Brent A. Rudolph

Effects of Impact Perception on Acceptance Capacity for White-Tailed Deer

Abstract Wildlife professionals require conceptually sound methods to integrate biological and social insights for management of wildlife. The concept of acceptance capacity has been suggested to stimulate integration, although methods to link measures of acceptance capacity with measures of wildlife populations are not fully developed. To clarify relationships between acceptance capacity, wildlife populations, and human values, we explored effects of stakeholder characteristics and impact perception (the recognized, important effects arising from interactions with wildlife) on acceptance capacity. We used a mail-back questionnaire (n = 2,190 responses) to rural residents of southern Michigan 1) to examine whether 3 commonly identified stakeholder groups (hunters, farmers, and nonhunting, nonfarming rural residents) that share a common landscape also perceive similar suites of impacts and hold comparable acceptance capacities for white-tailed deer, and 2) to develop an explanatory model of acceptance capacity for deer. Comparisons among stakeholder groups revealed differences in perception of impacts resulting from interactions with deer; however, participation in hunting and farming were poor predictors of acceptance capacity for deer. Model selection criteria indicate that total effect of impacts perceived explains a majority of variation in acceptance capacity. We conclude that impact perception is a meaningful concept for integration of human values into management of wildlife populations because impacts relate to effects of current wildlife populations and can lead to management actions that address needs and interests of multiple stakeholder groups in changing landscapes.

Cause-Specific Mortality and Survival of White-Tailed Deer Fawns in Southwestern Lower Michigan

Abstract Understanding white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawn survival is critical for managing herd dynamics and setting effective harvest regulations. We fitted white-tailed deer fawns with radiocollars during spring 2001 (n = 35) and 2002 (n = 40) to quantify cause-specific mortality, survival, and home-range size and composition in the southwestern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, USA. We monitored fawns a minimum of twice a week until they died, were censored, or the tracking period ended. Seventeen of 75 fawns died. The primary causes of mortality were legal hunting (n = 5) and deer–vehicle collisions (n = 5). Other causes included dehydration, bacterial infection, suspected coyote (Canis latrans) predation, drowning, and malnutrition. Survival probabilities for 2001 and 2002 radiocollared fawns to 30 days postcapture were 0.97 and 0.93, respectively. Capture-to-prehunt (127 days) fawn-survival probabilities were 0.91 for 2001 fawns and 0.90 for 2002 fawns. Posthunt (220 days) fawn survival probabilities were 0.76 for 2001 fawns and 0.85 for 2002 fawns. Annual estimated fawn-survival probabilities were 0.76 for 2001 and 0.75 for 2002. Mean annual home-range size for fawns was 75.36 ha. Habitat quality and land cover and use were potential factors that contributed to our high fawn survival. Our results can aid wildlife biologists in developing, refining, and validating deer population models as well as devising and balancing white-tailed deer population management decisions in an agroforested landscape.

Regulating Hunter Baiting for White-Tailed Deer in Michigan: Biological and Social Considerations

Abstract Eradication of bovine tuberculosis (TB) from free-ranging white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) requires mortality rates of infected deer exceed the rate of new infection. Efforts to reduce TB transmission in Michigan, USA, are based on 2 assumptions: 1) deer mortality may be increased through recreational hunting, and 2) encounter rates between infected and noninfected deer may be reduced by prohibiting baiting and supplemental feeding. Spatial correlation of TB-infected deer and supplemental feeding sites detected using aerial surveys validated a ban on artificial feeding in Michigan. Similar analysis could not be used to evaluate the effects of a baiting ban because bait distribution was unknown. Furthermore, a ban on deer baiting could confound attempts to increase deer mortality through reduced hunter participation or efficacy. We reviewed the process used to evaluate a strategy for regulating bait use by hunters. This review included an assessment of 5 factors: statewide spatial analysis of apparent TB prevalence, deer intraspecific interactions at bait sites, effects of bait on hunter harvest rates, impacts of disease presence and practice of eradication efforts on hunting participation in the infected area, and input from law enforcement personnel. Our analysis suggested that restricting baiting to a limited, consistent region incurred less biological risk than allowing bait to be used statewide and less political risk than a statewide ban.

Factors Affecting Hunters’ Trust and Cooperation

North American wildlife is treated as a public trust resource (PTR), managed for the benefit of all people by government. Wildlife managers historically used restrictive regulations and enforced compliance to recover many species. Present-day societal needs include reducing some abundant game populations. Hunters often oppose this objective, creating tension between managing PTRs and gaining trust of hunters upon whose cooperation management depends. We assessed effects of normative and personal gains on cooperation of hunters through their purchase of antlerless deer licenses and their trust in the agency regarding bovine tuberculosis eradication from Michigan white-tailed deer. Logit modeling of hunter survey data indicated trust was influenced by procedural justice and personal gains. Only a single procedural justice variable was a statistically significant cooperation predictor. Findings suggest agencies may gain trust more readily than cooperation through procedurally just exercise of authority. Additional research is needed to identify meaningful gains associated with trust.

Flawed analysis and unconvincing interpretation: a comment on Chapron and Treves 2016

Chapron & Treves [1] (hereafter C&T) believe that quantifying poaching is ‘one of the most crucial questions for the conservation of large carnivores’ (p. 2). We agree that evaluating poaching is important and merits rigorous attention. Yet, we argue that C&Ts claim, ‘allowing culling increases poaching’, is not supported by their data. We assert that C&T is based on flawed analysis and unconvincing interpretation of scientific literature. C&T claimed to ‘present the first quantitative evaluation of the hypothesis that culling will reduce poaching’. However, Olson et al . [2] used empirical data (fates of wolves) to demonstrate that illegal killing decreases with increasing availability of lethal depredation management (hereafter, LDM). C&T claimed to ‘show that allowing wolf [ Canis lupus ] culling was substantially more likely to increase poaching than to reduce it’. However, C&T produced no empirical evidence of increased poaching, but only showed a marginal association between policy change allowing LDM and reduction in expected wolf population growth in Wisconsin and Michigan (USA). Additionally, C&T later reported a misalignment in their dataset between wolf population size, number of wolves culled and policy change [3]. C&T claim that the conclusion of their ‘paper is still supported by the correct results’ (p. 1) [3]. However, the lack of a significant change in results following the correction of their data suggests either important design flaws or a phenomena largely uncoupled from their putative ‘policy signals’. C&T also claimed ‘replicated quasi-experimental’ (p. 2) design because changes in policy led to variation in LDM authority [1]. C&T compared ‘treatment’ periods (periods with LDM) with ‘control’ periods (when wolves were federally protected). C&Ts replication claim implies independence among treatments with respect to effect of policy signals [1, p. 3], something most-certainly untrue. …

Wild-Harvested Venison Yields and Sharing by Michigan Deer Hunters

ABSTRACT An increased societal focus on wildlife as food and recent policy deliberations regarding legal markets for wild-harvested meat are encouraging wildlife managers and researchers to examine the amount, use, and distribution of meat yielded through recreational hunting. We used responses to questions on the Michigan Deer Harvest Study to estimate the maximum yield of edible venison and assess hunters’ sharing behaviors. We estimated 11,402–14,473 metric tons of edible venison were procured during the 2013 hunting season. Of hunters who harvested a deer, 85% shared their venison. Hunters who shared did so with an average of 5.6 people (SD = 4.5). Sharing occurred most frequently within tight social networks: members of hunters’ households (69%), relatives (52%), and friends, neighbors, or coworkers (50%). In the absence of legal markets, venison is distributed widely by hunters and greatly amplifies the number of people benefiting from hunting. Nonetheless, we also identified the potential breadth of exposure to disease or contaminants from wild-harvested meat.