts reported from the central Coastal Plain counties continued to have the highest success rate in the state. During 2004- 05, hunters in the central Coastal Plain counties reported 2.56 coveys/ party/ trip on 289 trips, while northern 13 Coastal Plain counties reported 2.55 coveys/ party/ trip on 234 trips and southern Coastal Plain counties reported 2.54 coveys/ party/ trip on 202 trips ( Figure 1). Hunts reported from southern Piedmont counties averaged 1.26 coveys/ party/ trip on 202 hunts, while central Piedmont hunts averaged 1.12 coveys/ party/ trip on 58 hunts and northern Piedmont hunts averaged 0.99 coveys/ party/ trip on 170 hunts ( Figure 1). Few hunts were reported from Mountain counties. Southern Mountain hunters reported finding 1.12 coveys/ party/ trip on 25 hunts; northern Mountain hunters averaged 1.10 coveys/ party/ trip on 21 hunts ( Figure 1). Hunter success by month was 2.33 coveys/ party/ trip during November, 2.04 coveys/ party/ trip during December, 2.01 coveys/ party/ trip during January, and 1.78 coveys/ party/ trip during February ( Figure 2.). Figure 3 depicts the climatalogical regions used in the Avid Quail Hunter Survey while Figure 5 graphically displays the long- term trend in coveys/ party/ trip. Avid Grouse Hunter Survey During the 2004- 05 season, 56 avid grouse hunters reported on 795 hunts ( Table 8). Although the long term trend has been downward, the grouse flush rate was up slightly while the harvest rate decreased slightly from the 2003- 04 season. The grouse flush rate increased from 3.79 to 4.07 flushes/ party trip (+ 8%), while the harvest rate declined slightly (- 2%) from 0.51 to 0.50 grouse bagged/ party trip ( Table 9). The grouse flush rate in the southern Mountains ( 4.59 flushes/ party trip; up 12%) was considerably higher that the flush rate in the northern Mountains ( 2.89 flushes/ party trip; up < 1%) ( Figure 6). Flush rates were lowest in October ( 1.70 flushes/ party trip) when the leaves were still on the trees, increased in November ( 3.81 flushes/ party trip) and December ( 4.46 flushes/ party trip), and then dropped slightly during January ( 3.69 flushes/ party trip) before increasing again in February ( 4.58 flushes/ party trip) ( Figure 7). Flush rates were considerably higher on private lands ( 4.94 flushes/ party trip) than on game lands ( 3.17 flushes/ party trip) ( Figure 8). Figure 4 depicts the climatalogical regions used in the Avid Grouse Hunter Survey. Figure 9 graphically displays the long- term trend in flushes/ party/ trip and harvest per hunter trip while Figure 10 displays the regional trends. Sandhills Game Land Results from Game Land hunts reported for Moore, Scotland, and Richmond Counties are reported in Table 10 ( hunts from Pee Dee Game land in Richmond County also are included in the 2004- 05 season data.). The number of cooperators who report on Sandhills Game land hunts 14 continues to dwindle. Additionally, hunter success declined 43% this year to 0.64 coveys/ party/ trip ( Table 11). Field trial clubs using the 8,000- acre Field Trial Facility on Sandhills Game Land have maintained records of covey observations during the past 22 seasons. Covey observation reports submitted by clubs using the area and summer call- counts provide a means to evaluate the success of management activities conducted on the area by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC) and the North Carolina Field Trial Association ( NCFTA). Covey observation report books were mailed to each field trial club scheduled to use the Field Trial Grounds during the 2004- 05 season. An additional supply of report books was maintained in the Field Trial Clubhouse. The North Carolina Field Trial Association was provided with summary information from covey observation records. Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys Wild Turkey Brood Survey Brood surveys have been used since 1988 to assess annual wild turkey productivity. They are conducted each year during July and August. The information collected provides a wild turkey productivity index for the various regions of the State. Another real value of the brood survey is to determine the status of restoration projects at an early stage. Areas that produce several broods the first year usually succeed. Tables 12 and 13 summarize the information received for 2004. An average of three poults per hen is considered good productivity. During the 2004 survey period, 9,265 wild turkeys were observed. Statewide, the percentage of hens with poults ( 70%) indicated excellent nesting success; the average number of poults/ brood ( 4.1) indicated good poult survival; and the average number of poults/ hen ( 2.8) indicated good overall productivity. All three geographical regions experienced good productivity with the Coastal Region averaging 2.8 poults/ hen, the Piedmont Region averaging 3.0 poults/ hen, and the Mountain Region averaging 2.7 poults/ hen. The primary factor in the good productivity during 2004 was good weather during the nesting and brood rearing periods. Wild turkey productivity was down in all three geographical regions in 2003 with a statewide average of only 1.6 poults per hen ( the poorest on record since brood surveys began in 1988). This year’s results, therefore, are especially encouraging. Figure 11 graphically depicts the wild turkey brood survey results by region for 2004 while Figure 12 shows the statewide wild turkey brood survey results from 1988 through 2004. Quail Call Count Survey Quail call count surveys have been used to monitor quail abundance and population trends in North Carolina since 1957. Call counts provide a valuable long- term index to quail populations ( Figure 13). They provide an independent index to breeding populations that is valuable to verify our hunting indices and are especially important to document trends in areas where we 15 have little or no information based on hunter success rates. A comparison of 2002- 2005 results is contained in Table 14. In 2005, 25 routes were surveyed - 10 in the Coastal Region, 11 in the Piedmont Region, and 4 in the Mountain Region. Analyzing the results of all 25 survey routes reveals that in the Coastal Region, the average number of quail heard per route ( 28.1) was down 3% from the previous year. In the Piedmont Region, the average number of quail heard per route ( 6.4) was down 11% from the previous year. In the Mountain Region, the average number of quail heard per route ( 1.5) was down 57% from the previous year. The number of quail heard per route in the Coastal Region has been up in two of the last four years while the number of quail heard per route in both the Piedmont and Mountain Regions has been down in three of the last four years. Figure 14 shows the results of the quail call count surveys by geographical region from 1957 through 2005. Northern bobwhite quail populations have declined drastically throughout the southeastern United States during the last 40 years. North Carolina’s quail population has followed this same downward trend. Quail were once an abundant byproduct of rural landscapes and a mainstay for North Carolina’s small game hunters. Large- scale changes in both land use and farming practices, with the resultant loss and/ or degradation of habitat, have been major contributing factors. Urban sprawl and fragmentation of remaining habitats have further exacerbated an already dire situation for quail by increasing their susceptibility to predation and other limiting factors. The long term trend in quail numbers in North Carolina is obviously downward. Although there have been minor annual fluctuations, survey results over the last six to eight years seem to indicate that quail abundance in the Coastal Region may be stabilizing at a relatively low level consistent with the limited amount of available habitat. The downward trend in quail abundance in the Piedmont and Mountain Regions appears to be continuing. E. Recommendations Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring The wild turkey population in the State is generally on an upward trend. After a poor hatch in 2003, the reported harvest declined in the spring of 2004. However, following a good hatch in 2004, the reported harvest in the spring of 2005 was up again almost to the 2003 level. Annual fluctuations such as these are to be expected when poor hatches are encountered. Overall, populations and harvests in all three geographical regions are on the rise. Intensified restoration efforts in the Coastal Region in recent years should accelerate both population growth and harvest increases in the future. In the Central Region this upward trend is expected to continue in the near future. However, in the long term, development will continue to eliminate more habitat in this region. The Western Region, with undeveloped private and National Forest lands, offers the greatest potential for the wild turkey over the long term. 16 By continuing to monitor populations and habitats, information will be available to assist in making sound regulatory and management decisions regarding upland game birds in North Carolina. It is recommended that this project be continued. Job A4- 2: Restoration The initial phase of North Carolina’s wild turkey restoration program was completed in 2000. Secondary guidelines for supplemental releases of birds to fill the remaining gaps of unoccupied habitat were implemented in 2002. This secondary phase was completed in February, 2005 with the stocking of three sites. Monitoring of these three sites and several others stocked during 2003 and 2004 should continue until populations are established. Additionally, requests from the public for the investigation and evaluation of potential restoration sites for wild turkeys and/ or other game birds will continue to be the responsibility of the upland game bird program. It is recommended that this project be continued, though at a much scaled down level. Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys Avid grouse hunter surveys and avid quail hunter surveys have been used since 1984. These long- term avid hunter surveys provide valuable trend information that is used to monitor upland game bird populations and hunter success in North Carolina. It is recommended that this project be continued. Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys Productivity surveys have been used to monitor upland game bird abundance and population trends in North Carolina for many decades. Quail call counts have been used since 1957 and wild turkey brood surveys have been used since 1988. They provide valuable long- term indices to upland game bird populations. They also provide independent indices to breeding populations that are valuable to verify our hunting indices and are especially important to document trends in areas where we have little or no information based on hunter success rates. It is recommended that this project be continued. F. Costs Job A4- 1: Population and Habitat Monitoring $ 25,000 Job A4- 2: Restoration $ 50,000 17 Job A4- 3: Avid Hunter Surveys $ 11,000 Job A4- 4: Productivity Surveys $ 14,000 Prepared by: / s/ Michael H. Seamster August 5, 2005 Michael H. Seamster Date Upland Game Bird Biologist Table 1. Reported Winter Either- sex Wild Turkey Harvest ( January, 2005) County Total Reported Adult Males Jakes Hens Alleghany 19 6 4 9 Ashe 19 6 4 9 Caswell 11 2 1 8 Granville 17 6 5 6 Person 7 5 1 1 Rockingham 12 5 2 5 Stokes 23 7 7 9 Surry 7 2 3 2 Watauga 17 5 3 9 18 Wilkes 19 3 6 10 Totals 151 47 36 68 Table 2. Reported Spring Wild Turkey Harvest by County, 2005. County Adult Gobblers Jakes Total Turkeys Game Lands Other Lands Alamance 58 9 67 0 67 Alexander 24 28 52 0 52 Alleghany 201 52 253 1 252 Anson 173 40 213 7 206 Ashe 152 57 209 4 205 Avery 61 33 94 14 80 Beaufort 41 20 61 3 58 Bertie 121 36 157 6 151 Bladen 102 33 135 11 124 Brunswick 47 13 60 1 59 Buncombe 126 56 182 25 157 Burke 103 79 182 40 142 Cabarrus 25 35 60 0 60 Caldwell 66 43 109 27 82 Camden 31 5 36 1 35 Carteret 37 17 54 10 44 Caswell 267 53 320 36 284 Catawba 28 40 68 2 66 Chatham 45 13 58 8 50 Cherokee 98 18 116 67 49 Chowan 21 8 29 1 28 Clay 22 5 27 8 19 Cleveland 75 61 136 6 130 Columbus 74 24 98 4 94 Craven 87 39 126 9 117 County Adult Gobblers Jakes Total Turkeys Game Lands Other Lands Cumberland 27 15 42 0 42 Currituck 40 27 67 0 67 Dare 1 0 1 0 1 Davidson 38 22 60 14 46 Davie 54 64 118 11 107 Duplin 52 20 72 1 71 Durham 55 7 62 17 45 Edgecombe 65 38 103 0 103 Forsyth 22 21 43 0 43 Franklin 51 29 80 2 78 Gaston 18 18 36 0 36 19 Gates 84 23 107 5 102 Graham 49 18 67 48 19 Granville 252 53 305 13 292 Greene 11 5 16 0 16 Guilford 46 24 70 0 70 Halifax 183 81 264 2 262 Harnett 51 19 70 3 67 Haywood 48 22 70 27 43 Henderson 63 10 73 12 61 Hertford 101 27 128 0 128 Hoke 12 2 14 0 14 Hyde 11 4 15 0 15 Iredell 34 53 87 0 87 Jackson 33 16 49 30 19 Johnston 12 5 17 0 17 Jones 80 54 134 15 119 Lee 28 13 41 3 38 Lenoir 26 11 37 0 37 Lincoln 34 34 68 0 68 Macon 83 18 101 49 52 Madison 91 61 152 24 128 Martin 30 7 37 4 33 McDowell 97 47 144 28 116 Mecklenburg 9 1 10 0 10 Mitchell 50 40 90 15 75 Montgomery 99 58 157 31 126 Moore 63 38 101 0 101 Nash 17 8 25 0 25 New Hanover 10 1 11 0 11 Northampton 165 62 227 2 225 Onslow 65 30 95 0 95 Orange 96 15 111 2 109 County Adult Gobblers Jakes Total Turkeys Game Lands Other Lands Pamlico 18 10 28 1 27 Pasquotank 9 5 14 0 14 Pender 101 42 143 15 128 Perquimans 26 7 33 0 33 Person 207 34 241 8 233 Pitt 38 14 52 0 52 Polk 74 37 111 11 100 Randolph 41 17 58 12 46 Richmond 87 28 115 9 106 Robeson 32 11 43 0 43 Rockingham 240 51 291 0 291 Rowan 78 80 158 16 142 20 Rutherford 170 69 239 18 221 Sampson 73 25 98 1 97 Scotland 34 15 49 8 41 Stanly 27 25 52 2 50 Stokes 244 62 306 0 306 Surry 112 59 171 0 171 Swain 44 9 53 30 23 Transylvania 47 8 55 34 21 Tyrrell 11 2 13 3 10 Union 14 10 24 0 24 Vance 81 20 101 4 97 Wake 33 6 39 6 33 Warren 67 26 93 2 91 Washington 15 5 20 2 18 Watauga 84 29 113 5 108 Wayne 11 7 18 0 18 Wilkes 200 134 334 10 324 Wilson 26 8 34 0 34 Yadkin 66 60 126 0 126 Yancey 70 50 120 8 112 Totals 6921 2903 9824 854 8970 Table 3. Age Structure of Spring Wild Turkey Harvest, 2005. Region Adult Gobblers Juvenile Gobblers Total Percent Juveniles Coastal 1519 576 2095 27% Central 2659 916 3575 26% Western 2743 1411 4154 34% State 6921 2903 9824 30% Table 4. 2005 Regional Summary of Wild Turkey Restoration Accomplishments. 21 NUMBER OF WILD TURKEYS RELOCATED REGION RESTORATION SITES MALES FEMALES TOTAL Coastal 2 12 20 32 Central 1 6 12 18 Total 3 18 32 50 Table 5. 2005 Wild Turkey Restoration Accomplishments by Restoration Area. COASTAL REGION RESTORATION MALES FEMALES AREA COUNTY CAPTURE SITE COUNTY AD IM AD IM Cedar Fork Duplin Hill Farm Jones 3 Buck Busters Pender 2 Sugarloaf Bladen 1 2 6 Caswell GL Caswell 2 Totals 2 4 4 6 Goose Creek Island Pamlico Wells Club Pender 4 1 Sledge Property New Han. 3 3 5 Totals 3 3 9 1 CENTRAL REGION RESTORATION MALES FEMALES AREA COUNTY CAPTURE SITE COUNTY AD IM AD IM Cox Union Tabernacle Church Montgom. 2 Wells Club Pender 2 Yates Pl. – USFS Montgom. 2 Caswell GL Caswell 5 1 5 1 Totals 5 1 11 1 22 Table 6. Summary of statewide Avid Quail Hunter Survey data from 1984- 85 season through 2004- 05 season. YEAR COOP. TRIPS PARTY PARTY HOURS HUNTER HOURS COVEYS COVEYS/ TRIP HARVEST RABBITS OBSERVED WOODCOCK OBSERVED 84- 85 214 3736 7231 14960.6 31569.2 8940 2.39 15095 - - 85- 86 133 2605 5076 9963.1 20948.0 7859 3.02 12785 - - 86- 87 146 2849 5446 10784.9 22322.8 7369 2.59 12565 - - 87- 88 148 3062 5810 11759.5 24076.5 8805 2.88 14574 - - 88- 89 140 2789 5334 10820.5 22273.2 6405 2.30 10881 - - 89- 90 173 3282 6216 12677.3 25869.5 8690 2.65 13455 - - 90- 91 154 2924 5552 11069.7 22608.2 7623 2.61 11359 - - 91- 92 138 2566 4747 9213.4 18459.0 4744 1.85 6739 - - 92- 93 244 4241 7822 15264.4 30493.5 8504 2.01 11977 2463 - 93- 94 189 3184 5934 11529.9 23050.5 6724 2.11 9823 2016 - 94- 95 203 3499 6532 12270.2 24577.2 6188 1.77 8762 1788 - 95- 96 162 2628 4892 8828.6 17567.1 4800 1.83 6308 1122 - 96- 97 157 2581 4771 8677.0 17414.4 4435 1.72 6157 991 - 97- 98 149 2142 3969 7617.9 15260.7 3526 1.65 4615 1056 - 98- 99 129 1874 3382 6602.0 12975.5 3191 1.70 4038 1007 - 99- 00 116 1560 2717 5612.8 10621.1 2161 1.38 2794 830 816 00- 01 106 1508 2637 5462.9 9552.8 2129 1.41 2841 779 670 01- 02 96 1478 2666 5194.0 9368.9 2495 1.69 2738 870 678 02- 03 99 1405 2414 5068.5 9402.0 2531 1.80 2675 872 750 03- 04 71 1103 1985 4119.5 7413.6 2100 1.90 2355 549 536 04- 05 87 1201 2117 4255.0 7500.3 2388 1.99 2691 598 558 23 Table 7. Regional and statewide means for the major variables in the 2004- 05 Avid Quail Hunter Survey and percent change from 2003- 2004 values. Coastal Piedmont Mountains Statewide Coveys/ Party/ Trip 2.55 1.13 1.11 1.99 % Change + 5 - 7 - 19 + 5 Bag/ Hunter/ Trip 1.70 0.63 0.63 1.27 % Change + 12 - 9 - 48 + 7 Rabbits/ Party/ Trip 0.53 0.45 0.46 0.50 % Change - 7 + 7 + 53 0 Woodcock/ Party/ Trip 0.46 0.46 0.61 0.46 % Change + 7 - 19 + 65 - 6 24 Table 8. Summary of statewide Avid Grouse Hunter Survey data from 1984- 85 season through 2004- 05 season. YEAR COOP. TRIPS PARTY PARTY HOURS HUNTER HOURS FLUSHES FLUSHES/ TRIP HARVEST WOODCOCK OBSERVED RABBITS OBSERVED 84- 85 80 2702 4986 11234.4 21844.0 11946 4.42 1864 - - 85- 86 56 1976 3772 8603.8 17405.2 9122 4.62 1264 - - 86- 87 46 1715 3082 6974.4 13360.6 8526 4.97 1026 - - 87- 88 53 1897 3404 7900.4 14993.8 9669 5.01 1225 - - 88- 89 67 1082 2079 4639.3 9546.6 5618 5.19 769 - - 89- 90 80 1259 2304 5479.3 10638.5 7890 6.27 1151 - - 90- 91 68 1286 2444 5567.2 11070.7 8036 6.25 1142 - - 91- 92 68 1244 2434 5253.4 10810.3 6749 5.43 1008 - - 92- 93 84 1401 2579 5642.2 10951.3 5706 4.07 817 - - 93- 94 80 1158 2126 4524.5 8768.4 5055 4.37 769 - 365 94- 95 83 1558 2843 6309.5 12173.3 8642 5.55 1212 - 519 95- 96 83 1299 2290 5041.6 9577.4 6038 4.65 865 - 370 96- 97 92 1647 2876 6523.7 11908.8 8898 5.40 1152 - 363 97- 98 87 1451 2667 5932.3 11507.0 7071 4.87 1008 - 401 98- 99 77 1190 2115 4787.8 8946.2 4160 3.50 512 - 289 99- 00 83 1286 2319 4986.8 9435.8 5245 4.08 713 81 396 00- 01 82 1234 2109 4809.8 8220.2 5045 4.09 675 81 407 01- 02 74 1181 2034 4515.4 7776.6 5228 4.43 692 163 309 02- 03 68 956 1628 3732.6 6546.6 4128 4.32 564 94 269 03- 04 51 847 1392 3355.5 5514.6 3212 3.79 434 92 159 04- 05 56 795 1336 3155.9 5303.5 3238 4.07 400 83 138 25 Table 9. Regional and statewide means for the major variables in the 2004- 05 avid grouse hunter survey and percent change from 2003- 04. SOUTHERN MOUNTAINS NORTHERN MOUNTAINS STATEWIDE Flushes/ Party/ Trip 4.57 2.89 4.09 % Change + 12 +< 1 + 8 Bag/ Hunter/ Trip 0.56 0.36 0.50 % Change + 2 - 12 - 2 Rabbits Obs/ Party/ Trip 0.09 0.38 0.17 % Change - 18 - 14 - 11 Woodcock/ Party/ Trip 0.11 0.09 0.10 % Change - 27 0 - 9 26 Table 10. Sandhills Game Land Quail Hunter Survey Summary information for the 1982- 83 season through the 2004- 05 season. Season Cooperators Trips Party Hours Hunters Hunter Hours Coveys Bag 82- 83 26 64 304.50 127 653.00 172 289 83- 84 12 36 141.60 62 261.00 64 108 84- 85 15 19 109.50 35 211.00 13 15 85- 86 17 25 130.50 47 248.00 35 61 86- 87 80 181 932.25 358 1943.75 228 359 87- 88 13 35 172.75 70 362.25 49 84 88- 89 14 42 198.00 78 386.00 50 87 89- 90 15 94 446.50 161 788.50 157 248 90- 91 16 77 381.75 132 683.75 127 226 91- 92 19 92 512.70 168 954.20 145 248 92- 93 15 74 371.45 124 647.95 77 144 93- 94 13 72 350.20 112 583.70 75 94 94- 95 10 56 268.75 87 442.25 53 65 95- 96 15 57 234.50 82 405.00 53 47 96- 97 19 73 355.25 120 634.75 92 135 97- 98 14 53 273.80 94 512.30 54 93 98- 99 16 59 289.75 101 529.75 48 75 99- 00* 11 83 434.50 142 764.50 95 137 00- 01* 11 68 476.50 113 628.00 77 107 01- 02* 14 75 378.50 123 620.74 93 130 02- 03* 10 47 214.00 63 289.5 28 24 03- 04* 6 75 349.5 104 498.6 85 110 04- 05* 8 64 298.5 99 461.7 41 55 MEAN 16.8 65.9 333.03 113.36 593.11 85.36 131.2 * Data from avid quail hunter survey ( contains some hunts from Pee Dee Game Land). 27 Table 11. Summary of hunting success of bobwhite quail survey participants on Sandhills Game Land. SEASON Trips Coveys/ Party/ Trip 1982 64 2.69 1983 36 1.78 1984 19 0.68 1985 25 1.40 1986 181 1.26 1987 35 1.40 1988 42 1.19 1989 94 1.67 1990 77 1.65 1991 92 1.58 1992 74 1.04 1993 72 1.04 1994 56 0.95 1995 57 0.95 1996 73 1.26 1997 53 1.02 1998 59 0.81 1999* 83 1.14 2000* 68 1.13 2001* 75 1.17 2002* 47 0.60 2003* 75 1.13 2004* 64 0.64 * Data from the avid hunter survey ( contains some hunts from Pee Dee Game Land). 28 Table 12. 2004 Wild Turkey Summer Brood Survey Data. Region Observations Hens W/ O Poults Hens W/ Poults Total Hens Total Poults Total Gobblers Total Unk. Coastal 331 133 428 561 1585 400 385 Piedmont 391 210 478 688 2077 316 327 Mountains 385 222 467 689 1890 188 159 State 1107 565 1373 1938 5552 904 871 Table 13. 2004 Wild Turkey Summer Brood Survey Results. Region* % Hens W/ Poults Average Poults/ Brood Average Poults/ Hen Coastal 76 3.7 2.8 Piedmont 69 4.3 3.0 Mountains 68 4.0 2.7 State** 70 4.1 2.8 * Geographical regions, not NCWRC regions. ** The State percentages and averages in Table 13 were calculated by weighting the regional data by the percentage of the total wild turkey population in that region. 29 Table 14. Summary of 2002- 2005 bobwhite quail call- count indices. 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quail Heard Quail Heard Quail Heard Quail Heard District County Per Stop Per Stop Per Stop Per Stop 1 Hertford/ Bertie 0.62 0.43 0.71 1.24 1 Washington/ Hyde 2.05 2.00 2.43 3.86 1 Perquimans 1.05 1.57 2.33 1.00 2 Wayne/ Duplin 1.48 0.71 0.90 0.86 2 Greene 1.81 1.05 1.10 1.24 2 Pitt- Beaufort 0.52 0.76 0.62 0.29 3 Edgecombe- Halifax 0.71 0.19 0.29 0.10 4 Sampson 2.14 2.43 2.57 2.33 4 Cumberland 0.71 1.19 0.86 1.29 4 Robeson 1.33 1.33 2.00 1.19 COASTAL MEAN 1.24 1.17 1.38 1.34 3 Wake/ Johnston 0.33 0.24 0.38 0.19 3 Wake 0.24 0.38 0.15 0.24 5 Rockingham( 5A) 0.10 0.10 0.19 0.19 5 Guilford/ Caswell 0.05 0.14 0 0.05 5 Rockingham( 5C) 0.05 0.10 0 0.29 6 Moore/ Montgomery 0.57 0.67 1.05 0.76 6 Meck./ Cabarrus 0.14 0.29 0.05 0.10 6 Stanly 0.10 0.29 0.14 0.05 7 Yadkin 0.33 0.24 0.19 0.05 7 Alexander 0.33 0.19 0.14 0.05 8 Lincoln 1.24 0.95 1.48 1.38 PIEDMONT MEAN 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.30 7 Ashe 0.05 0.05 0.10 0 8 Caldwell/ Wilkes 0.29 0.43 0.33 0.05 8 Burke* 0.52 0.29 0.14 0.24 9 Buncombe/ Madison 0 0.29 0.10 0 MOUNTAIN MEAN 0.21 0.26 0.17 0.07 STATEWIDE MEAN 0.67 0.65 0.73 0.68 30 Figure 1. Avid Quail Hunter Survey by Climatological Region 2004- 05 NC AVID QUAIL HUNTER DATA BY CLIMATOLOGICAL REGION 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 CENTRAL COASTAL NORTHERN COASTAL SOUTHERN COASTAL CENTRAL PIEDMONT NORTHERN PIEDMONT SOUTHERN PIEDMONT SOUTHERN MOUNTAIN NORTHERN MOUNTAIN COVEYS/ PARTY/ TRIP Figure 2. NC Avid Quail Hunter Data by Month, 2004- 2005. 2004- 05 NC AVID HUNTER DATA BY MONTH 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 NOV DEC JAN FEB COVEYS/ PARTY/ TRIP 31 Figure 3. Avid Quail Hunter Survey map depicting climatalogical regions. NORTHERN MOUNTAINS SOUTHERN MOUNTAINS NORTHERN PIEDMONT SOUTHERN PIEDMONT CENTRAL PIEDMONT NORTHERN COASTAL PLAIN SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN CENTRAL COASTAL PLAIN 32 Figure 4. Avid Grouse Hunter Survey map depicting climatalogical regions. NORTHERN MOUNTAINS SOUTHERN MOUNTAINS 33 Figure 5. North Carolina Avid Quail Hunter Survey Trend, 1984- 85 through 2004- 05. NC AVID QUAIL HUNTER DATA SUMMARY 1984- 2004 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 COVEYS/ PARTY/ TRIP Linear Figure 6. NC Grouse Flush Rates by Region, 2004- 05. 2004- 05 NC Grouse Hunter Success By Region 0 1 2 3 4 5 Northern Mountains Southern Mountains Flushes/ Party/ Trip 34 Figure 7. NC Grouse Flush Rates by Month, 2004- 05. 2004- 05 NC Avid Grouse Hunter Success by Month 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY Flushes/ Party/ Trip Figure 8. NC Grouse Flush Rates by Location, 2004- 05. 2004- 05 AVID GROUSE HUNTER SUCCESS BY LOCATION 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Private Land Game Land Flush/ Party/ Trip 35 Figure 9. North Carolina Avid Grouse Hunter Survey Trend, 1984- 85 through 2004- 05. NC AVID GROUSE HUNTER SURVEY SUMMARY 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 19841986198819901992199419961998200020022004 FLUSH/ PARTY/ TRIP 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 BAG/ PARTY/ TRIP Flush/ party/ trip Bag/ party/ trip Linear Figure 10. North Carolina Avid Grouse Hunter Survey, Regional Trends, 1984- 85 through 2004- 05. NC Avid Grouse Hunter Flush/ Party/ Trip by Region 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 19841986198819901992199419961998200020022004 FLUSH/ PARTY/ TRIP N. Mountains S. Mountains 36 Figure 11. 2004 Wild Turkey Brood Survey Results by Region. 2004 Wild Turkey Summer Brood Survey Results 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 COAST PIEDMONT MOUNTAINS Poults/ Hen Figure 12. Wild Turkey Brood Survey Results, 1988- 2004. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 AVERAGE POULTS/ HEN 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 YEAR WILD TURKEY SUMMER BROOD SURVEY RESULTS 37 Figure 13. North Carolina Quail Call- Count Survey Trend, 1957- 2005. NC QUAIL CALL- COUNTS ORIGINAL 17 ROUTES 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 YEAR QUAIL PER STOP STATEWIDE Linear ( STATEWIDE) Figure 14. North Carolina Quail Call Count Trends by Geographical Region, 1957- 2005. NC QUAIL CALL COUNTS 1957- 2005 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 YEAR QUAIL HEARD/ ROUT Coastal Mean Piedmont Mean Mountain Mean 38 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30 Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina Period Covered: 1 July, 2004 to 30 June, 2005 SECTION II ( RESEARCH) Subsection A: Upland Game Birds Study A5: C. U. R. E. Quail Monitoring Study Objective: Monitor quail population response to habitat treatments in the intensively managed cooperatives. There were no federal funds spent on this activity in the past fiscal year. Other sources of funding were used Annual Performance Report 39 State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30 Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina Period Covered: 1 July, 2004 to 30 June, 2005 SECTION II ( RESEARCH) Subsection B: Big Game Mammals Study B1: Status of the Black Bear in North Carolina Study Objective: Collect the biological data necessary to assist in making management decisions that will ensure the long- term viability of black bear populations and provide a high quality sustained annual harvest. ( This report covers activities and accomplishments for Jobs B1- 1: Collection of Black Bear Teeth and Reproductive Tracts, B1- 2: Analyses of Black Bear Mortality Data, B1- 3: Hard and Soft Mast Surveys, and Job B1- 4: Monitoring Black Bear Population Trends.) A. Activity Total known black bear mortality for 2004 was 1,588 ( 1,125 Eastern NC, 463 Western NC) including a state- wide harvest of 1,497 bears. This number is derived from total registered harvest ( Tables 1 and 2) plus all observed non- harvest mortality ( Table 3). A total of 745 usable premolar teeth and 115 usable female reproductive tracts were collected from bears dying of all causes in 2004 ( some teeth and tracts must be discarded if broken, incomplete, etc.). Both field personnel and the general public continued to report observations of bears in areas of the Piedmont outside established range. Much of this activity occurs in counties in the northern Piedmont along the Virginia border. Mountain hard mast surveys were conducted along 11 routes, and soft mast surveys were conducted during hard mast and sardine bait line surveys. Mountain personnel set out 789 sardine bait stations to monitor bear populations trends in western North Carolina. Biologists recorded 292 nuisance complaints statewide. As usual, the majority ( 63%, 184) of these complaints came from the far western counties of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s District 9. B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishments All activities were accomplished as follows: 2004 Trend Indicator Report October 5, 2004 2004 Hard Mast Survey Report December 3, 2004 2004 Summary of Observations February 28, 2005 2004 Harvest Compilation March 28, 2005 2004 Reproductive Analyses July 1, 2005 2004 Sex and Age Structure Analyses August 9, 2005 40 C. Significant Deviations All projects are on schedule with no significant deviations. D. Remarks 1. Harvest and Other Mortality: During the 2004- 2005 season, hunters reported 1,497 bears. This represents a 17.4% decrease over last year’s all- time record harvest of 1,812 bears and a 2.7% decrease over the 5- year average harvest ( 1,537) from 1999- 2003. Of the harvested bears registered, 1,053 were reported in the Coastal Region ( Table 1) and 444 were reported in the Mountain Region ( Table 2). The Coastal harvest was above the average seen over the last 5 years while the Mountain harvest was actually below the 5- year average ( means of 993 and 544, respectively). The percentage of males reported was 61.1% in the Coastal Plain and 68.5% in the Mountains. The majority of the harvest from the coast ( 94.8%) came from private lands, whereas most of the Mountain harvest came primarily from Game Lands. However, private lands accounted for 32.7% of the Mountain harvest. Although public lands are important to bears in western North Carolina, this is only the second year out of the last five in which less than 43% of the Mountain harvest has occurred on private lands. I expect this is due to the adequate mast crop in the Mountains which allowed bears to remain in core areas on public lands and not venture onto adjacent private lands at rates seen in some recent years. The importance of private lands to bears in the Mountains represents an important development in black bear population management in the region because approximately two- thirds of the Mountain harvest had occurred on public lands during most seasons prior to the last 5 years. Bear harvest in coastal North Carolina was fairly stable until 1986. Since 1986, seasons have been established in 14 counties in the east- central and northeastern section of the state. The last of these counties opened in 1995. From 1991- 1994, harvests were fairly stable. Three additional days were added to the season in 1995 in order to provide additional opportunity for hunters and to slow population growth in some areas where populations appeared to be approaching “ cultural carrying capacity”. In 1999, seasons in the central and northeastern Coastal Region were expanded to 18 days. Our emphasis is now on monitoring the stability and nature of the harvest. The harvests of 879, 881, 929, 1,107, 955, 1,095, and 1,053 in the years of 1998- 2004, respectively, are the highest harvests ever reported. Population models indicate that the Coastal Region’s bear population may be stabilizing following these increased harvests over the last 7 seasons. Mountain black bear harvests are closely tied to mast production. During very poor mast years, harvests tend to increase significantly, and during better years harvests tend to be lower. Average harvests over the 4 years of normal mast crops from 1988- 1991 and from 1993- 1996 were 286 and 321 bears, respectively. However, during the 1992 and 1997 mast failures, harvests climbed to 610 and 726 bears, respectively. The 2003 Mountain harvest of 717 was close to the all- time record set during the 1997 mast failure when 726 bears were harvested. We predicted this high 2003 harvest level prior to the season because our mast survey indicated the mast crop in western North Carolina rated poor and was the third worst ever recorded. Prior to the 2004 season, we predicted reduced harvest levels in some areas due to adequate mast resources representing the second best mast crop since 1998 ( see Section 6, Part b). Our 41 prediction came true as 444 bears were harvested in the Mountains representing 100 bears less than the 5- year average harvest for the region. The “ observed mortalities” reported in Table 3 include those documented by agency biologists and represent all known mortalities due to vehicles, depredation, illegal kills, and unknown causes. The harvest results in this table only include those verified by biologists and do not include telephone or internet reporting ( refer to Tables 1 and 2 for total “ registered” harvest). Of statewide observed mortalities in 2004, 91 of 1,588 ( 5.7%) were caused by non- harvest factors. This compares to 135 of 1,947 ( 6.9%) caused by non- harvest factors in 2003. In 2004, vehicle mortalities accounted for 5.2% ( 83 of 1588) of reported mortalities compared to 6.2% ( 121 of 1,947) of total known mortality in 2003 and 6.4% of total known mortality in 2002. This trend is nearly identical to the 5.7% reported in 2001. However, prior to 1999, vehicles accounted for an average of 9- 11% of total mortality. In the Coastal Plain, roadkills accounted for 68 bears in 2004. The 2004 number is near average ( 74.6) for coastal roadkills over the last 9 years with 67, 47, 93, 95, 63, 67, 74, 76, and 89 bears killed by vehicles from 1995- 2003, respectively. The opening of new seasons and an increase in season length may account for some bears that might otherwise die in vehicle- related accidents. Continued monitoring may reveal whether the data support a compensatory or an additive mortality hypothesis when relating harvest to vehicular mortality. In the Mountains, there were 15 road kills in 2004 compared to 3, 8, 82, 7, 16, 22, 25, 26, and 32 in 1995- 2003, respectively. Any averages of vehicle mortality for the Mountains or entire state must be carefully considered because of the uncertain effects of mast crops in the Mountains. Coastal vehicular mortality trends may be more useful for evaluating a trend because bear food resources are more stable on a year to year basis. 2. Reproduction: Reproductive information was obtained from 112 females in 2004 ( 72 Coast, 40 Mountains, Tables 4 and 5). The average ovulation incidences of 2.71 and 2.67 for 5+- year-old females in the Coastal Plain and Mountains, respectively, are comparable to previous good years. In 2004, 100% of coastal and 81.8% of mountain females in the 2.75 age class showed evidence of breeding activity. In addition, 55.6% of the coastal 3- year- olds had placental scars indicating implantation of a fertilized egg during the winter of 2003- 2004. These young ages of first breeding and reproduction have a tremendous positive impact on the population dynamics of black bears and may partially explain the population increase seen in the coast during the 1990’ s. Placental scars were evident in 10 of 12 ( 83.3%) mountain 4- and 5+- year- old females indicating good reproductive effort in the winter of 2003- 2004 despite a poor mast crop in the fall of 2003. The effects of 2004’ s fair mast crop on mountain females will not be apparent until we evaluate reproductive tracts taken during the 2005 black bear season. Tracts with evidence of both ovulation and implantation may represent breeding in successive years, litter mortality, or persistence of placental scars for greater than one year. Litter failure may be the best explanation of tracts with this characteristic. It is important that placental scars be classified as faint, very faint, or distinct so that such determinations can be made. Bear Project personnel have saved reproductive tracts with unusual characteristics such as evidence of both ovulation and implantation. In the future, we intend to compare these tracts to tracts from captive bears with known reproductive histories at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University where research on bear reproduction has been conducted for over a decade. 42 3. Observations: Observations are primarily used for documenting presence of bears outside of established bear range. Because we have well established populations in most suitable habitat in the Coastal and Mountain Regions, our primary interest in observations relates to documenting bears in the Piedmont counties, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC) personnel regularly receive reports of bears in these areas. With the recent establishment of an on- line system, NCWRC personnel are able to enter observations into a computerized system. NCWRC personnel received 11 bear complaints from northern Piedmont counties in 2004. Numerous citizens reported bears in northern Piedmont counties as well. We expect bear populations are slowly moving into Piedmont areas from established Mountain and Coastal Plain populations in North Carolina. Some bears are also moving into the North Carolina Piedmont from Virginia where populations are firmly established along the North Carolina border. 4. Age and Sex Structure: We collected 759 black bear teeth in 2004 and determined usable ages from 745 of these teeth; 490 from coastal bears and 255 from mountain bears. This represents a sample of 43.6% of total ( 1,125) known coastal bear mortality and 55.1% of total ( 463) known mountain bear mortality. Given this distribution and number of samples, the data should represent a good cross- section of the actual age classes of mortality. Therefore, the samples are considered to be representative of the ages at death of bears in North Carolina. Males in the 1.75- and 2.75- year- old age classes ( subadults) made up 64.9% ( 111 of 171) of the sampled male mortality in the Mountains and 41.8% ( 140 of 335) in the Coastal Plain ( Figures 1, 2). Subadult males have accounted for the majority of recorded mortality for over 15 years in both regions. Overall, males continue to be more prone to mortality in both regions as evidenced by both our registered harvest and our sampling rates. For example, in 2004, 67.1% of the sampled mountain mortality ( 171 of 255) and 68.4% ( 335 of 490) of the sampled coastal mortality were males. Sample rates of approximately two- thirds males may be related to hunter selectivity and a desire by hunters to have larger male bears weighed by NCWRC personnel. We also see evidence of hunters attempting to select larger “ trophy” male bears as the Coastal Region’s reputation for heavy bears continues to grow nationwide. Significant numbers of 2004 coastal males and females reached the older age classes as 34 of 155 females ( 21.9%) and 53 of 335 ( 15.8%) males were documented in the 8+- year- old age class. We believe this is related to an extensive sanctuary system in central and northern areas of eastern North Carolina comprised of Federal National Wildlife Refuges, NCWRC- designated sanctuaries, and private lands where hunting is limited or tightly controlled. In the Mountains in 2004, 8+- year- old females comprised 15.5% of the sampled mortality ( n= 84). However, males in the 8+- year- old age class comprised a relatively small percentage ( 2.9%) of the sampled mortality ( n= 171). The age structure characteristics of both regions are comparable to previous years. It is clear following numerous years with similar results that both males and females in the Coastal Region have an older age structure than their counterparts in the Mountains. 5. Hard and Soft Mast Surveys: Wildlife Commission personnel have surveyed hard mast in the Mountain Region since 1983. The 2004 hard mast survey was conducted on 10 routes in western North Carolina. A total of 1,101 trees were sampled including 375 from the white oak group, 589 from the red oak group, 91 hickories, 31 beeches, 14 black walnuts, and 1 pecan. Combining all groups of species, mast was rated as “ fair” in the mountains with an overall index of 3.09 ( Table 6). With the exception of 2001’ s banner crop, this “ fair” mast index is the best index we have had since 1998. White oak production ( 3.99) was almost in the “ good” range and 43 actually represents the best white oak crop we have ever documented. Red oak production ( 2.93) was much better than last year’s index of 0.68. Hickory and beech production were lower than their long- term averages. As in previous years, hard mast production varied significantly by location and species ( Table 7). Five areas ( Avery Creek, Fires Creek, Linville Mountain, Santeetlah, and Sherwood) produced “ good” white oak, and the remaining five areas experienced “ fair” white oak production. In terms of red oak production, Santeetlah produced a “ good” crop while Nantahala produced a “ poor” crop. The other eight areas produced “ fair” red oak. Hickory production was “ poor” in all areas. As in most years, sample sizes were a problem for beech trees in all but 4 areas. Beech has the highest long- term average ( 4.25) of any major group, and we should consider putting more effort into monitoring this mast resource where possible. In years with “ poor” oak production, beech may be a critical species for wildlife. A soft mast survey was implemented during the summer and fall of 1993 to document berry production and abundance. During summer 2004, blackberry production was good while blueberry, huckleberry, and pokeberry production were poor ( Table 8). All summer soft mast species, except blackberry, produced fruit below long- term averages in 2004. As usual, summer soft mast production varied significantly on a local basis with some areas failing to produce any significant fruit of certain species while producing “ fair” to “ excellent” crops of others ( Table 9). The 2004 summer soft mast crop appears to have been below average overall but produced varying results across different areas in the Mountain region. As usual, the 2004 fall soft mast indices yielded varying results by species ( Table 10). Cherry, grape, and blackgum were near long- term averages while pokeberry produced at levels below long- term averages. As always, local areas experienced variable production of fall soft mast with levels from 0 to 6 depending on species and area ( Table 11). As with summer soft mast, the fall soft mast resource varied by species and location and may have supplemented the hard mast crop in some areas. The 2004 hard mast crop was the second best we have seen since 1998 and much better than the crops of 2002 and 2003. An all- time record white oak production coupled with normal red oak production provided substantial amounts of favored food resources for bear, deer, grouse, squirrels, turkey, and many other species this winter despite the poor performance of hickory and beech. Inconsistent soft mast crops probably did little to supplement the hard mast crop in some areas but may have provided some resources in other areas. Based on results of past seasons, we were able to accurately predict a reduced bear harvest due to the abundant oak crops of 2004. 6. Population Trend Indicator Surveys: Sardine bait station routes were conducted in the Mountains in July 2004. In addition, all District Biologists maintained a log of all nuisance complaints. Results are as follows: a) Sardine Bait Station Index. A total of 789 bait stations were set in areas of occupied bear range in western North Carolina during July 2004. After removing 30 stations disturbed by non-target animals, 759 stations were visited 368 times by black bears for a visitation rate of 48.5% ( Table 12). This visitation rate is the 4th highest recorded since we began the survey in 1992. Any trend indicator survey must be conducted for several years before any interpretations can be made. Visitation rates can vary annually due to a variety of factors such as weather, food 44 availability, and human disturbance. Hiking, horse traffic, logging, and clearing of right- of- way were noted as affecting some of the lines. Over the long- term, such perturbations should be minimized. The same factors that cause yearly variation can confound comparisons between areas. Other factors such as elevation, habitat type, and aspect of the sites, as well as number of sites along roads vs. trails, can also account for differences in visitation between areas. For example, if area A has an index of 40% and area B a rate of 20%, there are not necessarily twice as many bears in area A. Therefore, rather than attempting to compare visitation rates between areas, it is the overall trend observed throughout the region that is important. We now have 13 years of visitation data and can begin examining trends. The visitation rate was in the low- mid 20% range over the first 3 years we conducted the survey and increased substantially from that level from 1995- 2000. Following a slight decline in 2001, the 2002 index was the highest recorded since we started the survey. The overall trend since 1992 is clearly increasing despite a leveling in recent years. Results from the last 13 years suggest that western North Carolina black bear numbers have increased over the last decade. These results also correspond to bait station data from other agencies in the Southern Appalachian region ( GA DNR, SC DNR, TWRA, and GSMNP). North Carolina’s Mountain occupied bear range increased from 950,000 acres in 1971 to nearly 4.8 million acres by 2001. Areas once thought to be on the periphery of bear range, such as Thurmond- Chatham and South Mountains, recorded substantial activity in recent years. This suggests continued expansion of bears into previously low- density areas. Over the period 1981- 2004, bait index values have also increased over the entire Southern Appalachian region. All the various types of data we have for the Southern Appalachian Region indicates that the bear population is growing or stable in most areas. b. Nuisance Complaint Index. In order to provide supplemental information about bear populations and Cultural Carrying Capacity, a new index was implemented in 1993. District biologists now keep records of the number of nuisance complaints received in their District each year. In 2004, 292 complaints were received by District Biologists compared to 352, 377, 273, 248, and 148 complaints for the years 2003- 1999, respectively ( Table 13). As usual, District 9 accounted for about two- thirds of statewide nuisance complaints in 2004, and the Mountain Districts ( 7- 9) accounted for 80.8% of all statewide complaints. As demonstrated in Table 13, there is a clear upward trend in nuisance complaints from the Mountain counties over recent years. The slight decline in 2004 probably was related to the better than normal mast crop which provided abundant food resources for bears. Complaints from Districts 1- 4 have been more consistent ranging from 20- 45 over the period of 1995- 2004. The high rate of mountain nuisance calls is interesting considering the fact that the coastal black bear population is actually more numerous and occupies more area than the mountain population ( 7,000 bears on approximately 9,398,555 acres versus 4,000 bears on approximately 4,798,774 acres; numbers based on Downing Population Reconstruction and occupied range estimates by NCWRC staff). One reason for this is the fact that North Carolina’s Mountains have become a popular place for second homes and retirement homes. “ Newcomers” to North Carolina often move into bear habitat and buy or build houses. These citizens are more prone to “ complain” about bears in the area than Coastal farmers or rural residents raised with bears. The higher Mountain complaint rate may result from a combination of human development of bear habitat and bears expanding into rural areas inhabited by these “ newcomers” to North Carolina’s 45 Mountains. Historically, complaints in both regions have involved damage to bee- hives, bears coming into towns or yards, bears getting into garbage, and damage to agricultural crops ( primarily a Coastal problem). Nuisance complaints probably are not useful indicators of actual bear population trends. Increasing human populations and increasing homebuilding in rural areas are factors in the bear nuisance equation. However, the nuisance complaint trends do demonstrate " cultural carrying capacity” or the population level with which local people can or will peacefully coexist with bears. Complaints can be used to assist in evaluating management strategies aimed at finding a balance between bear population levels and tolerance of bears by people. It is important to remember that nuisance complaints in North Carolina are still relatively low compared to smaller states like Maryland and New Jersey where no or limited hunting is established at this time. E. Recommendations I recommend all surveys and activities continue in order to monitor black bear population trends, Mountain hard and soft mast production, black bear observations outside established range, black bear mortality and reproduction, and black bear sex and age structure. F. Cost Job B1- 1: Collection of Bear Teeth and Reproductive Tracts $ 70,000 Job B1- 2: Collection of Bear Mortality Data $ 12,000 Job B1- 3: Hard and Soft Mast Surveys $ 12,000 Job B1- 4: Monitoring Bear Population Trends $ 55,000 Job B1- 5: Dissemination of Bear Data and Information $ 8,000 Prepared by: Mark D. Jones, Black Bear Biologist Date: August 16, 2005 46 Table 1. Reported Black Bear Harvest in the Coastal Region, 2004- 2005. Number Harvested Location County Male Female Total Game Lands Other Lands BEAUFORT 62 56 118 5 113 BERTIE 25 15 40 1 39 BLADEN 40 34 74 4 70 BRUNSWICK 24 14 38 0 38 CAMDEN 35 15 50 0 50 CARTERET 14 10 24 11 13 CHOWAN 2 3 5 0 5 COLUMBUS 17 5 22 0 22 CRAVEN 38 31 69 4 65 CUMBERLAND 10 4 14 0 14 CURRITUCK 6 14 20 0 20 DARE 2 1 3 0 3 DUPLIN 3 3 6 0 6 GATES 28 23 51 5 46 HALIFAX 3 1 4 0 4 HERTFORD 7 5 12 0 12 HYDE 73 28 101 1 100 JONES 40 32 72 4 68 MARTIN 13 8 21 0 21 NEW HANOVER 3 0 3 0 3 NORTHAMPTON 7 2 9 0 9 ONSLOW 26 8 34 0 34 PAMLICO 11 10 21 0 21 PASQUOTANK 6 2 8 0 8 PENDER 39 15 54 10 44 SAMPSON 8 3 11 0 11 TYRRELL 54 30 84 4 80 WASHINGTON 47 38 85 6 79 Coastal Total 643 410 1,053 55 998 Percent of Total 61.1 38.9 100 5.2 94.8 47 Table 2. Reported Black Bear Harvest in the Mountain Region, 2004- 2005. Number Harvested Location County Male Female Total Game Lands Other Lands ASHE 6 0 6 0 6 AVERY 2 4 6 2 4 BUNCOMBE 8 5 13 2 11 BURKE 4 2 6 5 1 CALDWELL 6 3 9 4 5 CHEROKEE 32 15 47 41 6 CLAY 19 11 30 28 2 GRAHAM 48 19 67 61 6 HAYWOOD 18 15 33 21 12 HENDERSON 5 3 8 0 8 JACKSON 18 8 26 18 8 MACON 35 18 53 48 5 MADISON 30 5 35 20 15 MCDOWELL 25 16 41 29 12 MITCHELL 11 2 13 3 10 RUTHERFORD 5 2 7 0 7 SWAIN 5 2 7 5 2 TRANSYLVANIA 7 4 11 8 3 WATAUGA 3 0 3 0 3 WILKES 6 0 6 0 6 YANCEY 11 6 17 4 13 Mountain Totals 304 140 444 299 145 Percent of Total 68.5 31.5 100 67.3 32.7 Statewide Totals 947 550 1,497 354 1,143 Percent of Total 63.3 36.7 100 23.6 76.4 48 Table 3. Observed Black Bear Mortality in North Carolina, 2004. Cause of Mortality District County Hunting Vehicle Depredation Illegal Other Total 1 Bertie 11 2 0 0 0 13 Camden 7 0 0 0 0 7 Chowan 3 1 0 0 0 4 Currituck 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dare 1 5 0 0 0 6 Gates 32 1 0 0 0 33 Hertford 3 0 0 0 0 3 Hyde 94 3 0 0 1 98 Martin 3 7 0 0 0 10 Pasquotank 2 0 0 0 0 2 Perquimans 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tyrrell 44 3 0 0 0 47 Washington 36 2 0 0 0 38 D- 1 Total 236 24 0 0 1 261 2 Beaufort 40 11 0 0 1 52 Carteret 1 0 0 0 0 1 Craven 18 7 0 0 0 25 Duplin 0 1 0 0 0 1 Jones 28 5 0 0 0 33 Lenoir 0 7 0 0 0 7 New Hanover 1 1 0 0 0 2 Onslow 11 1 0 0 0 12 Pamlico 6 0 0 0 0 6 Pender 23 1 0 1 0 25 Pitt 0 7 0 0 0 7 D- 2 Total 128 41 0 1 1 171 3 Edgecombe 0 1 0 0 0 1 Halifax 1 0 0 0 0 1 Northampton 1 0 0 0 0 1 D- 3 Total 2 1 0 0 0 3 4 Bladen 24 1 0 0 0 25 Columbus 0 1 0 1 0 2 Cumberland 7 0 0 0 0 7 Sampson 1 0 0 0 0 1 D- 4 Total 32 2 0 1 0 35 Eastern Totals 398 68 0 2 2 470 49 Table 3. continued. Cause of Mortality District County Hunting Vehicle Depredation Illegal Other Total 5 D- 5 Total No Reports 6 D- 6 Total No Reports 7 Ashe 2 0 0 0 0 2 D- 7 Total 2 0 0 0 0 2 8 Avery 2 0 0 0 0 2 Burke 5 2 0 0 0 7 Caldwell 5 0 0 0 0 5 McDowell 19 5 0 0 1 25 Mitchell 7 0 0 0 0 7 Rutherford 2 0 0 0 0 2 Yancey 21 0 0 0 0 21 D- 8 Total 61 7 0 0 1 69 9 Buncombe 0 2 1 0 1 4 Cherokee 34 0 0 0 0 34 Clay 17 0 0 0 0 17 Graham 39 0 0 0 0 39 Haywood 21 1 0 0 0 22 Henderson 0 2 0 0 0 2 Jackson 6 0 0 0 0 6 Macon 31 1 0 0 0 32 Madison 17 0 1 0 0 18 Polk 0 2 0 0 0 2 Swain 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transylvania 0 0 0 0 0 0 D- 9 Total 165 8 2 0 1 176 Central and Western Totals 228 15 2 0 2 247 Statewide Totals 626 83 2 2 4 717 50 Table 4. Coastal Region Black Bear Reproductive Performance by Age Class, 2004. Age ( Years + ¾ ) N Percent Ovulating Ovulation Incidencea Percent w/ Placental Scars Percent w/ Placental Scars & CL 1 7 28.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 2 10 100.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3 9 66.7 1.83 55.6 22.2 4 7 42.9 1.33 71.4 14.3 5+ 39 61.5 2.71 61.5 25.6 Total 72 aDerived from females that ovulated Table 5. Mountain Region Black Bear Reproductive Performance by Age Class, 2004. Age ( Years + ¾ ) N Percent Ovulating Ovulation Incidencea Percent w/ Placental Scars Percent w/ Placental Scars & CL 1 8 25.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2 11 81.8 2.11 0.0 0.0 3 9 77.8 2.43 33.3 22.2 4 2 50.0 3.0 100.0 50.0 5+ 10 60.0 2.67 80.0 40.0 Total 40 aDerived from females that ovulated 51 Table 6. Hard Mast Survey Results for Western North Carolina, 1983- 2004. Year White Oak Red Oak Hickory Beech Total 1983 1.43 2.59 1.99 5.51 2.25 1984 1.08 2.73 3.05 4.28 2.30 1985 2.01 3.66 0.80 3.06 2.80 1986 1.32 1.98 2.25 5.22 1.90 1987 1.16 0.56 3.57 5.75 1.31 1988 3.16 4.07 2.04 4.25 3.57 1989 0.43 4.89 2.78 6.44 3.14 1990 1.85 2.62 1.20 1.89 2.17 1991 2.38 1.93 3.75 6.89 2.43 1992 1.07 2.45 0.72 1.17 1.78 1993 0.65 3.58 2.43 4.77 2.48 1994 2.06 3.48 2.02 6.20 2.85 1995 2.80 5.60 2.48 0.36 4.22 1996 3.70 1.99 2.81 4.31 2.72 1997 0.53 1.79 1.17 2.35 1.29 1998 2.26 4.68 3.27 4.70 3.69 1999 3.28 2.76 2.80 6.22 3.05 2000 0.50 2.11 2.73 5.71 1.82 2001 2.83 4.92 2.88 3.97 3.98 2002 1.90 3.01 1.75 3.44 2.47 2003 1.24 0.68 3.58 5.42 1.33 2004 3.99 2.93 1.32 1.65 3.09 1983- 2004 Average 1.89 2.96 2.34 4.25 2.57 The rating scale is as follows: Numerical Rating Crop Quality 0 to 2.0 Poor 2.1 to 4.0 Fair 4.1 to 6.0 Good 6.1 to 8.0 Excellent 52 Table 7. Hard Mast Survey Results by Area, 2004. Area White Oak Red Oak Hickory Beech* Avery Creek 4.78 2.46 1.14 0.4 Edgemont 2.57 2.14 1.0 0.33 Fires Creek 6.14 3.54 0.73 1.82 Harmon Den 2.47 2.77 1.60 * Linville Mtn. 4.79 2.07 1.44 * Nantahala 2.65 0.57 0.75 * Poplar 3.67 3.65 1.0 * Santeetlah 4.49 5.48 0.27 2.0 Sherwood 4.05 2.66 1.86 * Standing Indian 2.64 3.03 3.6 * * Not enough data for a calculation Table 8. Results of Mountain Summer Soft Mast Surveys, 1993- 2004. Year Blueberry Huckleberry Blackberry Pokeberry 1993 3.20 3.60 3.80 2.40 1994 3.20 3.50 3.50 1.40 1995 1.90 2.50 3.10 1.20 1996 2.00 2.00 3.40 1.50 1997 2.80 3.00 3.80 2.00 1998 1.90 1.20 3.30 2.33 1999 2.72 2.45 2.90 1.78 2000 2.70 2.72 2.99 1.64 2001 2.27 2.73 2.87 0.87 2002 1.87 2.22 3.55 1.32 2003 2.27 2.74 3.20 1.02 2004 1.67 1.61 4.25 1.41 1993- 2004 Average 2.38 2.52 3.40 1.57 53 Table 9. Local Results of Mountain Summer Soft Mast Surveys, 2004. Area Blueberry Huckleberry Blackberry Pokeberry Daniel Boone Area 1.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 Fire’s Creek/ Santeetlah 1.40 2.80 6.00 1.60 Harmon Den 2.00 1.00 8.00 2.00 Pisgah 2.40 3.00 0.80 0.00 Rich Mountain 3.50 2.50 2.00 0.50 711 * * * * Mount Mitchell 1.50 0.75 3.50 0.25 Flattop 1.00 1.00 6.00 4.00 Standing Indian * * * * Thurmond Chatham 0.67 0.33 2.33 0.67 Other U. S. Forest Service 1.60 1.60 4.40 1.20 South Mountains 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 Gorges State Park 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 Average of All Areas 1.67 1.61 4.25 1.41 * Species was not rated because it was not fruiting or was still green 54 Table 10. Results of Mountain Fall Soft Mast Indices, 1993- 2004. Year Pokeberry Cherry Grapes Blackgum 1993 2.00 2.70 2.10 0.40 1994 3.10 2.00 3.80 1.70 1995 2.70 5.00 2.20 1.80 1996 2.40 1.60 3.30 1.80 1997 4.20 1.30 3.10 0.80 1998 4.63 2.67 2.80 1.50 1999 2.40 2.70 3.25 1.10 2000 2.20 2.70 3.30 1.00 2001 2.80 3.30 4.18 2.33 2002 1.10 2.45 2.73 1.27 2003 2.33 3.00 2.55 2.22 2004 1.67 2.70 3.00 1.44 1993- 2004 Average 2.62 2.67 3.02 1.45 Table 11. Local Results of Mountain Fall Soft Mast Indices, 2004. Area Pokeberry Cherry Grapes Blackgum Avery Creek 1 2 3 0 Edgemont 2 2 2 1 Fires Creek 2 4 4 4 Harmon Den 2 0 2 0 Linville Mtn. 2 1 1 6 Nantahala 0 4 0 0 Poplar 2 2 4 0 Santeetlah 2 6 6 2 Sherwood 2 0 4 0 Standing Indian * 6 4 * Average of All Areas 1.67 2.70 3.00 1.44 * Species was not rated because it was not fruiting or was still green 55 Table 12. Results of Sardine Bait Index1 Lines, North Carolina Mountains, 1994- 2004. Area 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Daniel Boone Area 12.8 18.6 27.9 22.1 11.6 25.6 34.9 25.0 24.7 46.5 25.0 SW Mountains 29.3 60.7 42.3 58.2 51.0 57.9 72.1 49.0 53.5 48.3 48.6 Flattop/ Rich Mtn. 29.4 39.7 42.6 63.2 47.1 50.0 69.1 73.1 78.8 56.3 62.5 Harmon Den/ Pisgah 23.8 42.1 48.6 53.5 40.1 50.3 51.4 59.7 65.0 70.4 72.6 Mount Mitchell Area 36.9 60.0 53.8 56.9 56.9 63.1 57.8 61.7 73.0 82.3 73.8 Franklin Work Area 16.9 28.8 28.9 27.9 28.9 31.9 37.0 34.6 47.3 36.4 31.7 T. Chat/ Stone Mtn. 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 14.3 2.9 33.3 36.7 9.1 33.3 South Mountains N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3.3 0 14.8 21.4 8.0 7.1 Gorges State Park N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 6.3 6.3 12.5 18.8 TOTALS: 22.9 40.7 37.9 44.7 38.0 43.8 50.2 46.4 52.6 50.5 48.5 1 Index is the percentage of active sites visited by bears. Active sites are those not disturbed by non- target animals. 56 Table 13. Number of Black Bear Complaints Received by District Biologists, 1995- 2004. District 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1 15 12 14 22 7 9 7 2 6 9 2 20 12 16 7 8 3 10 10 8 12 3 0 2 6 4 4 2 4 3 0 16 4 3 6 7 3 5 6 5 6 7 8 5 0 0 0 0 1 4 9 10 8 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 12 11 21 14 16 4 6 13 15 12 8 12 15 36 20 27 18 17 55 82 40 9 81 101 144 55 80 201 215 278 226 184 Totals 143 159 244 125 148 248 273 377 352 292 ‘ 57 Figure 1. Percentage of Known Black Bear Mortality by Age Class, North Carolina Mountains, 2004. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.75 1.75 2.75 3.75 4.75 5.75 6.75 7.75 8.75 9.75 10.75+ Female n= 84 Male n= 171 Figure 2. Percentage of Known Black Bear Mortality by Age Class, North Carolina Coast, 2004. 0 5 10 15 20 25 0.75 1.75 2.75 3.75 4.75 5.75 6.75 7.75 8.75 9.75 10.75+ Female n= 155 Male n= 335 58 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30 Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina Period Covered: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 SECTION II ( RESEARCH) Subsection B: Big Game Mammals Study B3: Status of White- tailed Deer Populations Study Objective: To monitor white- tailed deer populations in North Carolina by observing various population parameters which will enable the establishment of sound regulations and habitat treatments for effective statewide deer management. A. Activity Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality 1. Reliable observational and hunter experience data were recorded from various areas throughout the state. 2. Numbers of hunter- killed deer reported via Wildlife Cooperator Agents, telephone, and internet were compiled and analyzed for each county. 3. Numbers and composition of deer dying from factors other than legal hunting were recorded and analyzed with the reported kill to obtain an estimate of total deer mortality. 4. Certain harvest data were collected from hunter- killed deer to identify various population characteristics for determining the structure and status of herds. 5. Data from all of the above activities were used to evaluate the status of deer populations. The information was then utilized in the formulation of regulation proposals. 59 Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats 1. Density or relative abundance estimates were derived from track counts, spotlight counts, and examination of harvest data. This information was used to evaluate Game Land and other selected deer areas throughout the state. 2. Data on kidney fat, weights, and certain antler measurements were collected and used as indicators of physical condition. This information then was used to evaluate the status of herds in relation to certain habitat and population characteristics. 3. Data from all of the above activities were utilized in the formulation of recommendations for deer seasons, i. e., area boundaries, bag limits, and season dates and length. Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina 1. An annual study progress report was prepared to report on activities of various jobs. 2. Appropriate reports and summary information were prepared and distributed to biologists and sportsmen who provided harvest data. 3. Papers were prepared on current and past study results to disseminate information to other investigators and managers. B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishments Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality All activities were accomplished by June 30, 2005, as scheduled. Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats All activities were accomplished by June 30, 2005, as scheduled. Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina All activities were accomplished by June 30, 2005, as scheduled. C. Significant Deviations Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality There were no significant deviations. Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats There were no significant deviations. Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina 60 There were no significant deviations. D. Remarks Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality 1. Big Game Harvest Record Books were distributed to approximately 1,500 Wildlife Cooperator Agents ( WCA) throughout the state prior to the 2004- 05 hunting season. A toll- free telephone reporting system and an internet- based reporting system also were used during the hunting season. The 2004- 2005 hunting season was the second season big game harvests could be reported via the internet- based reporting system. Of the 140,311 deer reported through all systems, telephone reporting accounted for 81,718 deer ( 58.2%), while 53,912 deer ( 38.4%) were reported through WCAs. Only 4,681 deer ( 3.3%) were reported through the internet- based reporting system. Tables 1- 3 present results of deer harvested in the state during 2004- 05 as reported via all three systems. 2. Information from 1,000 deer dying from causes other than legal hunting was compiled from " White- tailed Deer Mortality Report" forms and our Big Game Depredation Permit form. The results of deer dying in the period April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005 are presented in Table 4. More information on non- harvest mortality, primarily vehicle kills, was obtained through county DOT officials who provided reports on deer removed from highways in selected counties. 3. There were 109 participants in the Deer Management Assistance Program ( DMAP) during the 2004- 05 hunting season. These hunt clubs encompassed 458,495 acres and 4,245 deer were harvested from DMAP areas. Participants were issued 7,452 antlerless tags, of which 42.6% were utilized. Table 5 presents a summary of program results from 1997- 04. After peaking with 204 participants hunting over 1.1 million acres in 1988, there has been a marked decline in participation ( primarily in the Coastal Plain). This apparently is due to the continued liberalization of doe hunting opportunity that has made it easier to harvest does throughout the season on all lands. In an attempt to increase participation in the program, the minimum acreage requirement for enrollment in the program was reduced from 2,000 acres to 1,000 acres prior to the 2004- 2005 hunting season for those areas in the Eastern and Central Deer Seasons. The acreage requirement was reduced from 2,000 acres to 500 acres for those areas in the Western and Northwestern Deer Seasons. 4. Analyses of harvest data, non- harvest mortality information, and fawn sex ratios indicated the percent of the total annual deer mortality attributable to legal harvest was approximately 64% for all deer ( Table 6). The percent of the total annual deer mortality attributable to legal harvest for bucks and does was 75% and 52%, respectively ( Table 6). Based on the mail survey adjusted harvest estimate, approximately 334,022 deer died from all causes during 2004 ( Table 6). 5. The data we obtain from participants in the DMAP and our efforts to monitor deer harvest on North Carolina Game Lands continue to allow us to obtain important information on the structure and characteristics of deer populations throughout much of the state. These data are the basis for our management zone population models. During the last hunting season, project 61 personnel obtained harvest data from 5,384 deer ( 3.8% of the reported statewide harvest). Harvest data were used to analyze population trends, examine effects of past harvest levels, and make recommendations for regulations in 2005 and 2006. Table 7 presents the age and sex structure of the 2004 harvest by management zone, and Table 8 depicts important population parameters by zone. 6. Project personnel assisted numerous Federal refuges and military installations in the management of their deer herds and interpreting results of harvest data. 7. Biologists throughout the state examined the results of deer data collected from their work areas, reviewed the status of herds with their supervisors, the deer biologist, and the Raleigh staff, and then submitted proposals for deer seasons. The approved proposals then were presented to sportsmen at a series of public hearings held in each Wildlife Commission district. Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats 1. No herd health checks were conducted during the year. 2. Deer surveys were conducted on a number of Game Lands. The results are presented in selected regional annual performance reports. 3. Trends in condition by area, county, and region were determined by examination of selected physical characteristics. Table 9 illustrates these results by region for the 2004 hunting season. Examination of data from the last several years indicates weights and antler characteristics are fairly stable within the various regions. Additionally, trends in the percentage of yearling bucks in the antlered buck harvest continued to decline or remain stable in all three regions of the state ( Table 10). With more older bucks in the statewide population and harvest, overall herd quality should continue to improve. Project biologists continue to relate to sportsmen the effects that age structure of the harvest has on the quality of the deer that can be taken from any area of the state. Overall habitat quality remains good in most areas. 4. With similar buck seasons, number of hunters, and effort over the last 10- 12 years, the trend in the number of antlered bucks harvested ( Table 11) is one of our indices to changes in deer densities. This 2004 index was slightly above the previous 5- year average harvest in all three regions of the state. For the last 9 hunting seasons, about two- thirds of the state’s counties have had either- sex opportunity for the entire deer season. The long- term statewide impact of this increased opportunity and the resulting increase in antlerless harvest is readily apparent ( Table 11). In spite of increased doe hunting opportunity in the Mountains, doe harvest has fluctuated because of poor weather and short seasons. Because of this, we included a number of northern Mountain counties in the areas open season- wide for does. The percentage of does in the harvest increased considerably in the Piedmont and Mountains following the 1997 liberalization of doe seasons and following the implementation of a two- buck bag limit in that portion of the state in 2000 ( Table 10). The continues to be a favorable downward trend in the percentage of buck fawns in the antlerless harvest in all regions ( Table 10). Project personnel have examined numerous harvest strategies and continue to review others that can increase the number of does in our harvest without impacting numbers of antlered bucks and buck fawns. Longer and earlier 62 either- sex opportunities seem to be the best mechanisms for reducing button bucks in the harvest. 5. There were no reports of hemorrhagic disease during the year. 6. Project personnel throughout the state presented numerous programs to wildlife, civic, and hunting clubs to educate sportsmen and landowners of proper deer management schemes and harvest strategies. 7. All data collected from the job were evaluated for impact on the respective deer herds. The information then was utilized to make recommendations regarding hunting seasons throughout the state. Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina 1. The annual progress report was prepared and submitted to the Atlanta office. 2. Summary reports for participants in the DMAP and for our Game Lands data stations were prepared and submitted to affected sportsmen and employees throughout the state. 3. The Deer Biologist, Division Chief, Wildlife and Land Management Section Manager, Surveys and Research Coordinator, Captive Cervid Biologist, and three Technical Guidance Biologists attended the annual meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. 4. The Deer Biologist attended the Southeast Deer Managers’ Meeting in Montgomery, Alabama. A status report was presented on deer management issues in North Carolina. E. Recommendations Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality This job should be continued to completion as scheduled. Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats This job should be continued to completion as scheduled. Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina This job should be continued to completion as scheduled. F. Cost Job B3- 1: Characteristics of Deer Mortality $ 78,000 63 Job B3- 2: Density and Condition of Deer Populations and Habitats $ 22,000 Job B3- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Deer Management in North Carolina $ 5,000 Prepared by: Vincent Evin Stanford, Deer Biologist Date: 13 August 2005 64 Table 1. 2004- 05 Reported White- tailed Deer Harvest ( WCAs, Telephone, and Internet) Sex and Age of Harvest Antlered Harvest by Season Location Antlered Button Bucks/ Muzzle- Game Other County Bucks Bucks Does Total Sq. Mile Gun loader Bow Lands Lands Alamance 779 104 752 1,635 3.24 1,265 253 117 0 1,635 Alexander 401 50 445 896 2.43 646 149 101 0 896 Alleghany 892 119 1,190 2,201 6.17 1,598 367 236 18 2,183 Anson 1,683 242 1,523 3,448 3.77 2,614 550 284 58 3,390 Ashe 827 119 1,045 1,991 2.92 1,352 412 227 30 1,961 Avery 219 21 115 355 1.01 220 45 90 65 290 Beaufort 1,451 95 884 2,430 2.19 2,288 109 33 124 2,306 Bertie 2,095 315 1,721 4,131 3.40 3,850 198 83 178 3,953 Bladen 1,715 135 1,131 2,981 2.35 2,865 68 48 147 2,834 Brunswick 1,153 129 711 1,993 1.68 1,875 91 27 69 1,924 Buncombe 206 9 152 367 0.47 272 30 65 79 288 Burke 630 61 377 1,068 1.79 762 208 98 95 973 Cabarrus 552 54 458 1,064 3.12 830 152 82 0 1,064 Caldwell 538 40 294 872 1.47 598 184 90 78 794 Camden 271 41 160 472 1.41 436 18 18 56 416 Carteret 349 27 180 556 1.10 480 52 24 122 434 Caswell 1,483 161 862 2,506 4.77 1,848 512 146 184 2,322 Catawba 494 53 392 939 2.20 570 245 124 17 922 Chatham 1,173 107 1,083 2,363 2.40 1,720 418 225 396 1,967 Cherokee 107 0 11 118 0.28 99 9 10 61 57 Chowan 431 29 288 748 3.34 731 10 7 17 731 Clay 80 4 6 90 0.49 80 4 6 35 55 Cleveland 474 42 337 853 1.81 681 106 66 13 840 Columbus 1,664 127 940 2,731 2.10 2,575 127 29 88 2,643 Craven 1,249 78 710 2,037 2.31 1,919 88 30 166 1,871 Cumberland 786 48 357 1,191 2.03 1,119 30 42 14 1,177 Currituck 465 89 409 963 3.62 871 51 41 67 896 65 Table 1. ( continued) Sex and Age of Harvest Antlered Bucks/ Sq. Mile Harvest by Season Location Antlered Button Bucks/ Muzzle- County Bucks Bucks Does Total Sq. Mile Gun loader Bow Game Lands Other Lands Dare 125 6 41 172 0.60 133 22 17 67 105 Davidson 637 72 484 1,193 1.74 932 176 85 78 1,115 Davie 503 66 535 1,104 3.27 812 202 90 24 1,080 Duplin 1,730 149 962 2,841 2.58 2,755 48 38 49 2,792 Durham 401 24 226 651 2.88 422 143 86 190 461 Edgecombe 1,372 189 1,068 2,629 3.09 2,475 120 34 0 2,629 Forsyth 339 28 245 612 2.08 382 123 107 0 612 Franklin 1,345 153 982 2,480 3.78 2,364 67 49 43 2,437 Gaston 249 20 153 422 1.43 286 83 53 0 422 Gates 899 135 674 1,708 3.12 1,638 44 26 29 1,679 Graham 29 2 1 32 0.11 28 2 2 28 4 Granville 1,476 164 822 2,462 4.53 1,864 458 140 126 2,336 Greene 485 28 286 799 2.32 750 34 15 0 799 Guilford 644 55 380 1,079 2.03 768 142 169 0 1,079 Halifax 2,555 458 2,471 5,484 4.57 5,192 234 58 87 5,397 Harnett 741 51 446 1,238 1.75 981 146 111 20 1,218 Haywood 48 1 9 58 0.10 52 4 2 27 31 Henderson 170 8 68 246 0.77 176 19 51 55 191 Hertford 899 138 648 1,685 3.13 1,615 49 21 0 1,685 Hoke 239 13 99 351 0.74 324 18 9 4 347 Hyde 974 181 975 2,130 2.04 1,667 302 161 172 1,958 Iredell 947 112 1,055 2,114 3.14 1,455 433 226 0 2,114 Jackson 35 1 2 38 0.09 31 7 0 31 7 Johnston 1,093 71 682 1,846 1.96 1,712 56 78 0 1,846 Jones 929 75 641 1,645 2.23 1,587 47 11 93 1,552 Lee 323 16 224 563 1.72 409 81 73 87 476 Lenoir 569 45 312 926 1.86 879 28 19 0 926 Lincoln 419 45 293 757 2.74 466 190 101 0 757 Macon 234 4 28 266 0.56 212 17 37 128 138 66 County Sex and Age of Harvest Harvest by Season Location Antlered Bucks Button Bucks Does Total Antlered Bucks/ Sq. Mile Gun Muzzle Loader Bow Game Lands Other Lands Madison 315 15 83 413 0.85 318 38 57 142 271 Martin 1,032 139 698 1,869 2.64 1,808 42 19 109 1,760 McDowell 421 30 267 718 1.13 511 117 90 81 637 Mecklenburg 224 19 185 428 1.54 301 57 70 0 428 Mitchell 358 19 192 569 1.93 325 81 163 62 507 Montgomery 1,201 138 995 2,334 2.89 1,723 478 133 321 2,013 Moore 959 85 457 1,501 1.72 1,017 295 189 22 1,479 Nash 989 99 619 1,707 2.29 1,638 42 27 0 1,707 New Hanover 78 2 41 121 0.93 101 4 16 1 120 Northampton 2,110 381 1,891 4,382 4.91 4,081 223 78 0 4,382 Onslow 1,137 129 759 2,025 2.00 1,833 112 80 37 1,988 Orange 989 95 749 1,833 3.64 1,420 251 162 25 1,808 Pamlico 517 24 244 785 2.26 731 36 18 39 746 Pasquotank 429 26 246 701 2.25 663 23 15 0 701 Pender 1,906 185 1,292 3,383 2.66 3,193 117 73 200 3,183 Perquimans 542 69 433 1,044 2.52 1,016 18 10 0 1,044 Person 979 82 491 1,552 3.77 1,156 329 67 69 1,483 Pitt 1,174 66 587 1,827 2.47 1,747 47 33 0 1,827 Polk 382 13 262 657 2.34 446 112 99 83 574 Randolph 857 86 654 1,597 1.55 1,266 213 118 76 1,521 Richmond 760 46 348 1,154 1.97 1,076 57 21 82 1,072 Robeson 658 32 247 937 0.88 890 33 14 7 930 Rockingham 1,028 108 816 1,952 2.75 1,411 327 214 0 1,952 Rowan 842 89 739 1,670 3.10 1,278 268 124 78 1,592 Rutherford 832 66 715 1,613 2.10 1,289 198 126 39 1,574 Sampson 1,283 124 742 2,149 1.61 2,078 39 32 41 2,108 Scotland 406 25 146 577 1.56 523 29 25 57 520 Stanly 719 95 666 1,480 2.90 1,187 198 95 30 1,450 Stokes 777 82 764 1,623 2.40 1,050 334 239 0 1,623 Surry 775 65 514 1,354 2.16 996 232 126 18 1,336 Swain 66 1 11 78 0.14 67 2 9 37 41 67 County Sex and Age of Harvest Harvest by Season Location Antlered Bucks Button Bucks Does Total Antlered Bucks/ Sq . Mile Gun Muzzle Loader Bow Game Lands Other Lands Transylvania 147 1 39 187 0.45 159 9 19 101 86 Tyrrell 457 71 331 859 1.33 744 95 20 79 780 Union 624 63 573 1,260 1.60 1,015 161 84 0 1,260 Vance 736 57 430 1,223 4.70 1,136 52 35 36 1,187 Wake 1,278 94 663 2,035 3.94 1,800 105 130 315 1,720 Warren 1,033 241 870 2,144 2.81 2,052 68 24 24 2,120 Washington 634 81 491 1,206 2.50 1,023 146 37 91 1,115 Watauga 526 39 285 850 2.33 592 138 120 14 836 Wayne 634 36 270 940 1.46 902 24 14 0 940 Wilkes 1,840 180 1,925 3,945 3.25 2,896 692 357 89 3,856 Wilson 537 44 336 917 1.77 889 17 11 0 917 Yadkin 651 68 731 1,450 3.12 1,075 263 112 0 1,450 Yancey 422 23 287 732 1.72 403 98 231 46 686 State 76,840 8,042 55,429 140,311 2.18 118,356 14,001 7,954 5,966 134,345 68 Table 2. Reported Deer Harvest on Game Lands, 2002- 2004 2004 as Percent District 2002 2003 2004 of District Total 1 744 663 865 4.9 2 647 690 831 4.3 3 397 564 505 2.0 4 394 441 447 3.2 5 823 1,009 1,153 6.3 6 568 609 669 4.3 7 173 208 193 1.1 8 690 616 496 5.6 9 729 785 807 31.6 State Totals 5,165 5,585 5,966 Percent of Total Harvest 4.4 4.2 4.3 Table 3. Reported Deer Harvest by Season, 1993- 2004 Percentage of Statewide Total Muzzle- Year Gun loader Bow 1993 83 10 7 1994 84 10 6 1995 83 11 6 1996 82 12 6 1997 82 12 6 1998 83 11 6 1999 82 11 7 2000 83 11 6 2001 85 9 6 2002 85 9 6 2003 84 10 6 2004 84 10 6 69 Table 4. Sex and Age Structure of Nonhunting Deer Mortality, April 2004- March 2005 Percentage Known Sex and Age Mortality Agent Number Observed Male Fawns Male Adults Female Fawns Female Adults Motor Vehicle 592 8.5 26.4 7.4 57.6 Predator 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parasite/ Disease 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 Illegal Kill 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 Unretrieved Kill 3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Depredation ( all adults) 396 0.0 12.9 0.0 87.1 Unknown 3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 1,000 4.6 20.8 3.9 70.7 70 Table 5. Deer Management Assistance Program ( DMAP) Statistics, 1997- 2004 Statistic 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Number Participants 95 107 103 93 91 95 99 109 Total Acres 453,299 543,593 532,242 569,693 456,462 454,902 447,723 458,495 Mean Permit Size ( ac) 4,772 5,080 5,167 6,126 5,016 4,788 4,522 4,206 Number Tags Issued 5,961 8,134 8,411 8,091 7,344 7,452 7,382 7,452 Mean Number Tags/ Sq. Mi. 8.42 9.58 10.11 9.09 10.30 10.48 10.55 10.40 % of Tags Utilized 58.9 46.2 43.3 43.3 45.3 38.0 32.5 42.6 Number Deer Harvested Antlered Bucks 1,597 1,655 1,616 1,500 1,470 1,180 1,342 1,288 Button Bucks 487 429 407 362 353 327 194 302 Does 2,966 2,879 2,881 2,604 2,815 2,384 2,150 2,655 Total 5,050 4,963 4,904 4,466 4,638 3,891 3,686 4,245 % of Statewide Antlerless Harvest 6.5 5.8 6.5 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.7 Mean Antlerless Harvest/ Sq. Mi. 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.0 3.5 4.3 % Does in Harvest 58.7 58.0 58.7 58.3 60.7 61.3 58.3 62.5 71 Table 6. Percentage of Total Annual Deer Mortality Attributable to Hunting, 1983- 2004 Year Bucks Does Combined Total Mortality Estimate 1983 64 21 43 221,623 1984 56 18 37 281,231 1985 57 21 39 283,778 1986 61 21 42 320,385 1987 67 25 46 305,642 1988 62 26 44 332,908 1989 71 30 51 290,449 1990 77 38 58 305,243 1991 61 29 45 386,826 1992 75 37 56 316,006 1993 83 46 65 329,310 1994 69 37 53 379,736 1995 79 40 60 360,557 1996 62 33 48 394,806 1997 74 45 60 324,362 1998 73 43 58 370,250 1999 82 46 64 314,498 2000 85 57 71 297,588 2001 85 57 71 277,614 2002 82 57 70 268,638 2003 61 39 50 414,629 2004 75 52 64 334,022 72 Table 7. Composition of North Carolina's Deer Harvest, 2004 Antlerless Deer Harvest Antlered Buck Harvest Percent by Sex and Age Class Management Percent by Age Class Male Female Zone n 1.5 2.5 3.5+ n 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5+ Albemarle 93 48 43 9 232 12 16 20 30 22 N. Pamlico 45 27 37 37 214 8 9 18 40 25 S. Pamlico 149 27 52 21 194 9 12 8 36 34 Roanoke 319 12 39 49 704 13 19 12 22 34 Neuse 38 20 57 23 278 11 24 18 22 25 Cape Fear 182 25 51 25 495 9 14 13 34 30 Sandhills 158 45 48 7 188 11 19 19 25 25 Coastal Plain 984 27 46 27 2,305 11 17 15 28 29 N. Piedmont 191 40 43 17 306 17 19 19 20 24 S. Piedmont 312 42 48 10 268 10 17 17 36 20 N. Foothill 45 27 50 23 49 2 8 16 43 31 S. Foothill 93 67 24 10 104 14 18 21 22 24 Piedmont 641 44 43 13 727 13 18 18 28 23 N. Mountain 112 33 34 34 195 10 20 21 17 32 N. Pisgah 167 49 34 17 103 16 14 17 18 36 S. Pisgah 85 40 36 24 32 3 3 20 27 47 Nantahala 33 47 22 31 0 - - - - - Mountains 397 43 33 24 330 11 17 19 18 35 State 2,022 36 42 22 3,362 11 17 16 27 28 73 Table 8. Selected Population Parameters from North Carolina's Deer Harvest, 2004 % Yearlings % Does in Management Fawns per Doe Adult Sex Ratiob in Adult Harvest Reported Zone Observed Reporteda ( Does/ Buck) Males Females Harvest Albemarle 0.38 0.43 1.61 48 28 39 N. Pamlico 0.20 0.45 1.14 27 22 42 S. Pamlico 0.27 0.29 2.36 27 11 36 Roanoke 0.47 0.46 0.62 12 18 42 Neuse 0.54 0.27 0.66 20 28 34 Cape Fear 0.30 0.34 1.31 25 17 36 Sandhills 0.44 0.33 1.51 45 27 30 Coastal Plain 0.38 0.38 1.22 27 21 38 N. Piedmont 0.57 0.37 1.23 40 30 38 S. Piedmont 0.37 0.32 1.67 42 23 43 N. Foothill 0.11 0.25 1.39 27 18 47 S. Foothill 0.49 0.27 1.96 67 31 41 Piedmont 0.44 0.32 1.54 44 26 41 N. Mountain 0.42 0.23 1.02 33 30 49 N. Pisgah 0.41 0.29 1.95 49 23 36 S. Pisgah 0.07 0.17 1.73 40 21 32 Nantahala - 0.51 - 47 - 9 Mountains 0.38 0.24 1.48 43 27 42 State 0.39 0.34 1.49 36 22 40 a Reported to Wildlife Cooperator Agents ( assumed 1: 1 fawn sex ratio) b Severinghaus and Maguire, 1955 74 Table 9. Selected Average Physical Characteristics by Management Zone, 2004 Season Buck Fawn Yearling Bucks 2.5 Year- Old Bucks Management Weights Weights Points Spikes Spread Weights Points Spikes Spread Zone ( lb) ( lb) ( no) (%) ( mm) ( lb) ( no) (%) ( mm) Albemarle 61.5 109.6 3.7 41 184 138.1 6.8 0 320 N. Pamlico 75.1 116.3 3.0 75 175 136.7 4.8 36 274 S. Pamlico 64.9 101.2 2.5 70 122 127.2 5.4 7 234 Roanoke 65.1 103.5 3.1 54 194 132.5 7.2 0 331 Neuse 61.5 108.2 3.6 40 150 143.9 6.8 13 337 Cape Fear 57.3 106.6 3.3 56 194 143.5 6.5 9 319 Sandhills 63.1 111.2 3.4 34 177 139.6 6.6 7 291 N. Piedmont 63.6 109.3 3.6 39 184 134.6 6.4 6 294 S. Piedmont 62.1 104.8 3.6 50 160 139.0 7.1 1 312 N. Foothill 69.0 118.0 4.2 13 220 153.2 7.2 0 350 S. Foothill 63.5 110.0 3.5 40 172 138.0 6.4 5 292 N. Mountain 61.5 108.2 3.0 52 168 135.1 6.7 3 299 N. Pisgah 62.8 103.8 3.1 57 153 125.8 6.1 2 283 S. Pisgah - 105.9 3.5 47 172 119.2 5.6 3 274 Nantahala - 106.8 3.1 47 170 132.0 6.4 14 313 75 Table 10. Regional Trends in Selected Population Parameters, 1988- 2004. % 1.5 Bucks in Antlered Harvest % Does in Total Harvest % Button Bucks in Antlerless Year Coast Piedmont Mountains Coast Piedmont Mountains Coast Piedmont Mountains 1988 66 75 45 32 25 19 21.0 22.1 22.3 1989 65 72 61 32 25 23 17.1 22.1 21.1 1990 60 74 46 36 26 22 17.9 22.3 20.4 1991 63 70 47 35 27 20 17.6 21.6 21.1 1992 57 68 48 34 30 29 18.1 21.1 21.6 1993 57 70 46 38 33 24 18.2 20.5 20.1 1994 56 66 49 37 32 26 17.1 19.9 19.9 1995 52 64 53 36 31 25 16.2 19.7 16.5 1996 44 67 58 36 32 28 15.9 18.2 17.8 1997 43 64 56 37 37 34 16.3 18.2 16.7 1998 42 66 44 36 36 30 15.9 18.1 17.9 1999 44 59 42 36 35 29 14.2 15.8 15.6 2000 37 60 45 37 41 42 14.0 13.1 10.5 2001 41 60 41 38 40 37 14.0 12.7 11.0 2002 36 50 43 39 42 42 14.7 13.1 10.9 2003 34 47 44 36 39 44 12.5 11.8 9.6 2004 27 44 43 38 41 42 13.8 12.2 9.7 76 Table 11. Trends in Regional Antlered Buck and Doe Harvests, 1988- 2004. Total Antlered Bucks Harvested Total Does Harvested Year Coast Piedmont Mountains Coast Piedmont Mountains 1988 32,799 14,821 5,557 17,326 5,553 1,377 1989 34,386 17,235 5,776 18,393 6,217 1,834 1990 37,664 19,765 6,504 23,622 7,585 2,006 1991 37,270 20,078 7,376 22,492 8,026 1,979 1992 39,188 23,975 7,818 22,932 11,916 3,549 1993 42,685 25,322 8,368 30,191 13,964 2,874 1994 39,269 24,633 8,691 26,371 13,002 3,255 1995 36,956 27,748 9,111 23,694 13,929 3,244 1996 36,036 24,996 8,477 22,179 13,320 3,686 1997 35,238 23,518 8,062 23,309 15,808 4,721 1998 40,333 27,177 8,290 25,832 17,196 3,975 1999 38,032 26,496 9,536 23,504 15,795 4,146 2000 40,366 24,138 8,128 26,458 18,844 6,394 2001 42,680 27,597 8,528 29,437 20,703 5,477 2002 34,120 20,543 8,232 24,289 16,956 6,494 2003 39,487 27,795 9,177 23,768 19,515 7,921 2004 40,481 27,466 8,893 26,974 21,361 7,094 77 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT State: North Carolina Project Number: W- 57 Segment Number: 30 Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina Period Covered: 14 August, 2004 to 31 July, 2005 Section II ( RESEARCH) Subsection B: Big Game Mammals Study B4: Status of the Black Bear in North Carolina Study Objective: Collect the biological data necessary to assist in making management decisions that will ensure the long- term viability of black bear populations and provide a sustainable annual harvest. Specifically, “ monitoring black bear populations with hair sampling and genetic identification”. A. Activity We conducted both molecular biology work in our labs and field work. In the field we collected hair samples from hunter harvested bears. In the lab we continued genotyping all collected hair samples, from barbed wire corrals, hunter harvested, and trapped bears. B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishments 1. All activities were accomplished as follows: Hair Collection from Bears Harvested by Hunters 8 November to 13 November 6 December to 18 December Removal of 204 Barbed Wire Corrals Weeks in August thru November 6 March to 11 March Processing of Hair in Lab Entire year when not in field 2. Hair Collection from Bears Harvested by Hunters In cooperation with North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission personnel, we collected hair from 95 bears harvested by hunters during the 2004 November and December hunting seasons. These bears were killed in Hyde and Tyrrell counties and the collection area was the same as in 2003. 3. Removal of Barbed Wire Corrals 78 During the fall of 2004 and late Winter 2005, all 204 barbed wire corrals used in 2004 were removed. Before removing them, digital pictures were taken of the corral from several angles to analyze movements of individual bears through the corral, once genotypes are determined from the hair samples. This analysis will help to determine effective sub- sampling techniques for future research recommendations. The corrals were also located with a GPS unit. 4. Processing of Hair in Lab For the entire research project there are a total of 3,468 hair samples to analyze. We continue to use our lab in the Plant Pathology Department in the Gardner Addition for low volume DNA work and run pcrs and acrylamide gels in the Genomic Research Lab on Centennial Campus. For the entire project, we have run 66 gels to optimize the microsatellite amplification process and have run 172 gels to genotype hair samples. We have genotyped 912 samples completely and have run all other samples once for each of the 5 microsatellite primers we are using to identify individual bears. Using hair samples of known and different bears, we determined that only 4 primers were necessary to distinguish individuals. A fifth primer not only gives us more genetic information for relatedness, but also helps to catch genotyping errors. We currently are re- running the remaining samples for primers that did not work or were ambiguous the first time. After this, all samples that vary at only 1 primer will be re- run to confirm results. Then, all unique genotypes will be run to determine the sex of the individual bears. 5. Future Activities will be accomplished as follows: We plan to have genotypes for all hair samples and sex identification for unique genotypes completed by October 2005. After that we will generate population estimates and determine genetic relatedness between individual bears for the final project report, due 31 December 2005. C. Cost: $ 50,000 Prepared by: Tim Langer and Dr. Phillip Doerr, North Carolina State University Date: 31 July, 2005. Annual Performance Report 79 State: North Carolina Project Number: C- 7 Segment Number: 30 Project Title: Wildlife Management in North Carolina Period Covered: July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 SECTION II ( RESEARCH) Subsection C: Small Game Animals Study C7: Population Status of Furbearers in North Carolina Study Objectives: To conduct furbearer population surveys and harvest surveys in North Carolina and to disseminate the information obtained from this study. A. Activity Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends 1. Changes in legislation continued the permit fox seasons in 6 counties ( Caswell, Clay, Graham, Macon, Stokes, and Tyrrell) indefinitely. Currently there are 28 counties where legislation has opened harvest seasons where the sale of fox pelts or live animals is permitted. Twenty counties have fox seasons created by legislation, which allow harvest but do not permit sale of pelts or live animals. 2. An electronic intranet system for reporting wildlife observations was utilized during the period to assess the status of selected furbearer species with less than statewide or unknown distribution; these included bobcat, groundhog, nutria, river otter, spotted skunk, striped skunk, and weasel. A survey of all technical guidance district wildlife biologists was conducted to update the 2000 range maps. 3. Sheets were supplied to each raccoon hunt club which was scheduled to conduct a sanctioned raccoon field trial. Requested data included dogs per cast, county hunted by each cast, hours hunted per cast, and number of raccoons observed per cast. 4. All hunter check in data was edited then entered by our Data Processing section in preparation for data analysis and comparisons with scent station survey data over the entire study period. Data currently are being verified and prepared for analysis. Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest 80 1. Number and species composition of furbearers sold to licensed fur dealers were compiled and analyzed for each county to determine the distribution of the harvest. A harvest mail survey was conducted by sending all licensed trappers a questionnaire asking the number trapped, number of days trapped, average number of traps set per day for each species, and the counties where harvest occurred. The numbers of trapping licenses sold were compiled by type for the past 30 years. Data from reports required for wildlife damage control agents ( WDCA) and municipal/ governmental organizations obtaining long term depredation permits were compiled. A database containing all information pertaining to furbearer harvest continues to be updated annually. 2. The number of permit and legislative season fox tags and CITES bobcat and river otter tags sold by direct sales was compiled. 3. Licensed fur dealers were contacted to determine average pelt prices paid to trappers and hunters in an effort to monitor the effects of market price on harvest. Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina 1. An annual progress report was prepared to report on activities of the study. 2. Work on a booklet to be published and distributed to the public on North Carolina furbearers was suspended due to time required to attend to higher priority duties. 3. Data were entered and are being analyzed in preparation for writing a report on the results of the canine distemper virus outbreak and scent station data analysis for the Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station gray fox project. 4. A manuscript was submitted on river otter restoration and handling techniques to be included in the proceedings of the IXth International Otter Colloquium. 5. An annual report on the raccoon field trial survey was prepared for distribution to raccoon hunt club presidents and Commission personnel. B. Target Dates for Achievement and Accomplishments Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends All activities were accomplished on schedule. Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest All activities were accomplished on schedule. Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina 81 All activities were accomplished on schedule except for work on preparing the final draft of the furbearer booklet which was postponed, as was work on scientific papers describing gray fox population responses to a canine distemper epizootic and the river otter techniques paper, due to higher priority activities. C. Significant Deviations Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends There were no significant deviations. Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest There were no significant deviations. Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina There were no significant deviations. D. Remarks Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends 1. No new counties were included in the permit local law fox harvest areas during the reporting period. Since baseline survey data exists for most of the counties and participation has been extremely low, no surveys were conducted during the reporting period. 2. Observations of 1 bobcat, 6 river otters, 2 groundhogs, and 2 spotted skunks were reported via the intranet observation system or directly to the furbearer biologist during the period. In addition, information on the current distribution of furbearers was solicited from Commission field wildlife biologists to aid in updating our 2000 range maps. This revision indicates that beavers and river otters are now distributed statewide and striped skunks and groundhogs have increased their distribution to the south and east. 3. Data were collected on raccoon field trials conducted from May 1987 through February 2005. Furbearer management regions used for these analyses are shown in Figure 1. Since September 1997, all raccoon hunting clubs who conducted raccoon field trials were asked to provide data from each hunt. When each club obtains a field trial permit from wildlife enforcement officers, a copy of this permit is sent to the Furbearer Biologist who sends each club a survey form. Problems with this method of obtaining hunt information dictated that United Kennel Club hunt lists continue to be used to increase the number of hunts that are included in the surveys. Data collected included total time hunted by each cast, the number of dogs in each cast, and the number of raccoons observed. These data are presented in Table 1 for all 18 years of the survey. The data represented for 2004- 05 is based on 396, 762, and 543 hours of hunting time for the Coastal Plain, Piedmont, and Mountain regions, respectively. The greatest number of raccoons 82 seen per hour was 1.14 in the Piedmont, followed by 0.98 in the Mountains and 0.84 in the Coastal Plain. The number of participating raccoon hunting clubs each year has remained stable ranging from a low of 21 to a high of 59. The number of casts upon which the index is determined has varied from a low of 327 to a high of 1,406 over the past 18 years. Data collection will continue and be used for regional and statewide raccoon population indices. All sanctioned field trials for which field trial permits are required are included in the survey. 4. No further scent station surveys were conducted on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point. All hunter effort information was entered into a database to be used in analysis of the fox observations per hour hunted that will be compared with scent station survey results during the study period. Results of the hunter observation rate should be available during the next reporting period. Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest 1. Record of Fur Transaction forms were distributed to licensed fur dealers prior to the 2004- 05 furbearer harvest season. Table 2 presents the result of licensed fur dealer reports by county and Table 3 presents a comparison of recent years’ licensed fur dealer reports by species. The total number of pelts reported sold to licensed fur dealers increased and was 36% higher than in 2003- 04. The difference between the actual and reported harvest may be increasing each year due to trappers and hunters marketing their furs at auction, selling live foxes to fox pen operators, and not marketing a significant portion of the harvest at all. A voluntary trapper mail harvest survey was sent to all licensed trappers after the last 3 trapping seasons to obtain estimates of total statewide furbearer harvest by species. The 2002- 03 survey identified individual trappers and asked questions about marketing furs. The survey was not anonymous which likely resulted in the low response rate of 39%. The survey was changed for 2003- 04 and trappers were asked to return a postcard indicating that they had returned the anonymous survey form in a separate envelope which resulted in an increased response rate of 53%. A similar anonymous survey was sent for the 2004- 05 season and each trapper was asked to identify the counties from which furbearers were harvested to obtain regional estimates. The response rate for this survey was 50%. Table 4 presents data obtained using the trapper harvest mail surveys for the past three periods. Further refinement of the survey should result in a standard annual survey that can be extrapolated to obtain valid estimates of statewide furbearer harvest by trappers. Harvest data reported by wildlife damage control agents, federal wildlife damage control programs, municipal animal control programs, and licensed fur dealers was compiled and is presented in Table 5. Total depredation harvest for the current period is incomplete due to lag time in entering report data. Table 6 presents the trapping license sales data over the past 30 years since the 1975- 76 trapping season. Trapping license sales increased slightly compared to the previous year. 83 2. A summary of the results of fox permit harvests is not presented in this report since this information is no longer available. The numbers of legislative and permit fox tags and bobcat and river otter CITES tags sold statewide were as follows: fox - 258, bobcat - 443, river otter – 3,202. 3. All licensed fur dealers were contacted to solicit average pelt prices paid to fur harvesters. The average pelt values for 11 species since the 1997- 98 trapping season are listed in Table 7. River otter pelt prices remain high and this is reflected in the harvest as indicated by the number of CITES tags issued to trappers. This increased effort to harvest otters has resulted in significant increases in beaver harvests that are not reflected in the number purchased by fur dealers since they are purchasing only a limited number of beavers at relatively low prices. Table 8 presents the numbers of North Carolina fur dealer licenses sold since the 1990- 91 season and illustrates the decrease in furbearer market activity over the past several seasons. Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina 1. Literature reviews on river otter, gray fox, mink, beaver, and population survey techniques currently are being prepared and updated. 2. Text for a booklet on North Carolina furbearers continues to be updated and may be used to provide information to the public on the Commission’s website. 3. Scientific papers on the results of the Cherry Point Gray Fox Study are being written on several aspects of the study and should be completed during the next reporting period. 4. The manuscript submitted for publication on river otter restoration techniques is still being reviewed by the editors. 5. The raccoon field trial survey annual report is being printed for distribution to raccoon club presidents, and electronic versions will be sent to Commission personnel. E. Recommendations Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends This job should be continued. Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest This job should be continued. Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina This job should be continued. E. Cost 84 Job C7- 1: Furbearer Population Trends $ 17,000 Job C7- 2: Furbearer Harvest $ 5,000 Job C7- 3: Preparation of Reports and Papers on Furbearer Management in North Carolina $ 9,000 Prepared by: / s/ Perry W. Sumner July 31, 2005 Perry W. Sumner Furbearer Biologist 85 Table 1. Results of the North Carolina Raccoon Field Trial Survey from 1987- 88 through 2004- 05. Raccoons Seen Per Hour Participation Year Statewide Coastal Piedmont Mountain Clubs Casts 1987- 88 0.56 0.90 0.54 0.40 30 594 1988- 89 0.64 0.70 0.67 0.45 33 605 1989- 90 0.70 0.75 0.69 0.66 29 591 1990- 91 0.73 0.89 0.71 0.50 35 948 1991- 92 0.73 0.74 0.80 0.46 33 705 1992- 93 0.80 0.82 0.88 0.58 37 784 1993- 94 0.88 0.95 0.93 0.58 36 775 1994- 95 0.85 0.78 0.98 0.59 37 547 1995- 96 0.94 0.85 1.01 0.86 33 619 1996- 97 1.01 1.05 1.07 0.81 26 503 1997- 98 1.05 0.91 1.09 1.06 34 1406 1998- 99 0.92 0.90 0.86 1.13 21 327 1999- 00 0.97 1.02 0.99 0.87 48 783 2000- 01 1.06 0.82 1.13 1.11 53 808 2001- 02 0.90 1.20 0.80 0.97 50 970 2002- 03 0.91 1.24 0.88 0.92 59 1242 2003- 04 1.01 1.00 0.86 1.16 43 834 2004- 05 1.02 0.84 1.14 0.98 52 852 86 Table 2. Furs Reported Purchased By North Carolina Licensed Fur Dealers By County and Species, 2004- 05. County Beaver Bobcat Coyote Gray Fox Red Fox Mink Muskrat Nutria Opossum Otter Raccoon Anson 30 11 19 Beaufort 69 29 24 4 3 171 6 47 376 Bertie 4 1 9 69 22 Bladen 21 2 1 86 99 Brunswick 12 10 14 24 Camden 42 69 81 Carteret 2 5 Chatham 10 1 7 43 Chowan 1 3 7 Columbus 151 13 8 40 68 80 Craven 103 2 139 1 72 75 Cumberland 34 4 Currituck 2 Dare 1 46 41 Davidson 18 25 2 140 Duplin 159 17 7 168 4 48 279 Edgecombe 2 31 13 34 Franklin 19 1 2 4 10 Gates 2 6 13 22 Granville 26 28 92 24 Greene 7 2 7 Guilford 15 2 31 12 25 Halifax 145 35 21 Harnett 19 2 23 10 28 76 Hertford 3 6 2 524 7 28 Hyde 251 36 170 13 21 370 6 18 148 594 Johnston 192 7 3 172 90 245 87 Table 2. continued County Beaver Bobcat Coyote Gray Fox Red Fox Mink Muskrat Nutria Opossum Otter Raccoon Jones 19 3 46 18 60 Lee 30 10 8 Lenoir 12 3 1 12 32 20 Martin 19 32 Montgomery 1 1 Moore 1 32 56 Nash 68 2 108 26 61 New Hanover 1 Northampton 1 8 11 14 Onslow 1 36 12 Orange 4 14 2 Pamlico 10 3 1 14 8 Pender 58 6 1 26 47 50 Pitt 47 4 2 2 146 78 74 Randolph 60 2 4 1 9 73 80 Robeson 1 1 42 44 Rowan 7 Sampson 427 33 193 11 159 391 Stanly 2 1 29 Union 24 2 26 6 17 Vance 60 59 33 70 Wake 31 1 52 24 85 Washington 22 1 1 13 21 15 Wayne 66 4 12 228 3 127 252 Wilson 17 4 1 24 14 60 Unknown 1 Total 2,105 193 0 204 18 75 2,927 27 33 1,873 3,715 88 Table 3. Comparison of North Carolina Fur Dealer Reports, 1994- 95 through 2004- 05. Reporting Period Species 1995- 96 1996- 97 1997- 98 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02 2002- 03 2003- 04 2004- 05 Beaver 1,396 1,935 1,975 1,653 520 1,576 2,753 1483 1,736 2,105 Bobcat 42 111 82 47 25 12 29 77 128 193 Coyote 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Gray Fox 67 279 203 73 34 12 8 70 167 204 Red Fox 12 38 36 9 8 4 0 16 2 18 Mink 93 183 101 51 12 38 22 31 47 75 Muskrat 2,167 6,002 4,485 1,600 445 957 1,212 800 1,324 2,927 Nutria 13 126 202 14 2 0 0 0 5 27 Opossum 215 534 146 59 9 27 18 42 4 33 Otter 607 698 605 468 318 1,158 1,234 1,521 1,355 1,873 Raccoon 10,447 19,354 10,914 6,375 2,523 1,485 1,922 1,819 2,399 3,715 Skunk 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weasel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 15,059 29,263 18,753 10,349 3,896 5,269 7,198 5,859 7,169 11,170 89 Table 4. Results of Trapper Harvest Mail Surveys for the 2002- 03, 2003- 04 and 2004- 05 Harvest Seasons. 2002- 03 Trapper Harvest Mail Survey Species Beaver Bobcat Coyote Gray |
| OCLC number | 18541690 |
Tags
Add tags for Annual performance report, wildlife management
Comments
Post a Comment for Annual performance report, wildlife management
