Delegated Aerial Ungulate Surveys 2009/2010 Survey Season

More documents

Recommendations

Info

surveyed from January 9 ‐ 11, 2010. Due to a less than adequate targeted precisionestimate, two additional units were flown on January 12 th . Navigation was aidedby computer generated maps and a GPS unit. Units were flown in an east‐westdirection with a flight line separation of 400 m. Observations were recordedwithin 200 m of either side of the machine, allowing for total coverage of the area.Altitude was approximately 60 m above ground and air speed was approximately80 km/h, reaching 100 km/h in open areas. Moose were classified using fourcriteria: presence of antlers or pedicel scars, presence of vulva patch, face andbody shape and pigmentation, and behaviour. White‐tailed deer and mule deerwere classified by the presence of antlers, body size, and behaviour. All antleredmoose and deer were classified as small, medium or large under the standardizedantler classification system, as per Table 1. Where adults lacked antlers and sexwas undeterminable, animals were recorded as unclassified. All wildlifeobservations were recorded on forms with locations recorded using a Garmin60Cx GPS. We did not correct for sightability; therefore, overall counts should beconsidered as minimum estimates and direct comparisons of survey resultsamong years may be difficult.Survey conditions during the stratification portion were fair with a small amount(< 6 cm) of recent snow and temperatures between ‐20 and ‐30 degrees Celsius.During the rotary portion, temperatures rose steadily from ‐20 degrees Celsius onJanuary 8 th to ‐2 degrees Celsius on the last two days of surveying (January 11 ‐12). Due to a freezing rain forecast between Lac La Biche, and Bonnyville, flightswere cancelled for January 9 th .6.9.3 ResultsThe intensive search of fourteen sampling units resulted in observations of 49moose (8 bulls, 29 cows, 12 calves), 758 white‐tailed deer, and 48 mule deer. Ofthe 8 bulls observed, 1 was a juvenile, 4 had already shed their antlers, and basedon antler classification, 2 were classed as small, and 1 was classed as medium. Tencow‐calf pairs were observed, 14 cows were without calves, and one cow hadtwins. The Quadrat Survey Method Program generated a moose populationestimate of between 145 and 265 (Table 16). Because of deteriorating survey76
conditions, especially on the last day, results excluding data from the last day (i.e.2 blocks flown on January 12 th ) are also presented. Based on results from 12sampled units, the Quadrat Survey Method Program generated a moosepopulation estimate of between 182 and 304 (Table 16).The white‐tailed deer population was estimated to be between 2881 and 3883(Table 16). An age‐sex ratio was not estimated for white‐tailed deer due to theadvanced antler drop; adult deer lacking antlers and obviously not accompaniedby a fawn remained unclassified. Antler size classification for the 74 bucks thathad retained their antlers is as follows: 25 small, 30 medium, 19 large. Does withsingle fawns or twins could be accurately determined in small groups; in largegroups when adult sex and doe‐fawn associations could not accurately bedetermined, it was assumed 1 fawn per doe. Of the white‐tailed deer observedwithin 14 sampling units 173 were does, 159 were fawns, and 346 wereunclassified adults. The population estimate where counts during the last surveyday are excluded (i.e. 12 sampling units) was calculated to be between 2798 and4184 (Table 16). A population estimate was not generated for mule deer.Table 16.Comparison of aerial survey results for moose and white‐tailed deerin Wildlife Management Unit 501 in 2000 and 2010.SpeciesYearPopulation EstimateRatio to 100 Females(90% confidence limits) Animals/km 2 Males JuvenilesMoose – 14 units 2010 205 (29.1%) 0.10 28 41Moose – 12 units 2010 243 (25.0%) 0.12 23 42Moose 2000 89 (47.5%) a 0.06 ‐‐ ‐‐White‐tailed deer14 units 2010 3382 (14.8%) 1.73 ‐‐ ‐‐White‐tailed deer12 units 2010 3491 (18.3%) 1.78 ‐‐ ‐‐White‐tailed deer 2000 2260 (27.7%)* 1.47 ‐‐ ‐‐aIncomplete survey performed under poor conditions contributed to high precision of error (Saker2000).77
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 50 and 51: The navigator was responsible for a
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?