Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

ty

A a P
i
- / ak. aa 7)

VS

“United States bepertnent of the Interior, J. A. Krug, Secretary
- Fish and Wildlife Service, albert M. Day, Director ec

i Bi bia is i ene eee

Wildlife Leaflet 295
os 54, Ill. | July 1947}
DEER MORTALITY FROM GUNSHOT WOUNDS

By W. Leslie Rovinette, Biologist, Wildlife Investigations on Public Lands
Division of Wildlife Research

4

Contents

eS ae ee OS ee ee ee me ee

MEMO UIC Iey ray vecitel. ve) ei Pehle: eptle elie fis le Aisne tan bl me telnet
ast Studies of losses of deer on the Fishlake National
HOMe Sit) smu Oueta NCAA 6) law lok 7 lm) day los el et ee
Methods and results of the studies . 0 4 ss ss « «
Analyses of crippling Loss factor. . «.. « « « « »
SPUR ae "Ane tiel TR iiw er auite: UatimemieN tee atintel alete Wigiee oh Hie. Nereis
perme uaye: (CAO 5.6 ))/s)- sei ley fel whe |e el) es ee ee

se

TET,

REN Shes a
@~ OW DW

Md hip 3p ky age
CREE TRO
3

Sep ann ae eh en race

INTRODUCTION

Managers of deer herds are frequently confronted with the need for more
information regarding the extent of losses sustained by deer through the ani-
mals becoming crippled during the hunting season. Information on this subject
in the literature is very limited.

2, = Gen, 5 5 caine 3s

a
es

Sanders (1939) any concluded from sample cruises on the Chequamegon ja eloned
Forest in Wisconsin in 1937 that there were 68 wounded or dead, legal and il-
legal, bucks, does, and fawns left in the woods for each 160 legal bueks re-
moved from the forest. In 1938 a similar survey gave 60 as the loss through
crippling for each 100 bucks removed,

Leopold (1933) said that replies to a questionnaire sent to a list of

ly, -Publications referred to-parenthetically by dave: are listed in the
Literature Cited, Die

New Mexico hunters indicated the serious crippling of 10 bucks for 48 legal
bucks brought to bag, or a crippling loss of 21 percent of the legal kill.
Leopold further remarked, however, that he believed the loss was at least

30 percent, for not all the replies indicated ears to admit crapphanes

Johnson in 1940. in an sunpapmenea manuscript 2/ reported but one dead
buck on 3,200 acres during a survey in the Kaibab National Forest (north)
after the 1940 deer hunt. At this rate he calculated there would be but 50
dead deer on the west side of the Kaibab (north) from which 582 deer were
legally removed. Range loss was consequently calculated as 8 percent of the
legal removal. For the entire north Kaibab area he estimated that the range
loss would be ‘Somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of the legal.removal. seas

After a special hunt in Twelve-Mile Canyon in Utah, Costley, Ky) in, TS 37G
found through questioning the game wardens and rangers, who were the only
hunters involved in thet localized removal program, that there were 13 known
wounded deer not recovered for:67 actually brought to-bag. The known cripples
represented 19 percent of the legal removal. In some additional studies in
the Dixie National Forest of Utah, Costley, 4/ in 1940, found a loss ratio of
5.5 : 1 between the legal kill and the loss through crippling for areas open
to the killing of botn bucks and does. The data were obtained by cruisers
spaced 50 feet apart on sample areas of the range. They recorded dead deer
and paunches or viscewa from deer that had been dressed out and removed. The
ratio of 5.3 : 1 would represent a crippling loss of 30 percent of the legal
removal. Colorado research studies by Hunter (1945) revealed that an additional
15 percent of the deer and elk meee killed died of gunshot wounds or were
left in the field.. : ‘

STUDIES OF LOSSES OF DEER oN THE -FISHLAKE NATIONAL -FOREST THROUGH CRIPPLING

During the period ‘1939 to 1946, jnenuaiees the United States Forest Service
carried on investigations on the Pilghileies National Forest in central Utah to
determine the losses of Rocky Mountain mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus)
through crippling. These studies were conducted under the supervision of
the writer while Ber vate as a wildlife technician Tor the forest Service.

Methods siete SUS oe the Studies

During one 1939 Hulnt ine season the Utah State Fish and Game Commission
requested hunters to bring in one ear from each dead deer they found left un-
cleimed on the range. Only one ear was ta. be taken from each deer so found.
This reguest resulted. in 380 ears being le ft at checking stations on or ad-——
jacent to the Fishleke National Forest. On & subSequent post-hunting-season
check #ishleke Forest employees found 27 dena deer, of which 4, or 44.8 percent,

_+#

2/ Jehnson, Harlan G. Hunting report, Kaibab Netional Forest, North.
United States forest Service report. 1940. /Gnpublished./

3/ Costley, R. J.) Report-of December 21, 1987) to the Regional Forester,
Ogden, Utah. United States Forest Service report. 1937. /Gnoublished./

4/ Costley, R. J. Report of December 20, 1940, to the Regional Forester,
Ogden, Utah. United States Forest Service report. 1937. [/Unpublishea.7

2

had one ear removed. Through simple proportion the total range loss was cal-
culated to be 2,568 animals. This mortality was 18 percent of the 1939 legal
kill of 13,933, or a ratio of 1:5.5.

In 1940 a 100-percent cruise wes attempted after the hunting season on
sample areas distributed over the forest. Riders were Spaced from 66 to 100
feet apart, depending upon the topography and the vegetative cover, and each
rider attempted to discover all dead deer and paunches of eviscerated deer
on his assigned strip.

Paunch data were recorded for two reasons. They would serve as an in-
dex to the legal kill on each area concerned, and, in addition, the ratio ©
of the number of dead deer to the. number of paunches found would give the re-
lationship between the crippling loss to date and the legal kill.- The results
of the survey showed a total of 60 dead deer end 191 paunches found, a ratio
of 1:3.1, or a crippling loss of 31 percent of the legal removal. It was the
Opinion of several of the checkers, however, that with a spacing of 66 to 100
feet between cruisers many paunches could easily. have been missed. Most of
the paunches had become, blackened and shriveled by the close of the ll-day
hunting season and were thus more difficult to discover. If paunches were
missed, then the percentage of crippling loss to legal removal would be
lowered. Subsequent studies have tended to indicate the probability that
meny paunches are missed at distances in excess of 20 to 25 feet from the ob-
server.

During the past six hunting seasons (1941 to 1946, inclusive), the
Forest Service employees on the Fishlake Netional Forest have recorded the.
paunches and dead deer which they found while patrolling the range during
and immediately following the hunting seasons. Considerable time was spent.
on the range and parts of every ranger district were covered, including
various elevations, cover types, and areas of varying degrees of accessibility.
The distances at which most jof the paunches and dead deer were first sighted:
were also recorded.

‘The results of this investigation are shown in the following tabulation,
which ineludes some figures from the adjacent Manti National Forest for 1944
and 1945:

Mae OL pounchos meported observed 4s. o 5 6 be 6a os ss Le ee eS
Number of dead deer reported obServed. 33). sels 2 en es we LOD
Number of paunch records:in which the distance of the paunch from

the observer when it was first sighted is given, ... +... . . 477
Averege distance of, paunch from observer when first sighted. ... 21.4 ft.
Number of dead deer.,records in which the distance of the dead deer

from the observer when it wes first sighted is given ..... . 146
Average distance of dead deer from observer when first sighted .. 47,9 ft.

This tabulation shows that the average distance at which deed deer were
first sighted was 2.24 times greater than that at which the paunches were
first sighted. Tne average distance at which the paunches were first sighted
indicated that many could be missed on & strip of ground 66 to 100 feet wide.

By multiplying the total number of paunches seen on the surveys by the correc-
tion factor 2.24, a value was obtained which was the,expected number of
paunches on the area in which the dead deer were seen. Tie corrected number
—of paunches amounted to 1,183, and the resulting ratio of dead deer to.
paunches , or range loss to legal removal, was 1:5.94. Expressed as a per-
centage, the range loss-was'17 percent of the legal removal. Deer that were
-erippled but did not. die until after the period of the survey were not in-
cluded in this loss.

Late in November and early in December 1940, or approximately one month
after the crippling-loss data were obtained, the writer classified 1,746 live
deer according to sex and age and found that 22 of the number were cripples.
Similarly in 1942 it was found that 12 out of 1,152 deer were cripples. Thus
eripples comprised 1.3 and-1.0 percent, respectively, of the 1940 and 1942
deer herds one month after the close of the hunting season. Deer herein
“classified as cripples were those that had broken limbs or limped perceptibly.
Field observations on the part of the writer have shown that few of such
crippled. deer survive to the next hunting season. Most of them succumb to
predators, malnutrition, or infection during the first winter. Some, informa-
tion supporting the view that most crippled deer die during the first winter
following the hunting season in which they were crippled was obtained for
the Duck Creek area near Ely, Nev. Officials of the Forest Service and of
the Fish and Wildlife Service in classifying deer in that area during the
period of January 6 to 8, 1947, found 6 crippled deer out of 479; that is,

1.3 percent of the deer had a broken limb. Two and one-half months later
(March 24 to 27, 1947), while taking the annual deer census in the same area,
officials saw only 4 cripples out of the 767 deer that were close enough for
the observers definitely to determine cripples. Cripples thus made up only
0.5 percent of all deer at that time. Thus during the 25 months between the
two sets. of observations approximately 60 percent of the deer with broken
limbs had apparently succumbed. These crippled deer might also be considered
crippling losses. If so, the number of cripples in the Fishlake herd-on Decem-
ber 1, 1940, and December 1, 1942, would amount to’ 897 and 582, respectively,
or 24 and 20 percent of the deer left deed shortly after the respective hunt-
ing seasons. The average for the two years*is 22 percent. ‘Consequently, if
these cripples are:-¢onsidered as hunting mortality even though they ultimately
succumb to some other cause, the ratio of range loss to legal removel would
be narrowed from 1:5.9 to us 4.9. This loss would be 21 percént of the legal
kad. .

Essentially all the crippling-loss data accuffulated on the Fishlake Forest
_ were obtained from areas on which both bucks and doeS were hunted. Does were
hunted under the limited license system. A:further classification of the dead
deer was made to show the number that had been dressed out but left in the
field. The aoe is shown in table l.

TABLE 1.--Classification of deer found dead foliowing hunting

seasons during the years 1939 to 1946.

Condition of deer | Bucks | Does | Fewns | Totals

Dressed 12 (16) 46 (63) | 15 (21) Vomeo))

Not dressed 52 (24) 107) (SO) 55 (26) a7 >)

Totals and averages 1/| 64 (22) 155 (53) | 70 (25) 287 (100)

1/ Figures in parentheses are percentuges.

Altogether, 358 deer which died from gunshot wounds or were left on the
range during the hunt have been classified since 1939. Of this number, 79,
or 22 percent, were bucks; 190, or 55 percent, were does; and 89, or 25 per-
cent, were fawns.

Analyses of Crippling Loss Factor

During the period 1939 to 1946, inclusive, approximately 141,000 deer
were legally removed from the Fishlake National Forest, of which 77, 000,
or 55 ‘percent, were bueks; 50,000, or 35 percent, does; and.14,000, or 10
percent, fawns. By Applying the Loss, catiou on) Ls5- 94 ontained fon the
period 1941 to 1946, inclusive), there was a calculeted range loss of 23,700 ©
deer during and within a few. nore following the hunt. This loss broken down
es ite basis of the classification of the 358 dead deer showed 4 range loss

5,200 bucks, 1s 600 does, and 5,900 fawns. A comparison of the legal kill
ae the crippling pee of bucks, does, and fawns on the, Fishlake National
Forest for' the period 1939 to 1946 is shown in table 2.

TABLE 2.--Comperison 6f the legal kill. and the crippling loss of bucks,

does, and fawns on the Fishlake National Forest, 1939 to 1946.

Crippling loss in
percentage of legal

Legal kill Crippling loss

kill

Percent
Bucks , 17,000 7
Does “> 50,000 25
Fawns 114000 we

This indicates rather: cLeerly, that the loss of does -éné* fawns through
crippling during the hunting season when compered with the legal removal wag
pronouncedly higher than* that. of bucks. This can probably be explained by

Me eres,

the following reasons:

Hunters plece a higher ‘premium on bucks then they.do on does and fawns:
ConseGuently they exert a greater effort to recover wounded bucks than they
do to recover nee and fawns.

Some does ada fawns are undoubtedly killed by buck hunters through error
and are left because the AROS fear apprehension by wardens.

Because of their poor~ Sndition hunters pxobebas, leave some does that ©
‘bore fawns during the year and seek others in better physical condition.
The proportion of dressed does to all does left in the woods compared with
Similar data for pueks mene to corroborate ots SHUI INO a

Fawns are ee Ait shot for does by some hunters and ‘left because of
their inferior size and condition. ;

During November and December of 1946 the writer questioned hunters, game
wardens, and Forest Service: employees concerning the numbers of deer they had
legally kilied and the numbers they had crippled and were unable to recover.
It was felt that by questioning hunters with whom the writer was personally
acquainted there would be little:if any reluctance on the pert of the hunters
in admitting the crippling of a deer. The data thus obtained revealed that
for 80 bucks killed there were.25 crippled, and for 21 does killed there were
6-crippled. Crippled. deer in this instance represented 3l:and 29 percent of
those killed for bucks and does: respectively. Interviews and questionnaires
of this type to. determine the crippling loss are not satisfactory, however.
Hunters, even -if perfectly. frank.in admitting. cripples, may sometimes wound
deer and be uncounscious of-the fact. To offset’ this factor, deer are some-
times knocked down, momentarily stunned, but gét‘up and bourd away relatively
unharmed. Yet hunters may class them as wounded deer. Many wounded deer
are shot and recovered laéter.by other Hunters. There.is .a:limited survival
of crippréd deer that live through the winter to the following hunting season.
Two bucks out of 199 bucks: 6nd 87 does checked . out..of.the Salina Canyon check-
ing station during the first part of the 1946 hunting season had survived
broken front feet received during some previous hunt. It is.thus. difficult ©
to appraise the ultimate mortality due to crippling during the hunting season.
from hunter statements concerning deer idee and wounded.

‘The statements of hunters ‘indicated .a similar ratio between animals
killed and those crippled for both bucks ‘and does. Yet, the field surveys
showed a wide divergence in such data for bucks and does (7 percent for bucks,
25 percent for does, and 42 percent for fawns), which indicated a rather high
recovery of wounded bucks by other hunters but a relatively low recovery of
“antlerless" deer. ie

“THe reasons why deer are left dead on the range or in the woods during
the hunting season are veried, but the more common ones are?

Deer left intentionally
The deer was diseased.
The deer was of inferior size or in poor condition.

The terrain was rough or the piace where the deer was killed was a long dis-
tance from camp and ‘there were no means of packing it out.

Storms forced the hunters out of the mountains before they had an opportun-
ity to bring; the-deer into camp.

More deer were killed by the. party than the licenses permitted.

The meat had spoiled or the deer was badly shot up.

Deer left unintentionally
The hunter could not find the deer after returning to pack it out.

The deer escaped from the hunter after it was critically wounded.

SUMMARY

Studies of the mortality of Rocky Mountain mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus hemionus) due to their being crippled during the hunting season have.
been conducted for the past eight seasons on the Fishlake National Forest in
central Utah. The estimated legal removals of deer during that period were
141,000, of which 77,000, or S55 percent, were bucks; 50,000, or 35 percent,
were does; and 14,000, or 10 percent, were fawns. Determination of the losses
through cvippling has been attempted primarily through Forest Service employ-
ees recording all dead deer and paunches of eviscerated deer which they found
during, and immediately following the close of, the hunting season. These
data together with the recorded distances between the obServer and each deer
or paunch at the time each was first sighted have made it possible to arrive
at a calculated ratio between the dead deer left on the range and those re-
moved by hunters. The ratio was found to be 1:5.9; or, stated differently,
the loss through crippling was 17 percent of the legal removal. If crippled
deer that survived one month after the close of the hunting season were con-
Sidered a part of the crippling loss, the mortality value was raised toe 21
percent.

Additional information ebtained in the Study strongly indicated a
rather high recovery by hunters of wounded bucks, but a very low recovery of
antlerless deer. Evidently this difference was in direct response to the
premimum placed upon the two classes of deer by the hunters,

&

LITERATURE CITED

HUNTER, GILBERT N. z he
1945. Crippling loss. Big game kill. Colorado State Game and Fish
Commission, vol. 2, pp. 10-1l.

LEOPOLD, ALDC..
1933. Game management. 481 pp. Chas. Scribners' Sons, New York.

SANDERS, ROY DaLE.
1959. Results of a study or the harvesting of white-tail deer in
the Chequamegon National ¥orest. Fourth North American
Wildlife Conference Transections, pp. 549-553.

&— &
“a i RNS : q
MOB Se
M4 fy SN a aN = “ ‘
ne Ee Pa, SS ek
% gre : aa SS
aS . XS -
\ ~e ; a a
x ye Z x = -
\ ee = a