Delegated Aerial Ungulate Surveys 2009/2010 Survey Season

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The navigator was responsible for all deer classifications as well as maintainingthe proper flight course and ensuring detailed coverage of each survey unit usinga laptop and mapping software in real time. Two observers occupied the rearseats, with the right observer recording all survey information and the leftobserver marking waypoints of animal observations and providing a total countof all deer.All observed mule deer were classified into standard sex and age categories by thenavigator using Canon 10 X 42 image stabilizing binoculars (often from a distanceto prevent the animals from moving or running). Mule deer were classified asantlered, antlerless adult, and juvenile. Juvenile deer were distinguished fromadults by body size. Mule deer that were considered male but have dropped theirantlers and mule deer with one antler are noted. Whitetail deer, moose, elk andsharptail grouse received a total count. To prevent observer confusion andincrease total count and classification accuracy, when a large group of animalswas encountered it was best if they were herded into separate groups and/orprevented from running/mixing together during classification. We did not correctfor sightability; therefore, overall counts should be considered as minimumestimates and direct comparisons of survey results among years may be difficult.Survey conditions over the 3 day period were good; however snow cover wasquite variable within the WMU. Snow cover conditions deteriorated in certainsections of the WMU, particularly around tree bases on south facing slopes.6.2.3 ResultsDuring the 2010 stratification flight, a total of 2085 mule deer were observedwithin the WMU. The stratification survey data resulted in 32 units beingclassified as low density, 18 as medium density, and 13 as high density. In total, 5low density units, 4 medium density units, and 4 high density units were flown inthe detailed survey to ensure a variance near 20% of the estimate.The total estimated winter population of mule deer in WMU 305 was calculated tobe between 3662 and 5835 mule deer (Table 10). The 2010 population estimate of42
4748 represents a 13% increase from the 2000 estimate of 4132; however, becauseconfidence limits overlap, it is difficult to know whether this is a real increase orthe result of sampling variability. Because the previous survey was flown afternearly all antlers had dropped, we are not able to compare buck:doe ratios.Table 10.Comparison of aerial mule deer survey results from 1996, 2000 and2010 in Wildlife Management Unit 305.YearPopulation EstimateRatio to 100 Females(90% confidence limits) Mule deer/km 2 Males Juveniles2010 4748 (±22.9%) 2.26 43 352000 a 4132 (±12.5%) 1.99 0 351996 3789 (±15.8%) 1.82 10 56a2000 Mule deer surveys were flown in March after nearly all males had dropped their antlers.43
Page 1 and 2: Delegated Aerial Ungulate Surveys20
Page 3 and 4: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAlberta Conservati
Page 6 and 7: LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. Location o
Page 8 and 9: Table 18. Comparison of aerial surv
Page 10 and 11: moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus el
Page 12 and 13: surveys do not necessarily allow th
Page 14 and 15: 3.5 ClassificationBeginning in 2008
Page 17 and 18: 4.1.1 Survey methodsFollowing stand
Page 19 and 20: 4.2 Southern mountain goatsPhoto: S
Page 21 and 22: 4.2.1 Survey methodsWe searched mou
Page 24 and 25: ecorded for each group of goats. Th
Page 26 and 27: 5.0 WINTER RANGE TREND SURVEYS5.1 H
Page 28 and 29: Figure 4.Location of the Hay‐Zama
Page 30 and 31: In general, survey conditions were
Page 32 and 33: 5.2 Wildlife Management Unit 136/14
Page 34 and 35: Figure 5.Location of Wildlife Manag
Page 36 and 37: 5.2.3 ResultsDuring the rotary‐wi
Page 38 and 39: 5.3.1 Study areaAll probable sheep
Page 40 and 41: Figure 6.Location of the Wildlife M
Page 42 and 43: 6.0 RANDOM STRATIFIED BLOCK SURVEYS
Page 44 and 45: 6.1.2 Survey methodsThe study area
Page 46 and 47: 6.2 Wildlife Management Unit 305 mu
Page 48 and 49: Figure 8.Location of Wildlife Manag
Page 52 and 53: 6.3 Wildlife Management Unit 326 el
Page 54 and 55: (~34,800 ha) of the WMU. In general
Page 56 and 57: classified. We then randomly select
Page 58 and 59: Table 11. Comparison of aerial moos
Page 60 and 61: on the southeast, Highway 40 on the
Page 62 and 63: 6.5.2 Survey methodsWMU 340 was sur
Page 64 and 65: 6.6 Wildlife Management Unit 347 mo
Page 66 and 67: Figure 11.Location of Wildlife Mana
Page 68 and 69: were present to confirm gender. Wol
Page 70 and 71: 6.7.1 Study areaWMU 351 is delimite
Page 72 and 73: 6.7.2 Survey methodsAn aerial ungul
Page 74 and 75: Table 14.Comparison of aerial surve
Page 76 and 77: unit is bordered by highway 49 to t
Page 78 and 79: 6.8.2 Survey methodsWildlife staff
Page 80 and 81: Table 15.Comparison of aerial surve
Page 82 and 83: Cold Lake. Oil and gas extraction a
Page 84 and 85: surveyed from January 9 ‐ 11, 201
Page 86 and 87: 6.10 Wildlife Management Unit 510 m
Page 90 and 91: without antlers and classified acco
Page 92 and 93: 6.11 Wildlife Management Unit 536 m
Page 96 and 97: (Table 1). We did not correct for s
Page 98 and 99: Frair, J.L., E.H. Merrill, and M.S.
Page 100:
Saker, K. 2000. WMU 501 Deer / Moos
show all

Delegated Aerial Ungulate Surveys 2009/2010 Survey Season

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?