31EDbb DE71 27ET fi
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013 with funding from
Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries
http://archive.org/details/massachusettsgam1317mass
\
Ift. JOB PROGRESS REPORT
\
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-13
Project Title: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
I-l
Job Title:
Statewide Small Game
Harvest
1 January to 31 December 1971
State
Cooperator:
Project No.:
Job No. :
Period Covered:
Summary: A usable return of 923 cards (68. 5%) was obtained from three
mailings of the postal questionnaire to 1400 sportsmen.
Each return was calculated to represent 124.31 hunters.
Approximately 81 percent of the 1969 hunters purchased a
license in 1970, Also, about 73 percent of these licensees
'overrif^pfll On^^jinipr '^'^'^ted small game, of whom 433 (58.0%) were successful in
rnii^Jr- taking at least one unit of game,
'■^'-^^ 1 zl972 Hunter success was greatest for cottontail rabbit (147,026),
OW^re—,-*-^ ^.c M 1 ducks (131,752), and pheasant (94,664). Nine other species
«i.isc..^a. j^^^ lesser rates of harvest.
Hunter effort increased for four species and decreased for
five. Changes were most noticeable regarding ruffed grouse,
ducks, raccoon, and woodcock.
Private land continues to be important to the Massachusetts
sportsman; however, there is an apparent increase in the
use of management areas. More hunters are now reporting the
use of both categories of land, rather than using solely
private land.
Background :
Objectives:
This job was initiated in 1959 as a means of determining
trends in the harvest of selected small game species. The
survey was conducted yearly until 1961, and every other
year thereafter. Variability in sample size, sample popu-
lations, and data analysis preclude direct comparison be-
tween certain years; however, harvest trends can be deter-
mined. Applicable comparisons between data from the current
segment and that from past years are presented in the fol-
lowing tables.
To determine the statewide harvest of selected small game
species and to determine the characteristics of land utili-
zation and time expenditure by sportsmen.
Publication approved by Alfred C, Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
^
W-35-R-13:I-l
Procedures :
Findings :
A sample v;as randomly drawn from each of 87 boxes contain-
ing the 1969 sportsman license cards. This aggregation
was run through an IBM 83 card sorter to eliminate cards
from fishing and trapping licensees. The remaining cards
were hand sorted to separate non-resident and free licenses
from the resident hunting and sporting licenses. The first
legible 300 cards in the resident sporting category and the
first legible 600 cards in the resident hunting category
were then chosen as the hunter sample for this survey.
The names and addresses of the sportsmen in the sample were
printed on gummed labels by the printout device on an IBM
computer. Four labels were produced for each individual.
A code number was assigned to each name to facilitate future
identification*
The questionnaire (Figures I-A and I-B) was printed on
double prestamped postal cards. The format was similar to
that of previous years except for changes in the species
list and special questions. Three mailings were conducted,
on 19 July, 19 August, and 24 September. The delay in the
initial mailing was due to a late return of the address
labels from the printers and a rise in the postal rates.
As each card was returned, the respondent was removed from
the mailing list utilizing the code number. Game harvest
data was tabulated separately for each mailing's return,
and subsequently combined to provide a total harvest
estimate. Responses to the special questions were tabulated
only for the entire sample return.
Each usable return was considered to represent a specific
proportion of all resident licensees. This weighting (one
return represents 124,31 individuals) was determined by
summing the resident hunting and resident sporting sales
for the calendar year 1970 (114,735) and dividing this figure
by the total usable return (923),
Questionnaires were mailed to 1400 resident licensees; 1347
were delivered and there was a usable return of 923 or 68,5
percent (Table 1),
As the sample had been drawn from the previous year's (1969)
licenses, the 923 usable returns were first divided into two
groups: (1) those hunters licensed in 1969 who subsequently
purchased a 1970 license; and, (2) those hunters from 1969
who did not purchase a 1970 license. Approximately 81 per-
cent (80.82) of the 1969 licensees did purchase a license
in 1970 (Table 2) . No attempt was made to determine why
the remaining 19 percent did not buy a license.
The 746 1970 licensed respondees were further broken down
into four categories: successful hunters (a hunter who
took at least one unit of game), unsuccessful hunters,
licensees who did not hunt, and licensees who hunted only
deer. Reported hunter success increased over 4.5 percent
fiouh:-; i-a: postal o^ji-'^stionmaire,
1970 GA.^ia KILL H5F0HT: l^'ORM A (OBTii'HSS)
Dear Hunter:
This is the statewide game kill questionnaire. It is the only method we have of compiling the annual
kill of our small game species. Your cooperation v/iil be appreciated in
filling out this postcard promptly.
1. If you cllcl not buy a license in 1970, check the top block of the return card. Do not complete
other questions.
2. If you bought a license, but did not hunt, check the second block at the lop of the return card.
3. Check all game hunted, even if you killed nothing.
4. Under No. Bagged, list only game killed by you.
5. Under Towns, list the towns you hunt in the most.
6. If you hunted only deer, answer only the last cjuestion. Indicate whether or not you applied
for an antlerless permit.
7. If you hunt on Wildlife Management Areas, list the area, you hunt the most.
All replies are confidential. When the figures are compiled, a report
will be published.
Thank you.
/VIASSACUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES ANO GAME
Form FG-l6a 11-70-04S2S4
tIS.POSTAGI
DIVISION DF FISHERIES & GAME
FIELD Headquarters
WESTBDRD, MASS. D15B1
FiCrURji; i-B:
1970 GAi-L; KILL T
POSTAL OUESTIONNAIHi
Po.rr :
FOR A A iiiiuY^lriSE)
' "i
Form A
1970 GAME KILL REPORT
□ Check if you did not buy a hunfing or sporting license
in 1970. Do no! complete any other questions.
□ Check if you bought a license, but did not hunt in 1970.
Please check all
game hunted in
Massachusetts
V
Number
Bagged
Town or Towns you
Hunted in the Most
Pheasant
Ruffed Grouse
Quail .
Woodcock
White Here
Cottontail Ribbi;
Raccoon
Gray Squirrel
Fox
Ducks (All)
Geese
POBCAT
Please estimate - (Record "None" as "0".)
1. The number of times you hunted on: Wildlife Management
Areas Private Land_ ■.
2. The number of times you hunted pheasant on: Wildlife
/'Aanagement Areas Private Land
3. If you hunt on Wildlife AAanagement Areas, list the
area you hunt on the most .
4. Did vou hunt deer in 1^70? Yes
No-
If yes dio' you apply for an antlerless permit?
Yes No
■U 0)
c u
<t t^
m CO
vO vt
r^ r-l
CM
<U Q)
r^ o
<r en
r>. 00
vo a\
in
U 4-< >
* •
• •
•
• •
•
»-i O 'H
^ r-l
CM r-J
CM <f
vO O^
CO
(y r-1
ro <t
CO CO
CM CM
vO vO
vO
a. ^
T)
V4 0) (U
<u c •-<
>£» CM
CM f-*
VO VO
<}• OS
CO
JQ ^ XI
O CM
CM <!•
ir> r^
CO CO
CM
a 3 0)
CsJ CO
r-l r-<
CO uo
0^
3 4J CO
S <U J3
erf
u
(U
•i
3
0)
<u
>
T-l
Q
O
!-i ^
Xi >
3 r-i
c
p
P^ vD
O O
r>. CO
CO ^
VO o
VO VO
VO r-i
r^
r>. lo
<!• O
r-. r>.
•<r
m r>.
CO <r
CM CO
m f^
CO
CM CM
CO
in
<y
u
'O
CO
Q)
0)
O O
vO O
CO cr»
o o,
o
c
J3
T-l
o o
CO VO
m o
o o
o
<u
E
•r-l
VO 00
CO <j-
CM CO
VO CO.
<r
u
»-
rt
1
1
i-<
•H
!3
S
hJ
m
o
<u
bO
bO
DO
bO
<U
&0 C
bO C
bO d
bO d
>,
CO
C -f^
C -r^
C -H
d 'ri
JD
C
a»
•H 4J
•1-4 +J
•H 4J
•H 4J
<u
a
■I-) }^
W !^
AJ ^1
W M
c
(J
&
C O
C O
d o
d o
u
■r-l
D Cu
3 O.
3 o-
B ^
d
l-J
tC C/3
U5 to
W w
PC CO
4J
0)
C4
<u
>
•H
4J
CO
t-4
d
(U
M
p5
w>
9
•
d
PiS
t-i
-f-i
r-(
-O
0)
•H
9i
1-1
rfl
TJ
d
CO
.o
S
■u
C
-u
•r-l
i-H
c3
CO
o
J-l
-Q
CO
H
I^
u
•I-l
e
■u
•H
V
X
o
o
tB«
CO
H
u
H
d
•H
0)
to
C
(U
o
ctf
(U
CO
CO
o
3
w
2
cu
ttf
w
CTi
VO
c^
CM
<u
CO
CO
u
o
H
bc
d
•■H
•B
o
o
en
bC
d
•H
0)
.1-!
1^
d
(U
u
o
a;
4J
c
o
o
CM
CO
o
CO
.-1
o
•
•
•
o
a\
o
CO
ft
o
VO
4J
d
r-l
(U
•
o
CO
^1
CO
o
CM
CO
^ 0)
4J CO
d
(U (U
T-l o
S hJ
CO
CO o
Q) as
CO T-4
d
CJ 0)
•rJ CO
hJ CO
Td
o\ o
VO ^4
ON 3
r-l PM
r^
r^
m
«
CO
•<1-
«
O
O
•
CM
CM
o
o
•0-
ON
0-)
o
m
vO
CM
CM
VO
CO
CSl
ON
iJ
bC
d
CO
r^
O
d
<u
o
C7N
o
•r-t
o
•
•
•
r-i
^4
CO
t-l
o
•r^
(U
r^
CM
o
to
Pl4
■— 1
S
u
•I-l
X
•
CO
CJN
CM
H
o
O
CM
CO
2:
-^
r-l
o
o
•
C3N
ON
CO
o
CO
CO
CM
s
^
m
CU
■U CO
CO d
JZ OJ
4J O
'r4
Q) h3
r-t
ao
B r-.
CO ON
CO -<
(1) <u
CO CO
d CO
0) ^
o o
•H ^
hJ 3
CO
(iA
r-l
ON
CO
VD 4J
A->
CJN O
o
-1 3
H
V/-35-R-13:I-l
from 1968, and the amount of non-hunters decreased two
percent (Table 3). The other two categories remained
nearly stable.
The mean take and sample size for each game category is
presented in Table 4, The mean take per hunter v/as
greatest for ducks (5,17 ducks per hunter), followed by
cottontail rabbit (4.15), and gray squirrel (3.60). The
mean take for all other species was less than three units
of game per hunter.
The mean take and expanded take for 1970 are presented in
Table 5 and compared with previous years in Table 6.
Readers are reminded that the validity of these estimates
cannot be determined statistically, as the data plots as
a negative binomial. The small sample size for certain
species (e.g., bobcat) increases the chance of error in
expansion, and confidence limits, if possible to compute,
would likely be very broad. Yearly comparisons should be
made with caution, as sample sizes have varied consider-
ably.
The 1970 expanded bag take was greatest for cottontail
rabbit (147,026), followed by ducks (131,752), pheasant
(94,664), woodcock (67,886), gray squirrel (65,336), and
ruffed grouse (57,482). The take for the remaining six
species was less than 50,000 units each.
The number of hunters seeking each species had increased
for four species and decreased for five, considering the
nine comparable categories for 1968 and 1970. Changes
are most dramatic respecting ruffed grouse (down 16,300
hunters), ducks (down 10,000 hunters), raccoon (down 6500
hunters), and woodcock (up 6200 hunters). These fluctua-
tions are not necessarily due to an increase or decrease
in the number of actual hunters, but may be in part due to
a diversification of effort on the part of previously re-
porting hunters. The format of the questionnaire is such
that if a hunter kills a certain type of game, he is con-
sidered to have hunted that species regardless of the
species for which he originally intended to hunt.
The mean harvest of three game categories (bobwhite quail,
woodcock, and ducks) has increased considerable since 1968.
This could be due to increased hunting pressure, increased
reporting rate by respondees, an increase in game avail-
ability or a combination of two or all of these factors.
Slight increases were noted for pheasants, ruffed grouse,
and white hare, and minimal decreases were reported for
cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel, and raccoon. Fox, bob-
cat and geese were not sampled in 1968.
CO
(U
(U
'O
c
o
a|
CO
0)
Pi
<u
CO
C
(U
U
•r4
o
o
I
CO
O
M
CO
•H
d
M
CO
H
03
4J
r-<
c
03
O
■U
V
O
u
H
(U
p4
VM
O
CO
•-4
CO
O
H
C
<U
CU
Ph
•H
CO
4J
c
c
•1-4
s
■u
CO
u
1^
CO
a
O
o
O »-* ON o
• • • •
00 ir> CX3 00
ID i-i f-H
r^ <f CM r^
• • • •
CO 00 m cNj
<f .-I CNJ .-•
m cTt vD n
<J- i-l CM t-l
r-l VD 1-1 CM
• • • •
i-l V£> <!■ c»
VO I— < f— I
o
o
CO CO r-< 0>i vO
CO <-« >d- m <r
<f t-i r-« I r«.
o
o
CO
o
4J
c
CO
CO
O
a\
o
<u
«
•
•
«
•
M
(J
00
o
o
<t
o
c
M
in
I-i
CM
o
.r4
CU
f-l
r-l
ft.
•H
CO
s
•TJ
C
o
}-4
o
CO
(U
O
f-t
CO
o
<r
U3
CM
CM
in
ft
o
g
1-4
CM
o
o
CO CO CM vO
CJ>
vO 1^ vD CO
CO
CM
<r
m
u
CO O
u -u
o c
>%
iJ o
r-l
C 33
c
D
o
PC r-4
4J
3
c
^
1-1 <4^
3
<u
3 CO
w
(U
m CO
Q
CO cu
4J
CO CJ
o
TJ
CO
Q) O
z
<u
r-<
O 3
■u
CO
U CO
TD
c
4J
3 C
•H
3
o
CO P
Q
d:
H
CO
^^
O
4-1
CO
H
CO
C
CO
<U
i*
CO
CO
u
■U
a
3
<+-!
O
c
o
CO
•I-t
CO
B
o
o
i-H
CO
H
C
<u
CO
^
(U
CO
S H
t-4
CO
4J
o
H
V4
(U
a>
1-4
■Ul
a
B
CO
:d
CO
C
•H
U
•r-4
H
c
(U
CO
^
(U
CO
S HI
•H
t-4
•H
s
O
u
CO
CO ^
u
<i;
<u
1—4
4J
a
c
6
3
CO
W
CO
c
•r-4
s
■u
CO
u
•H
c 0)
CO ^
J-l
<u
<u
1— 1
■u
a
c
E
3
CO
K
CO
f^ocM^fmooom oco»^<t
^vocoin'-4vnvoo in»-«>— «r^
•-•»-HcMCM-.d-cSCOCMOOmO
vo<Tv<j-inincovocM^cN»n(jN
lnoo>-4r-^ooI-l-ct<J•<l■cMOC^
<l-CM<-4CMCM»-4'-» CM
oc3\cMQOoofomocoo<J'in
mr^coinooco<tco<j-omoo
• •••••••••••
i-4T-4T-lr-(COCMCMOOO"<tO
U 0)
<U r-l
CO c^
4J a
m CM
C B
3 CO
P3 CO
C7N<tCM oinr>»covDco
•-• CO rH CM CM «-l
cooocMr^<j*r»-vOf-ifOo-<f
r-ir-irocovoinvomr».cncT\o
CMCMCMCMstC^COCMOOvOr-l
r-^cooo^J'CMcocjxr^vocricM
r-4v£>COmv£>CMCO mcM
'-icMOincMu->co«-tr>.invOt-i
in<i-<i-mococor-i<j'.-i>;j-vo
i-4'-<CMCM'«d'eMfOCMOO«;fO
r-ir-»covor^c^cocoofno<J"
coc3>r^<toor»«ONCMco»-4cM\o
CM «-< '-4 1-4 i-l
m
<u
•1-1
o
<u
4->
a
c
CO
CO
CO
CO
3
o
CL)
CO M-l
CD IH
CO
(Hi
o
o
u
o
o
Ph oi o* IS
•1-4
CO
c
o
o
0)
S-i
CO
0)
u
•1-f
3
CO
CO
>-l
c
o
o
o
o
. "J
CO
CO
o
o
CO
V
3
Q
CO
c
<u
^
nj
H
C>0
<r
CM
f^
^^
VD
T-i
^^
CO
in
CM
CM
1^
to
vO
00
r^
00
eg
<t
m
o
en
cr\
m
o
pq
vD
vt
00
CO
o
CSJ
CO
r^
i^
•<}■
r^
1-4
n
•%
•k
A
#«
•»
•«
«^
•«
•«
•
'O
<!■
r^
CM
r^
r^
vO
m
o
CM
r-^
a\
a>
as
m
0-1
vO
<J-
cn
>X)
l-<
en
•o
,-i
fH
c
CO
a
X
M
c
o
•H
r-l
P
a
o
p^
S-i
0)
d
o
CTi
H
CO
PQ
d
o
CM
cn
•vJ-
in
00
o
in
o
o
tn
CO
i-H
i-l
CM
CM
><r
CM
CO
CM
o
o
m
O
-0
4J 0)
r-l
'd-
•<l-
r^
CM
CM
VO
VO
CM
M ^
\0
VO
vO
<f
00
cr>
CM
00
CM
O CO
r>«
<3-
CM
m
1-4
CM
m
CLH
i-l
<u
frf
o
VO
o
CO
o
xi
(4-1
o
CO
H
0)
■u
w
c
•H
J3
•i-i
»4
u
0)
o
c
o
•1-1
en
a
to
u
s
g
(0
o
in
0)
I-l
CO
H
*
CO
TP
i-t
<u
<u
•o
4J
c
c
CO
3
CI
tr:
x
u
(H
o>
O CO
1-4
>-t
&
u <u
e
(1) 4J
CO
5 «
CO
c
S
f-4
n
0)
•H
u
en
in
CO
vD
VO
CM
CT»
f-i
I-l
CM
00
CM
»d-
O
S3-
I-l
CM
CM
o
-d-
m
CO
St
CO
vt
o
CO
in
CO
VO
CM
m
CO
t-i
CO
I-l
m
m
CM
in
CM
CM
r-l
VO
CJ\
in
CO
sj-
CM
m
1-1
CM
m
CO
VO
CM
>t
CM
m
<T\
CO
f-l
St
St
<h
CM
o
<y\
CM
r-t
I-l
CM
4J
1-1
Si
U3
Si
flj
»H
ci
Q>
d
u
o
l~l
Q>
u
^
•H
u
•r-l
4J
^
CO
CO
3
c
o
4J
as
cr
c
CO
'V
o
c
CO
o
4J
CO
0)
1-4
y
o
(U
o
CO
(0
ll-l
•H
-o
*J
■u
f^
o
u
(U
«w
CO
o
4J
•r-l
CO
CJ
^
^
rC
3
3
o
o
J2
^1
CO
o
o
Pk
(^
<y
12
o
3
o
Pi
Pl4
pq
CO
CO
<U
^
m
o
(U
3
(U
Q
U
to
)-l
c
3
cn
CM
OS
1-4
(0
9
O*
0)
u
3
4J
(U
V4
u
CO
[I]
Table 6. Compai
•ison of Hunter Sample, Mean
Kill, and
Expanded
Kill for
1953.
1960, 1962, 1964,
1958 and
1970.
Species
1958
1960
Expanded
1962
Number o;
1964
f Hunters
1966
1968
1970
Pheasant
43,252
46,205
56,546
54,072
50,151
55,148
56,685
Ruffed Grouse
30,002
35,611
43,904
46,548
39,626
52,191
35,926
Quail
6,336
5,948
6,860
8,628
9,906
13,158
14,171
Woodcock
9,937
9,860
16,268
19,161
18,203
20,551
26,727
Cottontail Rabbit
35,571
32,433
36,554
34,008
31,948
33,857
35,428
White Hare
14,737
12,875
17,248
17,456
14,240
15,967
14,047
Gray Squirrel
20,018
18,254
17,150
16,753
21,423
19,811
18,149
Raccoon
3,792
4,645
4,018
6,220
6,439
11,680
5,221
Fox*
5,470
Bobcat*
2,735
Ducks (all)**
21,458
17,194
27,244
27,788
27,614
35,483
25,484
Geese*
Mean Kill
12,307
Pheasant
1.451
1.635
1.501
1.539
1.760
1.659
1.67
Ruffed Grouse
1.158
1.540
1.458
1.732
1.900
1.597
1.60
Quail
2.083
2.343
1.886
1.825
1.925
1.235
2.32
Woodcock
1.367
1.355
1.783
1.863
2.170
1.568
2.54
Cottontail Rabbit
5.224
4.151
3.920
3.979
4.554
4.414
4.15
White Hare
2.244
1,418
1.580
2.287
2.896
2.537
2.58
Gray Squirrel
4.014
3.790
2.543
3.389
4.127
4.671
3.60
Raccoon
2.671
4.246
4.585
3.967
4,423
2.135
2.05
Fox*
0.50
Bobcat*
0.18
Ducks (all)**
3.88
2.82
2.62
3.46
2.92
2.67
5.17
Geese*
0.74
Expanded Kill
Pheasant
62,759
77,541
84,864
83,260
88,290
91,518
94,664
Ruffed Grouse
34,742
54,841
63,990
80,654
75,289
83,385
57,482
Quail
13,198
13,933
12,936
15,750
19,069
16,261
32,877
Woodcock
13,584
13,364
29,007
35,712
39,502
32,230
67,886
Cottontail Rabbit
185,823
134,623
143,273
135,328
145,500
149,471
147,026
White Hare
33,070
18,253
27,243
39,927
41,235
40,508
36,241
Gray Squirrel
80,352
69,186
43,609
56,779
88,417
92,549
65,336
Raccoon
10,128
19,721
18,424
24,679
28,480
24,937
10,703
Fox*
2,735
Bobcat*
492
Ducks (all)**
83,290
48,404
71,440
96,204
80,735
93,880
131,752
Geese*
9,107
* Sampled for the first time in 1970.
** Aggregated data. Previous reports separated black ducks and "other ducks".
W-35-R-13:I-l
The 1970 hunter success for twelve game species is shown
in Table 7. Hunter success was greatest for ducks, with
nearly three-quarters (73.17%) of the sampled hunters re-
portedly taking at least one duck. Good success was also
enjoyed by hunters of cottontail rabbit (72.63% success-
ful), and gray squirrel (71.92% successful). Hunters
least successful were those seeking geese (34.34%) and
bobcat (13.18%).
The 1970 hunter success percentages for nine game species
are compared with those from previous years in Table 8,
Hunter success has increased for six species since 1968
and decreased on the remaining three. The greatest in-
crease was for ducks (up seven percent), and the greatest
decrease for raccoon (down 9,8 percent).
Table 9 presents twelve game species ranked by hunter
success and hunting pressure for the sample periods from
1958 to 1970, Hunting pressure has remained fairly con-
stant for most species during this time. One notable
exception appears to be woodcock which has experienced an
increase in pressure from seventh place in 1958 to fourth
place in 1970. Fluctuations in hunter success are more
evident. These variations may be due to inconsistencies
in the reporting rate among the sampled sportsmen, or to
actual biological fluctuations in native game populations,
or both.
The first special question asked the sportsman to categorize
the ownership of the land on which he hunted. Results of
this categorization are presented in Table 10. Although
the Massachusetts sportsman is still heavily dependent
on private land (47.0% utilized only private land in 1970),
there is an evident downward trend in this attitude.
Hunters are now broadening their approach and hunting on
both private land and management areas. Nearly 42 percent
hunted both types of land in 1970, as opposed to 33.6 per-
cent doing so in 1968, Decreases in the amount of huntable
private land (through posting and development) and con-
tinued acquisition of management area lands and resultant
publicity may contribute to this change in land use patterns.
This same pattern is evident when pheasant hunters are
treated separately (Table 11); however, variations in the
number of stocked private covers may influence the distribu-
tion in this subcategory.
Land utilization by small game hunters is presented by
county in Table 12, An important factor affecting a
sportsman's land use habits is his proximity to a manage-
ment area. If he hunts only in his home county, and there
are no management areas in that county, quite obviously
private land is very important to him. Perhaps, then, a
truer picture can be obtained by examining those who re-
ported hunting more than one county. More than half (53.6%)
Table 7. Hunter
Success for Twelve
Game Species
. 1970.
Total Number
Successful
Unsuccessful
Percent
Species
of
Hunters
205
Hunters
150
Hunters
Successful
Ducks (all)*
55
73.17
Cottontail Rabbit
285
207
78
72.63
Gray Squirrel
146
105
41
71.92
Pheasant
456
279
177
61.18
White Hare
113
69
44
61.06
Woodcock
215
128
87
59.53
Ruffed Grouse
289
164
125
56.75
Raccoon
42
22
20
52.38
Quail
114
47
67
41.23
Fox
44
18
26
40.91
Geese
99
34
65
34.34
Bobcat
22
4
18
18.18
* See Footnote 2, Table 6
Table 8, Hunter Success for Nine Game Species: 1958, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1968
and 1970.
Species
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
Ducks (all)*
64.2%
61.1%
53.6%
74.0%
65.5%
66.2%
73.2%
Cottontail Rabbit
78.0%
74.1%
69.4%
69.9%
69.4%
70.7%
72.6%
Gray Squirrel
79.8%
78.1%
61.7%
79.6%
71.7%
76.1%
71.9%
Pheasant
54.2%
57.3%
57.9%
57.0%
58.3%
57.6%
61.2%
White Hare
58.3%
44.9%
50.6%
56.9%
56.5%
56.5%
61.1%
Woodcock
54.1%
48.8%
51.2%
53,4%
64.5%
59.7%
59.5%
Ruffed Grouse
49.4%
54.7%
52.7%
56.9%
65.3%
50.4%
56.8%
Raccoon
51.9%
73.7%
75.6%
40.3%
55.8%
62.2%
52.4%
Quail
34.8%
52.1%
47.1%
44.2%
66.2%
39.3%
41.2%
* See Footnote 2, Table 6
o
ON
'V
c
03
00
ON
o
00
in
ON
w
o
o
3
!-4
0)
■u
c
3
c
nj
<u
w
CO
c
■u
c
T)
<U
-i
CO
en
cu
•i-i
o
0)
a
CO
g.
CO
o
>
0)
ON
<u
I-I
.n
CO
H
O
ON
00
<JN
CO
CO
Q)
u
CJ
3
CO
cu
c
3
TD
<U
C
CO
C4
vD
C3N
<7>
CVJ
vO
<3N
O
vD
C3N
00
m
<3N
o
ON
CO
ON
<u
CO
CO
ON
C
'ft
■u
c
3
a
>\
-^
CO
ON
vO
O
ON
CD
in
ON
00
0)
•1-4
V
(U
cn
<rr^oNvoc«jmfnooocvj'-ii-«
\ocooNinp^i^»-i<j"
r»«incovDcMC0i-iON
CO
>d" in 1^ vo en in
00
<]-vocr>r^cMOOcni-i
invor^oocMC7\i-4co
<rincor^pHvofncjN
CM
m
CM
i-<CNjr^<rcnoovx>f-<o<viinc3N
i-ieMC0in«d-r^voc7N
r-icvjoovDcor^moN
<-4cMcoincovor^ON
i-icNjoor^cninvD<3N
t-(cvjcor>.rovo»sfON
i-<cocoi^eNjvomoN
CO
m
0)
o
u
■U O
c
CO
(0
4J
•t-4
JO
ja
CO
u
o
CJ
CO «4-l t-) -O
0) 14-4 CQ O
^ 3 3 O
S od 6' &
0)
>^
•r-l
CO CO 3
4J a o^ c
c wo
O <U O
•U 4J >> CJ
4J i-« CO CJ
o x: ^» CO
O 5 O Bl fe «
o
4J
CO
CJ
Xi
o
CO
CO
o
3
<U
CO
(U
<u
O
vO vO
<u
(^ (X4
s
CSJ
o
CJ\
CO
(U
<
0)
4J
CO
1-4
3
CM
00
vD
ON
T-l
VO
r^ m 00
•U
VO
• • •
CO
<3N
ON vD CO
i-l
in CO
W3I
C
•H
CO
S3
CO
cu
■u
d
;i
CU
B
CO
O
CO
Q
CO
o
4J
c
o
o
»•«
£
o
vO
ON
O- O VO
• • •
I-) r>» rH
■-I <3- >:j-
<j- O VO
• • «
CVJ <f CO
n-i m CO
<J-
CO 00 cys
VO
• • •
<3N
vo CO -Cl-
r-l
in CO
CO m 1^
• * >
CO ON 1-4
vO CM
sf <r eg
• < «
>d" C3N vD
m CO
C3N
o o o
m
• * «
c^
vo m ON
'-^
VO CNJ
ca
CO
0)
u
<3 'O
C
CO
W CO
CO
(U
C hJ
<u
i>l
9J
a
<:
B <u
>
(U 4J
H
00 CO
CO >
J2
C tH
4J
CO u
o
S f^
eci
i
CO
>4
Xi
c
o
•H
■Ul
CO
N
•H
(U
oq
c
•1-4
CO
&
CO
u
■u
c
3
l4-(
o
■u
c
(U
o
(U
(14
Xi
CO
fS
vO
u
vO
•
•
o
a^
<J\
CO
CQ
T-t
CN4
CO
o
m
VO
r-N.
•
•
c^
CO
r-t
1— t
CO
-<t
VO
vD
<3N
r>- CO
• •
>-* CO
CO CO
CO o
• •
vO r-*
• •
in m
• •
o vO
in m
o
CM >d-
r*-
• •
C7N
O -^
i-i
CM •-<
CO
CO
0)
;-«
<
4J
CO
CO <!■
c
VO
• •
Si,
cr>
m CM
B
i-i
r-t i-»
d)
tc
CO
G
CO
S
vO
r^ r^
VO
• •
ON
r>. ON
I-<
T-l
CO
>-
»^
I-I
<u
o
■u
6£
c
(U
3 CO
4J
W U
CO
(U
O
•U 4J
C C
u
CO 3
(U
CO a
•u
CO
fl
(U r-t
3
JS r^
«
ph <:
o
c
3
O
00
(U
c
3
0)
B
CO
O
CO
o
c
o
■u
N
•H
t-l
•1-1
»
c
CO
1-3
CM
0)
CO
H
^-i CO
o a> -u
•o o
■M -H H
a> (u >-i
u 4J a>
M CO 4J
(U 'U C
p4 CO a
J3
O
c
CO
k3
0)
CO
>
•r^
o
CO
u
>^
<u
cu
X)
■u
a
c
3
3
Z
«
0)
CO
CO
0)
<
c
0)
CO
c
CO
u
V4
<u
Q)
XI
4J
B
c
3
3
:z
»
c
0)
o
M
CO
U U
XI -u
S c
3 3
S PC
c
3
O
o
CM
CM
o
00
00
CM
C7>
1^
O
CT»
CX)
vO
CM
00
CM
CO
V4
U
1-4
(l>
d)
r«>.
cn
\o
r-*
r^
NO
CM
<t
a\
CO
JQ
4J
rH
CM
CM
en
CM
CM
CM
u
E
c
o
H
Z
s
en
ON
en
Cvl
CT\
CM
O
en
Cn|
o
vO
O
o
m
vo
en
CM •-<
p-4 <!■
o
o
vO
f-i CO
m
»r»
CO
en
CM
ON
vD
cn
o
vO
CM
in
Cn4
00
CM
\D
C3N
en
NO
ON
NO
o
o
en
o
O
ON
un
00
un
o
o
00
00
C3N
CM
CM
en
(3N
en
en
00
NO
en
C3N
en
00
CM
ON
CM
en
CO
en
o
o
CM
NO
o
o
in
en
CO
o
o
o
o
C3N
00
o
C>4
un
en
NO
CNJ
lO
CO
o
o
eg
NO
•-n
00
ON
00
CO
v
T-l
<U
0)
«
■U
)^
Xi
U
C3
V4
a>
<u
J3
(U
CO
•fH
r-i
•H
a
•H
CO
^
^
■u
4J
4J
x:
o
r-l
d)
^
<u
o
i-t
3
en
CO
CO
4J
CO
><
-^
-o
CO
i-i
3
O
o
0)
C
^
CO
cu
(U
s*
B-
-o
4J
^-1
I
()
i-i
u
•i-l
^
CO
CO
s
6
'V
c
u
i-i
CO
0)
u
3
CO
;^
CO
CO
•r-i
CO
o
1-4
o
PQ
PQ
PQ
C5
w
|x<
A
X
S
2!
z
Ph
:3
■u
CO
c
■u
3
o
(U
O
H
}-l
o
o
<U
ti
(U
•o
c
T-l
T3
o
5
a>
<u
4J
c
■u
c
CO
CO
3
J3
■u
a
4J
CO
W-35-R-13:I-l
of the 112 reporting hunters utilized both categories of
land, 39.3 percent utilized only private land, and only
7,1 percent utilized only management areas. This method
of presentation shows a greater degree of dependence on
the "both" category. County-wide breakdowns were not made
in previous years so comparisons cannot be made. Data
from this segment, however, does indicate an increased
awareness of wildlife management areas.
If land utilization data are presented as the number of
trips to each land category, per county, by small game
hunters (Table 13), it is evident that private land draws
the greatest number of hunter trips. For statewide totals,
223 hunters reported 1369 trips to management areas, a
mean of 6,1 trips per hunter, whereas, for private land,
369 hunters reported 4473 trips, a mean of 12.1 trips per
hunter. The mean number of trips per hunter, regardless
of land ownership, was 9.9, a slight decrease from 1968
(10,8 trips per hunter).
Land utilization patterns were also determined for pheas-
ant hunters, and are presented in Table 14. Again, the
greatest percentage of those sportsmen hunting in more
than one county utilized both private land and management
areas (46.0%). This is, however, a lesser figure than for
small game hunters as a whole (53, 6%) . This may possibly
be because of the diversity in habitat of the various small
game species, requiring the general hunter to cover more
area. The pheasant hunter may have his favorite covers,
whether on management areas or private land, which he hunts
faithfully. Familiarity with stocking schedules could also
cause a hunter to prefer a certain location, as this know-
ledge may increase his chance of success.
Table 15 presents the number of trips by pheasant hunters,
by county and land ownership. Less disparity is noted in
these totals than in those for general small game hunters.
For pheasant hunters, there was a mean of 5.5 trips per
hunter on management areas, and 7.6 trips per hunter to
private land. The statewide total for all pheasant hunt-
ers was 6.7 trips per hunter.
A third special question concerned hunters who utilized
state wildlife management areas. These sportsmen were
asked to list the one area they used the most. Replies
(Table 16) were received from 242 hunters, of whom 41 gave
an unidentifiable answer, or listed a non-state area,
(A response indicating the town in which a state area was
located was considered equivalent to listing the actual
name of the area.) The remaining 201 hunters indicated
using 28 state wildlife management areas. The greatest
number of responses was received for >fyles Standish (20),
Knightville (18), and Birch Hill (15), while only one hunt-
er responded for each of seven other areas. Visual examina-
tion of the list shows that the areas with the greatest
number of responses are generally the larger, more well
o
0^
a
•I-l
JC
CO
5-1
0)
c
73
c
CO
d
O
»^
CO
o
■u
c
3
CO
O
CO
•E
o
0)
CO
1-4
ca
H
««v.
u
CO
0)
D- 4JI
•H
c
>-l
3
H
W
CO
r-t
CO
■P
o
u
H
<D
CO
JO
a
>,
B
•H
3
^
3
O
o
»4
<U
(U
T-t
■u
Ou
c
a
3
CO
S
CO
CO 0)
a u
•r« C
M 3
H W
10
c
CO
hJ
M
(U
CO
(U
JQ
a
4J
B
•H
CO
3
l-l
>
Z
H
•H
u
Ph
^
(U
0)
r-t
4J
O.
c
B
3
CO
a
CO
CO
(U
<
C5
O
B
<u
CO
C
CO
a
H
•i
3
C
3
CO
a.
}^
H
c
3
ta CO
a
B
CO
■u
C
3
O
CM
i-l
00
o
CO
r^
CM
r-l
r^
CO
I-l
VO
VO
-<r
CfN
•
CO
r-t
o
o
CM
C3>
<!•
r>.
00
r^
00
I-l
00
r^
O
r-l
T-4
(JN
r-4
00
r-l
CO
CM
CO
VO
CO
o
CM
CO
O
m
00
CM
»n
f-i
CM
o
CM
CM
VO
f-l
CO
in
m
r-l
CO
ON
r-l
O
00
r-l
T-l
CO
ON
T-l
CM
<r
CO
m
CM
CM
CM
CO
I-l
in
*
O
CO
CM
r-l
CO
O
T-l
in
m
T-l
r-l
r-l
o
I-l
c-J
(JN
in
CsJ
r-*
00
CD
CD
r^
O
T-l
in
CO
CJ>
-vJ-
in
vD
T-1
O
t-H
r-l
1— 1
1— 1
«-i
O
CM
CM
rH
<r
CT>
G\
o\
00
r-l
00
CJ\
CM
rH
rH
CM
I-l
CM
t-i
T-t
I-l
t-l
CM
cr»
CM
O
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
00
I-l
o
o
CM
vO
CM
§
r-l
00
CM
00
VO
o
VO
I-l
CO
1-1
r-l
CM
r-l
I-l
CO
*
r-4
CM
CM
CM
as
CM
CO
ON
O
CO
o
VO
CO
o
f-l
ON
VO
CO
CO
CM
•
T-l
•
vO
•
I
c^
•
O
•
CO
•
1
o
•
•
m
•
C3N
•
T-l
•
vO
I-l
00
m
CM
•<r
CO
r-l
m
CO
•sj-
vO
CM
r-l
I-l
CO
■
1
VO
CM
o
CM
§
•
r-i
CO
CO
r-l
CM
CO
00
CM
CO
ON
VO
CO
I-l
O
f-l
ON
o
CO
CM
o
o\
m
CM
I-l
o
1-4
«n
CM
r-l
m
VO
CO
CM
CM
0)
rH
<u
jQ
u
CO
n-l
I-l
u
tC!
o
CO
CO
■u
C
^
CO
U
u
•H
CO
0)
U
m
m
FQ
CO
CO
>^
rH
•u
CO
CJ
4J
3
o
0)
O
H
Vl
u
0)
X
■p
u
o
0)
C
VI
0)
0)
tC
a>
6
(U
»©
•rJ
d
•H
CO
X
^
■M
+j
c
•rl
r-l
<u
,£3
o
u
;-!
3
CO
•o
o
?
X
•^
■o
CO
I-l
3
o
2
(U
(U
S
V
S-
&
•x>
u
IW
1
u
4J
c:
4J
CO
CO
B
B
•V
0
u
M
c
CO
CO
CO
U
CO
CO
•rl
CO
o
I-l
o
3
j3
JJ
M
fu
W
X
s
s
s
(U
rs
3J
JJ
CO
o
>
C
9
O
U
(0
0)
I
ti
(d
to
I
o
•t-l
cd
N
•rl
r-»
•i-l
4J
C3
■s
RS
i-l
H
O
CO
TJ O
•r-) H
o
<u
«d
CD
■U
c
CO
M U
I— < (U <U
CO ,Q 4J
+J S C
0 3 3
H Z 33
d
<u
u
P-i
J3
o
PC)
CO
M
i-<
<u
<u
^
JJ
B
c
3
3
S
w
c
CO
(U
to
>
•H
c
Qi
U
!^
(U
col
3 3
CO
CO
0)
<
a
i
CO
C
c
0)
CO
}^
u
o
<u
J3
w
c
p
3
» P5l
r>^
1-4
<^
in
00
CO
4
CO
f-i
9
vd-
%
00
CM
<7N
VO
CD
CO
m
ȣ>
o
CO
o
in
vO
r^
o
CM
r-
00
1-1
VO
CM
o
o
r-l
<3N
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
o
CM
CO
CsJ
00
CM
CO
C7\
CM
.-1
O
O
r-i
vO
CO
<f
CO
O
o
0
o
0
O
4
o
0
r^
o
9
o
9
CO
vO
O
m
in
n-i
CM
o
in
o
in
CM
CO
f-l
in
CO
o
o
CO
CO
VO
CO
VO
CO
CO
en
CO
V£>
o
m
r-l
o
in
CO
o
r-l
o
o
ON
CM
VO
vO
CM
r-l
•
CO
•
•
o
•
o
o
I-l
CO
•
CNj
♦
o
o
o
•
o
CO
•
CO
CO
•
o
•
o
o
I-l
o
•
o
o
1-1
+
CO
«
CO
CO
CM
•
CO
CM
O
•
r-l
CO
•
VO
m
0\
t-i
CM
c\
CO
CM
I-l
CO
I-l
00
•-I
CO
ON
CTi
O
CM
1-1
1-1
ON
•
CM
CO
«
cn
en
•
CO
o
«
o
CO
*
CM
o
•
o
O
•
in
•
00
o
o
o
•
o
o
•
o
+
CO
•
CO
CO
CM
*
m
CO
o
CO
r-l
CM
•
o
CM
vO
r^
CM
o
(Ti
o
CO
CM
o
o
o
c^
CM
CO
T-l
VO
CO
Js
I-l
4J
to
c
4J
3
o
p^
<u
O
H
4J
(U
S-i
u
c
I-l
<U
<u
w
u
J-l
o
(U
3
^
U
fi
^1
(U
0)
^
<u
s
0)
•o
O
CO
•H
r-l
•r-l
c
1-1
CO
^
X
■u
■u
2
T-l
O
■u
rC
O
I-l
<u
JC
<u
c^
^
3
CO
"O
o
B
CO
CO
u
CO
X
^
•o
05
r-l
3
O
O
a;
0)
C
^
CO
(U
<U
s-
s*
-o
■u
I4W
t
(J
4J
c
4J
u
u
•I-l
X
CO
CO
S
a
TS
C
M
i-l
CJ
CO
(0
CO
(U
b.
3
CO
u
CO
CO
•^
CO
O
1-1
0
3
j:
4J
PQ
PQ
PQ
Q
W
(^
w
W
S
S
S
(Ih
:s
W
u
CO
o4
•H
CO
«D
C
§
3
N
§
o
o
»-l
m
u
Q>
■M
a
s
(0
o
.o
CO
a|
•H
H
m
o
in
«.^
>^i
0}
(U
a -ui
•i-(
c
^
s
CO
t-l
o
H
■u
c
3
O
O
(U CO
U 0)
QJ 1-4
■U Ou
S CO
■x^
»4
CO
0)
Cb 4Ji
•1-1
d
!-l
3
H Wl
•o
C
(0
•-I
u
CD
CO
<u
^
a
■u
g
•H
to
3
U
>
S
H
•H
»^
i:^
J-i
0)
0)
r-4
■u
O.
c
e
3
CO
EC
en
CO
cd
<u
d
i
o
CO
d
CO
•*.^
!-i
CO
CU
D. Ul
•H
d
^4
3
H
S
0) CO
M
O
<U
r-i
4J
a
d
S
3
CO
PS
CO
00
r-*
r-<
m
m
o
r^
CM
ON
CO
o
00
00
VO
r^
in
f*-
vO
m
r^
CM
■vt
r>.
vO
CO
VO
m
r^
VO
vO
CTv
in
00
f— 1
i-t
r-4
m
CO
CO
00
i-<
i-i
00
f-i
<t
in
CM
m
CM
<t
m
in
<3N
1-1
St
m
CM
vO
c^
m
in
CO
CO
r-4
CM
cyN
CM
CM
CO
m
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
(3N
in
CO
vO
<3N
m
St
CO
<3N
St
ON
>^
r>.
in
o
o
r-
r-l
<T>
CO
o
St
O
m
VO
m
in
VO
m
o
i-t
CM
m
r>.
r^
CO
VO
in
00
00
•
St
■vt
l-l
f-i
r-l
o
<t
CM
CO
ON
•<t
r-l
CM
CM
CM
m
CM
m
CM
ON
VO
en
ON
CM
1-1
CO
CM
CM
00
CM
CM
CM
CM
<t
CM
CO
1-1
CM
CO
CM
CO
a\
r-4
VO
St
VO
00
00
CM
•
1-1
•
CT.
•
St
1
O
•
■
•
CM
•
CM
•
CO
1
I
•
•
CO
m
•
m
CM
in
1-1
1-1
CO
1
ON
i-«
i-i
1
I-I
CM
00
CO
CM
CO
•
■
CO
o
i>»
00
CO
CO
CO
CM
o
r-l
1-1
cr^
s
l>x
o
CM
o
00
m
o
1-1
o
o
CO
1-1
o
m
ON
m
o
o
CM
^
(U
d
t-l
v
3
ja
u
o
CO
•H
1-1
u
•u
j:
o
CO
CO
w
CO
c
^
CO
<U
U
u
•H
•§
Cd
Q)
U
PQ
m
w
Q
X
^
Q)
d
CO
CO
CO
u
W
Fm
«9
>.
iH
■u
CO
d
4J
3
o
(U
o
H
<u
ii
u
^
o
u
<u
d
u
1-t
0)
CO
^
■u
<u
■u
a
01
•o
CO
0)
3
I-I
o
3
O
CO
o
CO
CO
1
&
-a
4J
d
4-1
I
d
CO
CO
£
■s
CO
O
1-4
o
s
■u
Table 16. Wildlife Management Areas Utilized by Small Game Hunters. 1970.
Percent of Total
Area No. Hunters Indicating Use Using Management Areas
Barre Falls
Birch Hill
Canada Hill
Crane
Crane Pond
Fort Devens
Four Chimneys
Freetown
Harold Parker Forest
Hodges Village
Housatonic Valley
Hubbardston
Knightville
Mill Creek
Myles Standish
Northeast
Otis Air Force Base
Pantry Brook
Peru
Quaboag
Stafford Hill
Swift Pviver
Westboro
West Hill
West Meadows
Williams town
Winimusset
Wompatuck Park
Unidentified
Total 242 100.0
14
5.8
15
6.2
1
0.4
13
5.4
10
4.1
3
1.2
1
0.4
9
3.8
7
2.9
3
1.2
1
0.4
6
2.5
18
7.4
2
0.8
20
8.3
10
4.1
2
0.8
1
0.4
1
0.4
7
2.9
1
0.4
8
3.4
6
2.5
10
4.1
16
6.6
7
2.9
8
3.4
1
0.4
41
16.9
p
W-35-R-13:I-l
known areas. This could be due to the notoriety of the
particular area, and also to the proximity of the hunter's
residence to the area in question.
Table 17 compares hunter travel distance, from hometown to
area, as obtained by direct questioning at the management
area (W-35-R, V-1) to distances obtained by postal
questionnaire from this study. The straight line distance
between the hunter's town of origin and the center of the
management area was used as a standard approximation of
travel distance. The mark indicating the location of the
town center was used as a common starting point for all
hunters residing in that particular town. These distances
were plotted in miles on an official Massachusetts road
map, and converted to the nearest whole kilometer after-
ward. The small sample from the postal questionnaire ap-
pears to select against those hunters in the farther dis-
tance groups, and the extensive variation in sample size
between the tv7o methods may preclude any attempts at
statistical correlation. Gross examination of the figures,
however, indicate that the figures obtained by both methods
may represent the actual distribution of participating
sportsmen although data for several individual areas are
quite divergent. The nearness of the figures from the two
samples is seen for the statewide totals with 71.8 percent
in the 0-32 km range (postal), and 69.4 percent in that
same range (utilization survey).
The final special question related to deer hunting and
antler less deer permit applications. Hunters were asked
to indicate whether or not they hunted deer, and to indi-
cate if they did hunt deer, whether or not they applied
for an antlerless permit. Responses to this question are
summarized in Table 18, Five hundred twenty-five (525)
individuals responded to this question, of whom 179 (34. 1%)
did not hunt deer. An estimate of the number of Massachu-
setts deer hunters can then be derived by multiplying the
346 deer hunters in the sample times the expansion figure
of 124.31 for a total of 43,011 hunters.
Antlerless permits were applied for by 240 (69,4%) of the
346 responding deer hunters. An estimate of the number of
permit applicants may be determined by taking 69,4 percent
of the 43,011 deer hunters, yielding 29,850 permit appli-
cants. This cannot accurately be compared with the actual
number of permit applicants (35,069) as the questionnaire
did not include a provision for those individuals who did
apply for the permit, but did not subsequently hunt.
Table 17. Comparison of Hunter Travel Distance as Obtained from Small Game
Harvest Survey and Hunter Utilization Survey, 1970 .
Small
Game S
urvey
Percent Traveling*
Hunter
Hunter
Area
Sample
0-32
32-80
80-!-
Sample
Barre Falls
14
78.6
21.4
_
503
Birch Hill
15
93.3
6.7
-
1261
Crane
13
46.2
38.4
15.4
465
Crane Pond
10
70.0
30.0
-
261
Freetown
9
100.0
-
-
261
Housatonic Vail
ey 1
100.0
-
-
181
Hubbardston
6
83.3
-
16.7
464
Knightville
18
72.2
27.8
-
253
Myles Standlsh
20
40.0
60.0
-
384
Northeast
10
60.0
40.0
-
736
Swift River
8
87.5
-
12.5
462
West Hill
10
90.0
10.0
-
497
Winimusset
8
75.0
25.0
-
448
Hunter
Ut
ilization
Sur
vey
Pe
rcent Travel
in^
0-
32
32-80
80-1-
84.3
12.5
3.2
77.3
14.6
8.1
32.0
32.0
36.0
62.5
37.5
0.0
97.7
2.3
0.0
98.3
0.6
1.1
75.0
23.7
1.3
75.5
24.5
0.0
33.6
62.8
3.6
35.2
64.7
0.1
95.2
3.7
1.1
93.6
6.2
0.2
69.4
30.6
0.0
Totals
142
71.8 25.4 2.8
6176
69.4
25.5 5.1
* Distances are expressed in kilometers,
0-32 KM = 0-20 miles
32-80 KM = 20-50 miles
SO-:- KM = 50-{- miles
Table 18. Breakdovm of Responding Deer Hunters as to Antler less Permit
Applications. 1970
Hunter Category
Hunted Deer -
Applied for Permit
Hunted Deer -
Did Not Apply for Permit
Hunted Deer -
Permit Status not Stated
Number
Responding
240
103
Percent
of Responding
Deer Hunters*
69.4
29.7
0.9
Percent of
Total
Respondents
45.7
19.6
0.6
Did not Hunt Deer
Totals
17,9
525
100.0
34.1
100.0
* Responding deer hunters = 346
b
W-35-R-13:I-l
Recommendations I 1, An inherent disparity in this job is the negative bi-
nomial distribution of the harvest data. This precludes
any valid analysis by standard statistical techniques.
There are, however, some corrections vhich can be made to
increase the usefulness of this job as an indicator of the
harvest trend of small game species. These corrections
include;
a. Draw the sample entirely by machine in order to
get as near a random sample as possible.
b. Have sample drawn and questionnaires prepared at
least two months prior to anticipated mailing
date. This will allow more time for cooperating
agencies to prepare questionnaires, and will lessen
any delay at the required mailing date,
c. Questionnaires should be mailed promptly on 1 March,
at the close of the rabbit season, in order to
lessen the impact of respondents' memory bias.
d. Questionnaires should clearly stipulate desired
seasonal limits for those species (rabbits, fox)
for which seasons carry over from one year to the
next,
e. Special questions should be worded so as to include
all potential classifications of response,
f. Inherent biases in sampling procedure and expansion
technique indicate a slight probable gain from
sampling species with a low harvest rate. As an
example, the estimated harvest of 492 bobcat is
unrealistic (trapper returns indicate a lower take),
and the sample is so small that an included error
of one bobcat could change the expanded harvest
total by 127 cats,
2, The next segment of this job should be conducted in 1973
using a hunter sample from the 1972 licensees. Corrections
described in (1) above should be implemented,
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by_ ____^
James E. Cardoza, Assistant Game Biologist
Date
state
Cooperator
Project No.:
Job No, :
Period Covered:
Summary:
DGRESS REPORT
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35'R-14 Project Title
II-l
Job Title:
Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Statewide Deer Harvest
8 November 1971 to 11 December 1971
Governmrnt Documents
Collection
JOLl 21972
oc .
Archers harvested 36 deer (26 males and 10 females) dur-
ing the two-week archery season, November 15 through
November 27, 1971. The harvest by archers has been
constant since 1968,
The following type and number of antler less permits were
issued by the Director: Mainland sportsmen, 6000;
Nantucket, 400; Martha's Vineyard, 600 and farmer -
landowner, 270.
During the six-day shotgun deer season, December 6 through
December 11, 1971, hunters reported harvesting 2248 deer.
Of these deer, 1256 were males and 889 were females.
The top two deer harvest -producing counties were Berkshire
and Franklin Counties. Martha's Vineyard moved from
seventh to third while Worcester County dropped to fourth.
Massachusetts deer hunters harvest 57 percent of the total
harvest of deer on the first and last days of the season.
Thirty-three percent (33%) of the bucks were harvested
on the first day of the season and 23 percent on the last
day. Hunters reported 25 percent of the females harvested
on Monday and 32 percent on Saturday.
A breakdown of the deer harvest for three deer management
units (Mainland, Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard) is pre-
sented in table form.
The statewide success ratio of 7270 antlerless permit
holders reporting the harvest of deer was as follows:
All deer
Males
Females
Females and buttonbucks
(1314) 1 in 6
( 405) 1 in 18
( 889) 1 in 8
(1023) 1 in 7
The 1314 deer harvested by antlerless permit holders
represent 58 percent of the total 2248 deer harvested
during the 1971 shotgun deer season.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
W-35-R-14:II-l
Background: The antler less permit system was continued during that
portion of the season in which deer could be hunted with
a gun, December 6 through December 11, 1971. Deer with
antlers three inches or longer were legal deer for all
licensed hunters. Antlerless deer were harvested only
by permit. Three deer management units were established.
The number of sportsmen antlerless permits issued per
unit Was as follows: Nantucket, 400 permits; Martha's
Vineyard, 600; and the Mainland, 6000. Regulations re-
quire all deer harvested during the open season must be
reported at an official Division deer checking station
within 24 hours.
Objectives: To determine the annual harvest of deer in Massachusetts.
Findings: Table 1 presents a ten-year summary of the annual deer
harvest per town by county from 1962 through 1971, The
years 1962 through 1965 were years of voluntary report-
ing of deer by hunters. The six-year period 1966 through
1971 were years of compulsory deer reporting by success-
ful deer hunters.
Successful deer hunters reported taking 2248 deer during
the shotgun season, December 6 through December 11, 1971.
Of these deer 1256 were males and 889 were females.
Archers reported harvesting 26 males and 10 females, a
total of 36 deer during the two-week archery season,
November 15 through November 27, 1971 (there is no Sun-
day hunting in Massachusetts),
The distribution of the 1971 archery season harvest by
sex, town and county is shown in Table 2,
Deer were harvested by archers in eight of the fourteen
Massachusetts counties. Berkshire, Franklin and Hampden
Counties account for 72 percent of the total reported
deer kill.
Table 3 presents a summary of the 1971 shotgun deer
harvest by sex, county and the rank of importance to the
deer harvest for a three-year period. It is evident
(Table 3) that the top deer harvest-producing counties,
namely, Berkshire and Franklin Counties, have remained
unchanged for the past three years,
A significant change in rank was noted for Dukes County
moving from rank Number 7 to rank Number 3. This change
moved Worcester County to rank Number 4. It should be
noted that there was a substantial increase in the number
of antlerless permits issued for Martha's Vineyard only,
(There were 600 Martha's Vineyard only antlerless permits
issued in 1971, Previously, Dukes County was included in
the general statewide sportflmen antlerless permit allot-
ment • )
W-35-R-14:II-l
Another significant change in rank was Hampshire County
dropping from position Number 4 to Number 8. The reason
for change in rank has not been determined. A look at
Hampshire County kill per town (Table 1) shows that the
harvest in the key towns of Belchertown, Chesterfield,
Pelham and Worthington were considerably lower than the
previous year.
Table 4 presents a summary of the deer harvest per day of
kill during the shotgun season, December 6 through
December 11, 1971.
The data presented in Table 4 show that 57 percent of the
deer harvested were taken on the first and last days of
the six-day deer season. Twenty-six percent of the deer
harvest were taken on the second and fifth days of the
shotgun week. The middle or third and fourth days of
the shotgun season indicate the lowest hunting pressure
days with only 17 percent of the total harvest.
A comparison of the harvest per sex per day shows complete
reversal with 33 percent of the bucks taken on Monday and
23 percent on Saturday, The harvest of females was 25
percent on Monday and 32 percent on Saturday. It would
appear that the deer hunters in 1971 did not attempt to
fill the antlerless permits until the last day of the
deer season.
Table 5 presents a summary of the Massachusetts deer har-
vest and hunter success per type of antlerless permit
from 1967 through 1971.
The deer harvest by Massachusetts archers appears to have
stabilized at 36 deer per year as seen in Table 5,
Archers show a preference for male deer as the buck
harvest is roughly two thirds of the total annual kill.
The rutting period occurs concurrently with the archery
season which may also account for the availability of
the bucks.
A breakdown of the 1971 deer harvest per management unit
shows that 1872 deer were shot on the Mainland, Of these
965 were antlered males, 183 buttonbucks and 724 females.
On Nantucket Island, hunters reported 163 deer, of which
64 were adult males, 29 were buttonbucks and 70 were fe-
males. The harvest on Martha's Vineyard was 213 deer.
Of these, 77 were antlered bucks, 41 were buttonbucks,
and 95 were females. Statewide, the total deer harvest
was 1359 males and 889 females for a total of 2248 deer.
A summary of the statewide deer harvest during the shotgun
season from 1967 through 1971 shows that the male harvest
increased from 937 bucks in 1967 to 1605 males in 1970.
The 1971 harvest of 1359 males was 246 deer (-15.337.)
lower than the 1605 bucks reported in 1970. The female
harvest has shown an increase annually from 235 does in
1967 to 889 females in 1971.
Table 2.
The
1971 Massachusetts Arc
hery
Season Deer
Harvest by Sex, Town,
and
County, November 15 tb
irough
November 27
J 1971.
County
Town
Male
Female
Total
Berkshire
Adams
Lee
Lanesborough
1*
2*
1*
1
2
1
Richmond
1
1
2
Great Barrington
1
1
West Stockbridge
1*
1
Egremont
2
2
Williamstown
1
1
Hancock
1
1
Otis
1
12
1
2
2
14
Dukes
Edgartown
West Tisbury
2
1
3
2
1
3
Franklin
Colrain
New Salem
Leyden
Sunderland
Bernardston
2*
1*
3
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
7
Hampden
Blandford
Tolland
Montgomery
Palmer
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
5
Hampshire
Belcher town
Ware
1
1
2
1
1
2
Nantucket
Nantucket
1
1
Middlesex
Woburn
I
1
Worcester
Hardwick
Warren
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
Total
26 (8 BB)
10
36
* Buttonbuck (BB)
Table 3. Summary of the Massachusetts Deer Harvest by Sex per County and
Rank of Harvest for the Shotgun Seasons 1969, 1970 and 1971.
Rank
Rank
Rank
County
Male
Female
Total
1971
1970
1222
Barnstable
97
35
132
7
8
8
Berkshire
422
257
679
1
1
1
Bristol
1
0
1
12
12
12
Dukes
128
90
218
3
7
7
Essex
12
1
13
10
9
11
Franklin
282
241
523
2
2
2
Hampden
117
58
175
5
6
5
Hampshire
76
43
119
8
4
4
Middlesex
14
10
24
9
10
10
Nantucket
94
70
164
6
5
6
Norfolk
0
0
0
13
13
13
Plymouth
8
2
10
11
11
9
Suffolk
0
0
0
13
13
13
VJorcester
109
1,359
82
889
191
2,248
4
3
3
Table 4, Suranary of the Massachusetts Deer Harvest by Sex per Day, and the
Percent Harvest per Day from Deer Checking Station Data,
December 6 through December 11, 1971.
Mon, Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri, Sat.
Dec. 6 Dec. 7 Dec. 8 Dec. 9 Dec. 10 Dec. 11 Totals
Both Sexes
Total Kill
682
309
234
161
260
602
2,248
Percent
30.34
13.75
10.41
7.16
Males
11.57
26.78
Total Kill
454
214
131
97
150
313
1,359
Percent
33.41
15.75
9.64
7.14
Females
11.04
23,03
Total Kill
228
95
103
64
110
289
895
Percent
25.47
10.61
11.51
7.15
12.29
32.29
Table 5. A Summary of the Massachusetts Deer Harvest and the Hunter Success
by Type of Antler less Permit, 1967 through 1971.
1971 Archery (Nov. 8-13; Nov. 15-20)
Males 26
Females 10
Total 36
Summary of Archery Kill. 1967 through 1971
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
17
21
27
24
26
4
13
10
12
10
Male
Female
Totals 21 34 37 36 36
1971 Shotgun Season (Dec. 6-11)
Males 1359
Females 889
Total 2248
1971 Kill Breakdown per Management Unit
Martha's
Mainland Nantucket Vineyard Total
Males, Adult 965 64 77
Males, Buttonbuck 183 29 41 1359
Females 724 70 _95 889
Totals 1872 163 213 2248
Summary of the Shotgun Statewide Deer Harvest. 1967 through 1971
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
Males 937 1083 1424 1605 1359
Females 235 310 585 764 889
Totals 1172 1393 2009 2369 2248
Statewide Summary of Archery and Shotgun Harvest. 1967 to 1971
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
Males 954 1104 1451 1629 1385
Females 239 323 595 776 899
Totals 1193 1427 2046 2405 2284
Table 5 (Continued)
Summary of Antler leas Deer Permits
1967 1968 1969
1970
No, Applications
(rounded numbers)
Permits issued;
Sportsmen
Farmer - land owner
Nantucket
Martha's Vineyard
Totals
28,000
2,243
2,331
4,695
Harvest by Land owner -Farmer Permit
1967 1968 1969
6,747
1970
Males
Females
Totals
22
65
62
59
Harvest by Sportsmen's Permits
1967 1968 1969
1970
Deer (both sex)
279
356
787
1057
Breakdown of Statewide Harvest by Antlerless Permits
1971
24,000 32,000 35,000 37,500
2,000
2,000
4,000
6,000
6,000
243
331
295
347
270
.
.
400
400
400
-
-
-
-
600
7,270
1971
2
21
17
25
20
20
44
45
34
26
46
1971
1268
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Antlered males
26
50
140
137
172
Buttonbucks
40
61
124
215
253
Females
235
310
585
764
889
Totals
301
421
849
1116
1314
Antlerless Permit Success Rat
io
(rounded)
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Farmer -landowner
1-11
1-5
1-5
1-6
1-6
Sportsmen
1 -9
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
Mainland
1-6
Nantucket
(125
permit deer)
1-3
Martha's Vineyard
(166
permit deer)
1-4
I
*
«
PQ
CO
,-H
o>
CO
r>.
u
Cs»
o
s-^
H
4J
in cr\
<!•
•1-4
CN) 00
r-4
e
>d- CO
cn
u
rH
QJ
P^
CO
CO
/^
(U
O
T-4
r-
/"-N
u
CM
■?<
0)
s^
PQ
1-1
cq
■u
5-1
c
<U
CO
<
^^
^-1
O
O vO vO
0
CO
CM eg <r
(U
a
hJ
>
H
»^
<u
a
o
CO
o
CO
VD
0)
s-/
o
u
T)
/-N
3
!>J
*
CO
CO
m
>.
PQ
(^
0)
(U
d
l-l
4J
•r<
<r
c
>
>«-'
3
ffi
CO
i-i in o
~
r«. ON vo
(U
CO
tH
^
ja
4J
TD
CO
C
S
CO
■U
CO
o
>
)^
o
CO
o
y>.
K
<r
•a
>— '
PQ
!^
PQ
(U
4J
CD
<u
C5\
Q
A5
CVJ
o
>*x
CO
3
■u
4J
in o m
■u
c
m r* CM
<D
CO
r-<
CO
S
3
s:
V
CO
CO
CO
/-N
CO
o
/"^
s
o
*
o
PQ
1— 1
vo
PQ
p^
s^
Cs
m
I-)
a
r>.
CU
i-«
<u
6
s^
J2
CO
4J
JJ
<T> CO r^
U
r*. CTN r-
^
O
CM VD CTN
o
CL
• •
CO
o
>,
•H
;-i
■U
CO
CO
CO
<3
3
•
en
vO
«
<0
<u
(U
CO ,H
•H
r-l
(U CO
B
X)
<-• a
i-l
CO
J2 S
CU
t-(
:s ;i4
(U
u
vO s^ O
m <r 00
Q)
r-< •-<
CM CO
c
c c c
c c c
o
•r-l •H •!-!
•r-l •!-( •r^
TJ
c
r-l rH rH
r-l r-l r-l
CO
hJ
/^N x-\ /--N
/~\ /"^s /•->
O
vO O «^
CM 00 •<f
r^
^ CM CM
rH CO
CM
S-X "v«^ SiX'
s.^ s^/ v.^
-o
M
CO
>>
o m
<0
<^ 00 vD
CM rH .<J-
vO
00
00 r>.
C
rH
•H
c d d
c c c
>
•r^ -H •H
•H 'H •H
C
C
C C
•H
•H
•H -H
CO
r-l r-4 rH
r-l iH r-l
—
rH
tH
rH rH
CO
/— \ /-N /--S
/'•v ^-\ /-^
Xi
O rH lO
O rH in
4J
vD r«. OX
CO <r CO
1
1
1 1
I-l
tH
1-1
S
V-/ V— / N-'
V— '>»• >— '
(0
rl<S
O
3
o
X>
vD
C
4J
m <!•
A!
u
CO r^ vo
r-l i-H ^
d d d
c c c
3
•rl T^ -H
•H 'H •H
■(J
d
rH rH r-l
rH rH r-l
(0
^
/~\ /"^ /'^
/-N /^\ .^-V
in in o
vc c^ o>
o
CM in r^
CM CM CJN
o
tH
•<r
V-' V^ Vi**
"x^ v-/ v-y
d
CU
vO CM CTi
CO -o-
r>»
CO
■u
CM
ir> CO
d d d
d d
d
^
•H T^ 'ri
•H -H
•H
o
&
rH rH tH
rH tH
rH
CO
/•"s /"^ /•^
/-S r-N
^->
o
r* C7N CO
«d- in
CO
o
rv r-. ON
o r-H
r^
o
o^ csj so
rH rH
CO
\D
>.• "W >•'
>~' N-^
^^
T?
d
CO
n
0)
CO
CO
(U
(U
CU
'O
CO
rH
rH
<U
CO
CO
tH
rH
S
e
tH
CO
CU
CU
<G
S
fe
Pl4
.'-v
^— N
<^\
.<->
»d-
m
C3N
CO
iH
o
CO
CM
CO
<3-
CO
o
CO
^
O
V
r^-
3
CM
rO
A
d
r«.
o
■u
1
(0
4J
<u
3
CO
rH
.a
■u
CO
CO
•H
6
d
s
u
TJ
3
CO
<u
<u
CO
CU
^
CO
o.
(U
CU
S-i
d
<u
^
CO
r-i
(U
o
r-l
rH
<u
2
iH
4-»
CO
CO
tH
r-l
s
■u
4J
a
-u
rH
CO
<u
d
3
CU
o
<
S
ft*
<:
PQ
Cm
H
CO
3
d
o
u
.!J
3
PQ
I
PQ
PQ
i
W-35-R-14:II-l
As seen in the summary of antler less deer permits, the
number of applications for the sportsmen permits has in-
creased from 28,000 in 1967 to 37,500 in 1971. The number
of sportsmen permits issued per year increased from 2000
in 1968 to 6000 in 1971. The number of farmer- landowner
permits fluctuates annually with lower numbers on the odd
years and high peaks on the even years.
The harvest of deer taken with farmer -landowner permits
shows a decreasing harvest annually from a high of 65 deer
in 1968 to 46 deer in 1971. Twenty~two deer were reported
by farmer -landowners in 1967,
The summary of the statewide harvest of deer by antlerless
permits (Table 5) shows the bulk of the harvest by permits
are, as expected, female deer, A comparison of the percent
of the total per sex for the first year (1967) of the per-
mit system and the 1971 harvest total show a slight change
in the harvest composition. In 1967, the antlered males
made up nine percent of the harvest and in 1971 the
antlered males composed 13 percent of the total. The
buttonbucks made up 13 percent of the 1967 kill by permit
and 19 percent of the 1971 harvest by antlerless permits.
The female segment by permit in 1967 made up 78 percent
of harvest and was 68 percent in 1971.
The success ratio per sportsmen antlerless permit remains
unchanged since 1968 at the ratio of one successful permit
holder in six on a statewide basis.
Recommendations :
Table 6 presents a summary of the deer hunter success per
type of antlerless permit per deer management unit. Due
to the establishment of an added deer management unit
(Martha's Vineyard), the data presented in Table 6 is not
comparable to previous years' data. However, one can
readily see that the probability of a permit holder on
either of the two islands (Nantucket and Martha's Vine-
yard) of harvesting a deer is greater than on the Mainland
or one in three (four) to one in six (Mainland) .
It is recommended that the Division of Fisheries and Game
personnel continue to compile and report deer harvest data.
Prepared by
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H, Bridges, Superintendent
James J, McDonough, Game Biologist
and
William C, Byrne, Assistant
Date
JOB PROGRESS REPORT
State
Cooperators:
Project No, :
Job No,
Period Covered:
Summary:
Background:
Objectives:
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-14
II-2
Project Name: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Job Title:
Non-Hunting Deer
Mortality Investigation
1 January 1971 to 31 December 1971
Natural Resource Officers reported 694 deer mortalities
during the reporting period. Of these mortalities 320
were males, 341 v/ere females. No sex data were reported
for 33 deer.
Motor vehicles (373) and dogs (219) were the two greatest
causes of non-hunting mortalities with 85,3 percent of all
deaths attributed to these causes. In order of importance
the remaining 102 deer mortalities were caused as follows:
others and unknown 41; illegal kills 39; fences 7;
drownings 6; trains 5; and deer killed doing crop damage
4.
January through April were months of heavy mortalities.
The increased kill in November is attributed to the rut
period.
There was a 0.5 percent decrease in non-hunting deer
mortalities (694 deer) for 1971 as compared to the re-
ported mortalities for 1970 (698).
The adjusted sex ratio for the non-hunting deer mortal-
ities for 1971 was 336 males to 358 females or 48,4 percent
males to 51.6 females.
During 1971 Berkshire, Barnstable and Franklin Counties
were the top ranking counties in reported deer mortalities.
Barnstable moved from fourth rank position in 1970 to
second position in 1971.
Deer mortalities investigated and reported by Natural Re-
source Officers were compiled and tabulated. Project
personnel observed wintering areas and/or concentrations
of deer. Dead deer surveys were conducted in areas of
deer concentrations.
To determine the annual non-hunting decimating factors of
the Massachusetts deer herd.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
W-35-R-14-II-2
Findings: Table No. 1 presents a summary of the sex and causes per
month for 694 deer mortalities reported by Natural Re-
source Officers from 1 January 1971 through 31 December
1971. Of the 694 deer reported, 320 were males, 341 were
females and 33 of no sex reported. The two greatest
causes of deer mortalities were motor vehicles, 373 deer,
and dogs, 219 deer. These two causes represent 85.3 per-
cent (592 deer) of the 694 deer reported during the
twelve -month period. The remaining 102 deer, or 14.7
percent, were reported (in order of importance) as fol-
lows: others and unknown 41; illegal kill 39; fences 7;
drownings 6; trains 5; and killed doing crop damage 4.
The lov; mortality of 38 deer during January 1971 might be
equated with the extreme, continued low and below normal
temperatures coupled with a covering of deep powdered
snow. There was a considerable lack of movement by deer,
dogs and snowmobiles during this month (January).
A summary of deer mortalities and causes covering a nine-
year period, from 1963 through 1971, is presented in
Table 2. Due to a revised reporting system only the years
from 1967 through 1971 present comparable data.
The number of non-hunting deer mortalities and the percent
change covering the five-year period 1967 through 1971 are
presented in Table No. 3. A significant change in the
rate of non-hunting deer mortalities is observed when the
percent change in mortalities between the years 1967 to
1963 (21 percent increase) is compared to the percent
change in mortalities between the years 1970 to 1971
(-0.5 percent). It was expected that as the herd size
increased, due to the antlerless permit system of deer
hunting, that non-hunting deer mortalities would increase
also, reflecting a corresponding increase in herd size,
Hov7ever, the rate of increase of non-hunting mortalities
has decreased annually (Table 3), This suggests that (1)
there may not be a linear relationship between increase
in herd size and increase in non-hunting mortality, or (2)
if there is such a relationship , then the non-hunting
mortality data indicate a possible decrease in the rate
of deer population increase. The latter has been reported
in W-35-R:II-4.
Table No, 4 presents the sex composition per month of the
deer mortalities and the adjusted sex ratio of deer mor-
talities from 1 January through 31 December 1971. In
order to compute the adjusted sex ratio it was assumed
that the mortality rate for deer of unreported sex was
in the same proportion by sex class as the mortality rate
for deer whose sex was reported. The adjusted sex ratio
of 48.4 males to 51,6 females changed slightly in favor
of the females from the 1970 ratio which was 50.1 males
to 49.9 females.
x
o
<u
'^
CO
<u
c
3
•
►-J
•
is:
0> CO
CM
m
CM
0-)
0^
/— s
J-t
o
(U
r-<
x>
•<f
B
<f ^
(U
CO CVJ r-l
ro
o
CM CM
CO
0)
lO
Q
. .
CM
r^ <j- r-v
CO
as
00
a\
CM
><5
O 0)
S CO
P4
S
CO
O <!■
CsJ
f^
u
ir>
<u
CO
x>
O ^-^
e
.-( r^ rH
CM
0)
CvJ
<r
>
CO
o
<j-
2:
IT) vO CM
1-K
•d-
vD
I— I
vD
o
s.-'
CO
CO
cr\ <T^ vo r^ ir» ^T >— '
<f
CO
4J
r^
»-i CO <!■
c^
<t
o
CO
eg
v£)
00
H
CO
UO
•I-l
O (U
^ CO
Pn
s
vO O^
I-l r^
CO
CO
^1
CM
0)
CO
J3
SsO ^-^
O
CM
4J
to
CJ
in
O
'O
CN)
in
CO
CM
^-s
><
eg
(U
CO
CO
in
<!• ^^
c
m CM
CM
5
CM
O
5
vD
c
m
^
CO
a
o »-« o o o
m CO
CO
X
cr.
o <u
2S CO
x:
o
u
•
CO o>
CO
\M
CM CM
S
•
2
LO CO
ir-l CM
00
1-1
/->«
U
CO
QJ
VD
-Q
CvJ
e
C>J
s_/
0)
-o
u
CO
D.
CM
cu
1-4
f-l
CO
m
CO
CJ\
CM
CO
CM
r^
<i-
(U
Sw'
i-i
CO
m
E
CM
(U
N
covor*«i— icMinor^
00 O CM rH
CO
X!
t-i
o
0)
r-H
>^
s
CO
5-1
CO
3
•
ITI 00
U
fX4
CO
XI
(U
v^
•
r-l in
r-) CO
CM
CM
CO
m
St
CO
o
4J
CO
Ml
3
in
<!■ r-l
-<t CO
m
in»-icM-<t>no<roN
00 Cr> r-l T-4
o
CM
CO
<U CO
CO
A
<u w:
J3 3
4J O
O 4J
to
I5^
U
CO
H 3
i C
3 CO
CO "^
0)
r-l
X
o
<u
^ s
CO
t^
U
CO
•
3
P^
C
CO
»-3
•
in vo
m r>» r-t I-l
CO
CO
CM
CM
m
00
CO
3
CO
O
4J
CO
C
o
<u
k^
H
I-l
I-l
c
<j
r-l
(U O
•
•H
•H
W)
E
X!
5^
2 "5
s
0)
6 C
1-4
CJ
>
r-l
T3
CO CO
CO
>— '
CO
0)
CO
CO
Q
4J
P
t>0
C
<U
G
U
O
r-I
O
CO <u
;5
U
•H
a. a>
4J
CO
■u
00 I-l
5
C
CO
o x:
JQ
u
o
O —1
u
(U
V4
^1 -u
3
o
S
Q M
Q
1^
H
o o
CO
H
3
00
CM
CO
U r-4
A
>
O
o
w
r-l -O
CO <U
bO C
CO <1) S
C30r-4 O
O .-4 V4
Q M Q |J4
CM
i
c
I
bO
CO TD
e c
CO CO
Q
U
Cl, (1)
o x:
u o
CO
o
■u
XI
3
CO
CO
■U
o
H
e
3
O
CO
■u
o
H
CO
v£)
a>
CO
r-4
<!•
(U
O
>*•
CO
•r-l
3
A
vO
CO
<U
CM
U
>
u
o
■u
o
I-l -TS
CD CU
CO (U 5
t)0»-4 O
O .-1 }^
Q M Q
C
Q
c
^
c
0) P
M)
CO TS
E G
CO CO
CO
CO
P
<u
C
u
y
•H
a. <u
c
CO
O J3
<]>
i-4
u <u
(£«
H
u o
w
I-l
CO
u
o
H
r-t
CO
ON
cr>
r^
r*
t-«
en
a\
CO
<V|
CO
CO
u
V4-<
M .1
eg
m
r>.
CO
VD
o
CM
{« OD
CO
o^
CM
CO
CM
i-<
1 >.
CO
m
00 <»
(0
o
o
d
o
w
0)
C4
(0
>-«
3
«J
(U
4J
M
O
D-
CD
oi
<u
(U
Q
CO
■u
(U
CO
3
u
CO
CO
CO
s
cw
o
CO
<u
CO
3
03
CJ
na
C
CO
r-i
CM
'X»
-d-
o
cU
m
in
1-4
vo
4J
>>D
r^
CM
CM
0
«k
H
CM
m
vO
o
<7\
o
<t
to
00
o
o
CM
CO
•<r
CM
r^
o
C7%
(T\
vO
CO
CO
r-i
in
CO
vo
<f
CA
vo
m
I>»
CM
o\
St
CO
f^
<T
CM
CO
vO
CO
VO
<3-
(y\
CO
VO
r>.
<3>
CM
o\
VO
r^
cn
CM
CM
<y\
CM
m
CM
CO
o
o
vo
<f
CO
CM
CM
C^
CM
<f
ir>
o
vO
CM
<^
CT\
CM
CO
CO
CM
eg I
vol
•<i-
cr>
CO
CA
m
-3-
o
CO
as
vo
CM
00
CO
rH
VO
CO
o
CA
CO
CO
CM
vO
CM
in
CO
in
CM
CO
CO
•r-l
CO
VO
l-t
CO
CM
CO
CO
T-i
CO
0^
vo
vO
CM
CM
(0
CO
CM
<u
CO
H
(U
CO
3
CO
CO
<u
o
r-1
CO
u
•r-1
>
U
o
o
CO
W)
O
Q
CO
CO
0)
CO
0)
CO
3
CO
u
C
i
B
'O
Q)
c
CO
CO
3
CO
Q)
a
M
2
u
a
(U
CO
X
Q
JJ
CO
o
T-(
Da
CO
0
1-1
4J
^4
1-4
o
o
<
H
Table 3. A Comparison of the Total Non-Hunting Deer Mortalities of
Massachusetts Deer from 1967 through 1971,
1967
No, of Deer
Percent Change
1968
1969
1970
1971
500 613 \ 632 . 693
\ /' \ / \ / N /
217o 11% 27„ -0.5%
694
Table 4. A Comparison of the Sex of the Actual Number of Deer
Mortalities and the Adjusted Sex Data for 1971* Massachusetts
Deer,
Month
Male
Female
No Sex
Total
Adjusted
Male Female
January
15
22
1
38
15
23
February
48
46
13
107
55
52
March
51
62
10
123
56
67
April
26
26
3
55
27
28
May
14
20
0
34
14
20
June
19
34
0
53
19
34
July
14
10
2
26
15
11
August
5
6
0
11
5
6
September
11
13
1
25
11
14
October
35
24
1
60
36
24
November
53
30
1
84
54
30
December
29
48
1
78
29
49
Total
320
341
33
694**
336
358
* These data were reported by Natural Resource Officers.
** Hunting and crippling losses not included.
Adjusted sex ratio:
336 males
94 males
48.47o males
353 females
100 females
; 51.6% females
I
o
P4
CM
vO
to
CO
00
<n
<f
<r
CO
ot
r^
r>»
vO
C«4
CM
OS
r>.
00
CO
<N
<!•
u-^
<N
CM
o%
00 o
r». rH
CM
ON
CO
VO
to
CO
CO
C^l
O
to
as
r-l
}-4
O
c
CO
c
CO
<U
05
Z)
CO
o
>^
<u
a
r>i
jj
c
3
O
O
CD
a
CO
<y
•H
to
iJ
u
o
p
a
I
c
o
Oi
.!J
iJ
<u
w
o
CO
CO
to
CO
CO
o
H
na
C
C
CO
g
M
C
cu
^
J3
C
4J
P
O
ol
CU 601
O
CO
^
g
O
to
o
C
CO
TO
U
a
<u
ft4
s
B
u
n
to
M
•rH
CO
OS
UO
\o
to
Cv|
o
as
in
in
00
vO
o
m
m
<r
<!■
CO
00
-^
0^
in vD
CO
CO CM
CO
«n
CM
CM
CM
CM
m
CM
CM
CO
v^
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
t-t
r-l
«<f
t>*
M
sf
I-)
■<r
O
O
o
as
>d-
CO
CO
in
m
4-1
r>.
O
i-f
CO
CO
3
rH
<
in
VD
CO
CM
CO
c^
CD
^1
Cvl
CO
CO
u
•-4
Q)
0)
M
S-i
>•.
J3
5^
a
J-!
tu
Xi
4)
+J
to
•r-l
r-(
>i-i
c
•r-l
CO
^
4J
^
4J
s
■U
x:
o
r-4
<u
rC
0)
r-l
3
3
CO
3
W
CO
■u
X
-g
ta
CO
r-l
O
o
o
<U
O
c
^
to
<u
a,
&
-o
M-l
E
<4-l
u
U
;j
}-i
•H
CO
CO
E
E
na
!-i
p^
m
!-i
CO
<u
5-1
to
}.»
CO
CO
•H
O
rH
3
o
«
pq
PQ
W
(K
PS
W
S
S
P^
en
•~r»
4J
<U
^
O
CO
to
3
r-t
(U
JJ
to
^
d
■U
3
to
o
Q
s
H
W-35-R-14:II-4
A summary of the non-hunting mortalities per county per
cause for 1971 is presented in Table 5. Table 5 also
ranks the total number of deer mortalities by county and
compares the causes of mortalities by county.
The three top ranking counties in order of importance
are Berkshire, Barnstable and Franklin (Table 5). Barn-
stable County in second place with 93 reported mortali-
ties has replaced Worcester County which has dropped to
fourth place.
Recommendations :
It is of interest to note that Berkshire and Franklin
Counties rank first and second, in order of importance,
as top deer harvest producing counties in the state;
while Barnstable County ranks seventh place.
It is recommended that deer project personnel continue
to determine the annual non-hunting deer decimating
factors of the Massachusetts deer herd.
Prepared by
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AMD GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved :
Colton H, Bridges, Superintendent
James J. McDonough, Game Biologist
and
William C, Byrne, Assistant
Date
nih>^-
6^3^.2'-[A/'3b-i?ws^;^-3
JOB PROGRESS REPORT
r vy/
State
Massachusetts
Cooperators:
Project No.:
Job No.
Period Covered:
Sunonaryi
,.,\eW>
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
i^^*-^^'
€^-*~
m
.6S^
W-35-R-14
Name : Game Population Trend and
Harvest Survey
II-3 Title: Deer Fertility Studies
1 January 1972 through 31 May 1972
Sixty-three female deer mortality carcasses were col-
lected by Natural Resource Officers and Division person-
nel from 1 January through 31 May 1972, The carcasses
were examined and the age and stage of pregnancy deter-
mined. Fetus and corpora lutea counts were documented.
There were no significant changes in the 1972 reproduc-
tive rates compared to the 1971 rates or the mean rates
for a seven-year period, 1966 through 1972. A summary
of seven years of reproductive data (1966-1972) is as
follows:
Age at
Parturition
Yearling
Two years
Adults
Sample
Size
152
84
181
No. Fawns
Produced
38
119
312
1966-1972
Reproductive Rate
1: .27 (100:27)
1:1.39 (100:139)
1:1.74 (100:174)
1972 Rate
(1: .33)
(1:1.55)
(1:1.69)
Background:
Objectives:
A disproportionate sex ratio of 100 males to 106 females
was recorded for 66 fetuses.
Natural Resource Officers and Division of Fisheries and
Game personnel collected carcasses of female deer mor-
talities from 1 January through 31 May. These carcasses
were taken either to the nearest Division installation
or brought directly to Field Headquarters in Westboro.
Project personnel removed the fetuses and ovaries.
The age of the deer examined was determined by the tooth
replacement and/or wear technique. Fetus age was deter-
mined by crown-rump measurement compared to a table of
known age fetus measurements.
A gross examination of the ovaries was made by slicing
each ovary longitudinally. The number of current
corpora lutea was recorded. No intensive search was
made for corpora albicantia.
To determine the reproductive rate per age class of the
Massachusetts deer herd.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
W-35-R-14:II-3
Findings: During the five-month period covered by this report
(January to May), 63 female deer were examined. Table
No. 1 presents a breakdown of the age composition and
the percent per age class. The age of these deer is
the age at parturition.
Since all the female deer collected and examined for
this report were collected on the Mainland, any com-
parison of data will be based on the Mainland deer herd.
The examination of the reproductive tracts of 63 female
deer mortalities collected from 1 January to 31 May 1972
found that
1, Of the 21 yearlings, seven were pregnant and were
carrying five fawns. Two tracts contained remains of
the embryonic sacs. However, no embryos were found.
2, All eleven two-year-old females were pregnant and
were carrying 17 fawns.
3, Of the 31 adults (three years and older), 26 were
pregnant and were carrying 49 fawns. Three does were
not pregnant and in one doe the fetus or fetuses were
missing. The reproductive tract of one adult was missing,
A comparison of the age composition and the percent per
age class of the female deer checked at Mainland biolog-
ical deer check stations and the female deer mortalities
examined for this report is presented in Table 2.
Although the sample size per age class of the mortality
data might be considered small, there has been a con-
sistency for the past five years with a few exceptions
that the percentages per age class of the harvest data
and the mortality data complement each other. This could
be interpreted within certain limitations that the harvest
and mortality samples represent the female segment of the
Mainland deer herd.
There is no significant difference between the age compo-
sition of the hunting harvest sample and the mortality
sample collected for this report, A chi-square test
total of 1,2952, with 5 degrees of freedom, shows that
the mortality sample was taken from the same parameter
(population) as the harvest or hunting sample.
W-35-R-14:II-3
Table 1. The Age Classification and the Percent per Age
Three Female Deer Mortalities in Massachusetts,
through 31 May 1972.
Class of Sixty
1 January
Age in Years
at Parturition
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8-9
10 plus
Number in Sample
21
11
10
9
4
4
2
1
JL
63
Percent of Sample
33.34
17.46
15.87
14.29
6.35
6.35
3.18
1.58
1.58
100.00
Table 2. The Age Composition and Percent per Age Class of Harvested
Female Deer Checked at Biological Deer Stations (Mainland)
December 1971 and Sixty -Three Female Deer Mortalities Collected
January through May 1972.
Age at
No. in
Percent
Harvest
Sample
of Sample
6 mo.
101
27.15
1-1/2
64
17.20
2-1/2
69
18.56
3-1/2
51
13.71
4-1/2
33
8.87
5-1/2
20
5.38
6-1/2
14
3.76
7-1/2
11
2.96
8-9-1/2
9
2.42
10-1/2-}-
Age at
No
. in
Percent
Parturition
Sample
in Sample
1
21
33.33
2
11
17.46
3
10
15.37
4
9
14.29
5
4
6.35
6
4
6.35
7
2
3.18
8-9
1
1.53
104-
1
1.58
372
100.00
63
100.00
Table 3. A Summary of Corpora Lutea and Fetus Counts for Pregnant Year-
lings, Tt'yo -Year -Olds and Adult Female Deer in Massachusetts,
1 January through 31 May 1972.
Age
Yearlings
Tv7o Years
Adults
No.
No.
Females
Corpora
No.
Pregnant
Lutea
Fetus
Single
Twins
Triplets
7
7*
7
7
0
0
11
23
17
5
6
0
26
57
49
5
19
2
* One pair ovaries missing but assumed that the doe had at least one current
corpora lutea.
W-35-R-14:II-3
Ap.e Class
Yearling
Two-year-old
Three -year plus
Based on the 61 female deer collected from 1 January
through 31 May 1972, the follov^ing reproductive rates
were calculated;
No.
Does
21
11
29
No.
Fawns
7
17
49
Calculated Reproductive Rate
100 does : .33 fawns (1 : .33)
100 does : 1.55 fawns (1 : 1.55)
100 does : 1.69 fawns (1 : 1.69)
Table 3 presents a summary of the corpora lutea and the
fetus counts of pregnant female deer collected 1 January
through 31 May 1972. The seven pregnant yearling does
were each carrying a single fawn. Of the 11 pregnant
two-year-old does, five were carrying single fawns and
six were carrying twins. Of the 26 adult does, five
were carrying single fawns, 19 were carrying twins and
two does were carrying triplets.
Assuming that the three age classes presented in Table 3
are representative of the female segment of the Mainland
deer herd, the importance of maintaining and/or increas-
ing the number of adults is evident. Simply add the
number of yearlings (7) and the number of two-year-olds
(11), giving a total of 18 pregnant females that produce
24 fawns. The 26 pregnant adults produced 49 fawns
which is 67 percent of the total fawn production.
Table 4 presents a summary of reproductive rate data from
1966 through 1972. There was no significant change in
the reproductive rate for any of the three age classes in
1972 compared to the previous year.
The mean reproductive rate for the three age classifica-
tions of female deer are presented in Table 5. There were
no significant changes in the mean reproductive rates per
age class (Table 5).
A breakdown of the sex of deer fetuses per age class of
the dam is as follows:
No.
Sex
of
Fetus
Total
Age
Does
Male
Female
Fetus
Yearling
5
2
3
5
Two Year
9
8
6
14
Three Years
Plus
25
39
22
32
25
34
47
66
The sex ratio of the 66 fetuses of 39 female deer was
100 males to 106 females. This is a complete change from
the expected 106 males to 100 females. The same type of
data seen in Job Progress Report W-35-R-13, Job II-3
showed the sex ratio for 102 fetuses of 61 does to be
100 males to 104 females. The 1971 and 1972 sex ratio
W-35-R- 14:11-3
Table
4.
A S
Jummary of
the Reproduc
:tive Rate Dat
a per Age
Class
of 417
Massachusetts
Female
Deer Mortalities,
1 January 1966
through
31
May 1972.
Y€
sarlings
Sample
Not
No.
Annual
Year
Size
Pregnant
Pregnant
Favms
Reproductive Rate
1966
16
9
7
11
0.69
1967
12
1
11
1
0.10
1968
14
2
12
2
0.14
1969
25
5
20
5
0.20
1970
37
4
33
4
0.11
1971
27
8
19
8
0.30
1972
21
7
14
7*
0.33
Total
152
36
116
38
Mean
21.71
5.43
0.27
Two-
■Year -Olds
1966
4
3
1
5
1.25
1967
10
9
1
12
1.20
1968
12
11
1
16
1.33
1969
16
16
0
23
1.44
1970
15
14
1
20
1.33
1971
16
15
1
26
1.63
1972
11
11
0
17
1.55
Total
84
79
5
119
Mean
12.00
17.00
1.39
Adults**
1966
18
17
1
31
1.72
1967
10
10
0
20
2.00
1968
20
17
3
32
1.60
1969
35
32
3
63
1.80
1970
28
23
5
47
1.67
1971
41
39
2
70
1.71
1972
29
26
3
49
1.69
Tot;
al
181
164
17
312
Meai
n
25.86
44.57
1.74
* Five
(5)
measured fetuses, two
' (2)
1 embryos missing
** Three yej
ars
and older
Tab
le
5.
The
! Mean Repri
oductive
Rate of Three Age Class
if:
[cations of
Mas
isachusetts
Deer, 1966
through 1972.
196
.6-1971
Me<
an
1966-1972 Mean
Age
Sample
Size
No.
Fawns Reproductive
Rate ]
R.eproductive Rate
Yearling 21.71 (152) 5.43 ( 38) 1: .27 (100: 27) 1: .24 (100: 24)
T\^7o Year 12.00 ( 84) 17.00 (119) 1:1.39 (100:139) 1:1.40 (100:140)
Three years plus 25.86 (181) 44.57 (312) 1:1.74 (100:174) 1:1.73 (100:173)
W-35-R-14:II-3
data for 168 fetuses was tested using chi-square. The
test showed that there was not a significant change from
the expected sex ratio 106 males to 100 females.
Recommendations: It is recommended that Division personnel continue to
collect, compile, and report reproductive data pertaining
to the Massachusetts deer herd,
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Prepared by
Approved:
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
James J, McDonough, Game Biologist
and
William C. Byrne, Assistant
Date
JOB PR0GRE5C REPORT
State
Cooperator
Project ITo.t
Job No. :
Period Covered:
Summary:
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R--14 Project Title:
Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
II-4
Job Title:
Management of the
Massachusetts Deer Herd
1 July 1971 to 30 June 1972
The sex and age composition of the state deer harvest V7as
checked at ten biological deer checking stations. The
calculated minimal deer population x-jas 11,571 deer pre-
huntlng season for 1971. There x^as a slight decrease in
the male segment of the deer harvesi: per square mile of
deer range of the mainland management unit. All mainland
counties showed an increase in the female harvest of deer
per square mile of deer range. Fifty-eight percent of
the s atewide deer harvest was taken by antlerless permit
holders.
^^
<^
St'
Objectives:
There was an increase in the overall deer harvest on
Martha's Vineyard which was attributed to the 600 antler-
less permits issued for Martha's Vineyard only, A planned
slight decrease in the Nantucket deer harvest was realized.
The data presented in this report iidicate that the antler-
less permit system of harvesting deer can be an effective
and highly sensitive management tool. An increase or de-
crease in the number of antlerless permits issued for a
deer hunting season will result in an increase or decrease
in the deer harvest two years later. In addition, the
data indicate that it is possible to manage deer on a
county basis of deer harvest per square mile of deer range.
Problem areas within the mainland management unit were de-
fined (i,e,, low reported harvest of deer in the eastern
counties exclusive of Barnstable County) .
A summary of the 1971 deer harvest shows that the adult
male deer kill was 1,106 animals which is 19.73 percent
less than the 1970 harvest of 1,378 antlered deer. A
continued decline in the number of antlered bucks can be
expected for the 1972 and 1973 deer seasons.
Deer herd ma. agement recommendations were presented.
To estimate the size of the deer herd in Massachusetts
and to recommend management techniques.
Publication approved by Alfred C, Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
W-35 R-14:II-4
Procedures:
Findings:
Herd management recommendations will be determined after
examination of factors consisting of sex and age composi-
tion of the herd, reproductive rates, average removal
rates, hunting pressure, and deer kill per square mile of
deer range .
During the 1971 shotgun deer hunting season, biological
data (sex and age) was collected at ten deer checking
stations. Table 1 presents a summary of the sex and age
composition data collected per management unit, expanded
to estimate the 1971 reported harvest,
A summary of the sex and age composition of the deer kill
reported at the biological deer checking stations from
1967 through 1971 (1971 was the first year that biological
data were collected on Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard) is
presented in Table 2,
Table 3 is a sunnnary of the expanded harvest of deer based
on the percent per age class and sex reported at the main-
land biological deer checking stations, 1967 through 1971.
The summary of the deer kill per square mile for all deer
(Table 6) shows that for the mainland herd the rate of
harvest has remained constant at .3 deer per square mile
since 1969. On a county basis, it can be seen that the
harvest in Franklin County increased one-tenth of a deer
per square mile from .7 to .8 deer. Berkshire's harvest
remains the same at ,8 deer per square mile. The remain-
ing counties show a loss of fro : 0.1 to 0,2 deer per
square mile during the 1971 deer season.
The harvest of males (button bucks included) in the main-
land herd dropped slightly from 0,20 bucks per square mile
to 0.18 bucks per square mile. This may appear insignifi-
cant, hoxjever, this is the first downward trend since 1963,
The greatest change in buck harvest per square mile is
noted for Worcester County with a change from 0,2 in 1970
to 0,1 in 1971.
The summary of Table 5 shows a slight increase in the take
of female deer for 1971 on the mainland. All mainland
counties showed an increase in the female harvest V7ith the
exception of Hampshire and Worcester Counties. Both of
these counties presented a decrease in the female segment
of the harvest with Hampshire sliding from 0.2 female to
0.1 female deer per square mile in the harvest. Worcester
County regressed slightly from 0,10 does to 0.06 does per
square mile.
The effect of an increase of 600 antlerless permits on
Martha's Vineyard is evident in Tables 5 and 6. The female
harvest doubled from 0.5 deer per square mile in 1970 to
1.0 deer per square mile in 1971, The male harvest in-
creased from 1.6 males per square mile in 1970 to 2,5 males
per square mile in 1971. The planned decrease in the Nan-
tucket deer harvest can be seen in Tables 4, 5 and 6.
Table 1, Sex and age of Massachusetts deer at ten biological deer checking
stations expanded to include :he statewide harvest for 1971.
I'lales Females
Harvest
Age
No.
Percent
Expanded
Mainland
6 mo.
100
1-1/2
211
45.57
440
2-1/2
103
22.25
215
3-1/2
77
16.63
160
4-1/2
43
9.28
90
5-1/2
19
4.10
40
6-1/2
3
.65
6
7-1/2
6
1.30
12
8-1/2-9-1/2
1
.22
2
10-1/2
563
Total
100.00
96:
Nantucket
6 mo.
27
1-1/2
38
60.32
38
2-1/2
13
20.63
13
3-1/2
7
11.11
7
4-1/2
4
6.35
4
5-1/2
0
-
0
6-1/2
0
-
0
7-1/2
1
1.59
1
8-1/2-9-1/2
0
-
0
10-1/2
0
-
0
Harvest
No. Percent Expanded
101
27.15
64
17.20
69
18.56
51
13.71
33
8.87
20
5.38
14
3.76
11
2.96
9
2.42
197
125
135
99
64
39
27
21
17
372 100.00 724
14
22
12
13
2
3
0
0
0
0
14
21.21
22
33.33
12
18.18
13
19.19
2
3.03
3
4.54
0
«■
0
-
0
-
0
-
Total 90 100.00 63 66 100.00 66
Martha's Vineyard
6 mo.
39
31
35.23
31
1-1/2
41
56.94
41
11
12.50
11
2-1/2
14
19.44
14
16
18.13
16
3-1/2
8
11.11
8
11
12.50
11
4-1/2
4
5.55
4
4
4.54
4
5-1/2
3
4.17
3
8
9.09
8
6-1/2
0
-
0
2
2.27
2
7-1/2
1
1.39
1
2
2.27
2
3-1/2-9-1/2
1
1.39
1
3
3.41
3
10-1/2
0
-
0
0
-
0
Total
111
100.00
72
88
100.00
88
Table 2, A summary of the sex and age composition of Massachusetts deer reported
at mainland biological stations, 1967 through 1971.
Males
Females
Af^e
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
6 mo.
20
61
67
121
100
31
44
76
90
101
1-1/2
167
19G
239
263
211
32
33
55
54
64
2-1/2
122
126
153
147
103
13
28
55
69
69
3-1/2
62
87
98
97
77
13
16
36
46
51
4-1/2
25
35
55
59
43
7
11
24
29
33
5-1/2
10
17
21
21
19
3
3
11
14
20
6-1/2
5
4
14
7
3
1
4
0
S
14
7-1/2
1
0
2
7
6
0
3
2
0
11
8-1/2-9-1/2
1
0
2
1
1
3
3
0
0
9
10-1/2
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
__q
0
Total
421
528
652
723
563
109
146
259
310
372
A summary of the sex and age composition of Massachusetts deer reported
at Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket deer checking stations in 1971.
JtM.
Martha's Vineyard
Males Females
Nantucket
Males
Females
6 mo.
39
1-1/2
41
2-1/2
14
3-1/2
8
4-1/2
4
5-1/2
3
6-1/2
-
7-1/2
1
8-1/2-9-1/2
1
10-1/2
-
31
II
16
11
4
8
2
2
3
27
33
13
7
4
14
22
12
13
2
3
Total
111
88
90
66
Table 3. Expanded statewide harvest of Massachusetts deer based on the percent
per age class reported at mainland biological deer checking stations,
1967 through 1971.
Age
1967 1968
Males
1969 1970
1971
Females
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
6 mo.*
53
61
125
220
183
67
93
172
223
197
1-1/2
372
433
531
602
440
69
70
124
134
125
2-1/2
272
276
340
337
215
40
59
124
171
135
3-1/2
138
190
218
111
160
28
34
81
114
99
4-1/2
56
77
122
135
90
15
23
55
72
64
5-1/2
22
37
46
48
40
6
7
25
35
39
6-1/2
11
9
31
16
6
2
8
-
20
27
7-1/2
2
.
4
16
12
-
7
5
-
21
3-1/2-9-1/2
2
-
4
2
2
6
7
•
>
17
10-1/2
875*
mm
3
1299
0
1378
.
2
235
2
310
586
769
-
Totals
1022
1148
724
* Six-month deer not included in male total.
1
•
U •
1-*
Pf S
CO
»n
<f
CM
rsl
r-l
o
CM
m
VO
r^
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
^
•
o>
i-l
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
O
f-i
CM
iH
t-4 •
Xi
1-4
1**
d «S
60
(7t
9
•-4
O
u
U
CM
CM
r««
vO
ON
m
CO
CO
CO
A
• o
r*.
CM
00
r-l
r»»
o
CO
CO
CM
C7N
u
O d)
S a
ON
<f
CM
r-4
l-i
r-l
r-l
v^
vO
cr>
»-i
u •
Sid
tn
m
lO
CO
CO
CM
o
CM
f-l
O
Xt
•
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
§
r-l
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
f-l
CO
o
u
d^
2.
fl
M
r^
NO
in
I-l
CM
CO
o
o
m
VO
• <U
ON
•>r
o
sr
<!•
CO
•n
CM
ON
o
o
O 0)
<t
CO
I-l
r-l
CM
St
f-H
S Q
r-l
•
M
CO
14
>^ •
•H
0)
Sg
CO
m
St
CO
CO
CM
o
CM
00
CM
■U
C
•o
•
•
•
•
•
»
•
•
•
•
3
I-l
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
CM
O
iM
I-l •
u
o
ON
W CO
^
(U
ON
■u
1-4
r-<
3
•H
o
g
u
\0
CO
00
ON
iTi
ON
r-l
r-l
Csl
00
B
• <u
VO
r-l
CO
CO
CO
cr>
m
O
rv
p*.
>%
(U
O 0)
>d-
CM
r-l
r-l
r-l
CO
r-l
h
S Q
r-4
Ph
10
3
TD
cr
c
01
J^ •
tn
94
0)
as
C>4
sr
>d-
CM
CO
r-l
o
CM
r^
r^
a
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r-l
r-*
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
O
o
r-l
o
■u
f-l •
^-1
CO
00
•H D-
u
S>
SO
Ui cn
o
>
ON
2
vi
r-l
(0
«
J3
J-l
ON
CM
CO
VO
VO
<r
CO
CO
I-l
O
X
• <y
•<t
sf
lO
o
r-l
CO
CO
00
VO
VO
(U
VI
o <u
<rt
CM
r-4
I-l
ON
CO
O
S Q
(U
o
r-^
•o
C}
2d
■p
u •
S
■u
<U -rj
0)
«1< S
CM
CO
CO
r-l
CM
r-l
o
r-l
00
St
A
to
•
•
•
•
•
•
■
•
•
•
X
3
1-1
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
O
r-l
V
^
r-l •
CO
u
rs.
d W
to
R]
NO
|x)
to
ON
•
CO
1-4
to
•»
S
i^
m
ON
CO
m
lO
CM
VO
m
00
r-l
to
r-l
O
• 0)
sr
<*■
ON
r*.
r*.
m
St
CO
VO
m
"O
■U
0)
O 0)
CM
t-l
r-l
CO
CO
r-l
S Q
<u
•rl
s
to
M
m
(U
•
4J
CO
J3
g^a
m
o
r-l
CO
in
NO
VO
VO
in
a\
(U
4J
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c
tJ
0) c:
o
ON
ON
SI-
r-l
r«.
I-l
CO
VO
m
•H
3
«H
• (1) CO
ON
CO
<r
CM
CO
o
l>.
r-l
00
CO
r^
O
C Q lai
en
CM
CO
vO
vn
Si-
CO
w-t
CM
CM
CM
NO
'O
c
>*
tJ
T^
H
3
fH
O
c
1
3
•k
•rl
3
to
§•
CO
O
<C
>,
<U
o
u
o
■w
I-l
Q)
at
u
O
u
3
c
%
s
JQ
U
c
u
<u
•o
<u
J^
f^
■>*
D
Ci
•t-1
•rl
c
•H
■w
c
e
Ji
U
O
-u
x:
I-l
<u
Xi
CO
u
CO
o
c
4J
0)
o
CO
w
•g
•o
0)
<i)
(U
r-l
to
3
0
ca
r-i
C
,!^
^
S'
o
4J
G
o;
4J
4J
to
^
u
^
to
e
a
u
CO
•r4
^
c
4J
u
-«>
CO
<U
u
2.
to
o
to
s
3
to
3
H
«
m
(t4
X
K
IS
M
Q
z
n
*
f
o
as
G
O
O
o
0)
a
c
to
u
Q)
0)
•O
O
0)
s
a
■u
CO
%
u
u
CO
<u
CO
9
.c
u
«9
CO
09
s
V
1-4
§
0)
o
u
CO
0)
1-4
(0
H
0%
O
IN.
ON
o>
so
<3>
00
SO
1^
»4 •
0) 1-4
O (U
0) >r-l
A4 S
"^ CO
>4
O (U
25 O
»4
•1-4 a
W CO
• <u
o V
53 Q
CO
;4
O (U
•H a
W CO
u
* «
O (U
• a> to
cr Q pei
CO
en
o
o
o
o
f-4 O
in
en
CM
CM
00
in
en
CO
en
o
o
o
cr\
o
C7\
cn
o
•^
CM
o
o
CM
o
o
in
VO
m
•<f
00
vO
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
VO
cn
CM
o
vO
o
*
o
m
«
o
in
CO
cn
cn
o
CM
CM
m
m
^
o
o
ON
ON
CM
O
O
O
o
ON
o
o
o
CM
•<f
O
o
CM
O
o
o
o
cn
eg
en
o
ON
o
o
•si-
cn
vO
o
o
en
o
ON
CM
ON
en
CO
o\
cn
•
CM
m
CM
•
i-i
cn
o
VO
•
O
cn
o
o
o
o
r-4
CM
O
CM
O
00
VO
CM
CM
VO
m
CJN
•
•
•
cn
VO
m
iH
00
cn
CM
NO
>•.
0)
u
rH
o
C
Si
U
c
3
eo
1-4
tH
C
O
4J
J=
r-l
<u
u
01
CO
-g
•T3
u
u
CO
S
to
(U
I-I
CO
pq
n
h
US
«
o.
d
o
}4
(U
V4
o
u
a>
•1-4
4J
c
J3
CO
u
m
o
o
S*
u
■u
B
u
CO
S
o
to
S
rs
w
4J
•o
0)
c
^
CO
O
r-4
CD
3
c
O
4J
n-l
X
c
s
s,
to
to
(U
•1-4
JJ
c
3
O
CJ
JC
■u
3
o
I.
t-t
'O
c
CO
o
»4.4
o
<u
to
r-4
CO
CO
to
•H
{•I
PQ
CO
(U
3
f-i
u
C
t-i
I
a
3
O
c
u
0)
■u
CO
to
J2
00
3
O
IN.
NO
ox
to
H
O
CO
ox
ox
(U 'iH
P4 ;s:
V4
(U 'r4
id
CO
o <u
5^ •
0) •H
Pw S
W CO
o o
S Q
3^
•r-l CT
• Q>
O Qj
^4 •
•H a
W CO
O Q>
o* Q OS
CO
u
c
O
o
o
in
o
CO
CO
o
ox
00
o
tn
CM
CO
o
ro
O
CTv
CVJ
o
o
CO
tr>
m
•
•
•
o
CM
<!■
OX
CO
r*
00
CO
<t
xO
t-*
vO
00
c><
ft
in
o
CO
CO
00
o
CO
i>»
o
o
CO
in
o
CO
CO
o
in
CO
o
o
CO
vO
CO
o
00
00
o
CO
m
o
si-
CM
St
O
CO
m
o
CxJ
o
CM
CM
O
CO
CM
O
O
o
r>.
o
C^4
CO
o
CO
m
CM
OX
XO
CO
St
m
CO
CM
cr»
CM
00
t-»
CM
O
CO
m
in
m
Cvl
sr
CM
m
CO
cxi
o
IT)
CM
sr
o
xO
m
o
vo
CM
O
o
in
sr
fxl
o
ox
OX
CO
m
CJX
CO
r*
XO
CXI
«M
O
00
m
o
ox
CM
Sf
o
CO
ox
CM
xO
m
CM
CM
ox
CO
00
ox
sr
xO
05
00
CO
sr
CM
m
CM
o
C3X
m
CO
sr
CM
o
1^
ox
xO
«
O
CO
o
o
CM
CM
CM
xO
CJX
m
ox
sr
00
XT,
o
v£>
m
a\
•
•
f
CO
vO
m
i-<
CO
CO
CM
VO
*
Cu
3
o
r-4
o
0)
u
u
o
JQ
u
c
u
V
•o
«
•r4
n-i
C
1-1
■u
c
d
-u
j:
r-l
0)
X
CO
u
KJ
to
n
■§
'O
(0
(U
o
t-l
CO
c
X
s*
&
u
u
c
o
u
u
VS
s
s
u
CO
•H
1
s
S
u
CO
£
o
4J
u
C
03
CO
C
3
O
u
•u
3
o
PW
•o
c
CO
o
o
CO
o
•-I
'O
0)
CO
CO
o
CO
•H
M
PQ
I
Ou
3
O
$-1
O
d)
■u
CO
CO
W-35-R-14:II-4
Figure 1 presents a summary of the deer harvest by sex
per square mile of deer range per county for a six-year
period, 1966 through 1971, The graphs shov; the sensitiv-
ity of the harvesting of deer usin^ the antlerless permit
system and the value of the harvest calculated on a kill
per square mile of deer range basis. Here it is possible
to compare the six major deer harvest producing counties
and see fluctuations in the deer harvest,
A summary of the Massachusetts deer harvest by shotgun for
a five-year period, 1967 through 1971, is presented in
Table 7. Of the 2,248 deer harvested slightly over half
(1,142) were females and button bucks. The number of
antlered males taken in 1971 decreased 272 deer from the
1970 statewide harvest figure of 1,378 bucks.
Table 8 presents a summary of the percent change in the
adult male harvest and the calculated minimal population
of Massachusetts deer from 1967 through 1971.
Tables 9 and 10 present the adult male and female deer
harvest per square mile of deer range per county in Massa-
chusetts from 1967 through 1971. Both tables make it
possible to compare the harvest of deer per county by kill
per square mile of deer range rather than the total kill
per county. It is interesting to note that in both tables
the changes in the harvest are in tenths and in some cases
hundredths deer per square mile. With data this sensitive
by using the antlerless permit system it is possible to
manage deer on a county basis.
The harvest data throughout this report in dealing with
individual deer herd divisions tends to gloss over some
problem areas within a division or management segment.
The eastern portion of Massachusetts is heavily populated
with an expanding human population which may account for
the low or apparently stable dee\ harvest in Essex and
Middlesex Counties, Hovjever, the deer harvest data for
Plymouth, Bristol and parts of Norfolk County indicate a
definite deer harvest problem. Deer mortality data
OJ-35-R-14, Job No. II-2, Non-Hunting Deer Mortality In-
vestigations) show that deer are beins killed in all of
these counties by cars, dogs, etc. Yet the legal harvest
remains at almost nil.
The established goal is to harvest a minimum of 0..^ bucks
per square mile of deer range on the mainland. In order
to achieve that goal it will be necessary to establish a
large female breeding population. The data presented in
this report strongly suggests that the deer harvest has
increased to a point where more than half the deer reported
were taken by permit holders. The data also show tha^ the
number of adult females harvested has increased annually
as the number of antlerless permits increased, Meam^hile
the antlered buck harvest has started to decrease.
Figure 1, A suiranary of the Massachusetts deer harvest by sex per square mile of
deer range by county, 1966 through 1971,
Male
Female
Total
Berkshire
839.0 sq. mi.
Franklin
649,1 sq. mi.
Hampden
524.3 sq. mi
1,0
(0
•1-4
"•"
\
y
0.5
y
:„.""' -•'
0.0
1 -^ ! H~
66 67 68 69 70 71
Year
Hampshire
431.5 sq. mi.
1.0
0,5
0.0
/
\
-^
66 67 68 69 70 71
Tear
VJorcester
1307.6 sq. mi.
1,0
0,5
0,0 I
s
V _
•
.i 7^
N
66
67
68 69
Year
70
7*1
Barnstable
290
.5 sq.
ml
•
•r*
1.0
^ 0.5
CO
iH
r-t
•H
« 0.0
:\.:-<-
66 67 68 69 70 71
Year
1.0
0
.5
0
,0
■••. * ' ■
-.
"^ • "
■« '■ ■•• •■^
66 67 68 69 70 71
Year
1,0
0.5
0,0 \
y
•^f— ^ — H — ;-
66 67 68 69 70 71
Year
Mainland
6213.6 sq, mi.
Dukes
86,5 sq. mi.
Nantucket
35.9 eq. mi.
6,0
ig
^ 3.0
to
d
0.0
4-
66 67 68 69 70 71
Year
6,0,
3.0
0.0 !
.-. -..^-
66 67 68 69 70 71
Year
6.0
3.0
\
\
t-
■'";■' •• ■ ♦ '
0
0,0
'■•f
f—
:
"■ ■' "' 1
66 67 68 69 70 71
Year
as
M
3
O
U
vO
i-H
H
I (U
M d
O CO
P-( CO
M
CO CO
en u
O 0)
1X4 <U
(£4
3
<3
1^
C
O CO
^-> u
3 3
JJ CO
i-i <U
3 --<
< s
CO
1 0)
1 i-i
<3 CO
S
M
CO
vo »-» tn r«« o
n ci a\ <t f^
CM en vD 1^ <N
•« n av «« «%
CM CM <f vO r>.
CM CO o r^ CO
r^ C^ r-H vo <c
•-< n o CO CM
M #k A «V A
•-I '-• CM CM CsJ
c
f-<
f^ CO t-< CO vo
3
??
vO cr\ f^ CM sj-
CO
ti
rH CM CM
CO
CM
in vD CO
-f <f <r
<f m vo
m o ^ <y> C7k
CO •-< CO vO CO
CM CO m «^ cx>
CO t-4 ir> o CO
lO VO CM CM LO
r-l CM CM
<r CM C3N CO VO
CO CM C3N r^ o
CO O CM CO I-I
f^ CO >;t CO cTs
en CO CM c3^ m
ON o •vf in c^
r>. CO a\ o «-i
so vO vO t^ h>-
Q\ CTi 0> C3> ON
c
M
a>
(U
•o
iM
o
CO
G
O
•H
■U
(0
r-4
a
o
a.
§
•rl
C
•H
s
■p
CO
t-l
3
u
CO
o
-s
CO
■u
CO
>
CO
J3
I-I
§
CJ
ca
00
r-l
a
o
o
u
d
cu
u
u
C
OS
CO I
c o
CO r>.
xi as
O
cy\
O
00 I
C <3N
CO \o
o
(3N
ON
Q) vO
00 9
C CO
CO VO
j:: <3N
CO
VO
ON
^
CO
c
0)
VO
(U
00
1
o
c
r>.
M
CO
VO
<U Xi
C3N
Pm ^ r-i
VO
C3N
VO r-4 CO r-l
O 00 CO r^
•-t CM O lO
M M « n
>-< CM ^ rH
CO CO in CO
f^ vO ON ON
• • • •
ON r^ CM cj
i-< CM CM CM
till
CO Vj- ON <!•
r^ m cjN »H
CO r-l CM o
M M «^ A
p-i m m in
CO CM <}■ CO
O CO CM i-H
VO
O CM r-
ON o r^ in
C7N CO o o
CM T-4 o 00
«v A «% «%
»-< CO <(• r-l
O in C?N r-t
i-< <7\ r-4 O
• • • •
i^ r-4 m m
"M 9 ^ 9
CM o "cr o
CM »-< VO "^
o •s^ ON r^
A «^ A n
»-< CM CM CO
o m CM i^
CO O ON CO
VO
r^ r-l CM
in ON CO ON
!*>> m r-< CO
CO o o •-<
•« «t M
CM CM vO
a
o
C 'r^
O JJ
•H C3
W t-l c
to 3 O
r-4 a. T-f
3 O 4J
a. a. to
O t-l
0< <U 3
iH CU
O CO o
^ B a
CO cu
<u
S t^ <-<
01
4J iJ 6
>
!-< I-I 'H
'H
3 3 C
CO
'O 'O tA
X
CO to S
<u
•O 'O "W
t-l
0) 0) dl
S3
■U -U 4J
c
CO CO CO
r-l 1-1 t-l
4J
3 3 3
1-4
t> O CJ
3
r-l t-4 r-l
-o
CO to CO
<
o o o
Table 9. A summary of the adult male deer harvest per square mile of deer range
per county in Massachusetts, 1967 through 1971,
County
Square Miles
Deer Range
1967
196G
1969
1970
1971
Barnstable
290.5
.14
.15
.20
.28
.28
Berkshire
839.0
.27
.37
.44
.44
.42
Bristol
422.6
.01
.01
.01
.01
.002
Essex
344.4
.03
.03
.04
.06
.03
Franklin
649.1
.27
.35
.39
.39
.36
Hampden
524.3
.13
.19
.24
.22
.20
Hampshire
431.5
.16
.25
.27
.26
.15
Middlesex
503.1
.02
.01
.02
.02
.02
Norfolk
277.3
---
---
.01
-—
Plymouth
544.2
.03
.02
.03
.02
.01
Worcester
1307.6
.11
.06
.14
.15
.07
Total
6213.6
.12
.14
.13
.19
.15
Dukes
86.5
.71
.65
.72
.91
1.01
Nantucket
35.9
1.34
1.56
1.89
2.42
1.78
Table 10.
A summary of the adult female deer harvest per square mile of deer
range per county in Massachusetts, 1967 through 1971.
County
Square Miles
Deer Range
1967
1963
1969
1970
1971
Barnstable
290.5
.03
.02
.06
.10
.09
Berkshire
839.0
.04
.06
.12
.16
.23
Bristol
422.6
.005
.002
.002
-_-
—
Essex
344.4
.006
.003
.01
.03
.003
Franklin
649.1
.07
.11
.14
.15
.27
Hampden
524.3
.02
.03
.06
.06
.08
Hampshire
431.5
.04
.06
.11
.11
.07
Middlesex
583.1
.002
.01
.01
.01
.01
Norfolk
277.3
.004
...
-«.
.004
Plymouth
544.2
.002
.01
.01
.01
.002
Worcester
1307.6
.02
.02
.05
.07
.05
Total
6213.6
.02
.03
.06
.07
,00
Dukes
86.5
.14
.10
.18
.36
.67
Nantucket
35.9
.17
.14
.97
1.67
1.53
W-35-R-14:II-4
The data (Figure 2) show that the results of harvesting
deer by the permit system are not discernible until the
second year after the harvest; i.e., the result of issuing
2,000 antlerless permits i.i 1967 and 1968 show an increase
of antlered bucks in 1969 and the peak harvest of 1970
respectively. The number of antlerless permits issued in
1969 was increased to 4,000 which resulted in decline in
the antlered harvest of 1971. In 1970 the number of
antlerless permits issued was increased to 6,000. In
1971 there were 6,000 sportsmen's permits issued for state-
wide use. It is expected that if the present trend con-
tinues the harvest of antlered bucks will continue to de-
cline slightly in 1972 and 1973,
Table 11 shows the percent frequency ratio of adult females
to adult males pe:. county from 1967 through 1971, The
percent frequency represents that portion of adult female
deer harvested for each adult male harvested.
The effect of the number of antlerless permits issued per
year can be demonstrated. In Berkshire County for the
years 1967 and 1968, the percent frequency of adult females
was ,14 and ,17 respectively. There were 2000 sportsmen's
permits issued during these two years. In 1969 the number
of permits issued was increased to 4,000 permits with the
percent frequency of adult females increasing from .17 in
1968 to ,27 in 1969, Six thousand permits were issued for
1970 and 1971 with the percent frequency of females in-
creasing to .38 females in 1970 and .53 females in 1971,
Simply stated, for every two antlered bucks harvested in
Berkshire County in 1971, there was one adult female
harvested. It might appear that there was an expanding
deer herd in the Berkshires and the .53 percent frequency
of adult females presents a healthy situation. However,
observe the steady decline in the harvest numbers of
antlered bucks from a high of 371 deer in 1969 to 352
antlered males in 1971,
The antlerless permit system not only protects and saves
the female segment of a deer population but the system
saves a number of button bucks. These animals (male fawns)
are as important a segment of the deer herd as are the fe-
males. The button bucks that survive a hunting season and
following winter will prvide the huntable antlered male
deer for the next eight to ten years.
During the 1972 and 1973 deer hunting seasons, it is im-
perative that emphasis be placed on increasing the antlered
male population of the mainland deer management unit. This
increase can be accomplished by a substantial reduction in
the number of antlerless permits issued. The females saved
by a permit reduction will produce fawns the following
spring. The male fawns will represent the antlered bucks
of the following year. Therefore, it is necessary to plan
two years in advance to obtain the resulting increase in
herd size.
•o
c
CO
r^
X
vO
0)
a\
m
n-<
^^
c
<u
•H
a
na
^
<u
CO
0
<u
to
>%
to
1-1
M
<U
to
a,
4J
•jj
£
CO
j-t
<u
01
>
D.
^1
CO
CO
Xi
to
u
r-4
(U
J^-l
0)
(U
ns
i-l
w
c
■p
to
4J
<u
m
w
o
D
^
}-l
y
<u
CO
^
(ft
c
to
3
iS
c
S
r-l
(U
CO
^
4J
4J
O
4J
•
S-l
I-l
O
dl
r>.
x:
ON
>» 4J
I-l
;^
•O J2
y
c
CO
R
CO
3
3
O
CO
0)
:^
00^
<:
CO
4J
CM
r-4
o
r-
r-
cr\
CM
1— <
r^
■^
f^
o
J-t
CO
>
CO
U-i
O
CO
>3-
CO
en
CM
C4
O
CM
lO o
r-l ,-1
spsjpunH
m
en
<2-
CM
CM
CO
IW
■U
o
•I-J
E
9
^
O
0)
S
eu
0)
S^
PC4
P^
O
3
<
Dl
U
PC4
►<
3
B^
C3>
Pl4
3
3^
CO
vO
3
s
vO
D-
►4
3
<
X
H
c
3
O
o m CO v£) r-« ON o
CO m o f^ >:t <r m
• • • • • • •
lo r** f-i ^ csj »-• K.
eg CO 1^ <t CO
cMcMr-<cM(Mncn<3-
00 lO t-« CO o ^o r-*
vO CO to 0> v£» CM r^
CO CO <r CO CM <!■ VO
• • • • • • •
ON CO 0> CO r-l CO vO
CNJ CO ON CO <!•
Ovo<fOr-<r->.<fON
CO vO CNl iO «-4 r-4
CO C^ r-l ft
o
r-« >:f
CO
COI^COr-<vOvOt-li-< CO
C^1CMC0C0C0C^I<S•C0 <}•
• ••••••• •
vOOi-^^fcocvir^** VO
r-l O ON CO «*
cor-<cocovocomcocosr
lOI^ rHirjCN]«-lt-l »-l
CO CM i-< i-t
<^^«ooocoloco CO
r-4r-teMi-tCOt-»CM<J- CO
• «•••••• •
VO CO r-4
1-4 CO CO r-- CO
VO 1-4 CM
<r<t'uri0ocor^i>»
Vt r-4 1-1 CO CJN O
CO CM r-t
<r -sT CO CO in CO CO o
CsJi-ICOi-ICMOeM«-«
• •••••••
0«-<eM<M«;tCfNvOi-i
r-l CO <}•»-•
1-^C0O^-^v00^0NO
•vT CM i-» r«. vO vO i-»
CM r-4
CO
CO
vO
o
vO
vO
o
vO
ON
CO
VO
CO
CO
CM
CJN
rH
CO
CN
uo
vO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
CNI
CO
o
o
o «
u o
•o to i-» o
e B no }^
(Q CO 'i-J O
l-«
<u
^
u
c
TO
1-4
r-4
•H
U
,c
o
1-1
(Q
w
u
Q) C
C
^
CO
u
V4
••-1
(D CO
to
<u
i-l
U} V4
3 r-4
O O
S m
T-I 3
fiH CO
o
to
o
o
V4
o
in
m
o
CO
m
in
ON
ON
CO
CM
m
vo
1-1
1-1
CM
CO
CM
VO
CO
un
CO
Cvl
CO
o
CM
CO
C3N
CO
cr\
ON
vO
VO
03
o
to
u
o
H
O
o
o
o
o
o
CM
to
•r^
6
»-i
<u
^■4
o
o
vo
CO
in
00
ON
CO
CO
c^
vO
CM
\o
CNJ
vO
vO
1-4
cr>
vO
m
o
CM
CM
vO
3
o
u
to
(U
CO
o
o
00
in
m
NO
ON
vD
O
vO
00
m
in
CO
00
vO
CTt
o
tn
vO
m
CO
r-l
\o
00
4J
<U
3
c
CO
;3
CO
u
•rl
6
)4
o
d
W-35-R-14:II-4
Recommendations: The antlerless permits issued by the Director should be
used only in the deer management unit for v;hlch the permits
\7ere issued.
Hunters should be required to transport their deer to the
nearest official deer checking station upon killing a deer.
Fifty to 100 special (landowner issue) permits should be
issued for Naushon Island,
Deer taken on offshore islands should be reported by the
hunter on the island where the animal was shot.
The possibility for the sale of a big game license in
Massachusetts should be investigated. When purchased, a
portion of the big game license would become an application
for an antlerless permit.
Any license sold by the Division of Fisheries and Game
should incorporate the purchaser's Social Security number
on the license.
Once a deer has been through a deer checking station and
tagged, the trunk of a car or the rear window of a station
wagon should be allowed to be closed.
Consideration should be given to the issuance of antlerless
permits on a county adult-buck-per-square-mile-of-deer-range
basis. This should commence with the 1973 deer hunting
season.
The following number of sportsmen's antlerless permits for
the 1972 shotgun deer hunting season are recommended:
Deer Management Unit
Naushon
Nantucket
Martha's Vineyard
Mainland
Number of Antlerless Permits
50-100
400
600
4,000
Prepared by
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved :
Colton H, Bridges, Superintendent
James J, McDonough, Game Biologist
and
William C, Byrne, Assistant
Date
State
Cooperator:
Project No« :
Job No.:
Period Covered:
Suiranary:
x^''. '<^> rQ-
Objectives:
Procedures
9 .OB P.OOP.SS ...OP.
j W -36--/?-/'// t3r-(
MassachupettG
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-14
IV-1
Project Title;
Job Title:
Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Experimental Turkey
Stocking
1 June 1971 to 31 May 1972
The fall 1971 estimated turkey population on seven release
areas totaled 175 turkeys. Populations on individual areas
V7ere as follows: Quabbin-Nex;r Salera, 52; Barre -Oakham, 23;
Douglas State Forest, 36; October Mountain area, 19; To\7n of:
Mt. Washington, 16; Myles Standish State Forest, 2; Kolyoke
Range, 2. Ti/enty-five additonal birds were present in dis-
persed flocks.
Five turkeys were captured by cannon net in New Salera and
transferred to Horse Mountain in Hatfield, Seven additional
turkeys were captured, banded, and released near Underhill
Brook on Prescott Peninsula in the Quabbin Reservation.
Through the courtesy of New York State personnel, seven wild-
trapped Meleagrls gallopavo si lyes tr is were cannon netted in
Allegany State Park, Cattaraugus County, Nex7 York, by the
project leader and a University of Massachusetts graduate
student. Captured turkeys were transported to Massachusetts
and released in Beartown State Forest, Great Barrington,
Berkshire County, Coordination efforts are being continued
so that additional turkeys may be obtained to complete the
Beartown stocking.
To re-establish the wild turkey in the Commonwealth in suf-
ficient numbers to allov? for recreational hunting.
Turkeys were censused by roadside counts, track counts and
cooperator reports, Snovnnobiles were used during the winter
to provide access to the areas and to transport grain for
baiting.
Turkeys were captured using mortar, jet and Thornsberry-style
cannon nets. Captured turkeys were sexed, aged by primary
feather molt and growth, weighed, leg banded, and color
marked with patagial streamers.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
I
I
W-35-R-14:IV-l
Findings: A. Statewide Turkey Populations
Statewide turkey population figures are presented for the
fall 1971 period (Table 1). Winter and spring observations
were limited by the scarcity of snov7 for tracking, follov7ed
by intensive rains with muddy roads limiting vehicular ac-
cess, Quabbin-Nev7 Salem counts are based largely upon
direct observation; whereas, counts on other areas are based
upon screened reports from cooperators supplemented by a
limited number of searches by the project leader and assis-
tants.
Table 1. Fall turkey populations on seven Massachusetts
release areas.
Area Fall Population
Quabbin-New Salem 52*
Barre -Oakham 23
Douglas State Forest 36
October Mountain Area 19
Mount Washington 16
Myles Standish State Forest 2
Holyoke Range 2
Subtotal 150
Dispersed flocks 25
Total 175
* Prior to trapping
Quabbin Reservation -New Salem Populations
Prescott Peninsula in the Quabbin Reservation was the
original release site in the current turkey restoration
project. Twenty-two turkeys from three sources (Naushon
Island, Allegheny Game Farm, and wild-trapped West Virginia
sjlvestris) were released here in i960 and 1961. Popula-
tions remained relatively static through 1965, and increased
slightly following mild winters in 1966 and 1967. Since
then, there has been a trend towards dispersal off the
reservation into surrounding towns.
Turkey populations on Prescott Peninsula decreased follov7ing
the cessation of artificial feeding in the winter of 1970-
1971, Remaining turkeys seem wilder, as they flush more
readily when approached. New Salem turkey flocks continue
to be fed by local residents, and consequently are less V7ary
of man.
H-35-R-14:IV-l
Three known broods were produced in the Underhill Brook and
Mt. Pleasant areas of the Quabbin during 1970. Two more
broods were produced in the West Street region of Nev; Salera.
Later in summer, two of the Preccott broods merged and moved
south on the Peninsula to the vicinity of Mt. Ram. The
third brood was trapped, banded, and released near Underhill
Brook, and was later reported near Andrews-Fisk Hill, six
miles north across Route 202. The broods off West Street
were trapped at Hamilton's Orchards, New Salem, and six
turkeys transferred to Horse Mountain in Hatfield, A mild
winter with little snov; and a good crop of red oak acorns
probably contributed to the V7inter survival of Quabbin
turkeys. Reproductive success in the spring of 1972 was
likely affected, however, by intense rains which may have
chilled eggs and poults.
Cooperators reported turkey flocks near Junket Hill, Pelham;
Dry Hill Road, Montague, and in the Tovm of DJhately. Al-
though these reports are considered reliable, probably
representing dispersion from the Quabbin, fall and winter
searches by the project leader failed to verify their
presence, and they are listed in Table 1 under Dispersed
Flocks,
Barre-Oakham Population
Fifteen turkeys, vjild trapped in the Quabbin Reservation,
were released in Barre in 1967 (11) and 1969 (4). Disper-
sion has since occurred into the nearby tov7ns of Hubbardston,
Oakham, and New Braintree. Decreased populations in 1971-
1972 are probably the result of nest failures in spring 1972.
Only one brood, near Burnshirt Brook in Barre, was reported
during this period. Small flocks of adult turkeys remain
near the Oakham Cemetery and Fairweather Hill in Hubbardston.
Individual birds were sighted near Burrow Brook, South Barre,
and off Sunrise Avenue, Barre, As in the Quabbin, reproduc-
tion in 1972 may have been affected by the unusual amount
of rain during the spring. One nest, near Burnshirt Brook
in Barre, was lost when the hen abandoned due to human dis-
turbance. The eggs were collected, but artificial incuba-
tion proved unsuccessful.
Doupilas State Forest Population
Nineteen Quabbin turkeys were released in Douglas Woods
northwest of Wallis Reservoir in 1968 (12) and 1969 (7).
Turkeys have dispersed throughout the forest, from Manchaug
south to VJallum Lake, One small flock has been reported to
the west in Webster, and a large flock of 25 to 27 turkeys
in the sv/ampy area near Buffum Road in Uxbridge. These
turkeys, as with others of Quabbin mixed-background ancestry,
display little wildness x^hen subject to persistent feeding
by misinformed citizens. One turkey in such a flock V7as
cornered and killed by feral dogs in the spring of 1971.
T'7-35-R-14:IV-l
Holyoke Ran^e Populations
Mt, Tom in the Holyoke Range \jas the final stronghold of the
native Eastern turkey in Massachusetts. The last surviving
bird, a lone gobbler, was shot there in the winter of 1051.
Unsuccessful releases using stock of unknown origin were
made in 1915 and 1918. Recent releases (1964 and 1965) were
made in Granby (3) and Hadley (11), but also proved unsuc-
cessful, probably due to mortalities among the released
birds, followed by dispersal of the remainder. Tv70 torn
turkeys, the first reported since 1970, were seen in Granby
during early winter, 1972.
Myles Standish State Forest Population
Fourteen vjild-trapped West Virginia M. g. silvestris were
released in Myles Standish Forest in Plymouth and Carver in
February and March 1966 and 1967. Individual dispersal oc-
curred almost immediately after release, and the only re-
liably reported reproduction occurred in the spring of 1968.
For the past two years, the only reliable sightings have
been of adult toms, with the last report being in June -July
1971 near Webster Springs Road and College Pond Road in the
southern portion of the forest,
October Mountain Area Populations
Tv7elve adult turkeys obtained from the Allegheny Game Farm
in Julian, Pennsylvania were released off County Road, Town
of Washington in April 1961. An additional seventeen
turkeys, trapped at previous release sites in the Town of
Mt. Washington (15) and the Quabbin Reservation (2), were
released at County Road and near Sandwash Reservoir in
August and September of 1962. These turkeys have displayed
virtually no wildness from the time of their release to the
present, A nuisance complaint by a Becket resident resulted
in ten turkeys being trapped and moved to a forested area
off West Hill Road in Middlefield in February 1968. In
February 1971, ten additional tame turkeys were captured on
the Simmon's property, Washington, using drugged grain.
These inferior -strain turkeys vjere captured to effect their
permanent removal from the range, and were subsequently
donated to cooperating conservation agencies for display
purposes. At present, only five adult turkeys are known
to remain in Washington, and an additional twelve (sex and
age unknov7n) are in Middlefield,
W-35-R-14;IV-l
Town of Mt, VJashington Population
In January 1951, eleven turkeys were trapped near Margaret-
ville, Delaware County, New York, and released on the Vlhit-
beck Farm, Tovjn of Mt. Washington, Berkshire County,
Massachusetts, The population from which these birds vjere
trapped was initiated with game farm stock, but had existed
for' four generations in the V7ild. Local residents began
feeding the turkeys almost immediately, and they soon became
very tolerant of man. Nine of these turkeys (three adult,
six immature) were trapped and transferred to October Moun-
tain Forest in 1962. Town residents since then have been
very protective of the turkeys and frequently treat Division
inquiries with suspicion. Limited observations by Western
District personnel indicate a spring (1972) population of
sixteen turkeys. Their lack of wildness and presence on
posted land probably negate any conceivable future hunting
program in this tov7n. Trapping activities utilizing Mt .
Washington turkeys are not recommended.
Miscellaneous Reports
I 11 I W I urn. I L II^IIIBIIII »l Wf^— —■——*—
Reports of single turkeys or small groups were received from
Chester, Cummington, Greenfield, Peru, Terapleton, and West
Brookfield. Time limitations and lack of an accurate sight-
ing location precluded conducting field observations for
verification. Tv7o other reports, in Monson and West Tisbury,
are now know to originate from illegal private releases.
B. Trapping Activities
1. Turkey broods produced in the West Street region of l-lew
Salem have frequented the lovjer fields of Hamilton's Orchards
for the past three summers. The owner of the orchard main-
tains some dv7arf trees and had sustained some slight damage
from turkey depredations during the fall of 1969. To pre-
clude a repetition of this and to obtain turkeys for trans-
plant, trapping (using a jet -type cannon net) was conducted
on 29 September, resulting in a catch of six turkeys
(Table 2). Captured birds were sexed, aged, weighed, leg
banded and color marked with patagial tags. One hen was
equipped with a back-pack radio-telemetry unit by a Univer-
sity of Massachusetts cooper a tor. The turkeys were trans-
ported in individual carrying crates and released on the
F. W. Cole property on the east slope of Horse Mountain,
Hatfield, Hampshire County, A few weeks after release, the
turkeys V7ere reported 2.4 kilometers south, near the Laurel
Park sv7amp. The instrumented hen was killed by a dog in
November ,
2, On 24 November 1971, trapping operations were conducted in
conjunction with Walter M. Tzilkowski, Consultant Wildlife
Biologist, Eight turkeys were utilizing a bait site at a
sawmill clearing south of Underbill Brook on Prescott
Il
ON
C
U
a
a
•o
o>
a.
a.
to
>^
3
H
to
CO
nj
0)
r-«
O
I
4J
a.
CO
o
CO
■u
•H
60
>4
r-l
CO
H
CO
U
CO
B
a>
o
CO
<U
CO
CO
o
r-l
QJ
•a
CO
Q
<u
•y
•H
CO
<u
3
■u
CO
4J CO
O
0)
CO
00
T3
C
CO
•r-<
CO
■u
c
3
o -o
<u
<U •!-» Q) <U
CO t+H CO 05
>^ 'tJ i^ M
O CO O O
Ed S fU PC
CO CO
§§
ex.
a
CO
CM
CO
»4
CO
Xi
M
O
CO
• •
<y (U
CO CO
C3^ cr>
CO CO
M U
CO CO
(J U
M $-1
O O
d
o
■u
CO CO
S - -
0) d c
r-i o o
CO -U 4J
r-l c/3 I— * I—I
•H 'H "1-1
B ^ a S
CO a> CO CO
rr: ;a p:* Ed
o
*
m CO
m CO
1^
CM
PL4
m CO
CM CO
M
B 'V
09
to
i-l
(U
a
o
CO X)
o at
•—I 4J
d
60 Q)
CO a
W 3
U
to *J
d CO
•H d
CD
d d ^
•H -rl 3
CO CO -U
4J 4J D-
d d
3 3
O O
S S CO
(U
00
bO
CO
u
I
bO
d
o
CO
o
CO
0) <u
CO CO 0)
^ M S
O O CO
tU Pd c/3
<U (U <L>
W 4J +J
•I-l -I-l -r-l
CO CO CO
<u <u <u
M H !-i
3 3 3
O U U AJ
4.) O4 Cu 0<
•!»■ CO CO CO
CO O O CJ-
CM en
c» ■<(■
CO CM
t t^t
x) a a
<; M M
CO CJ\ O r-l CM
r^ r>» 00 CO CO
•I-l -ri
CO c»
(u cu
Oi CL
CO CO
o u
CO <U
d • -I
CO
;§
0)
i-l
(U 3
CO 4J
O CO
5d o
u
■Ul
•
•
•
•
•
•
w •
a.
ex.
>
>
>
>
>
>
cu >
Q)
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0) 0
CO
CO
s
S
s
s
s
s
CO S
c^
ON
«*
<5-
<r sj-
<?
•vf
CTv sj
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CN>
tN
CM
CM CM
CO
CO
CO
13
'O
ca
-o
V4
u
r-l
M
CO
CO
3
CO
Xi
JC
^
CO
^
^
-^
•^
^
JC ^
(J
Ci
0
d
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
u
i4
0
•r^
0
0
0
0
0
<^2
0
0
u
d
M
&
(4
^
U
CQ
a
pg
PQ
«
PQ
CQ
CO
CO
Of
CO
••
~
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
- r-l
d
d
r-l
■u
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
r-l
d r-l
0
0
'ri
4J
•r<
'r4
>r4
•rl
•rl
0 -rl
■u
■M
XI
0
^ X
X!
X!
J3
•w X
r-l
r-l
U
0
U
U
M
i-l
M
'^ U
•r4
•r4
0
CO
0
0)
(U
<U
0)
•rl <W
a
a
TJ
dJ
t3
'O
13
•n
•0
a Ta
CO
CO
d
i-l
d
d
d
s
d
CO d
sd
w
p
Pt(
c=>
t3
P
t>
a p
CM
CO
ft* J3^ Fl4(X4|Z4 |X4|X|PS4 {X4|X(SS
a tj no a xj a xi
w -cc < M <3 M <;
CO -sJ" IT) v£> r*. in vo
CO CO CO CO CO o o
1-4 r-l r-l r^ r-l r-l r-l
<U
■U
CO
3
w
a.
CO
o
d
o
cy
CO
CO
<u
r-l
a»
u
CO 'V
>v a;
a> X
^ 60
J.I -H
3 <u
•M 15
r-l O
< s
■a
W-35-R-14;IV-l
Peninsula, Seven of these were captured, using a mortar -
thrown net. Captured birds vjere leg banded, color wing-
tagged (except the adult male), and two hens were
instrumented. All were released at the capture site.
3. Through the courtesy of the Nevj York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, permission was secured for
the Division to trap wild-strain turkeys in Allegany
State Park, Cattaraugus County, New York, Prebaiting
was accomplished by New York State personnel and trapping
was conducted by the project leader and Consultant
Biologist Tzilkov7ski during the period 6-17 March 1972.
Although there had been excellent production and v/inter
survival in the Park during 1971-1972, trapping opera-
tions were hampered by mild weather and early thawing,
v;hich made baiting of turkeys difficult. Cannon net
malfunctions decreased capture success. Three shots
were made resulting in the capture of eight turkeys.
One hen died, presumably of shock, soon after capture,
and the other seven were released in good condition in
a field off Alcott Street, Beartown State Forest, Great
Barrington, Berkshire County, Massachusetts. Band
number, sex, age, weight, and capture -release data are
presented in Table 3,
Table 3. Sex, Age, VJeight and Capture -Re lease Data for Wild-Trapped
Turkeys Captured in Allegany State Park, Cattaraugus County,
New York and Transferred to Beartovm State Forest, Great
Barrington, Massachusetts.
Leg Weight Capture Release
Band Age Sex Kr (lbs.) Capture Site Date Date Remarks
188
Ad.
F
4.5
(10.0)
France Brook
9 March
10 March
189
Ad.
F
4.6
(10.2)
France Brook
9 March
-
Died enroute.
190
Ad.
F
4.4
( 9.8)
France Brook
9 March
10 March
191
Ad.
F
4.6
(10,2)
France Brook
9 M?rch
10 March
Instrumented;
found dead
27 March.
192
Imm,
F
3.4
( 7.5)
Wolf Run
10 March
11 March
107
Imra.
M
4.7
(10.3)
Wolf Run
10 March
11 March
108
Imm.
M
*
Wolf Run
10 March
11 March
109
Ad.
M
6.5
(14.5)
France Brook
16 March
17 March
* Not weighed.
State Forest personnel. Natural Resource officers, and
the local Audubon Society were notified directly of the
stocking and a news release was sent to local newspapers.
No reports of the turkeys have been received since their
release except that an adult hen (No. 191), instrumented
by Tzilkowski, was found dead near Monument Mountain
Reservation, about 1,5 kilometers west of the release
site, on 27 March. Cause of death was undetermined, but
presumed to be shock.
W-35-R-14:]:V-l
Since seven turkeys is minimal for a successful stocking,
efforts are being continued to secure more wild-trapped
birds in order to complete the stocking of Beartovjn, and
hopefully to make s release in Havjley State Forest, Havjley,
Franklin County,
C, Release Sites
Horse Mountain Area. Five turkeys were released on Horse
Mountain in Hatfield during September 1971. The area is
private land, extensively vjooded vjith red and white oak,
vjith hemlock-northern hardwoods interspersed along the
steeper slopes. Apple trees and blackberry bushes are
present bordering the old field on the east slope where
the turkeys were released. Intermittent branches of
Running Brook arise from the east slopes and springs and
seeps are common. To the north. Horse Mountain adjoins
Chestnut Mountain in Whately and from there extensively
wooded areas in Williamsburg and Conway,
Erving State Forest. Erving State Forest consists of
1934 hectares (4779 acres) in the Towns of Erving, Orange,
Warvjick and Northfield. The norther portion (north of
Millers E.iver) consists of mixed hardx70ods (red, scarlet,
white oak, beech, some sugar maple) V7ith intermittent
stands of white pine. The steeper slopes and area near
Laurel Lake hold dense thickets of laurel, unsuitable for
turkeys. Choke cherry, dogv/oods, viburnums, and high-
bush blueberry are present along road edges and as a scat-
tered understory. The southern portion consists of several
81-162 hectare (200-400 acre) tracts of mixed hardwoods,
and adjoins the Quabbin Reservation through wooded tracts
in Lever ett and Shutesbury. Several streams and swamps
are present throughout both sections of the area. No
turkey releases are planned for this area at the present
time.
Recommendations: 1, Although Quabbin-strain turkeys recently appear to
have improved in wildness and dispersal tendency, they
are still markedly inferior to wild -trapped silvestris.
Recent successes in Vermont using New York State turkeys
indicate that our restoration efforts can be accelerated
using similar stock. The seven New York turkeys obtained
last winter are a valuable incentive towards statewide
restoration; however, they do represent a minimal contri-
bution for a successful release. Coordination efforts
between the Division and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation should be directed towards
securing enough wild birds to complete the Beartown re-
lease. If additional turkeys are available, a second re-
lease should be made on the Hawley State Forest,
W-35-R-14;IV-l
2, Consequent upon success of the Beartown release,
turkeys from this area should be used In subsequent in-
state trap and transfer effort. Initial efforts using
this strain should be restricted to the area west of
the Connecticut River to prevent mingling with present
flocks in Nev; Salem, Barre, and Douglas, Future releases
of Quabbin-strain turkeys should be curtailed pending
evaluation of the success of the Beartown release.
Acknowledgments :
I extend my appreciation to Messrs, John Proud, Stephen
Clarke, Fred Evans and William Shirey of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation for their
assistance in securing wild-trapped turkeys; to Dr, Wil-
liam G. Sheldon, Dr. Wendell Dodge, and Mr, Walter M.
Tzilkowski of the Massachusetts Cooperative Wildlife Re-
search Unit for their continuing cooperation and advice
regarding the Beartown and Quabbin flocks; and to Mr.
Francis Cole of Hatfield for approving the release on his
property at Horse Mountain,
Prepared by
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H, Bridges
Superintendent
James E, Cardoza
Assistant Game Biologist
Date
state :
Cooperator:
Project No.
Gomnnmt Docurria.i:s
Collection
JUN ^1974
^d':2^2'.^f '"^ *'-<-r..,«i;„^^
t£S
PERFORMANCE REPORT
Massachusetts
Ma.qaachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-1A. Project Title: Game Population Trend
— and Harvest Survey
Job No. :
Period Covered:
Objectives:
IV-2
Job Title:
Procedures:
Evaluation of Habitat
Utilized bv Trans-
planted Wild Turkeys
7 February 1972 throup:h 31 May 1972
Habitat utilized by transplanted wild turkeys
will be evaluated in relation to total habitat
available, with special reference being given
to habitats selected for winter roosting, winter-
feeding, nesting and brood-rearing.
Wild trapped turkeys obtained from the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, Divi-
sion of Fish and Wildlife will be released in
western Massachusetts. Depending on the total
number of birds trapped, two releases will be
made: one in Hawley State Forest, Franklin
County, the other in Beartown State Forest,
Berkshire County. Approximately twelve birds
in the ratio of two hens per tom will be placed
on each area in late February or early March.
All turkeys will be marked with individually
identifiable patagial wing tags. The hens will
be equipped with back-mounted radio telemetry
units.
Data collection will include: monitoring the
daily movements of the birds, accounting for
mortalities whenever possible; description of
habitat characteristics of areas used for winter
roosting, winter feeding, nesting and brood
rearing; and evaluating nesting attempts and
nesting success. Comparisons will be made be-
tween habitat utilized in relation to total
available habitat to isolate, if possible, cri-
tical elements within the habitat required or
preferred by wild turkeys. These criteria will
be utilized in the evaluation of future proposed
release sites.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
t . 1
4
W-35-R-16: VI-2
Findings :
Seven wild turkeys; three adult females, one
immature female, one adult male, and two immature
males were live-trapped in Allegheny State Park,
Cattaraugus County, New York v/ith the assistance
of New York Division of Fisheries and V/ildlife
personnel and were released in Beartown State
Forest , Berkshire County, Massachusetts. Release
dates were March 10 and 11 (6 birds) and March 17
(one bird, the adult male). One adult female,
instrumented with a telemetry unit was found dead
on March 27. The carcass showed no signs of
violence. Cause of death was presumed to be shock
Loss of the instrumented bird precluded radio
tracking the released birds. Additional observa-
tions were made throughout the winter months in an
effort to locate the flock, but without success.
Attention was turned to the development of a
lighter, more powerful telemetry unit, and the
improvement of the harness used to secure the
unit to the turkey.
Recommendations: Additional wild turkey stock should be secured, if
possible, from New York State to improve the
chances of survival of the Beartown flock. At
least half the adult females should be equipped
with telemetry units in the future to improve the
chances of tracking the dispersion of released
birds and their subsequent movement. Further re-
finement of the telemetry unit and its harness
should be developed.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GA^ffi
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved by_
Title
Colton H. Bridges
Superintendent
Prepared by_
"Warren \'L Blandin
Chief of Wildlife Research
Date
State
Cooperator
Project No,:
Job No.:
Period Covered:
Summary:
Objectives:
Procedures:
#
,£:'
P
Findings:
^ JOB PROCPvESS PJEPOrvT
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W~35"R-14 Project Title: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
VI-1
Job Title:
Black Bear Population
Dynamics
1 June 1971 to 31 May 1972
Applications for bear hunting permits were received from
200 sportsmen. No bear were taken during the legal sea-
son. New reports of 16 observations involving 23 bear
were received from five counties. Considerations are
presented concerning future bear management activities.
To define the range of the black bear in Massachusetts
and to determine its population characteristics and rate
of harvest by hunting.
Current bear hunting regulations include mandatory report-
ing and tagging of bear. Bear checking stations were
maintained daily during bear week at three locations
(Birch Hill, Templeton; Montague Fish Hatchery, Montague;
Western Wildlife District Headquarters, Pittsfield).
Station personnel were required to affix a metal game
seal to the bear, and to record the following informa-
tion: tovm of kill, date killed, sex and weight of bear,
and method of kill. Successful hunters would subsequent-
ly be contacted by the project leader and the bear's
carcass examined and a tooth removed for sectioning.
The Information and Education Section issued periodic
news releases asking for reports of black bear. District
personnel. Natural Resource officers, and University of
Massachusetts cooperators also assisted in reporting
bear sightings.
Black bear hunting permit applications were received from
200 (214 in 1970) individuals during the 1971 season.
Postage account limitations precluded sending question-
naires to these applicants.
For the second year in a rov7, no bear were taken during
the legal season.
New reports of bears during 1971-1972 included fifteen
sightings and one report of tracks, totaling 28 bear in
twelve tox-ms, A few reports, indefinite as to date,
location, and observer, are not included. Reports are
presented by county for 1971 and 1972 in Table 1, One
cooperator reported finding bear dens during past years
In northern Berkshire County,
Publication approved by Alfred C, Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
4
I
¥
W-35-R-14:VI-l
Table 1. Reports of Black Bear by County, 1952-1972.
County
1952-1971
1972
Total (Percent)
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
Worcester
46
64
5
24
6
145
5
6
1
3
16
51
70
6
27
7
(31.77o)
(43.5%)
( 3.7%)
(16.0%)
( 4.3%)
161 (100.0%)
Recommendations: 1, Black bears are a minimal, yet integral, part of the
mammalian fauna of Massachusetts. Possible overexploita-
tion by casual hunters has been reduced by prohibiting
bear hunting during deer week. Preliminary investigations
(W-35-rv-13) indicate that bears and bear hunters are pro-
bably present in Massachusetts in greater numbers than
hitherto suspected. Correspondence received during the
period preceding the 1970 bear hearing indicates that
protectionists stand forth in number also. Future con-
siderations concerning black bear should recognize these
developments. The following points should be included:
(a) maintenance of a bear population sufficient to sus-
tain limited sport hunting, and satisfy environmental
aesthetes; ''b) public information efforts should be con-
tinued to reconcile conflicts between sportsmen and pro-
tectionists; and (c) evaluation of the bear population
and distribution should be continued to minimize conflicts
betv7een bears and humans. Such conflicts, whether depred-
ations on a beehive or raids on a camper's food box, are
increasingly possible as urbanization continues and more
vacationers flock to the forests. Careful consideration
of points (a) and (b) above may help reduce difficulties
due to these potential conflicts,
2. Bear permit applicants in 1972 should be contacted by
postal questionnaire to determine their interest and time
expenditure in bear hunting.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H, Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James E, Cardoza, Assistant Game Biologist
Date
1^
^.31-.^:vJ-5^-R'(d::C'^
JOB PROGRESS REPORT
State:
Cooperator :
Project No. :
Job No . :
Period Covered:
Summary:
Governmsnt Docu:nen;s
Col ecijun
NOV 14 1973
Unjvsrsit/ cf Massachusetts
Objectives:
Procedures:
Findings:
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-15
1-2
Project Title:
Job Title:
Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Statewide Beaver Harvest
1 November 1972 to 31 May 1973
A total of 1,674 beaver were trapped by 105 trappers in
92 towns during the 1972-1973 beaver season. This record
take is 316 more than last season, and 600 more than a
ten-year (1963-1972) average. Berkshire and Franklin
counties together yielded 967 beaver (54.1% of harvest).
For the second season in a row, the take v;est of the
Connecticut River increased, and that east of the river
decreased.
Over one -third (37.8%) of the beaver were taken in the
first two weeks of the 15-week season. The average pelt
price of $20 coupled v;ith the high harvest, produced a
record harvest valuation of $33,480.
To determine the statewide harvest of beavers by trappers.
Each successful beaver trapper is required by law to pre-
sent his pelts to an official checking station for tagging
and recording of data. Six stations are maintained for
two days at the close of the season. Pelts are tagged
with locking metal game seals and harvest data are re-
corded on mimeographed forms and subsequently tabulated
by month trapped, town and county trapped in, and type
of trap used.
The 1972-1973 beaver trapping season extended for 15 weeks
from 15 November 1972 to 1 March 1973, During this period,
trappers took 1,674 beaver. This take V7as 316 more than
last season and 600 more than a ten-year (1963-1972)
average, representing the largest harvest since beaver
trapping was initiated in 1952 (Table 1). One hundred
five trappers (94 in 1971-1972) took at least one beaver
for a mean harvest of 15,9 beaver per trapper (extremes:
1 to 119),
Beaver colonies located in 92 towns contributed to the
1972-1973 harvest (Figure 1), The fifteen towns with the
largest individual seasonal harvest are listed in Table
2.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
4J
CO <U
> --I
i^ CO
CO >
000000^<fvOOiOOOr^LO\OLOOOOmOvDOf*^vO
oooom<reNjr«.<fr^cMtricNmr«.oo<r«JDONOocofnr-<
ocji-^oconooo-stfnovocOr-ivovDooooooo^fvDo
•-ir-icSfnt-<cN4coco<fcvioor^o>cnrHmoj>-tr>.iocnfoo<f
r-l i-lr-»CS«-*CMCN| CNjCOi-tm
CM
(U
a>
CJ
tlO
•H
CO
i-l
M
(:t|
0)
>
4J
<
i-J
a>
P^
r^sDor^-oooooooooooooooooOr:?
oo-<roiooooooooooooooooo oooo
in<f'-''>Doc^cgcMin»r>CNicocor-imiAvoocnor~~oro
1— lr-lt-4r-li-H i-(i— lr-<i— li-4e-li-Wt— lr-(r-li— «CM>— 'r-4r-<C^r-(
S H
I I I I imr^c«Jc>if^voco<i-r-ir*»vD
I CO en C3N CO (N 1^
ON 00 r«. CTk ON r^
u
CO
cu
>
u
CO
coror-4r-<ini-icMcov£>ma»ONir)vomomc^u^aNOO>d'''^r*~
voooa>cocnvoir>cM<yt<NvococM(Ti<j-<i'cv4moomr^ 'cn
i-li-Hr-<CMtSCOevlOO\OLr)mT-I^O<fOvOU-lcnvOCOvO
r-lc-lrHt-li-lf-l r-4»-ir^lO
•M
CO
u
(U
cu
>
a
n
a
03
CO
S
u
H
*
00
V4
>
<u
<
a
ON
I I I I ioor^ococvjr-4r«.oNinvo-<i-u->fno>«>s:tvo>-<
^■^ ^^ f^"l ^"^ T^"l f^'n ^"^ ^"^ ^^"^ l^^n l^"l ^""i
3 CO
0) CO <u
j:3 CO a
§(U a
O CO
CO
I I I I icvivDcoONvococnaNr-<oo<froo<j"oo<rinoN
oncococovovooor^oocor^ONOOvoso onovo
/-vl
d
CO
o
^
CO
<u
CO
0)
0)
e
CO
■<f<rvOvDvoooooa)oouricocor^r^r-«.r^r>.r>.
|F"*i f""t f^^ p"t ^^^ ^"i T^H IT*i P'H
o
CO
CO
CU
CO
u
CO
.J'
<t" to vD r- CO C3N
vOvOvDvOvOvOO'-'CMCO
r^ r*. r^ r«*
I I
•
*
u
•
U
9
*
•
»-4
• •
•
•
a
Cu
CL
a
a
a
u u
u
u
<c
<
<:
<
<
<:
SS
s
«S
}^
u u
u
^
»4 U
m
tn
UO
m
UO
vn
•^
C«
CO CO
rt
a
CO CO
1-4
rH
l-i
r-l
r-l
r-4
I-l .-4
r-4
r-l
S
s s
Is
<
s s
o
0
o
o
O
o
o o
o
O
t-i
t-H r-l
t-i
uo
r-l r-t
4J
4J
u
4J
■u
4J
■P 4J
XJ
*J
CO
CO CO
CO
r-«
CO CO
CO
"sT
^-)
v^
r^
CO
ON O
r— 1
CNl
o
o o
o
O
O O
vO
vO
^
VD
vO
vO
V£> P*
r>.
!>*
.*-%
u
4J 4J
4J
■u
■U 4J
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
CO
CO
m
• •
•
•
• •
o
CJ
u
U
t)
y
CJ u
y
>
f*^
a\
ja
Si wQ
J3
c
c c
<u
(U
a)
(U
S
<u
cu cu
(U
o
c^
r-4
<u
(U (U
CU
CO
CO CO
Q
Q
Q
Q
a
Q a
Q
2;
1-4
1
li*
P&« ^4
PC4
»-3
*-i f-J
1
CM
t-t
»H i-(
i-l
fH
i-H r-l
in
in
r-«
uO
rH
1-4
in
r-4
in to
I-l r-4
m
r-l
m
r-l
CvJ
m
ON
m
CJN
r-l
eMco»;t-invDP^cooNO»-<eMco<finvor>.oooNO»-'eMco c
l^mlnln^nlnmln\o<>DvOvo^o^ovovOvovo^«•^«•p*.f^ co
CTnONONONC3N<3nONONCjNON<3NONONC3NC3NONONONC3N<3NONON 0)
CO
o
H
CO
U
CO
o
11
I
>,
•
.0
t!
*
•0
g
0)
V
0.^
a
•
cU si-
l-l
u
1^
H
vO
«
r-4
u
»4
3>
0
1
r-*
•H
4J
FS4
a>
0
PQ
H
I
i
W-35-R-15:I-2
Table 2. Beaver harvest for fifteen towns: 1969-1973 seasons
Town
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
Ashfield
20
14
2
53
50
Be eke t
41
20
10
51
57
Blandford
10
22
16
29
78
Chesterfield
14
24
12
16
18
Granville
12
23
19
19
49
New Marlboro
32
14
1
52
69
New Salem
11
10
27
10
56
Otis
36
18
14
64
72
Petersham
52
18
27
58
57
Sandisfield
49
13
8
52
6
Warwick
43
8
12
19
45
Washington
9
27
7
55
27
Wendell
40
20
7
10
38
VJinchendon
23
16
30
45
57
Worthing ton
7
30
14
52
54
Table 3. Beaver harvest by county, 1971-1972 and 1972-1973.
1971-1972
1972-1973
County
No. Beaver
Percent
Rank
No. Beaver
Percent
Rank
Berkshire
483
35.6
1
461
27.5
1
Essex
12
0.9
8
15
0.9
7
Franklin
301
22.1
2
446
26.6
2
Hampden
114
8.4
5
227
13.6
5
Hampshire
208
15.3
3
253
15.1
3
Middlesex
38
2.8
6
35
2.1
6
Plymouth
16
1.2
7
5
0.3
8
Worcester
186
13.7
4
232
13.9
4
Totals
1,358
100.0
1,674
100.0
Table 4. Beaver harvest by month, 1971-1972 and 1972-1973
1971
-1972
1972-
•1973
Month
No, Beaver
—
Percent
No. Beaver
Percent
November
Sea
son
Not
Of
►en
633
37.8
December
722
53.2
544
32.5
January
469
34.5
356
21.3
February
167
12.3
141
8.4
Totals
1,358
100.0
1,674
100.0
W-35-R-15:I-2
The western region of the state continues to provide the
majority of the beaver harvest. For the second season
in a row, the take in the western portion increased and
that in the eastern region decreased from the previous
season. During the 1972-1973 season, 1,148 beaver (68. 6%)
were taken west of the Connecticut River, and 526 (31,47e)
were taken east of the river, as opposed to 920 (67,7%)
and 242 (32.3%) in 1971-1972.
During the past season, Berkshire and Franklin counties
together yielded over half (967, 54.1%) of the total
harvest. Hampden, Hampshire and Worcester counties con-
tributed another 732 beaver (42.6%), with three other
counties comprising the small remainder (Table 3), Six
counties reported no beaver taken. County rankings re-
main unchanged from the past season, although the Berk-
shire County harvest declined by 8.1 percent and that of
Franklin and Hampden increased by 4.5 percent and 5.2 per-
cent respectively.
Success was greatest, as expected, during the initial
weeks of the season since the open water facilitated
trapping. Over one -third (37.3%) of the beaver were
taken in the initial two weeks (15-31 November) of the
season with success decreasing each month thereafter
(Table 4).
As in past years, approximately two-thirds (1,163, 69.5%)
of the harvest was taken in the Conibear trap.
In spite of a supposed decrease in pelt quality, due to
the early opening of the season, the average pelt price,
$20, equalled the record established in 1969. Thus, the
total harvest valuation ($33,480) was the highest yet re-
corded for Massachusetts.
Recommendations :
Continue tagging of beaver pelts and recording of harvest
data in 1974, using the same methods as for the current
segment.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research & Management
Approved:
Colt on H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by:
James E. Cardoza, Assistant Game Biologist
Date
JUB PROGRESS REPORT
^"'^^n.-r,.
state
Cooperator :
Project No,:
Job No . :
Period Covered:
Summary:
Background :
■"^t^/^ft
s
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-15 Project Title:
II-l
Job Title:
Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Statewide Deer Harvest
6 November 1972 to 9 December 1972
The archery season was extended to three weeks, 6 November
to 25 November 1972, Archers reported 76 deer harvested,
49 males and 27 females.
During the shotgun season, 4 December to 9 December 1972,
successful hunters reported 1,455 males and 760 females
for a total harvest of 2,215 deer. The top deer-producing
counties were Berkshire, Franklin, and Dukes, Worcester
County, with the largest acreage of deer range, has dropped
to fifth ranlc of deer-producing counties. The first and
last days of the six-day shotgun season had the largest
percent of deer reported. Mid-week hunting pressures were
reduced. Harvest data per deer management unit were com-
piled and are presented in this report. There v;as an in-
crease of 500 antlerless permit applications in 1972, The
success ratio of one in six for antlerless permit holders
remained the same for all types of permits per deer manage-
ment unit except for Nantucket, On Nantucket the hunter
success ratio changed from one in three to one in four in
1972.
An antlerless deer hunting permit system was initiated in
1967 for harvesting of deer during the shotgun deer V7eek.
Button bucks and females were taken only by permit holders.
All males with antlers three inches or longer were legal
game for all licensed hunters.
The shotgun deer season takes place during the first full
week in December , Three deer management units have been
established. The number of sportsman antlerless permits
per unit in 1972 was as follows: Nantucket, 400; Martha's
Vineyard, 600; and the mainland, 4000, Deer hunting
regulations require all hunters to report their deer within
24 hours to an official Division deer checking station.
The archery season was increased from a two-week period
to a three-week period, 6 November through 25 November 1972,
Hunting is not allowed on Sundays,
Publication approved by Alfred C, Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
W-35-R-15:II-l
Objectives; To determine the annual harvest of deer in Massachusetts.
Findings: A ten-year summary of the annual deer harvest per town
per county from 1963 through 1972 is presented in Table 1.
Hunters reported the taking of a deer via a written report
to the Director from 1963 through 1965, From 1966 through
1972 the reporting by hunters has been on a compulsory
basis.
During the 1972 shotgun deer season, 4 December through
9 December, successful hunters reported harvesting 2,215
deer. Of these, 1,455 were males and 760 were females.
Successful archers reported taking 76 deer during the
three -week period, 6 November through 25 November. Of
these deer, 49 were males and 27 were females.
The 1972 deer harvest by archers is presented in Table 2.
In order of importance Berkshire, Franklin, and Hampshire
Counties were the best deer-producing counties for the
archers,
A summary of the 1972 shotgun deer harvest by county from
1969 through 1972 is presented in Table 3. Berkshire,
Franklin, and Dukes Counties have remained the top-producing
counties for the past tv70 years.
Table 4 presents a summary of the deer harvest by day during
the shotgun season, 4 December through 9 December 1972 and
the archery season, 6 November through 25 November 1972,
It is quite evident from the harvest data presented in
Table 4 that the harvest is highest on the first and last
days of the six-day shotgun season. The hunting pressure
drops during the middle four days with Thursday having
the smallest percent of the harvest reported. It is inter-
esting to note that 632 or 43 percent of the total males
were taken on Monday and 281 or 19 percent v;ere reported
on Saturday. The female harvest on the first and last days
of the shotgun season were approximately the same V7ith 225
or 30 percent on Monday and 235 or 31 percent on Saturday,
With the exception of Friday, 17 November, archers harvested
deer on each day of the three -week archery season. The
last three days of the archery season include the long
Thanksgiving holiday weekend. This probably accounts for
the ten deer harvest on the Friday (24 November) following
Thanlcsgiving Day and a total of 21 deer harvested for the
long weekend.
Table 5 presents a summary of the Massachusetts deer
harvest and the hunter success per type of antlerless
permit.
Table 2, A Summary of the 1972 Massachusetts Archery Season Deer Harvest by
Sex, Town and County, November 6-25, 1972.
County
Barnstable
Berkshire
Dukes
Essex
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
Nantucket
Worcester
TqiTn
Barnstable
Orleans
Pr ovine etov7n
Truro
Wellfleet
Alford
Be eke t
Egreraont
Hancock
Lanesboro
Lee
Mt, VJashington
New Marlboro
Sandisfield
Sheffield
Stockbridge
T3n:ingham
West Stockbridge
Williamstown
Chilmark
Edgartown
West Tisbury
Georgetown
Bernardston
Colrain
Conway
Deerfield
Leyden
New Salem
Shelburne
Shutesbury
Wendell
Bland ford
Ludlow
Bel chert own
Chesterfield
Huntington
Pelham
Ware
Nantucket
Grafton
Petersham
Southbridge
Upton
yiale
(BB)
3
1
(1)
1
1
1
7
(1)
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
19
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(6)
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
2
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
TOTALS
1
1
1
_J
49 (10)
Female
1
2
1
1
5
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
8
I
1
2
1
I
2
0
4
1
1
27
Total
3
1
2
1
1
8
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
A
24
1
2
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
J,
15
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
Jl
10
8
1
1
1
1
_±
76
Table 3, Summary of the Massachusetts Deer Harvest by Sex per County and Rank of
Harvest for the 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 Shotgun Seasons.
County
Barnstable
Berkshire
Bristol
Dukes
Essex
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
Middlesex
Nantucket
Norfolk
Plymouth
Suffolk
Worcester
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Male
Female
Total
1972
1971
1970
1969
78
33
116
8
7
8
8
423
160
533
1
1
1
1
3
2
5
12
12
12
12
140
126
266
3
3
7
7
16
1
17
9
10
9
11
319
201
520
2
2
2
2
147
54
201
4
5
6
5
114
49
163
6
8
4
4
3
5
8
11
9
10
10
66
61
127
7
6
5
6
0
0
0
13
13
13
13
12
0
12
10
11
11
9
0
0
0
13
13
13
13
134
63
197
5
4
3
3
Table 4, A Summary of the Massachusetts Deer Harvest by D'^y of H?irvest,
4 Dec°u;ber through 9 December 1972.
Shotgun Season
Mon.
Dec. 4
Tues.
Dec, 5
Wed,
Dec, 6
Thurs ,
Dec, 7
Fri.
Dec. 8
Sat.
Dec. 9
Total
Both Sexes
Total Harvest
Percent
857
38.69
258
11.65
209 161
9.44 7.27
Males
214
9.66
516
23.30
2,215
Total Harvest
Percent
632
43.44
172
11.82
134 117
9.21 8,04
Females
119
8.18
281
19.31
1,455
Total Harvest
Percent
225
29.61
86
11,32
75 44
9.87 5,79
95
12.50
235
30.92
760
I
Table 4, (Continued)
Archery Season
November 6-11 November 13-13 November 20-25 Total per Day
Mon,
M
F
Total
M
F
Total
M
.J.
Total
Mon.
4
4
8
1
«*
1
-
1
1
Tues.
3
1
4
-
2
2
2
2
4
Wed,
2
1
3
5
1
6
2
1
3
Thurs.
1
1
2
3
-
3
3
1
4
Fri.
1
-
1
-
-
-
7
3
10
Sat.
-
Ji
4
6
_4
10
5
2
7
10
10
12
9
11
21
11 11
22
15
22
19 10
29
73*
* The archery harvest was 76 deer. Dates of harvest on three (3) deer were
omitted ,
Table 5. A Summary of the Massachusetts Deer Harvest and the Hunter Success by
T3^e of Antlerless Permit, 1967 through 1972.
1972
Archery Season
(Nov. 6 -
Nov. 25,
1972)
Males
49 (10 BB)
Females
27
Total
76
Summary of Archery
Kill, 1967 through 1972
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Males
17
21
27
24
26
49
Females
Totals
4
21
13
34
10
37
12
36
- 10
36
27
76
1972 Shotgun Season (Dec.
, 4-9. 1972)
Males
1,455
Females
760
Total
2,215
1972 Kill Breakdown per Management
Unit
Martha's
Mainland
Nantucket
Vineyard
Total
Males, Adult
1,105
49
102
1,256
Males, Button
bucks
144
17
38
199
Females
573
61
126
760
Totals
1,822
127
266
2,215
Summary
of the
Shotgun Statewide Deer Harvest,
1967 through
1972
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Males
937
1,083
1,424
1,605
1,359
1,455
Females
235
310
585
764
889
760
Total
1,172
1,393
2,009
2,369
2,248
2,215
Statewide
Summary of Archery and Shotgun
Harvest,
1967 through
1972
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
Males
Females
Total
954
239
1,193
1,104
323
1,427
1,451
595
2,046
1,629
776
2,405
1,385
899
2,284
1,504
787
2,291
Summary of Antlerless Deer Permits
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
No, Applications
(rounded numbers)
20,000 24,000 32,000 35,000 37,500 33,000
Permits Issued:
Sportsman
2,000
2,000
4,000
6,000
6,000
4,000
Farmer^'
243
331
295
347
270
326
Nantucket
■■
-
400
400
400
400
Martha's Vi
neyard
-
-
-
-
600
7,270
600
Totals
2,243
2,331
4,695
6,747
5,326
Permit Harvest
Statewide,
Landowner -Farme
r
1967
1963
1969
1970
1971
1972
Males
2
21
17
25
20
14
Females
20
44
45
34
26
42
Total
22
65
62
59
46
56
Harvest 1
by Sportsmen's Permits
1967
1963
1969
1970
1971
1972
Deer
(both sex)
279
356
787
1
,057
1,268
1,010
Breakdown
Statewide
of Harvest
by Antlerless Permits
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Antlered ma
le 26
50
140
137
172
107
Button buck
40
61
124
215
253
199
Female
235
310
585
764
889
760
Totals
301
421
849
1
,116
1,314
1,066
Antlerless Permit Success
Ratio
1 (rounded)
1971
1967
1968
1969
1970
1972
Farmer*
1-11
1-5
1-5
1-6
1-6
1-6
Sportsman
1- 9
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
Mainland
1-6
1-6
Nantucket
(101 permit deer,
40 M.
, 61 F.)
1-3
1-4
Martha's Vineyard
(167 permit deer.
56 M.
, ni fO
1-4
1-4
*Farmer -Landowner
W-35-R-15:II-l
Apparently the added six days of the archery season and
possibly the increased cost of the archery stamp stimulated
the archers during the 1972 season. The average reported
archery kill from 1968 through 1971 was 36 deer per year.
The 1972 archery harvest was 76, an increase of 40 deer or
111 percent above the four-year average.
During the 1972 shotgun season, 4 December through
9 December, hunters reported 2,215 deer statewide, 1,455
males and 760 females. On the mainland, 1,105 adult males,
144 button bucks and 573 females were reported. On Nan-
tucket 49 adult males, 17 button bucks and 61 females were
recorded. The Martha's Vineyard hunters reported 102 adult
males, 38 button bucks and 126 females.
The combined statewide archery and shotgun reported harvest
was 2,291 deer. Of these 1,504 were males and 707 were fe-
males.
The 1972 applications for antlerless permits increased to
38,000 (rounded number), approximately 500 applications
more than were received in 1971,
The number of sportsman permits was reduced from 6,000 in
1971 to 4,000 permits in 1972 in an attempt to reduce the
harvest of females and button bucks and thereby increase
the number of legal bucks in the harvest of 1974. The
farmer -landowner antlerless permits increased from 270
permits in 1971 to 326 permits in 1972, Nantucket and
Martha *s Vineyard antlerless permits remained the same as
previous years with 400 and 600 permits issued respectively.
As expected with the reduction of permits the harvest of
deer by sportsman permittees decreased from 1,268 deer in
1971 to 1,010 deer reported in 1972 or 258 deer less than
the 1971 season,
A review of the statewide deer harvest per antlerless permit
shows that the number of deer harvested by permit holders
was reduced in 1972, The antlered male harvest decreased
65 deer from 172 in 1971 to 107 in 1972, There were 54
less button bucks reported in 1972 (199) than the 253 taken
in 1971, The largest reduction was in the female segment
with 760 reported in 1972 compared to 889 in 1971, or 129
less females in 1972,
The success ratio per type of permit remained the same as
previous years for all types of permits in all deer manage-
ment units except for Nantucket, The success ratio was one
in six for sportsman and farmer -landoxtrner permits on the
mainland and Martha's Vineyard, The ratio changed from one
in three to one in four on Nantucket during the 1972 season.
sr X- ^
3: —
_- — cr
» "^
X x; ;r.
X
z
X
X
x-
X
X
X
1 3
X —
X X
X *
X XX X
X X ~ = £
-X « — X - ^
X X — — X
— X X ^ = X
W-35-R-15:II-l
Recommendations: It is recommended that the Division of Fisheries and Game
personnel continue to compile and report deer harvest data,
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved :
Colton H, Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James J, McDonough, Game Biologist
and
William J. Minior, Assistant
Date
""^ JOB PROGRESS REPORT
J
State
Cooperators
Project No, :
Job No , :
Period Covered:
Summary:
6o¥errsiiieot Oocumefils
Col.ection
NOV 14 19/3
Universit/ cf Massachusetts
Background
Objectives
Government Documents
Collection
mm 2 1373
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-15
II-2
Project Title: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Job Title:
Non-hunting Deer Mortality
Investigations
1 January 1972 to 31 December 1972
Natural Resource Officers reported
One hundred ninety-six were males,
v/as reported for 27 deer. The two
hunting deer mortalities were motor
legal kills (44). They accounted f
reported mortalities. Other causes
order of importance were as follows
unknown (35) ; fences (6) ; drownings
The 41 deer reported killed by dogs
fleets favorable winter conditions,
deer were reported killed by dogs i
453 deer mortalities.
230 were females. No sex
greatest causes of non-
vehicles (321) and il-
or 80.6 percent of the
of deer mortalities in
: dogs (41) ; other and
(5) ; and crop damage (1) ,
in 1972 possibly re-
Two hundred nineteen
n 1971.
The uneven proportion of male (49) to female (19) mortali-
ties during the month of November can be attributed to the
increased male activity during the rut period.
There was a 34.7 percent decrease in non-hunting deer mor-
talities (453) for 1972 as compared to 1971 (694).
The effects of the antler less permit hunting system were
evident in the adjusted sex ratio of the non-hunting deer
mortalities with 208 males to 245 females or 45.9 percent
males to 54,1 percent females.
As in 1971, the top ranking counties for non-hunting deer
mortalities were Berkshire, Barnstable and Franklin.
Natural Resource Officers investigated and filed reports of
deer mortalities statewide. A duplicate of each report was
compiled and tabulated by project personnel. Deer concen-
trations and/or wintering areas were observed by project
personnel. Dead deer surveys were conducted in areas of deer
concentrations ,
To determine the annual non-hunting decimating factors of
the Massachusetts deer herd.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
W-35-R-15:II-2
Findings: A summary of the sex classes and the causes of Massachusetts
deer mortalities for January 1972 through December 1972 is
presented in Table 1. A total of 453 deer mortalities were
reported. Of these 196 were males, 230 were females. No
sex was recorded for 27 deer. Motor vehicles continued to
be the largest cause of reported deer mortalities (321 deer).
The remaining 132 deer mortalities were reported as follows:
illegal kills, 44; dogs, 41; other and unknown, 35; fences,
6; drownings, 5; and deer shot doing crop damage, 1.
Table 2 presents a six-year summary of deer mortalities and
causes from 1967 through 1972.
A comparison of the total non-hunting deer mortalities in
Massachusetts from 1967 through 1972 is presented in Table 3,
The largest number of deer mortalities was reported in 1970
with 698 deer. Prior to 1970 the reported mortalities in-
creased annually from 508 in 1967 to the peak of 698 deer in
1970. Since 1970 there has been a decrease annually start-
ing from a half of one percent decline (694 deer) in 1971 to
a 34.7 percent decrease (453) in 1972.
Table 4 presents a comparison of the sex ratio and the ad-
justed sex ratio of Massachusetts deer from 1 January 1972
through 31 December 1972. An adjusted total of 453 deer
mortalities, 208 males and 245 females, was reported. The
adjusted sex ratio was computed monthly on a percentage
basis. The sex ratio was 85 (45.9 percent) males to 100
(54.1 percent) females. The sex ratio in 1971 was 94
(48,4%) males to 100 (51.6%) females.
The reported deer mortalities are presented in Table 5 which
ranks counties according to deer mortality numbers, Berk-
shire, Barnstable, Franklin and Worcester, respectively,
have remained the top deer mortality-producing counties for
the past two years ,
Reported deer mortalities for Norfolk (6), Bristol (6),
and Plymouth (21) outnumbered the legal deer harvest re-
ported in Job Progress Report W-35-R-15, Work Plan II,
Job 1, which was Norfolk, 0; Bristol, 1; and Plymouth, 10,
A reviev? of the data compiled in this report shows a decline
in the number of reported mortalities during 1972 as compared
to the previous five years. It is quite possible that the
relatively open winter with snow conditions favorable to the
deer effected the sharp reduction of the number of deer
killed by dogs. It is felt by project personnel that the
enforced eight -hour \7orkday of the Natural Resource Officers
has affected and will continue to affect the number of re-
ported deer mortalities.
o
u
3
0}
(U
X
o
(U
s
CO
(U
c
3
•
»-)
•
CM
CM
/■->.
u
I-<
0)
r-4
XI
CvJ
B
tsj -^
cu
CM
CJ
un
0)
en
Q
CM
X
o
0)
S
CO
>^
CO
•
S
fn
s
<!• r-i
m
X
o
<u
IS
1 , 1
CO
U
•
a
Pm
<:
«
s
1-H
iTt
• tn on
VO
CM
CM
vO
CM
CM
u
o <u
Z CO
Pt)
VO vD
CM m
Ml
O (Ul
>^
S CO
u
CO
3
•
S>i
P4
J3
(U
P4
S
CM CO «-l
r«. r-i
r>. !/■> CM
CO
CO
vO
^
o
<u
s
CO
>>
!^
CO
•
3
p^
C
CO
•-)
•
CM
r^ r-<
m kJ- I— I i-i
CM
CO
CM
CM
O
CM
c
f-l
15
CO
O
4J
CQ
d
o
O
.^
H
1-4
i-H
c
o
1-1
Q) !=)
•
•r-l
>■-<
bO
S
j:
t^
Q "^
3
o
B C
r-l
O
>
r-l
T3
CO CO
CO
>^'
CO
<u
CO
CO
Q
u
;^
60
<U
c
!^
o
r-l
o
CO <u
s
o
•I-l
ex. (U
■u
CO
■u
bOr-l
0
c
CO
O JS
^
4J
o
O r-<
u
o
J-)
5^ -U
3
o
a
Q M
Q
fu
H
O O
CO
H
v£)
u
r^
0)
r-i
jrt
N-^
6
CM
0)
rH
r^
>
CM
o
3
ON
00
cy%
0)
1-4
ja
>>-^
o
r-<
4-J
CM
CO
o
-<J-
o
CO
I-(
u
o
(U
1-4
J3
s^'
B
CM
(U
CM
4J
r-l
G
<r
<U
CO
CO
3
.^ <}• r-l I— ( I— I
CT\ CO -<1-
VO
0^
CO
o
CM
o
r-4 <J-
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
in
CO
VD
o
vD
■u
^-^
CO
3
O
0£
r-l
<i-
3
CO
<C
cr\
CM
CM
O
CM
c
r-*
5
CO
o
■u
CO
C
o
<u
^
H
r-l
r-l
c
U
r-l
0) &
*
•H
•H
W)
B
Xi
^
eg -o
3
(U
B C
1-4
u
>
t-l
T)
CO CO
CO
N— '
CO
(U
CO
CO
Q
4J
u
WD
c
<U
d
i-l
o
.-1
o
CO (U
^
CJ
•rJ
a. o
4J
CO
■u
bOr-l
O
C
to
O J3
XI
J-)
o
O r-l
5-1
G
^
5-4 -U
3
o
S
Q H
Q
Pm
u o
CO
H
CO
r-4
CO
1-4 r-l <J- m vO
r-l in CO
CO
4-1
CM -d- <J-
CO m
a\ v_^
o
en
<!•
1-4
H
o\
vO
C^
<3-
X
CO
0)
^v
CO
<t
CM
d
en
?
r- ^^
o
CM
d
CO
X
CO
c
00
^
r-l m r^
rolr^
CM
00
CM
(U
^w'
r-l
C^ f^ r-4
CO
\0 r-l CM
CJ^
g
r-l
t-l
0)
CM
0>l O
r-l CO
|CM
r^
vO
<D
r-4 0> vX) ^ CO
en VO
CM
r-l
<j- r-l I-l
.-1 CJ\
<>— /
§
r-l
rH
St
CM
CO
m
<t
a>
CM
<U
r-l
CM ^-^
CO
U
CM
3
•H
CM
CO
XJ
CO
U
<u
O
>
o
o
•rl
r-l t3
CO a) CO CO
00 d (U d
CO (U 3 CJ -rl
00 r-l O d CO
O <-l H CJ 1-1
00
i
CO
Q
a
o
g
c
d
CO
SQMQli<HUO
CO
r-l
CO
4J
O
H
I
Table 2, Five-year summary of deer mortalities of Massachusetts deer reported by
natural resource officers, 1967 through 1972
5-yr,
Cause 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 Total Avg. 1972
Motor Vehicles 334 456 397 400 373 1,960 392 321
Dogs 62 74 166 204 219 725 145 41
Illegal Kills 48 29 39 25 39 180 36 44
Unknown Causes 41 31 51 38 41 202 40 35
Crop Damage and Legal Kills 4 7 2 14 4 31 6 1
All other Causes J^ J^ JJ_ _17 _i8 97 JL9 _11
Totals 508 613 682 698 694 3,195 639 453
Table 3, Comparison of total non-hunting deer mortalities of Massachusetts deer
from 1967 through 1972.
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
No. of Deer 508 613 682 698 694 452
Percent Change 21%" 11% "^2% -0.5% -34.7%
W-35-R- 15:11-2
Table 4, Comparison of actual number of deer mortalities by sex and adjusted
data for 1972 Massachusetts deer
Month
Male
14
Fema le
10
Unknown
Sex
Total
26
Ad jus
Male
15
ted
Female
January
2
11
February
17
11
6
34
21
13
March
18
22
1
41
18
23
April
21
21
6
48
24
24
May
11
15
1
27
11
16
June
12
22
1
35
12
23
July
10
22
32
10
22
August
10
12
2
24
11
13
September
6
10
3
19
7
12
October
8
27
3
38
8
30
November
49
19
1
69
50
19
December
20
39
1
60
20
40
Total
196
230
27
453
208
245
* These data were reported by Natural Resource Officers,
** Hunting and crippling losses not included.
Adjusted sex ratio: 208 males.: 245 females
85 males : 100 females
45.97o males : 54.1% females
13
a
CM
CO
D
CO
o
d
CO
>,
d
3
O
u
>^
.O
<U
ctJ
CO
(U
■u
CO
■u
u
o
s
•o
00
d
•H
4J
d
3
x:
I
d
o
d
CO
■u
■u
(U
CO
3
u
to
CO
CO
m
CO
H
CO
CO
o
H
CO
-a
a d
CO g
o
u d
<u ^
M d
CD
O CO
>^ S
O CO
O
CO
d
•1-1
CO
u
H
CO
O
u
d
CO
M
•rl
CO
O
Q
O
3
4J
d
3
O
o
CM
CO
CM
CM
in
so
vo
CTv
CM
o>
o
CM
n
o
ON
CO
vO
m
m
in
vo
CO
CO
CO 00 vd- -s^ r^ CM
00
vo
o
in
m
<J-
00
CO
00
<t
CO
CO
CM
00
v£) »-< O U^ CM CM
Csl in CM
VO
CO
Cvl
CM
CO
<M
CO
CO
m
00
o
vo
I-)
JD
CO
■U
CO
d
u
CO
P3
CM
O
vO
•H
CO
(U
CO
o
u
CO
•T-l
PQ
(U
CO
CO
to
vo
d
♦H
CO
►4
CO
CO
d
Ou
e
CO
CO
m
CM
(1)
u
Si
CO
a
B
CO
in
CO
•r-4
vo
O
O
3
P^t
O
M-l
i4-<
3
CO
CM
u
<u
■u
CO
u
o
CO
m
m
CO
vO
m
CM
V
3
d
CO
CM
CO
CO
l-l
CO
■u
o
H
W-35-R-15:II-2
Reconunendations : It is recommended that deer project personnel continue to
determine the annual non-hunting deer decimating factors of
the Massachusetts deer herd.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James J, McDonough, Game Biologist
and
William J, Minior, Assistant
Date
*/!SS
^A 3Z. 3 : \f^'?>6-R-is/lL-Z '
JOB PROGRESS REPORT
State
Cooperator
Project No,:
Job No.:
Period Covered:
Summary:
Age at
parturition
Yearling
Two years
Adults
^
Background :
Government Documents
Collection
NOV 1 4 1973
University cf Massachusetts
Massachusetts
^Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-15
II-3
Project Title: Game Population Trend
Job Title:
and Harvest Survey
Deer Fertility Studies
1 January 1973 through 31 May 1973
Thirty-six (36) £emale deer mortality carcasses were col-
lected from 1 January through 31 May 1973 by Natural Re-
source Officers and Division personnel. The deer were
aged and autopsied to determine the frequency and state
of pregnancy. Fetus and corpora lutea were examined and
documented.
There were no significant changes in the mean reproductive
rates for the eight -year period, 1966 through 1973. A sum-
mary of eight years of reproductive data (1966-1973) is as
follows:
Sample
Size
160
93
199
No. Fawns
Produced
40
131
344
1966-1973
Reproductive Rate
1: .25 (100: 25)
1:1.41 (100:141)
1:1.73 (100:173)
1973 Rate
1: .22 (100: 22)
1:1.33 (100:133)
1:1.72 (100:172)
The sex ratio of 126 males to 100 females was determined for
the 43 fetuses examined. This was a disproportionate rate
from the expected 106 males to 100 females.
Carcasses of female deer mortalities were collected from
1 January through 31 May by Division of Fisheries and Game
personnel and Natural Resource Officers. These carcasses
were either brought directly to the Field Headquarters in
Westboro or picked up by project personnel from various
Division installations. Deer were autopsied by project
personnel and fetuses and ovaries were removed for future
examination.
The tooth replacement and/or wear technique was used to age
the deer examined. Crown-rump measurement was used to
determine fetus age.
Ovaries were sectioned longitudinally and the number of
current corpora lutea were recorded. Corpora albicantia
were also sought to help provide some idea of previous
pregnancies.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
W-35-R-15:II-3
Objectives:
Findings:
To determine the reproductive rate per age class of the
Massachusetts deer herd.
Thirty-six (36) female deer were examined during the five-
month period (1 January through 31 May 1973) covered by
this report. All 36 deer were collected from the Mainland
herd. The age of the deer presented in this report is the
age at parturition. From 1 January through 31 May 1973
examination of 36 reproductive tracts found that:
1. Of the nine yearlings, two were pregnant and each were
carrying a single fawn.
2. Eight of the two-year-old does were pregnant and carry-
ing 12 fetuses.
3. Of the 18 adults, 17 were pregnant and carrying 31 fe-
tuses. One adult doe examined in early January may have
been recently bred. However, no embryos were in evidence.
Table 1 presents a comparison of the age composition and
the percent per age class for the 1972 female deer harvest
checked at Mainland biological deer check stations and the
36 non-hunting doe mortalities.
The percent per age class of the harvested and the non-
hunting mortalities appear comparable except for the two
and four -year-old classes. A higher percent of the non-
hunting mortalities was reported in the two-year class com-
pared to the reported hunting harvest. Hunters harvested
16.83 percent of the 3-1/2 year old does during the 1972
season. The non-hunting mortality data show only eight
percent of this class were reported in 1973, Other degrees
of variation were noted in the older age classes, but these
may have been due to small sample sizes (Table 1).
The following reproductive rates were calculated for the
36 deer collected 1 January through 31 May 1973:
Age Class
Yearling
Two years
Adults
Number
Females
9
9
18
Number
Fetuses
2
12
31
Calculated
Reproductive Rate
100 does : 22 fawns (1 : .22)
100 does : 133 fawns (1 :1.33)
100 does : 172 fawns (I :1.72)
Table 2 presents an eight-year summary of reproductive data
for the three age classifications from 1966 through 1973,
The contribution of the yearlings per year is minimal
averaging 0.24 fawns per year. The two-year-old class
contributes an average of 1.40 fawns per pregnant doe per
year. Most important is the adult class in which pregnant
females average 1.72 fawns per year. Producing at a rate
nearly seven times greater than the yearlings and nearly
one third better than the two-year class, the adult segment
plays a highly significant role in the total fawn production
W-35-Pv- 15:11-3
Table 1.
The age composition
and percent per age class
of
harvested female deer
checked at biological deer stations (
[mainland)
December 1972 and thir-
ty-six female deer mortalities collected January
through May 1973.
Age at
No, in Percent
Age
at
No. in
Percent
Harvest
Sample of Sample
Parturition
Sample
of Sample
6 raos.
90 29.
.70
1
9
25.00
1-1/2
57 10.
.81
2
9
25.00
2-1/2
56 18.
,48
3
6
16.67
3-1/2
51 16.
,83
4
3
8.33
4-1/2
22 7.
,26
5
3
8.33
5-1/2
14 4.
,62
6
1
2.78
6-1/2
10 3.
.30
7
3
8.33
7-1/2
2
.66
8-9
2
5.55
8-9-1/2
wm « ■
...
10-;-
10-1/2
1
.33
Table 2.
A summary of the reproductive rate data per age c
lass
of thirty-six
Massachu.setts female
i deer
mortalities
., 1 January
1966
to 31 May 1973.
Yearlings
Sample
Not
No.
Annual
Size
Size Presnant
V
Pregnant
Favms
Pveproductive Rate
1966
16 9
7
11
0.69
1967
12 1
11
1
0.10
1968
14 2
12
2
0.14
1969
25 5
20
5
0.20
1970
37 4
33
4
0.11
1971
27 6
19
8
0.30
1972
21 7
14
7
0.33
1973
9 2
7
2
0.22
Total
161 38
123
40
2.09
Mean
20.13 4.75
15.38
5
0.24
Two-Year-olds
1966
4 3
1
5
1.25
1967
10 9
1
12
1.20
1968
12 11
1
16
1.33
1969
16 16
0
23
1.44
1970
15 14
1
20
1.33
1971
16 15
1
26
1.63
1972
11 11
0
17
1.55
1973
9 8
1
12
1.33
Total
93 87
6
131
11.06
Mean
11.63 10.88
.75
Adults
16.38
1.40
1966
18 17
1
31
1.72
1967
10 10
0
20
2.00
1968
20 17
3
32
1.60
1969
35 32
3
63
1.80
1970
28 23
5
47
1.67
1971
41 39
2
70
1.71
1972
29 26
3
49
1.69
1973
18 17
1
31
1.72
Total
199 181
18
343
13.91
Mean
24.88 22.63
2.25
42.88
1.72
W-35-R-15:II-3
and therefore the overall size of the Massachusetts deer
herd.
A summary of the 1973 corpora lutea and fetus counts is
presented in Table 3, No analysis of the corpora lutea data
will be made at this time because of the sample size and
the necessary assumptions made to obtain the count. It was
interesting to note that 50 percent of the two-year-old fe-
males were carrying twins and 66 percent of the adults were
carrying twins. One adult was carrying a set of triplets,
A breakdown of the sex of the deer fetuses per age class is
as follows:
Age
No.
Does
Sex of Fetus
Male Female
Total No.
Fetuses
Yearling
Two years
Adults
2
7
17
26
2
6 4
16 15
24 19
2
10
31
43
The sex ratio for the 1973 fetus collection (24 males: 19
females) was 126 males to 100 females. This was somewhat
disproportionate to the expected 106 males to 100 females.
It is possible that the small sample size collected during
the 1973 period tends to make the data uncertain or question-
able.
During the five -month collection period (1 January through
31 May 1973) 88 female deer mortalities were reported by
Natural Resource Officers. Of the 88 deer, only 36 females
or 41 percent of the mortalities were collected and examined
by project personnel. No deer were collected from Nantucket
or Ifertha's Vineyard during the five-month period.
Recommendations: It is recommended that Division personnel continue to col-
lect, compile and report reproductive data pertaining to
the Massachusetts deer herd.
It is recommended that project personnel present a deer
project activity slide lecture at each of the Natural Re-
source Law Enforcement Districts before 1 January 1974.
It is felt that such lectures might stimulate interest and
increase personnel cooperation between the deer project and
the field officers.
W-35-R-15:II-3
Table 3.
two-year-old ant
31 May 1973.
d adult fem^
lie deer In
Ma
ssachuse
ittS
, 1 Jai
Age
Number
Pregnant
Females
Number
Corpora
Lute a
Number
Fetuses
Single
Twins
yearlings
2
2
2
2
Two years
8*
14*
12
4
4
Adults
18
37**
32
4
12
Triplets
* Ovaries missing but assumed that at least one current corpora lutea present
per fetus.
** A three-year-old (at parturition) doe had two current corpora lutea and may
have been in the early stages of pregnancy as no embryos were found.
W-35-R-15:II-3
It will be necessary to train some person or persons
(NRO or MSPCA) to collect the lower jaw and complete re-
productive tract of female deer mortalities occurring on
Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard in order to determine the
reproductive rates for the islands.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved: __________________________________________
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James J. McDonough, Game Biologist
and
William J, Minior, Assistant
Date
I
JOB PROGRESS REPORT
State
Cooperator:
Project No. :
Job No. :
Period Covered:
Summary:
Massachusetts
Government Documents
Col.ection
NOV 14 1973
University of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W*35-R"15 Project Title: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
II-4
Job Title:
Management of the
Massachusetts Deer Herd
1 July 1972 to 30 June 1973
Sex and age data collected at ten biological deer checking
stations were expanded for the three deer management units.
The 1972 statewide shotgun deer harvest was 1,256 males and
760 females. There were 199 button bucks reported from
4 December through 9 December 1972.
The number of Mainland antlerless permits was reduced from
6,000 to 4,000 permits in 1972. The reduction should re-
sult in an increase of antlered males in 1974.
The 1972 harvest of deer per square mile of deer range on
the Mainland remained unchanged at .3 deer. The Martha's
Vineyard harvest per square mile increased from 2.5 deer
In 1971 to 3.1 deer in 1972. On Nantucket Island, the
harvest changed from 4.5 deer per square mile in 1971 to
3.5 deer in 1972.
The calculated statewide minimal deer population for 1972
was 11,336 deer.
Non-hunting deer mortalities are greater than the reported
harvest in the Eastern group of counties.
The effect of the antlerless permit system of harvesting
and controlling a deer herd is demonstrated on Nantucket
Island,
There was a slight increase of adult buck harvest per
square mile on the Mainland and Dukes County (Martha's
Vineyard and the Elizabeth Islands). A planned reduction
of the adult male harvest continued on Nantucket.
The number of adult females in the harvest decreased on
the Mainland and Nantucket. There was a slight increase
in the adult doe harvest in Dukes County.
The percent frequency of adult females to adult males de-
creased on the Mainland and Nantucket Island. The percent
frequency of adult females to adult bucks increased in
Dukes County,
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent,
#5146
W-35-R-15:II-4
Background :
Deer herd management recommendations are presented.
Starting in 1966, successful Massachusetts deer hunters
have been required to bring their deer to an official deer
checking station within 24 hours to be recorded. Deer
checking stations have been operated by Division personnel
since 1948. Ten check stations are operated as biological
stations at which sex, age, weight and antler beam diameter
data are collected.
Objectives:
Findings:
In 1967, an an tier less permit deer hunting system was
initiated to control the hunting pressure on the female
segment of the deer herd. The deer project leader recom-
mends the number of permits to be issued after examination
of herd age composition, reproductive rates, annual removal
rates, hunting pressure and the deer harvest per square
mile of deer range.
To estimate the size of the deer herd in Massachusetts and
to recommend management techniques,
A summary of the sex and age composition collected at the
biological deer check stations per deer management unit
from 1967 through 1972 is presented in Table 1. This
table includes the 1971 and 1972 biological data collected
from Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard islands.
Figure 1 presents the Massachusetts deer harvest per square
mile of deer range per county for the six-year period, 1967
through 1972, In Berkshire and Franklin counties .5 males
were harvest per square mile of deer range, while the
harvest in Barnstable, Hampden and Hampshire counties was
.3 males per square mile of range. The Eastern group of
counties consisting of 2271,6 square miles of deer range
produced a reported harvest of 34 bucks,
Franklin County, X7ith a harvest of ,3 females per square
mile of deer range, can be interpreted as a county with
heavy hunting pressure. The highest deer harvest on the
Mainland with ,8 deer per square mile of deer range was
found in Franklin County,
Because of the small reported harvest for the Eastern group,
the data were deleted from Figure 1. The Eastern group,
considered a deer management problem area, consists of the
following counties: Bristol, Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk,
and Plymouth,
The Eastern group non-hunting deer mortalities (P-R
W-35-R-13 and 14: II-2, 1971 and 1972) show that there were
85 non-hunting deer mortalities in 1971 and 61 non-hunting
mortalities in 1972. The reported legal deer harvest for
these years in the Eastern group of counties was 54 and 50
deer respectively. Although a portion of the 2271.6 square
miles of deer range of the Eastern counties is not open to
hunting, the reported deer harvest for this area is still
below all expectations.
CO
§
o
ON
vO
CO
ON
ON
CO
s
ON
o
ON
ON
vO
ON
CO
vD
ON
VO
ON
I
or«.vOf-<cM"<rocNJO
ON ir» ir> lO cnI r-i i-h
r-t <t a^ T-i en o <t
o vo vo m CO CM 1-1
t-< ON o
O <t ON NO ON -sj- 00
ON lO vD ^ CM i-<
o o o
vO lA ir> vD <f
1^ in m cn es
-< O CM O O
<i-cnoovor-<cn<rcomr-i
•<1- CO CM •-< t-4
r-i CM 00 n r^ CO
CO CO •-< rH
r-< O 00 <-J
CM
r>. o <}■ VO VO <f
r^ vD >T ON «d- .-1
l>*
ON
CM .-<
r-l CM O O
o
o
CM
CO
o
CO
ON CO VO
r-4 O
r-icor«»r>^c7»i-tr>*r^»-<0
CM VD <}• ON m CM
r-< CM i-«
r»»<7vCO00u0r-»^CM
vo CO tn ON in CM «-<
CM rH
CM
r-*covof>.tor«.<!-ooo
VO C7N CM CO CO »-<
00 f^ CM CM m o m
CM vD CM vO CM i-«
r-t t-H O
CM
■*^
(-(
I
ON
• I CM
COCMCMCMCMCMCMCNICM"***
g«— <«— li— li— Ji-4i— li— li— I I
I I I I I I I I o
vO'-'cMco-^mvor^cor-i
CO
u
o
(U
CO
0)
■u
4J
<u
X
U
CM
3
r*.
4J
CO
c
rt
0
•o
d
<«
o
t-4
•o
CO
l-l
ctf
p%
0)
a
•H
>
ON
m
01
CM
••
to
^
4J
:>i
Rl
s
vO
<r
4J
rH
CO
na
(U
4J
u
o
ON
a
O
V
f-l
u
u
<o
o
•o
CO
■u
o
4J
in
o
vO
CO
3
^
i-O
'"«
CO
CO
CO
cd
vO
S
in
M-l
o
a
o
•H
CO
4J
CM
•H
r*.
CO •
O CM
a. rs.
a CJN
o ^
(J
TJ
CM
(1) c
m
C>0 (C
vO
CO
r-l
•o r^
a o\
CO .-1
>< ti
CO
<U 'H
CM
CO
m
CO
0) C
j3 O
4J -H
•U
»« CO
O 4J
r-l
CO
CM
Ps
-d-
>J 00
2 c
: •H
3 ^
9 u
CO Q
jC
< o
CO
T-l
CO
■u
o
H
CM
C7N
CO
§
ft*
ON
4J
<a
o
3
*J
C
CO
Z
CM
C3N
CO
0)
3
ON
CM
CTi
CO
§
1^
00
<
t-<vDcMininO"-*'-*oo
CM •-< r-<
M3
<1-CMCMCOCMCOOOOO|
i-« CM r-( r-<
VD
I^CJNCMCMOCOOOOO
CO
VO
«*«. CO CO r^ <t O o
CM CO .-•
rH O O
o
o <f »-< m ON vo
CO CM r-^ r-l
»-< CM «-! O
CJN
r-ti-lvOi-^-itCOCMCMCOO
tJ
r>.
CO »-l 1-1 rH
u
C7N
CO
r-l
f>N
<u
c
•H
>
CO
CO
ja
■u
M
cO
CM
mi-immvoi-icocMoo
CO
o
I-l
l>»
<3N
1-1
CM -vf i-l rH
i-l
0NrH<J-00N;J'C0O'-*'-<O
r^
CO "sJ- rH
t
CJN
1—1
CO
00
00
o
CM
I
ON
• I CM
COCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM"^
S
vO i-<
I I I I I I
CM CO <f m vo r^
I
CO
I
o
CO
rH
CO
o
H
Figure 1. A summary of the Massachusetts deer harvest by sex per square mile of
deer range by county, 1967 through 1972.
Male
Female
Total
Berkshire
839.0 sq. mi.
^ 1.0
»-*
.^-^ • >^^^
I-*
■"^^ ^**S»^
CD
y
CO
►Q 0.5
•
5
,»*'
■ 0.0
.
67 68 69 70 71 72
Year
1.0
0.5
Franklin
649.1 sq, mi.
1.0
0.5
Hampden
524.3 sq, mi.
0.0 _„_ J . ,_ , , 0.0-
67 68 69 70 "Tl~72 67 68 69 70 71 72
Year Year
«
1.0
CO
0.5
J/J
0.5
►Q
•
tS
•
0.0
Hampshire
431.5 sq. mi.
67 68 69 70 71 72
Year
Worcester
1307.6 sq. mi.
1.0
0.5
0.0
z:1^--'- •"-■----
67
68 69 70 71 72
Year
Barnstable
290.5 sq. mi
1.0
0.5
0.0'
67 68 69 70 71 72
Year
Mainland
6213.6 sq. mi.
Dukes
86.5 sq. mi.
Nantucket
35.9 sq. mi.
6.0
CO
'^
CO
3,0
0.0
67 68 69 70 71 72
Year
6.0
3.0
0.0 -
67 68 69 70 71 72
Year
6.0
3.0
/\
/ .^.
y
0.0
\
X
67 68 69 70 71 72
Year
o
n
O
>
Oi
0>
P
a
t-'
I-'
I-'
c
o
o
n
»-'
c
c
c
rt
I-*
f-"
I-*
(a
01
ca
B
rt
rt
a
03
a>
m
m
f-«
Ou
C^
cu
fO
5
0)
01
rr
H-
a
a
03
P
c
c
fi
H-
I-"
H-
<
5
rt
ft
n>
&)
w
M
f-h
B
rt
(D
03
•a
^
H-"
o
(0
n>
T3
H-
c
fD
-o
I-*
o
0>
-o
-o
rt
O
c
!-••
X}
(-»
o
c
03
0
h-"
rt
03
H'
rt
o
p-
3
0
3
>-• 4>> ro h-*
V M w w
ui o ro I--
^ 00 CO o
t-» (jJ t-» 0^
n o
n
>
03 03
01
O'
►-» v-*
>-■
c
O O
o
h-*
c c
c
ft
(-• t-*
(-•
03 03
01
§
rt rt
rt
fD (D
«)
I-*
O^ cu
a
fD
B 03
03
3*
p. a
D.
0)
P c
c
>-t
p. f_4
M
<
B rt
ft
rt)
03
CO
H- hh
3
rt
n>
w
•o a
h-»
o oS
(0
•O f-
c n>
T)
h-*
o
03 -X)
X)
rt o
c
H- TJ
h-"
O C
03
3 M
ft
01
H«
rt
O
H'
0
O
0
ON ro
to
V V
w
H-
h- o
o
00
vO
CO !-•
Ui
00
ON
«^ 00
VO
ON
■«J
-}- ^- -:-
.'«
VO o
^
ON 3-
(D
4> W i-«
1-'
•vj 03
M
r>o t-» "^
Un
1 3
O
• • •
•
l-OQ
(D
W VO o
w
VD O
3
^ N) C/1
Ui
ON
CO
rt
Ul Ul W H-
00 N5 to »-•
tf W V V
l-»
V W V V
M
O N5 f- W
v£)
•Vj VO J> O
VO
h-' VO Ui ^
•vl
4> ON M N>
ON
-!>• v£> JS 00
o
O 4> O Ni
00
'
1
t 1
NO O
oj 3*
rt)
•f -}- V
»"
VO O
0> 3-
(D
N>
to
ro I--
O 01
n
U) OJ Od
to
00 01
»-!
to
to
■^ vo
1 3
o
Ui Un l-J
«^
1 3
n
•
•
• •
•"-•CW
n
• • *
•
h-CW
rt)
VO
VO
ON »sj
VO n>
3
O M VO
H*
VO rt)
3
U3
U1
CO OJ
ft
t-* VO Ui
o
ON
VO
ft
H-* J> U) h-"
W V w w
f-«
00 o »-* to
VO
O O 00 vO
ON
V/1 "vj O VO
VO
1
1
-!- -}-
VO o
•^ 3^
n
-^
■>- *
1
-J-
VO O
ON cr
to h-.
H' 03
*^
ro
CO
VO 03
i-t
to
w
o u>
1 3
n
•vi
to O
ON
1 3
o
•
•
• •
l—OQ
rt)
•
• •
•
»-'(W
rt)
o
ON
•vj Ul
VO fD
3
(-•
to 00
o
VO rt)
3
(jj
-vl
OO ON
to
ft
00
■f> to
03
o
ft
(-' u> to I--
Oi Vyi U) I-*
» u W 4#
1-'
w w «t w
1-'
U> VO "^ to
VO
o to I-* u>
VO
UJ W <-n Ui
•^
l-» VO <-n "si
•^
ON W Ul ON
to
JJ- VO 4> 00
o
or
§
(D
3*
(0
CO
01
o
c
01
rt
rt)
Q.
B
3
I
O
TJ
C
ft
o
3
CO
O
o.
n>
rt)
•-{
vD vO vO VD VO VO
•^ <^ vg ON C3N ON
to t-» O VO 00 *^
lO h- W to O CO
Ln O •vj VO to 00
ON ON 00 VD to CJN
l-i io to »-*
VO Ui to lO ON Ul
VO W O Ui I-* LO
to lO to to H-« h-
W «* W V w «*
to to U> O Ul H-
»-» 4> ON !-• VO *^
Ui 00 "^ O w to
Ln "vj ON ^ ro to
W «* V «* «> V
W to -J ON U) to
to -vj 4> VO U3 W
ON O *«J Ln h-» ON
rt)
03
»1
J2
« w w u ««
Oi
>
4> U> Ln ^ O VO
h-"
h-*
Ul U1 VO to 00 U)
rt)
l-»
Ui VO CO •{>• w *^
CD
S^ CL
h- c
fD h-*
CO ft
c c
o rt
?r rt
CO O
3
*ri
rt)
*J 00
>g «-n W
to
B
ON 00
ON 00 t--
Ul
01
O VO
VO ON o
U1
1— •
rt)
CO
>
Ln
ON ut js ro i-«
Q
a
W
^ 4i* M (-• ON
03
c
O
Ul ON Ul "^ 00
t-'
t-*
n>
rt
m
•n
(D
to to to 1—
p
*^
W 4> to ^ VO ON
03
SJ
O CT\ LO (-• W -^
I-*
s:
(D
3
CO
O H
fD O
rt) ft
ft 03
CO rt) H
CO f-i o
c B ^
n) f-u (J
Q* ft »-•
CO
H
03
cr
rt)
to
CO
c
03
n
o
3-
fD
s
03
CO
CO
01
n
3*
C
CO
rt)
ft
rt
CO
a.
n>
o
n
3*
01
t-t
<
rt)
CO
ft
cr
CO
3-
O
ft
OQ
C
3
VO
ON
v4
ft
3*
t-t
O
c
CO
3-
VO
to
•n
2;
(D
c
n
s
B
cr
|j.
ro
ft
•i
CO
ro
r-*
ro
VO
4>
ON
W
**J
ON
Ul
Deer Harvested
Hundreds
Ln
Q
V/1
to
h-«
u>
VD
«jl)
o>
h-*
c»
^
h-»
o>
VO
VO
o>
Ui
VO
VO
o
•sj
f-»
ro
VO
^
VI
0
»-■
01
t-"
U>
VO
NS
•»J
ON
ro
(D
CO
&>
o
cr
D*
•1
CO
0
vc
1^1
W-35-R-15:II-4
A summary of the reported statev/ide shotgun deer harvest
and the number of antler less permits issued per year from
1967 through 1972 is presented in Table 2. During the
1972 shotgun season successful deer hunters removed 2,215
deer from the statewide herd. Of these 1,256 vjere adult
bucks, 199 were button bucks, 530 were adult females and
230 were female fawns. Five thousand three hundred
twenty-six antlerless permits were issued for the 1972
shotgun deer hunting season, a decrease of 1,944 permits
from the 1971 deer season.
Figure 2 shows in graphic form a summary of the Massachu-
setts deer harvest per year and the number of antlerless
permits issued from 1967 through 1972, It can ba seen
that the deer harvest peaked in 1970 when 1,373 adult
males and 989 females and button bucks were taken, A
total of 6,747 antlerless permits were issued for the
1970 season. This was an increase of 2,052 permits above
the 4,695 permits issued in 1969. In 1971, the number of
permits was increased to 7,270 permits or 523 permits
more than the 1970 total of 6,747. With each increase in
the number of permits issued from 1969 through 1971 the
rate of increase of the adult male harvest decreased
X7hile the antlerless (button buck-female) harvest increased,
A summary of the percent change in the adult male harvest
and the calculated minimal populations of deer in Mass-
achusetts from 1967 through 1972 is presented in Table 3.
The minimal deer population was calculated using a formu-
la based on the percent of 1-1/2 year-old males removed
to the total adult males reported at the biological check
stations (W-35-R-12:II-4, 1970). From 1967 to 1969 the
percent change of the adult male harvest, the calculated
adult male and female populations and the calculated
minimal population show an annual increase. The rate of
increase of the percent of change for all categories de-
creased from 1969 to 1970 and continued to decrease into
the 1971 deer season. The number of antlerless (sports-
man) permits issued for the 1972 season was reduced on
the Mainland to 4,000 permits. The percent change for
all categories increased from 1971 to 1972.
Tables 4 and 5 present a summary of the adult male and fe-
male harvest of deer per square mile of deer range per
county in Massachusetts from 1967 through 1972, The
sensitivity of the permit system of harvesting deer is
discernible in both of these tables. The number of
antlerless sportsmen's permits issued in 1972 was reduced
from 6,000 permits to 4,000 permits on the Mainland, The
purpose of the reduction of permits was to decrease the
female harvest in counties producing the bulk of the deer
harvest.
Table 4, A summary of the adult male deer harvest per square mile of deer
range per county in Massachusetts, 1967 through 1972,
Square Miles
County
Deer Range
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Barnstable
290.5
.14
.15
.20
.28
.28
.26
Berkshire
839.0
.27
.37
.44
.44
.42
.45
Bristol
422.6
.01
.01
.01
.01
.002
.007
Essex
344.4
.03
.03
.04
.06
.03
.05
Franklin
649.1
.27
.35
.39
.39
.36
.43
Hampden
524.3
.13
.19
.24
.22
.20
.25
Hampshire
431.5
.16
.25
.27
.26
.15
.23
Middlesex
583.1
.02
.01
.02
.02
.02
.01
Norfolk
277.3
•»«■«»
w ^ «■
.01
---
Plymouth
544.2
.03
.02
.03
.02
.01
.02
Worcester
1307.6
.11
.06
.14
.15
.07
.09
Total
6213.6
.12
.14
.18
.19
.15
.18
Dukes
Nantucket
86.5
35.9
.71
.65
.72
.91
1.01
1.18
1.34
1.56
1.89
2.42
1.78
1.36
Table 5. As
ummary of the
adult fema
le harvest per
square mil
Le of d
eer range
per
county in Massachusetts
, 1967
through
1972.
Square Miles
Couhty
Deer Range
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Barnstable
290.5
.03
,02
.06
.10
.09
.09
Berkshire
839.0
.04
.06
.12
.16
.23
.13
Bristol
422.6
.005
.002
.002
.002
Essex
344.4
.006
.003
.01
.03
.003
.003
Franklin
649.1
.07
.11
.14
.15
.27
.22
Hampden
524.3
.02
.03
.06
.06
.08
.07
Hampshire
431.5
.04
.06
.11
.11
.07
.08
Middlesex
583.1
.002
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
Norfolk
277.3
.004
«•«>«*
.004
Plymouth
544.2
.002
.01
.01
.01
.002
---
Worcester
1307.6
,02
,02
.05
.07
.05
.03
Total
6213.6
.02
.03
.06
.07
.08
.07
Dukes
Nantucket
86.5
35.9
.14
.10
.18
.36
.67
.89
.17
.14
.97
1.67
1.53
1.11
W-35-n-15;II-4
In Barnstable, the adult female harvest remained unchanged
with ,09 deer per square mile while the antlered male
dropped .02 deer from .28 in 1971 to .26 in 1972. The
harvest of adult females in Berkshire shows an expected
drop of .10 from .23 in 1971 to .13 deer per square mile
in 1972. The adult male harvest in Berkshire County in-
creased from .42 in 1971 to .45 in 1972. In Franklin
County, the slight reduction of .05 adult females from
.27 deer in 1971 to .22 in 1972 indicates considerable
hunting pressure. The antlered buck harvest in Franklin
County showed an increase of .07 deer from .36 deer in
1971 to .43 adult males in 1972.
The adult male harvest increased slightly in Hampden,
Hampshire and Worcester Counties during the 1972 deer
season as compared to the previous season. The adult fe-
male harvest for these counties decreased slightly during
the 1972 season except for Hampshire County which had a
.01 deer increase from .07 in 1971 to .08 deer in 1972.
The remaining counties; namely, Bristol, Essex, Middlesex,
Norfolk and Plymouth, with exception of Middlesex, shot?
slight increases in the antlered male harvest. The changes
in the adult female harvest for these counties were from
no harvest of females to .001 deer per square mile of deer
range. It is quite evident that there is very little
hunting pressure in these counties or the hunters are not
reporting the taking of a deer.
Harvest data seen in Table 4 and 5 show that the adult male
and adult female harvest in 1972 on Martha's Vineyard in-
creased ,17 male deer and .22 female deer per square mile
over the 1971 harvest. This was the second year of the
antler less permit system of hunting v;ith 600 permits issued
for Martha's Vineyard only. With the completion of the
1973 deer hunting season a solid foundation of permit deer
hunting for this island will have been completed, provided
that the number of antlerless permits remains at 600
permits ,
The harvest of adult deer on Nantucket has progressed as
expected with the harvest of 1,36 adult males and 1.11
adult females per square mile of deer range. Four hundred
(400) antlerless permits were issued for Nantucket Island
from 1969 through 1972.
The harvest of adult deer on Nantucket Island clearly
demonstrates the effectiveness and sensitivity of the
antlerless permit system used in manipulating and controll-
ing a deer population. During the first two years, 1967
and 1968, of the statewide antlerless permit system of
harvesting deer, there were relatively few adult females
harvested on Nantucket, The harvest data in Table 5 show
that ,17 and .14 adult females were reported per square
mile in 1967 and 1968 respectively. The antlered male
harvest during these same years was a healthy 1,34 and
W-35-R-15:II-4
1,56 bucks per square mile. To cope with the increased
deer herd on the island and bring the herd size into
balance, 400 antlerless permits were issued for the 1969
deer season. As expected, the Nantucket adult female
harvest increased from ,14 deer per square mile in 1968
to ,97 deer in 1969, The adult buck harvest continued to
increase 1,56 in 1963 to 1.39 males per square mile in
1969, The peak of the deer harvest on Nantucket occurred
in 1970 when 2,42 antlered males and 1,67 adult females
per square mile were recorded. The predicted decrease in
the adult harvest of the Nantucket deer herd occurred with
the harvest of 1.78 bucks in 1971 and 1,36 antlered males
in 1972. (The peak was 2,42 bucks in 1970.) During the
same two-year period (1971 and 1972), the female harvest
decreased from 1.67 does in 1970 to 1.53 in 1971 and 1.11
adult females per square mile in 1972.
It is planned to bring the adult male to female harvest
close to a one-to-one ratio for Nantucket Island during
the 1973 deer season. The number of antlerless permits
issued for any future year can be adjusted to hold the one-
to-one ratio and maintain the herd in balance.
Table 6 presents the percent frequency ratio of adult fe-
males to adult males per county from 1967 through 1972.
The results of the 2,000 permit reduction on the Mainland
in 1972 is evident in Table 6, With the exception of
Barnstable and Middlesex, all counties show a lower per-
cent frequency of females being harvested in 1972 compared
to the 1971 percent frequencies. The effect of the 1972
permit reduction should show as an increase in the Mainland
male harvest frequency in 1974.
The percent frequency of adult females to adult males in-
creased slightly on Martha's Vineyard but decreased slight-
ly on Nantucket Island during the 1972 deer hunting season.
The data documented in this report indicate the need for
the continuation and the expansion of the antlerless permit
system of harvesting deer in Massachusetts. By expanding
the system to its full potential of a county or regional
distribution of permits, it will be possible to maintain a
harvestable deer herd in Massachusetts ,
How many deer hunters are there in Massachusetts and where
do they hunt are questions often asked of project personnel.
The answers given of an estimated 45,000 to 55,000 deer
hunters is based on an expanded card survey conducted over
20 years ago. In order to expand the antlerless permit
system to its full potential the big game license would be
a useful tool.
f
vO
0)
CO
H
CM
o
ON
ON
CO
vO
ON
l<4
Pl4
3
(U
tX4
•U pi*
3
a
u
(14
in
D
•O
Fl4
■U PC4
vDOrOvOi-tCTNinco
cnoonoiAcMcom
o
o
3
u
fn
■u Pm
3
<
o
o
r^ eg »-<
CM ^
f-i 00 <r <f
<r CO CO
00
mcocovoi^'-ioocn
r» r^ r-< r«» CO CTv
CO CM «-•
O CO OO vO r-t On O
CO in O f^ <f <!• m
in r^ r-i \o CM «-< r*
CM 00 r«. <f CO
CMCMi-ICMCMCOCOvJ-
00 m i-l CO o VD r-<
CO CM r-J
vo 00 in ON vo CM r^
CO CO <1- CO CM >t vO
ON 00 ON 00 >-« 00 vO
CM CO ON CO <)■
oo-vj-O'-'r^-d'ON
00 VO CM m i-« »-<
CO CM r-l r-»
CM
O
m
r-4 <t
00
00h«-0Or-l\OvOr-<r-l CO
CMCMC0COCOeM<fCO <J-
vOO'-'sJ-COCMf^-vJ- vO
I-) o ON CO "Nr
oOi-tcorovocotncoco-vf
mr^ «— iincM'-''-' «— •
CO CM <-< r-l
^i^ooocomco
.-lr-4cMr-<CO»-ICM<l*
VO CO i-l
m
r-l 00 CO r^ CO
vO t-l CM
<t><finoocor^r>«.
<r 1-1 rH CO ON o
CO CM r-l
<j-<j-cocoincocoo
CMr-lrOr-ICMO<M»-«
0«-'eMCM<fCr»vOr-«
1— t CO «* •-<
r-JCOvOf-tvOONONO
-Cj- CM 1-4 r^ O VD 1-1
CsJ »-<
00
CO
CO
00
VO
o
vO
vD
O
vO
CJN
00
VO
00
00
CM
ON
CO
as
m
vo
CO
00
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
O
(U
u
•rt rH
O
C ^ m
CO
M CO
0
Si
^ 4J ^
u
4J
0) X
}-i (U
C3 1-t CO ^ _ _ _
Q) J3 O i-l 3 r-< CO
O C O^ O-'O tw "
CO CO S S T) M
;^ CO >^ CO CO -I-I O
^-1 u
f-< 3 O
vO
CO
CM
o
in
o
in
in
o
CO
m
m
in
C3N
ON
CO
C>J
in
vO
r-l
CM
CO
CM
vO
CO
CO
CM
CO
o
CM
00
00
C7N
I-I
ON
vO
VO
\^ *if fH vj 1^ \\f *v ;»-» ^^ ' — ■ w^ v^
CQPQmWf>*ffJKSSP^cn:3:
CO
o
H
o
o
o
o
o
o
m
vO
o
o
o
«
VO
o
o
o
o
o
o
t
CM
o
o
o
CM
I
to
JJ
U CO
O 4J
to B
M-l 0)
o a!
• a
O CO
s s
«n
eg
o
vo
00
in
00
<3N
CO
CO
ON
VO
CM
VO
CM
VO
vO
C3N
vO
m
o
CM
CM
VO
O
o
vO
O
O
vD
CO
3
a
I
CO
■u
U CO
o u
CO 6
u
O DJ
O
CM
00
O
ON
VO
CO
in
m
VO
cr»
VO
o
VO
00
o
o
<3-
O
O
o
o
vn
m
CO
00
vO
ON
o
m
VO
m
CO
VO
00
O
O
o
3
u
C
CO
4J
U CO
O 4J
a. <
CO B
u
IM (U
o a
o
CM
CO
*
o
CM
so
in
C3N
VO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
CM
U
J3
E
3
C
CO
O iw
H O
to
u
B
u
(U
I
to
I
u
i
CO
CO
<u
3
o
C
W-35-R- 15:11-4
The antlerless permit application could be a part of the
big game license. The hunter could indicate in which
deer management unit he intends to hunt on his application.
Having the antlerless permit a part of the big game license
would be a tremendous saving to the Division by avoiding
duplication of applications and the expense of printing,
distributing and handling of the present form of permit.
It is possible to determine from successful hunters v^here
they live and where they hunted but to determine hunting
pressure on a statewide basis a question should be included
on the 1974 antlerless permit application as to where the
applicant intends to hunt.
Recommendations: Successful hunters should be allowed to close the trunk of
their cars and the rear window of station wagons after
their deer has been officially checked.
Deer hunters on Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard should be
required to report their deer on the islands.
The possibility of the sale of a Massachusetts big game
license that incorporates an antlerless permit application
should be investigated.
A question of where the deer hunter intends to hunt should
be placed on the 1974 antlerless permit applications.
The following number of sportsman permits for the 1973
shotgun deer hunting season are recommended:
Deer Management Unit Number of Recommended Permits
Naushon 50
Nantucket 400
Martha's Vineyard 600
Mainland 4,000
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colt on H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James J. McDonough, Game Biologist
and
William J. Minior, Assistant
Date
>^
£/\'dZ3'^ i\j^^^'i^-(^'/7ir-
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State
Cooperator :
Project No. :
Job No.
Period Covered:
Summary:
Objectives:
Procedures:
Findings:
Goveinmsnt DocurnerkS
Cohection
NOV 14 19/3
University cf Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-16
Project Title: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
III-2
Job Title:
Spring Quail Census
1 July to 31 July 1973
The 1973 spring quail census in Barnstable, Bristol, and
Plymouth counties showed no statistically significant
difference (t.05) in call indices from the 1971 average,
or from a four-year (1958-1961) average.
To determine the dynamic aspects of quail population
densities and distribution.
Roadside whistle counts were conducted during the first
two weeks of July 1971 following established procedures
and routes. The resultant call indices were corrected
for temperature variations (Bennitt, 1951; Ripley, 1956)
and tabulated and analyzed on a county basis. Counts for
all three counties were compared with 1971 indices, and
with a four-year (1958-1961) index. Changes in annual
counts were analyzed for statistical significance and
the results reported accordingly by counties.
The 1973 weighted call indices as compared to those from
1971 and the four-year average are shown in Table 1,
Computation of the tests of significance and comparisons
of the indices by county and route are shown in Tables 2,
3, and A.
The 1973 indices were lower than those from 1971 in all
three counties. These changes were not statistically
significant (t.05) for any of the counties.
None of the 1973 call indices showed a statistically
significant difference (t.05) from the 1958-1961 average.
Call indices were lower than the average in Barnstable
and Plymouth counties, and higher in Bristol County. The
addition of two routes in Bristol County is probably
responsible for the increase in this index .
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
a
o
•r-l
CO
t-l
3
a
o
«
3
O*
CO
*J
fj
cu
CQ
a
s:
V
CO
tfl
CO
m
o
CO
<u
•TO
G
M
CO
iJ
CO
u
(0
i-
o
u
>^
C
3
O
o
0)
r-l
►a
CO
H
r-
C3^
x-^
.— 1
in
(U
(U
0)
o
o
c
c
d
•
4J
o
o
o
■u
s
Z
a
v«/
CO
CU
as
M
i-i
ti
CO
J3
U
I--4
^
vO
c
1
1
CO
CO
t)
in
•H
cr^
«4-l
--I
o
(U
(U
t4
C3
G
d
d
o
o
O
o
&c
4-)
z
S
:a
•H
CD
ON
«
fO CD
CO
CM
vO
r> tJ
en
m
»n
GN d
•
«
•
d
3
O
u
CM
X
f-l
<v
r-l
»-i
<^J
r>.
T?
m
CM
O
CJN
d
•
•
•
l-H
*a-
CM
CM
cy>
0)
r-l
m
CJN
VD
•T3
<n
ON
■*
a\
d
•
•
•
r-l
en
o
CM
r>.
O
o
vO
cn
VO
-o
CJN
<T\
CO
G\
d
•
•
•
»H
r-t
O
r-l
•<}■
(U
m
r-l
-*
O
X)
m
a\
cn
C\
d
»
•
•
r-l
w
»-i
o
!-*
<U VD
00 ON
X
CO t-l
o
m
1-4
J-l 1
'O
o
1^
CD 00
d
•
•
> in
M
CM
o
<i; ON
^
(U
r-<
J2
^
CO
r-l
•u
■u
o
3
?9
■u
o
d
CO
a
u
•H
>,
CO
1^
rH
pq
«
P^
CO
u
c
u
to
C4
(1)
O
3
O
vO vO vO vO
-d-
m o lo m
i^
CM
• • • •
•
m CT\ r>. r«-
o>
CO
CO
1 -o
CO CO n r-<
r>*
II
ir»
vO
1
<t vO t** CO
r-4
1-4
•
<!■
Q
«k n M #
fk
1
.-1
r^
^^
CO r^ CO <r
<J\
d
eg
•
CM -* .-» ro
00
CM
o
S3- r^
m
II
1
11
uo lo m m
1 "TO
CM CM CM CM
1
• • • •
Q
CO vo r^ tn
m <}■ CO CO
r-» VO CO T-l
CO
CO
o
CO
CM
t-l
CM
o
r-l
CO
r>.
CM
1
•<r
i-i
m
CM
•
c-1
o r-- 'T- Q
CO
CO
r^
»X.> CM CM -y
lO
CO
cs^
CM CO r-t CM
o>
CM
1-1
II
1-1
•<1-
CO CM
o
r-«.
in
o c7^
v£>
(T\
CM
CO CM
CM
V.O
O
m
CO
o
11
I X
O 00 t-t CO
CM CM
vO
ir>
00
CM
m
•
•
m
1-4
VO
CM
r-4
Cvl
1
li
in
CM
•
CO
ON
CO
so
0^
CM
1-4
CO
S
•
•
CO
LH
II
II
^-s
./->
«
«
m
U-4
•
•
TJ
•o
CO
CO
Si-'
\— '
m
t-M
o
o
■u> -u
CO
«
CO
C3%
O
<t
IT)
r>.
CM
•
•
m
<7\
CO
<M
r*.
CO o^
•
r-l
CO
m
*
r
NO
CJN
v£)
r-l
00
ON
1
m
r-4
II
n
it
t'O
CM
CM
Q
1 -o
03
CO
0^
t-i
I
00
ir>
CJ^
00
<
5-1
CO
IH
I
}-l
3
O
CO
CO
C3N
4J
d
O
u
0)
r-4
CO
4J
d
CO
fcCi
>
I
o
4J
3
O
Pi
vO
vD
vO o
■^
uo
o
m in
r^
CM
•
•
• •
•
^-v
UO
CO
CM O
t-^
CO
l-O
CO
VO
<T\ t^
r-i
II
1
I-I
vD
,-i CO
C3^
.-1
CO
Q
•^
n »
•k
1
<t
cr>
>-^
CM
VD r-4
r-4
O
CM
d
•
T-l
CM
•
o
•<|-
II
11
<r
VO
in
<r
•
CM
r-s
CM
•
•
<r
CM
f-4
r^
r-4
o-
1-4
1
in
m
m in
"•^^
ITJ
r-
p^
CM CM
1
•
•
• •
1!
II
Q
vO
m
r^ CO
<r
CM
CM <r
fo
4-J
r-«
CO
CM r-l
CO <t
,-i CO
• •
CO m
CO CO
m r-4
o o
•U 4J
o^ CO m »-<
m CO r-4 CO
I I t-i
•A
CM
*
CO
VO
t^ O O CO
00
r^
\o
c^! CM <r m
CO
C7N
CM
CO r-l CM c^
CM
r-4
.&
o
uo
•
rx c^ m i-f
CM
o
O CO CO P»
O
m
00
<■
CM CM CM CM
O
CM
m
vO
A
11
«
•
«-)
t^
o
CS'
p>.
<r
C^
r«»
vO
1-1
vO 00 p-4 CO
•-« f-H CM CM
CM
•
CM
i-l
I
II
I'D
11
II
•vT
rv.
•
CO
i-i
m
1-^
O") •
a\
o
r
r>.
o
CTi
CM
VO
II
CM
O
CO
II
CM
CO
1
1
o
en
C
O
O
(0
•H
CO
•
•
O
n
!3
o
(U
1-)
4J
^
3
C3
o
H
C4
VO
'X)
vO
vO
<r
O
in
o
O
r^
CM
•
•
•
•
•
/-s
<f
o
CO
in
CM
CO
ina
vO
o
in
1— 1
CO
II
r-t
o
CO
CO
00
1-4
in
t-i
Cs« r-4
Q
•V
A
A
n
1
m
o
CO <!•
v_/
CO
<r
O
f**
a
•
CM
t-l CO
i-<
r-«
CO
CO
II
vO
O
•
VO
•
9
II
• •
CO «n
II It
• •
IM IH
00
in
m
• •
-d"
r^
in
TS 'O
.-1
•
•
*»<»»
r<N
CO
CO CO
in
in
in
m
1
CO
■s-' v«^
I'd
CM
CM
r^
f^
1
•
•
•
•
II
II
m 1-4
Q
vD
CO
tH
p«.
o o
m
«X)
O
r-»
1
xt
4J
• •
i-t
en
•M 4J
I I
vo r^ cT> t—i
r-- o o o i^
O O K) CM O
I— 4 CM •— * »-^|vO
un
m
f-4
H
i-« f-l vD
r^ f- 00
I-* CM o
CO
CO
o
m
in
i-t
CM
as
It
<}■
r«.
CM
m
CO
r-
00
»
«
r*.
t^
1
I-t
CO
<3 m m vo
CT\ i-l CO CO
I'D CM
CO
vO
o
«
vO
CO
m
CM
<r
m
It
CM
vD
crt
i-i
I
CO
in
bO
CO
U
>
ca
I
3
O
P4
-o
c
CO
CO
G
3
O
o
o
0}
CM
I
P
in in
CM CM
• •
o o
m in
•<r <!■
CM CM
I
Q
m m
• •
o
m
•
o
rH
o
II
o r^
(T>
1-1
o
r^
o m
•*
1
m
vO
r^ vo
•<f
c
•
•
• •
ON
1-4
CM CO
vJ-
I-t »X>
11
II
II II
in
CM
^-s /-v
•
• •
o
O
IH 14-4
in
m
m
• •
<r
•
•
-O 'V
CM
CM
CTi
CO
-d-
t-l F-l
II
II
in r-i
o o
I'D
CO
CO CnI
CO CO
V (U
i-l 1-4
Si JQ
CO CO
CO
r^ o
•1-4
.r4
r>»
I^
O o
CO
CO
o
ON
i-l CM
>
>
CO
1—4
to
CO
>
5-t
I
•vT CO
CO CO
CO CO
VO vD
ON CN
1-4 1-4
I I
CO CO
uo m
c^ c^^
r-l f
m
CO
m
f-i
II
o
»t-i
CM
II
o
q;
■u
3
O
< in m vo
ON I-t CO CO
4J -u
o
m
m
CM
•
•
o
o
o
m
0^
x*
sS-
CM
II
II
o
o
m
m
•
•
m
o
--1 o
•
o
o
CM
ON
ON
CO
^
^
II
II
II
•o
«^-^
CM
Q
Its
CO
CO
CM
V-'
On
d
en
r-.
r-
b
u
O
IT)
Q
I
o
p^
<r r-<
r-< <0
CM
CO
<r
•<^ <-<
O
II
00
CO
r^
1-4
•V
•V
n
1
CO
CM
CM •--•
CO
CO
r>.
c
CO
•
CM
il
00
00
.
1
it
CO <T
1-4 CO
• •
CO m
II II
« •
•
CO
4-1 IW
r-H
v£)
CO
• •
o-
•<t
•
-O T3
vO
in
"^
1
CM
CO CO
CVJ r-J
ON <f
vO
in
1 1
II
I'd
II
in i-t
o o
• .
CO
■U -U
vo m m o
>-i St o m
I I I
CO
0>
vO <f O COJCO
CO in o colcM
r-l t-l CM r-lJ\X>
m
*
in
m
r-l
II
-.1
o-J
o ON in cojr^
CM ON O COjO
r-i fi en r-tJCO
in
1^
o
C«4
II
CO
CO
CO
•
CO
rH
•
>*
rs
vO
\o
m
II
CM
o
u
3
O
Pi
<
tn VO
CM CO
t
I -o
II
col
col
•1
CM
r^
o
CO vO
r^
m
r-s
CM
CM
CM
Q
l-O
w
(/)
VO
cr.
i-H
t
00
m
C?N
(U
00
to
u
o
>
<
u
ca
&
I
9-1
O
'O
a
to
CO
f>.
c
3
O
3
I
CM
I
Q
I'D
I
Q
CO
>
o
o
O vO vO
vO
<t
o o o
in
r-
• * •
•
•
CO
00 in CO
in
^o
II
CM vO CO
o
CO
i-H
CM 1-4
i-( r* rx
o
VO
1
vO
CvJ
CO <r
M W «
#
A
C
<r
o
r-l CO
>3- vo m
m
i-H
•
•
• •
CM
CM
<!•
II
vO
O
1
II
CO m
II II
• •
n-i m
•
in
vD
• •
CO
CM
<J-
'O -o
o
•
•
00
CO
CM
CO CO
r-l
^
^
s-" \^
in in m
m
*>«».
1
CM CM f^
1^
• • «
«
11
II
in r-4
<r CM uT
o
o o
vo 00 r^ r^
ins
CO
r-l ON ON <f
Ql eg CO .-I r-l
r-4 t-l
I I
VO <r o CO CO
CO in o CO CM
r-l t-l CM rH| vO
m
m
II
m m ON r»»
vO
ON
»-i r-l t-l ^
ON
CJN
i-l --l CO CM
r^
f-l
II
li<i
< CM
m vD t-l
<
CO
■u u
UO
CM
VO
•
O
CM
•
r-l
CO
CM
o
r^
00
II
II
'cr
1^
m
•
CM
in
VD
•
CM
CO
CO CM
•
VO
I— 1
CO
r
CM
<<r
t-l
t^
i
CM
II
11
II
•o
CM
CM
O
ITD
cn
CO
W-35-R-16:III-2
Recommendations :
Due to commitments on other projects, the number of
routes which can be surveyed for the quail census has
decreased considerably since the inception of the
census. Since so few routes are surveyed, statistical
tests can reflect only the most marked variations in
whistle counts. Furthermore, increases in urbanization
and traffic flow are disturbances which unduly inter-
fere with the progress of the census. Since abatement
of these disturbances is unlikely, and relocation of the
routes often impractical, further conduct of the quail
census should be curtailed.
Prepared by:
Date:
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
James E. Cardoza, Assistant Game Biologist
Literature Cited
Bennitt, Rudolph. 1951. Some Aspects of Missouri Quail and Quail Hunting,
1938-1948. Mo. Cons. Comm. Tech. Bull, 2. 51 pp.
Ripley, Thomas H. 1956. Annual Whistle Count Census to Determine Relative
Population Densities and Distribution. Mass. Div, Fish-
eries and Game, Westboro, Project W-25-R-3, I-A. Supple-
ment I, Table D.
-eA32-.^; W-3S'^'-/?,/^'-^
-•ERFORMANCE REPC»T
State
Cooperator:
Project No.:
Job No.
Period Covered:
Summary:
Objectives:
Procedures :
Findings :
Government Docunients
CoiectJGn
NOV 14 19/3
University of Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-15
IV- 1
Project Title: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Job Title:
Experimental Turkey
Stocking
1 June 1972 to 31 May 1973
Ten wild-trapped turkeys (nine toras and one hen) were
captured in Allegany State Park, Cattaraugus County,
New York, and released in Beartown State Forest, Berkshire
County, Massachusetts, where seven other turkeys were re-
leased in 1972. There have been sightings of adult birds
but as yet of no broods since the original release. Efforts
are being made to obtain hens to complete the stocking.
Populations of semi-wild and game farm ancestry turkeys at
six locations in Massachusetts show little or no increase
since 1972. Further restoration efforts utilizing semi-
wild turkeys are inadvisable.
To re-establish the wild turkey in the Commonwealth in suf-
ficient numbers to allow for recreational hunting.
Turkeys were censused by roadside counts, track counts, and
cooperator reports. Snowmobiles were used during the winter
to provide access to the areas and to transport grain for
baiting.
Turkeys were captured using Thornsberry style cannon nets.
Captured turkeys were sexed, aged, weighed, leg banded,
and color marked with patagial streamers.
Statewide Turkey Populations
Winter observations were limited by the scarcity of snow
for tracking. Spring counts were hampered by heavy rains
and muddy roads that limited vehicular traffic. These
conditions, and a paucity of cooperator reports, preclude
listing of population figures for the various release
sites.
Quabbin Reservation-New Salem Populations. Turkey popula-
tions in the Quabbin area remained relatively static during
the past year. At least two broods were produced on
Prescott Peninsula, near Underbill Brook and Prescott
Brook. An additional brood was located in New Salem on
West Street near Hamilton's Orchards. Cooperators reported
a brood near Fever Brook in Dana and adult birds in the
area of Town Farm Brook, Shutesbury, and in the Wheelwright
section of Hardwick.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
W-35-R-15:IV-l
During winter, turkeys could be consistently located only
on the southern portion of the peninsula, in the area of
Prescott Brook, In the spring of 1973, intense rains
occurred again, V7ith probable mortality of eggs and poults.
Although Quabbin-strain turkeys appear wild in a forest
situation, experiences with them near dvjellings in New
Salem indicate that they tame readily, and consequently
are unsuitable for further restoration efforts.
Barre^ Douglas and Mt. Holyoke Populations, Quabbin turkeys
were trapped, transported, and released in Barre and Douglas
State Forests, and in the Holyoke Range between 1965 and
1969, Two releases in the Holyoke Range failed to establish
a population, with the last turkey sighting reported in
early winter, 1972, Releases in Barre and Douglas were
initially successful with good poult production and spread
of turkeys into neighboring tovms. Since 1971-72, however,
both of these populations have declined. Reports are still
received, but of fewer adults and fewer broods, A lack of
vigor, and their ready acceptance of artificial food is
evidence of their partial game-farm ancestry. Cold spring
rains, as in the Quabbin, may also have adversely affected
their reproductive success. There should be no further
incrementation of these flocks with semi-v7ild birds, I see
no necessity at this time to remove any of these turkeys,
however.
Mt. VJashington and October Mountain Forest Populations,
Turkeys in these two locations are entirely of gane-farm
ancestry. There has been little or no spread from the re-
lease site, and the local citizenry has aggravated the
turkeys' inherent tam^ness by unnecessary supplemental feed-
ing. Ten of these turkeys were removed in 1971 to test a
capture technique (tribromoethanol-treated bait) and to
free the area for release of wilder birds. If any remain-
ing turkeys pose a problem to future releases through
potential genetic pollution, they should be removed by
trapping or an alternative means. Otherwise, these birds
should be undisturbed, since unnecessary interference with
them may cause local public relations problems,
Mvles Standish Forest Population. This flock has fared
poorly ever since the release in 1966-67 of 14 wild-trapped
West Virginia turkeys. Poor habitat, excessive dispersal
and road kills appear to be the causative agents in their
decline. The population is now apparently extinct, with
no birds sighted since July 1971.
W-35-R-15:IV-l
Horse Mountain Population. Six turkeys, trapped In New
Salem, vere released on Horse Mountain in Hatfield in
September 1972. One hen was killed by a dog two months
after release. Although cooperators still report a few
turkeys in the area, there has apparently been no repro-
duction, probably due to the fact that there was only
one tom, an immature, in the original release. Since no
releases of wild-trapped turkeys are projected for this
area in the near future, I see no conflict between the
Horse Mountain flock and present restoration efforts,
Turkey Trapping
In an attempt to obtain additional wild stock for Berk-
shire County releases, bait lines were established on the
Bear Spring Mountain Wildlife Management Area, Delaware
County, New York, Baiting was initiated on 29 August and
continued weekly until 6 October by the project leader and
Western District personnel. No turkeys were seen, and
turkey sign was seen only once. No trapping could be at-
tempted.
In February 1973, New York State personnel informed us
that we would again be able to obtain wild-trapped birds
from Allegany State Park, Cattaraugus County. The project
leader and an assistant traveled to this location and,
assisted by New York technicians, were successful in cap-
turing nine turkeys betvjeen 22 February and 2 March, One
additional bird was captured in April by cooperators,
transported to Albany, and from there to Massachusetts,
All ten turkeys (Table 1) were released off Alcott Street,
Beartown State Forest, Great Barrington, Berkshire County,
in the same location V7here seven turkeys were released
last year.
As in 1972, mild weather hampered trapping efforts and
dominance of the bait site by toms resulted in a release
highly skewed to males. Hopefully, future efforts will
allow us to obtain hens to complete the projected stocking.
Three turkeys (two toms and a hen) were instrumented by
Mr. Walter M. Tzilkowski of the University of Massachusetts,
This equipment was attached in order to facilitate location
of the flock during future releases and as part of a planned
habitat evaluation study.
Sightings of the Beartown turkeys have so far been few.
One bird from the 1972 stocking was seen at Alcott Street
a week or so after release. Nothing further was heard
until February 1973 when a farmer reported seeing an un-
specified number of birds in his back field, approximately
three kilometers south of the release site. Since then,
turkeys have been sighted on the far side of the forest,
near Lake Garfield in Monterey, approximately 10.5
kilometers southeast of the stocking location. No broods
have yet been located.
L ,,.••; ■: r -\
= :'i.:.v ■■■>:
CO
60
C
•H
U
4J
&.
o
CO
f^
O
^
5-1
3
H
M
O
m
.u
«
Q
<U
CO
to
cu
r-l
(U
C4
I
o
a
CO
•B
CO
u
<u
i
00
CO
n3
C
CO
C
CO
4J
Si
O
a
fcO
X
0)
CO
to
CO
14
&
*
03
a
a
jj
c
CO
U
/-v
•
N
O
u
•
Si
0)
00^1
tA
f-*
Q)
^*^
1^
s
col
to
CO ^t
H O
bo e
d 3
O
c
CO
pq
CO 4J 4J
d d
0) Q
CO
o
J3
I-t
01 CO
d d
CU
■M
d
CO
d
>%>%>>>>!>•>%>.>%>.
0)
u
U
»J
M
M
>-i
u
;^
M
■u
CO
CO
CO
CO
ct
3
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
r-t
Q
M
:>^
U
M
U
9^
M
M
V4
•H
X»
XI
Si
^
J3
XI
X)
Xi
XI
M
<u
<u
(U
(U
<U
O
O
<U
<U
(U
a.
CO
CO
(U
p^
Pt4
Ft<
fe
►<
P4
iM
fK
pt<
<
m
CO
CO
cn
CO
r*^
r-.
r^
r>.
CO
rH
CM
CM
CN
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
a>
txi
>,
>.
>%
>,
t^
>>
>%
>.
u
}-4
M
;^
!-i
9-4
M
^
CO
CO
CO
3
CO
CO
CO
CO
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
)^
u
U
M
M
M
!-i
;^
X)
x>
X>
X)
XI
XI
X)
X5
0)
0)
(U
O
CD
0
(U
<U
pL,\XtfH^pL4(X4^[X{
U
CO
3
U
x>
0)
Ft.
9-1
CMCMCMCMCMvOvOVOvOO
CMCMCMCMCMCNCMCMCMCM
A—s. /-N /""V z"^.
r>. <j- <f cy\
CM CM CO
i-l r-t
f-4
till
1
i 1
1 1 1
00 00 On O^
o
CM CO
CO CM CT.
rH i-< r-l t-<
s_x >^ >-/ s-/
CM
1-4 tH
VOVOr-4r«.r-<vOCMir><»00
coinoooeMiriONCT>r*^0
cococTvcoc^lOu^^Al^Na•
ssssssssap^
^O 'O 'O 'O 'O
r^ CO vo St in
C3N <j\ cTs cr> cjN
O CJN f-l CM o
o c\ o o o
CMCMCMCMCMCOCMCOCOCO
lomuoiAioiAmminm
I I
I I I
b^ H H
I I I I I
H H H H H
O
CM
r-t
CO <f in SO
r-l I-l I-t t-l r-l
r>. CO CO
i-« t-i cys
CO
u
u
0)
XJ
u
(0
CO
CO
O -u
>* S
3
5 O
(U u
u si
C CO
O U
u a>
CO
3 •»
00 d
3 O
CO
?-l
CO
■u
CO
4J
fcO
d
•I-»
V4
O CO
PQ
A
9-1 CO
CO Q)
p^ »4
o
(1)
■Ul •>
CO -u
4J CO
CO 0)
>s S
d [S4
CO
C>0 o
o u
r-t CO
< CO
* d
CO
g
9-1 -P
CO 9-«
C8
CM Q) *
r^ PQ ^
!.»
CL n
CO
6 w
{U
CO <1>
<J o
a
M
w
■u .u
CO
CO CO
4J
CO
•O *J
o u
>»
u o
d
3 U
(0
U r-l
60
D- <
CU
CO
r-l
U VH
r-4
(H
<
CO O
C7\
A
^ -o
d
o
3
JJ CO
Ci
eu CO
<U (U
4J
(J r-l
r-l
>< (U
O
O 9-«
ta
CO CO
ij
>^ >.
CO
o o
^ A5
tJ
J^ u
a
3 3
u
4J -P
3
U
r-l rH
CX
t-t r-l
CO
< < o
* *
4«
4C
•C
W-35-R-15;IV-l
Recommendations ;
1. If possible, obtain some additional wild-trapped hens
to complete the Beartown stocking. If the Beartown release
is successful, transplant additional turkeys to other suit-
able areas in the Berkshires, and elsewhere as suitable
stock and habitat are available.
Acknowledgments ;
2, Utilize only wild-trapped stock in future releases.
Semi -wild stock such as in the Quabbin may remain un-
disturbed unless interfering V7ith wild-trapped birds
through potential cross-breeding. Occasional monitoring
of the progress of these semi-wild flocksis advisable in
case they should overcome their previous dependence on man.
I extend my appreciation to Messrs. Lee DeGraff, John Proud,
Steven Clarke, Quentin Van Nortwick, Fred Evans, William
Shirey, and Clint Mount of the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation for their assistance in
securing wild-trapped turkeys, and to Dr. Wendell Dodge
and Mr. Walter M. Tzilkowski of the Massachusetts Coopera-
tive Wildlife Research Unit for their assistance in mon-
itoring the Bear town releases.
Prepared by;
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved ; ^
Colton H. Bridges
Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Assistant Game Biologist
Date
-X
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State:
Cooperator:
Project No.:
Job No . :
Period Covered:
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-15
V-1
Project Title:
Job Title:
Game Population Trend and
Harvest Survey
Hunter Utilization of
Wildlife Management Areas
10 October 1972 to 31 May 1973
Summary:
Objectives:
Procedures :
Total estimated hunter effort on thirteen wildlife manage-
ment areas was 32,505 hunter trips, representing an increase
of 1.9 percent from the 1971 effort.
Peak usage occurred on the first Saturday, followed by the
second Saturday, and opening day. Usage on a weekday after
stocking was approximately 2,03 times that of a weekday
after no stocking.
Local hunters continue to be the heaviest users of wildlife
management areas, although on peak days hunters in the 32- CO
kilometer range predominated on two areas (Northeast, Myles
Standish), and in the 80 plus range on a third area (Crane).
Game bag information was collected on thirteen areas. On
the twelve state areas, 4233 hunters were contacted of whom
1514 (35.3%) had taken at least one unit of game. Knovjn
harvest on these areas totalled 1735 animals of nine species,
Pheasant (1442, 83%) comprised the majority of the harvest,
followed by quail (186, 10.7%) and woodcock (33, 1.9%).
To determine hunter utilization, game harvest, and hunter
success on wildlife management areas.
1,
Government Docujuents
Colection
NOV 14 1973
t'niversiEy of Massachusetts
Roving and stationary checking stations were used to
collect hunting pressure and game bag data on fourteen
wildlife management areas.
Data were collected on the following peak days of usage:
opening day, and first, second, fourth and fifth Satur-
days, At Fort Devens, checks were made every day during
the upland bird season.
Data were collected on four additional days during the
week, as follows: two counts on a day after stocking,
and two when a stocking had not been done the previous
Publication approved by Alfred C, Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
PJ-35-R-15:V-l
day. Freetown was not stodoed during the week; there-
fore, only two weekday checks are shown for this area.
4. Division of Fisheries and Game district personnel con-
ducted checks on thirteen areas. The station at Fort
Devens was manned by Department of the Army personnel.
5. Hunters using Fort Devens were required to check through
a permanent station. Thus, hunting pressure on Devens
is based upon this mandatory check of all hunters, and
is consequently more accurate than on other areas where
many access points and manpower limitations precluded the
use of permanent stations .
6. Roving checks were used on the remaining thirteen areas.
Checkers travelled by motor vehicle and contacted as
many hunters as possible to determine the following:
size of party, home town of the hunters, and amount and
type of game bagged.
7. VJhere the roving check was utilized, the number of hun-
ters was calculated by counting the total number of
cars on the area for that check day, and multiplying
this figure by the average party size. Party size was
computed separately for each area each day,
8. Hunters were also asked to provide the name of their
hometown. Concentric circles were drawn on a map of
the state at 32 kilometer (20 mile) and 80 kilometer
(50 mile) distances from the management areas, and the
number of hunters coming from towns within each zone
was noted. If a town boundary was intersected by one
of these zone lines, the town was considered as being
in the zone in which the mark indicating the town center
was located,
9. Daily summaries of hunting pressure were made on mimeo-
graphed check forms (^J-35-R-13, V-1, Figure 1).
10, Hunters on the thirteen state-checked areas were con-
tacted to determine game harvest. When possible, hun-
ters were contacted after completion of hunting rather
than during the hunt. Checkers noted the total number of
hunters contacted, the number unsuccessful, the number
taking at least one unit of game, and the amount and
species of game taken. Dally results were summarized on
a mimeographed form.
11, In calculating hunter success, a successful hunter was
defined as one who takes at least one unit of game.
Findings: A. Hunter Effort
The 1972 hunting pressure on fourteen wildlife management
areas for peak day, weekday, and total usage is presented
I7-35-R-15:V-l
In Tables 1, 2, and 3. Total estimated season usage v/as
32,505 hunter trips (Marconi Beach area excluded).
Hunter effort was greatest on the first Saturday, followed
by the second Saturday, opening day, fourth Saturday, and
fifth Saturday, Total weekend effort ranged from 0.82
(Myles Standish) to 3.56 (Crane Pond) times that of week-
days (excluding opening day), and averaged 1,29.
The average effort on a weekday after stocking was 2.03
times that of a weekday after no stocking. Although the
1971 rates (1.64) represented a slackening of the disparity
between the two categories of weekdays (1970 ratio was
2.26), the past seasons figure indicates that sportsmen
are able to anticipate or discern stocking dates regardless
of a staggered stocking schedule.
The estimated hunting pressure on the thirteen areas com-
parable to 1971 data was 32,505 hunter trips (Table 4).
This is an increase of 1.9 percent in total effort.
Total hunter effort increased on four areas and decreased
on the remaining nine. Major increases were at Barre
Falls (-:-59.17o) and Myles Standish (+33.4%) , while consi-
derable decreases were recorded at Housatonic Valley
(-41.5%) and Stafford Hill (-32 .2%) . Changes on all other
areas were less than 20 percent.
The increase at Barre Falls occurred largely on peak days
(opening day plus Saturdays); whereas, that at Myles Stan-
dish was primarily on weekdays. The decline at Crane Pond
took place entirely on weekdays, that at West Hill primarily
on weekdays, and that at Winnimusset primarily on peak days.
Crane experienced a gain, and Housatonic Valley and Stafford
Hill a loss in both categories of days (Table 5). Remain-
ing areas had an overall percent of change of less than 10
percent .
B. Distances Travelled by Hunters
Yearly comparisons of the distances travelled by hunters
to wildlife management areas are presented in Table 6, As
in the past, local hunters continue to be the greatest
overall users of wildlife management areas, with a few
areas being favored by more distant sportsmen.
Five areas (four in 1970), Northeast, Myles Standish, Crane
Pond, Crane, and Winimusset, had at least 25 percent of
their peak day hunters travelling 32-80 kilometers. On one
area (Northeast, 56%) hunters in this distance group pre-
dominated, with a second area (Myles Standish, 48%) having
a percentage equal to that of the 0-32 kilometer group.
(0
>.
ta
(=)
^
o
c
o
<u
CxC
ca
CO
D
o
CO
3
CO
t-l
CO
H
3
o
H
>»
CO
TJ
M
)4
0)
3
JQ
CO
§
W
^
J3
S
4J
«4-l
00
♦H
T-«
Fl4
CO
U (U
4J S
CO (U
en >
o
4J
U r-l
3 i-<
O
>>
CO
T3
Vl
V4
3
(U
■P
WQ
CO
o
W
■u
•o
(B
§
CO
u
CM
(U
CO
CO
13 U
U <U
^ -9
+J o
CO 4J
co^
u
« 1-4
»4 CM
•H
Pm
CO (U
to 4J
•H O
a
(U
OiO
O CM
CO
cy>
in
»d-
vD
m
r*
T-t
O
\£>
CM
f-4
a\
so
F-l
CO
r^
r>.
OS
O
<x>
in
CJN
r-*
r>»
•<J-
i-l
CTk
CM
CM
tn
o
o
(30
O CM CO
CO cr\ CO
ON O in
CM
CM
00
v£)
vO
f*
<f
i-i
s£>
O
m
CM
00
\o
■<t
o
00
r-»
1^
!>.
CO
CM
r*.
O
t-«
CO
•<t
00
CM
»-«
t-<
r-l
CM
CM
ft
in
o
vO
r^
O
t-i
<}•
vO
VO
r-4
vO
in
o
CM
CM
n
r^
O
in
CM
•vT
<t
a\
CM
t-i
f««.
<r
(T.
CM
1-1
St
t-4
CM
f-l
CM
CM
r-«
f-i
in
in
c^
r-l
VO
o>
<X3
CM
<r»
CM
m
!>•
r^
cy*
in
in
rv
00
o
VO
CM
r-4
•<*•
i-i
CM
rH
CM
CM
O <t CO 00
in I-I CM CM
in CM CO i-t
o
1-1
in
VO
in
f>.
«*
vO
o\
in
r-l
O
r^
CM
o\
<T>
CO
r«.
m
r>*
<J-
CO
CM
CM
m
vO
cn
r-l
vO
CM
CO
r-l
CO
CM
VO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
1-t
o
CTi
C3S
o
r*
CM
VO
m
in
r-
cs
CM
VO
m
o
vO
<t
<»
in
I-I
CO
CM
CM
r-l
t-l
I-I
CM
I-I
CO
1-1
CM
CM
I— I
o
c^
CO
CO
CM
VO
\o
CO
fO
I-I
o
CO
VO
m
CM
>^
V
«-l
*c:
t-4
^
CO
CO
i-(
o
•H
>
I-I
CO
•d
•H
CO
CO
c
G)
c
TJ
o
Ed
c
1-4
I-I
o
■p
w
CO
■p
•H
<b
r-l
r-l
*J
r-l
a>
g
4J
o
CO
c
tJ
>
CD
•I-i
CO
r-l
CO
•H
CO
(X(
CO
o
}-l
(U
►4
33
73
•H
CO
o
c
O
■M
o
Q
U
p:2
3
CO
<u
u
o
0)
s
Xi
CO
m
(U
^
CO
6
l-l
c
o
u
(U
c
4-1
09
M-l
■u
V4
O
XJ
■p
'^
CO
CO
<v
h
I-I
to
u
3
CO
M
M
!-i
,o
CO
d
4J
U
}4
CO
>»
^-1
o
O
■u
o
CO
•H
3
a;
•H
O
O
fo
s
s
o
s
K
CO
Cn
FQ
PQ
!X!
&
:s
H
1
to
(U
C
o
0)
60
CO
CO
O
u
CO
3
CO
CM
O
i-i
CO
H
CO
0)
5
CO
SI
u
o
4-1
CO
o
s
■p
<
CO
<u
CO
S
6i
CO
3
o
o
f4J
CO
0)
<
>i
CO
c
o
(0
0)
u
<
•>Tf~4r-lr-lvOr-4r-4CMin04CM CM I
VD 00 CTv <f CM VO r-<
VO CM CO Si" <f CM CO
•-4 <f CM
CM O <t CO CO
O CM ON CT\ 00
.-< CM
CO
CO
CO
vO
•n
CM
CM
CO
CO
uo
CM
cr> CO ON
CM
CO
CM
O
o
as r>»
CO
CO
00
001
CM
00 o|co
"«* in|r-i
CO
CM
r» r-l VO
r-< CM 1-4
in
I I S
CO vD o CO m
O r-l a\ CM CM
Csl
VO o
rs,(r^ cM|s;f|r-i
<3N
C3N
CO
CM
CM
O
CM
CO
I
>»
cu
r^*
U2
r^-JC
xa
CO ,-<
•rl
> rH
•2
•H
CO
c na
o a
r-( t-4
*_
CO C 4J
•H
l-» f-l
c
•U O CO
c na
CO i-«
3
CO P-t CO
O }^
fa s
O
Qi
4J o
o; iJ
ta 0) ja
C8 cw
<U jn
a 0)
<U 5 4J
CO M-l
u u
CO cu
3 CO
M !-i
u u
>N M o
O U
CO •H
U fa
SOS
K CO
PQ PO
g
■U I-I
CO t-4
CO
rO CO
W & 12
4J
0)
CO
CO
I
CO
p-<
CO
o
H
CO
O
•
CM
n
o
•H
4J
CO
in
in
Cv4
II
« X
m
CO
in
CO
m
n
vO
CO
O
u
o
00
CO
CO
o
H
O
CO
u
u
o
H
CO
CU
&
o
(U
4J
CO
• • o
CO >,«r)
>> r-< tJ
CO g d
(U CO
<u ^
13 CJ
(U (D
O O CO
cu CO CO
^ -O 4J
O ^ C
<U 3
<u o
& o
•u o o
-Jc
o
4J
CO
« I
(0
CO
o
s
0)
00
I
§
0)
t>0
(U
I
CO
M
CO
o
en
V
r-l
cd
H
CD
12
■M
Cd
OS
t2
cd
o
H
cd^
w
>>!
cd
Q
c
•H
0) CO
> >J
<! cd
cd NO
■tJ
cd
w
<u
60
cd
u
CO
o
>1
>
cd
<
•n
>.0^
cd
CM
Ta
•ii
«
0)
<u
Cd
i-i vX) CM >^ ir» C4 i>>
CM CM 00 m 00 <Ti (N I
• ••••••I
n-< CM O CO O O »-< I
t-l r-4 CT\ ON <J-
00 IT) r»" 00 o
Of^cTki^inoovoco vOoooocMin
C3N<tr-ivomr^i-im cmcmocmco
cMf-)vOi-<cn r-«cMCM<*tsieMi
r^ c^ 1-j o ON cys vo
!--< in cjN CM vo in o
CM i-t CO CM CM t-l
cvj vo «n CO CM
»sf CO in i-i 1-4
i-l CM r-< CM 1
CO CO CO CM CM C3 r-l
r^ ,-4 ,-1 CO i-t <^ c?N
<!• <7\ vo r-4 in CO m
#\ A A rt
r-l CM f-* •— I
in CO CO CO CM
O O CO r-« CO
CO -d" CM CO vO
A «v «\ A
r-l CM •-< p-l
CO vD O <7> ON r^ <f
1-4 O ON i-l vD r^ vO
CM ^d" <— I CO r^ CO sd-
^ «« #t
r-l CO r-l
•^J- in VD VD C3>
in ON CJN ON o
r*» m o v£) vo
CO
■3C cd C
a 4J o
Bco P-( cd
0) +j CO 0) 02 cd iw
C <u (U C -P CO 4-1
cd 0) r-l cd }^ 3 cd
M M >. M O O
.-<*
cd t-4-5C
> --I*
•H CO
owe
■u
♦H <y
CO
C t3 >
cd
O v< O
Q)
4J O p
4J
O
CO C5
r-l r-l O
r-4 r-l 4J
Cd -H CO
P4 K T3
u
<u js cd
i-l o ^
Cd -r* 3
•r-l
X
u
CO
C3N
CM
n
in
o
m
CM
00
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
m
m
m
CO
C3N
O
CM
OfeSOSKcoh Mpqffi
CO
.-I
cd
•p
o
H
to
CS
o
CO
tt-l
o
&
>
Qi
4J
O
u
>>
CO Cd
cd C
-O cd
M ^
o >>
0) Xi
O "TO
w e
C cu
O -M
CO ^
cd o
CO O
■u
C t-4
3 cd
O 3
U 4J
O
ts cd
cd
'O r-l
^ Cd
OJ o
0)
60
a
o
4-1
(3
u
OS
t-i
0
O
u
u
3
(A
CO
o
1^
t3
iJ
I
TO
W
<y>
0)
CO
CO
0)
o
u
0^
4J
CO
W
•
RJ
'tf
<U
U
GJ
<
r-l
r\
rj
H
OOcn<^C^O^OC^^<T^l-l^nc3^eM<XJ
+ ++IIIII + IIII
Cn|
vO
cn
i-l CN| CM <t r>i Cv| r-4
r^voinor^cscMin«-ir«.ONvor*.
r^r*»><l'CMir».si'r-4voeMcocMc>lvo
incovooevj<nr>.r-4<j-vDr-ivovo
CMr-<«vfCMfnr-«r-«cnr-4>d-ev|CNJi-«
>^
o
T-4
XI ^
m c3 f-t
1-1 J> «-*
•T3 -H
CO
CO C
S '2 "5=5
c
,-4 .-• O 4J
ctf C +J -H
Q)
1-4 ,-4 +j 1-4 <y
d -P O CO C no
>
CO •!-< CO 1-4 CO
SS CO (^ R} O Vl
cu
fa 33 tJ 'H CO
O <U 4J o
Q
U X '
(U
4J CO Qi Si RJ M-l
<U ^ Rj E
c
Q) cu c -P CO m
4J
}-l O ,n 4J 'r-
RJ
QJ 1-4 Rj J^ 3 Rj
S-i
vi !-4 jo CO a
^4
^^ >> >J O O 4J
o
d 'H 3 <U -H
a
fa S O S trj w
fa
CQ M W IS ns
C3N
CO
R)
4J
C
0)
Q
CU
CsO
Rj
a
CM
O
B
O
u
CM
CO
>.
RJ
RJ
(U
"B
R]
CO
RJ
u
o
0)
Rj
CO
O
RJ
§
fi
•rH
(U
00
c
R]
o
■u
c
o
u
Q)
fa
in
0)
I— I
s>
R5
H
Ml
C
CO
x:
o
+j
c
a>
o
M
0)
fa
CM
CO i-l
>,
Rj
I
01
C
RJ
4J
c
(U
o
»^
fa
CM
|c a\
CO I-l
>»
RJ
RJ
fa
t-4
OS
u-»m<tr^vDoooomr>-<j-o
OCMvor*(Tii-400COr».cr\to
,-ir-4C»mr-4mtnfn cm
+ I + I+I i + i I I I
0-r-li-li-4vX>r-lr-ICMLnCMCMCM
c:oooNvOf-4r>*cM o^^^D<^0
rOf-4incMincgcncMiricMcn<N
coco<^r^^^vOlr»m<^OeM•<^
in
>d" vo en r^ O ^O
CM
4- -!-
-h I
<y\ o
r^ r-4
+ I +
en
I
ocor^iomcooooovooor^
<tiocM<y»minOi-4r^<y»r-40
CMi-4^r-4eM r-4Cv4Cnf-4CMr-l
c3^I-4(n^-4r».c7^cnl>«.eM^o>>o
Ofnt-icoinr*«.«-it-4CMcrifOin
CMr-4<J-,-ICM r-4r-l<t'-»CMr-l
RJ
i
5-1
o
<
CO -u
^ s
u u
O fa
>%
<u
1-4
•C!
1-4
(U
CO
RJ .-1
M
•H
> r-*
Rj
•o
•H
CO
C
CO
c
'Q
U S
1-4
r-4 O
4J
3
RJ
C
■u
•H
t-4
•-4 4J
1-4
0)
4J
o
CO
C 'O
Rj
•H CO
r-4
CO
<i>
CO
fa
RJ
o u
fa
K -0
•ri
CO
W)
CU
4J O
!j
ffi
3
Rj
CO
01
x:
Rj 4-1
(U
^ RJ
a
M
<U
(3
4-1
CO 4-4
>-l
O ^
4J
T-l
O
r-4
RJ
S-I
d Rj
^4
^J rO
CO
c
>
>,
M
O
5 ••-»
Rj
•H 3
<U
•H
<:
s
a
s
H CO
M
pa K
rs
rs
*
Ok
1-4
I
m
vO
CO
>-< H
>*
<U
ctf
P4
•o
M
3
4J
«.
CO
•d
3
Ss
CO
Q
00
C
•H
60
a
C to
(U
•H V<
<§*
.-4 OJ
<1> 4J
> a
c
CO e
o
u o
H •-•
CO
«H
CO
ij u:
Q)
c
V4
<u o
<!
O 00
(4 1
4J
CU <N
c
CU CO
i
(U
bO
CO
a
0)
(H
•H
t-l
•o
t-4
03
•H
03
ts
OJ*
t-1 CO
o
u
■p
ta <u
C 4J
CO
•H 0)
u
^ S
Q)
<u o
4J
> <-•
c
to nH
3
U W
m
H
CM
>»
4J cn
.o
c
O C
"S
O CO
■-«
a H
t-4
P^
o
>
CO
M
H
a>
o
c
CO
4^
CO
VO
(0
•§
O (0
^S
60 U
C 0)
•H 0
r-4 O
<U ft
Sd
H O
00
4J
C CS
<U CO
o ^
3Z6T
00
o •*
1-4
o
m
*
o
o
CM
CO
■-I
CM
CN| o
•
o
1/161
vO
o
^ O
o
o
o
m
•
r-4
o
r-4
r-l
CM m
• •
o o
0^61
CO
o
<*
o
in
•
o
in
•
r-4
<J-
r-*
CM
in o
•
o
696T
CM
fO
eg
o
1-1
I-I
m
<t
CO
o
r-4
O 1
896T
CO
CVJ
o
CO
CM
in
CM
o
CM
O
f-4
r-4 1
1961
in
o
r^
in
o
00
1-4
<t
O 1
9961
o
in
o
CO
o
i-i
CM
CM
1-1
r-4
f-4 1
£961
:?
CO
CM
o
Cvl
o
1-4
a\
r-l 1
3il61
in
CO
CM
00 tn
VO
m
m
•
CO
o
<y\
CO
CM
o
CM
CO vO
CM
IZ61
m
»-4
in
Cv
CO
CO
vO
r-l
o
in
1-4
r-4 >d-
CM CM
CO CO
• CM
m
0/161
<f CO
CO
VO
o
vO
vO
in
•
o
m
r-4
m
r-4
<t in o
CM • CO
6961
CO
CM
tn
CO
1^
00
f-4
in
CM
CO
CM
in 1
r-l 1
8961
CM
r-
«*
1^
CO Vt>
CM CM
O
CO
00 1
1
^961
O CO
CO
o
VO
r-l
o
1-4
^^
ON 1
i
9961
CM
CM
CM
00
vO
vO
Sj- CM
r-4 CM
St
CM
O f
r.4 1
S961
CM
CO
^ VO
vO
CO
<T>
i-l CO
CO 1
1
2^61
t-4
CO
CO St
<}• in
3
vO
0^
o
o
F-l
CO
vO
CO
CO vd-
t-4
ON
1^61
00
1-4
r* f-i 1^
^ vi> CO
o
o
1-4
in
•
CO
00
ON
VO
in
•<t in
ON •
vO
OiL61
o
CO
CM
CO
o
vO
•
CO
00
1-4 00 <f CO o
00 r>. i>s <> r^
ci
6961
1-4
CO
VO
CO
CO
vO
CM
r-l CM
>d- vo
in 1
CO 1
8961
VO
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
r-l
in
sJ-
in
o
VO
r-l i
ON 1
^961
in
CM
as
CM
CM
O
VO
CM
VO
r-l 1
<7N 1
9961
CO
CM
00
CM
St
F-4
s* vo in
00 vo r*.
00 1
5961
<t CO CM
CM 0> CO
CM
CM
CO
vO
r4 1
ON 1
CO
is
u
o
PC4
Myles Standish
Crane Pond
4J
CO
CO
0)
4J
Housatonic Valley
Stafford Hill
03
r-4
1-4
to
u
u
CO
m
Birch Hill
Hubbardston
West Hill
Winirausset
(U
r4
&
6
to
CO
(U
to
ro r-4
<U Ti
•p
r-4 g B)
o
-rt ^ Q)
G
S O r-4
_ in n-l
CO
O 1 6
a>
CM o 7
u
• CM -»-
to
o o
n m
to
n
s J "
•H
CM 00
-O
CO 1 +
a
• CM O
O CO CO
I
■a
1
<u
u
o m
lis U
r-* O
> 'H
H o
CO
c a
O J3
^^ H
P4
CO
c
to
•H
»^
f-«
0)
(U
4J
>
v
«
s
1^
o
H
1-4
•H
■u
M
C
0)
o
o
00
V4
t
<u
Cvl
P^ 00
m
CO
<u
1-^ m
U
bO 0)
C 4J
•H 01
<0 O
> r-4
CO •H
^ t^
H
CM
c
0) c:
u a
u Xi
0) H
p-i
2Z6
1^6
696
896
L96
996
S96
ZL6
016
696
896
/L96
996
596
2/:6
IZ6
0L6
696
896
2196
996
596
(U
i-40r-400oomooooo
CO
CO i-<
CO
Or-lOOO I Ot-lOOO
m I N* I o
CO
I UO I O
i ft I
O 00 I r-l
I
o es I vo
CO <t I o
I m 03 CO o
I CO
I CM r-J CM i-l
I ft
I O V3 O O
I
I CM CM O O
I r-l
I O O 1-1 CO
00
OCDODr>»oo(>»coo»-4ir>
■it CO >d' CM CM
C3^ln^-lI-^cy^mOvC)fOlAOO^^
CO mmCO r-*t-4CM r-4
r*.ocou->coo I coinouoco
CM m «-! m t r-i CM CN|
coi»-4ir«>.i iirjooocoi
<}• I m I <t I I in CO r^ i
ir»ivoi»-ii ivooor«.o\i
CO I ^d" I m I I r-H CO CO I
cocoi>. lO I locoinuo I
CM CO m I St I I CM CM I
coooit-ii i<hOir»oi
ft «;1- I vO I I p-« CM i-« I
CvlOCMlCr>l lOr-<CMC0|
CM tn I IT) I t-l CM CM I
f-«Or-«eMcooocooNOcr\u->
cMOunvoiooocooooooNix.
comoc\»-<<}'0«*cMir»vo«M
CMONCO><J'VDCT»OOOCOr*»ONCO
in o r-« in CM o
CO I o
CM I CA
VO i CO
I CO I
I m I
I C?N I
O r^ in I ON I
CO vo CO I in I
CO O CO
CO O CO
r-^ r** ^
CO a> si-
CO
CO
I t>. «4- o
I ON r» 00
I O CM ON
I ■^f CO •-»
I CM i-« 1-1
I CO m vo
I o »-* in
I 00 ON 1^
I <^ 00 in
I ON v£> 00
I o CO r^
I ON vo r^
in CM
o\ r^
O I
in I
ON I
o I
O I
CO I
CO
•H
4J O
3 cn P-« w
o <u
(U -W CO 0) ^
C <u Q> C .IJ
}^ >^ h o
03
>
u
e
o
(0 U-t
CO U-l
o
4J
U Pc4 ^ U S S c/^
CO
r-l
i-«
Ctf
<1>
u
u
c}
a
o
o
CO
•o
u
■w
CO
4J
CO
CO
i
c
•H
15
•a
t-4
!■
CO
(0
o
C
CO
<U
Ki
CO
CO
q;
«0
u
•H
•s
M
I
I
l7-35-R-15:V-l
On weekdays, five areas (five also in 1971) had 25 percent
or more of their hunters in the middle (32-80 kilometer)
distance category. Myles Standish (48%), Crane (48%), and
Northeast (477o) all had nearly half of their hunters in
this group.
Crane remains the only area to be used extensively by hun-
ters travelling greater than 80 kilometers. Nearly half
(48%) of the peak day, and 31 percent of the weekday hunters
travelled this distance in pursuit of sport . The only other
area with a sizeable proportion of far-travelling hunters
was Birch Hill, (13 percent peak days, 8 percent weekdays).
The remaining areas were utilized largely by local hunters.
Stafford Hill (as in 1971) was utilized entirely by local
hunters. Freetown (98% weekends, 100% weekdays), Housatonic
Valley (96%- 100%), West Hill (91.8%-99%), and Barre Falls
(89%-83%) also had little non-resident usage. Hubbardston
reflected an increase in local usage from 75% in 1971 to
80% in 1972, with Winimusset shov;ing three-quarters local
and one-quarter in the mid-distance group.
C, Game Bag Harvest and Hunter Success
Game bag data was collected on five selected management
areas in 1970 and 1971. In 1972, this coverage was extended
to include the twelve management areas consistently sampled
by the Division. Department of the Army Cooperators pro-
vided harvest data for Fort Devens, as they have since 1969.
The amount and species of game taken by management area
and type of day for 1971 and 1972 are presented in Table 7.
A total of 1736 units of game of 13 species were harvested
on 12 areas on the nine days per area sampled (108 sample
days). Pheasant (1442, 83.0%), war the predominant species
taken, followed by bobwhite quail (186, 10.7%), woodcock
(33, 1.9%), ruffed grouse (27, 1.6%), cottontail rabbit
(24, 1.4%), and white hare (15, 0.9%). Waterfowl (four
species), gray squirrel, woodchuck, and fox, comprised the
remaining two percent of the harvest.
Pheasant were taken on all management areas, with the
greatest harvests being Northeast (286), and Birch Hill
(262), and the least at Barre Falls (30). At Stafford Hill,
the only game taken was pheasant (46).
Quail were taken on Myles Standish (112), and Crane (72),
both as stocked and native birds. Two additional quail
were harvested illegally at Birch Hill.
Ruffed grouse were taken on five areas, with the greatest
harvest at Birch Hill (16),
Table 7. Game Harvest on Twelve Wildlife Management Areas, 1971 and 1972.
Ruf
fed
Wood-
Water-
Subtotal
Game
Pheasant
Quail
Grouse
cock
fowl
Birds
r-l
CM
1-1
CNJ
i-i
rg
r4
CVJ
1-)
CM
T-4
CM
r»
r«*
r«»
r*
r^
r*
r^
r»^
1^
r^
r^
r«
o\
a\
a»
o\
o\
ON
<j\
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
Area - Dates
f-t
K-l
r-l
r-«
r-t
f-4
r-«
l-t
t-«
f-4
T-l
i-t
Crane
Opening Day
25
14
3
8
1
29
22
Saturday (4)
90
91
39
62
2
3
1
1
132
157
Weekday after
stocking (2)
41
23
19
2
1
60
26
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
2
1
5
7
1
Totals
158
129
66
72
3
4
1
1
228
206
•k
Freetown
Opening Day
17
IWD
18
Saturday (4)
55
55
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
Totals
72
1
73
it
Myles Stand ish
Opening Day
12
18
1
31
Saturday (4)
83
75
2
160
Weekday after
stocking (2)
27
19
46
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
Totals
122
112
3
237
Northeast
Opening Day
32
31
1
32
32
Saturday (4)
129
187
4
2
1
134
189
Weekday after
stocking (2)
47
62
1
48
62
Weekday after
no stocking
5
6
2
7
6
Totals
213
2C6
7
3
1
221
289
it
Crane Pond
Opening Day
6
6
Saturday (4)
60
60
Weekday after
stocking (2)
7
7
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
2
2
Totals
75
75
Game Harvest - Birds
(1) 371
684
66
184
10
10
2
1
1
449
880
* Area not sampled in 1971.
WD = Wood Duck
Table 7 (Cent.)* Game Harvest on Twelve Wildlife Management Areas, 1971 and 1S72.
Ruffod
Wood-
Water-
Subtotal
Game
Phea
r-l
cant
Quail
r-l CM
Grouse
r-l OJ
cock
r-l (M
fowl
Birds
1-4
CM
r^
r>.
r>.
r>^
r^
r^
(^
r~>
r- r^
r^
r-~
ON
cy»
o^
On
o^
ON
3N
ON
ON On
ON
ON
Area - Dates
I— 1
I— 1
1-4
1— 1
t-i
r-*
r-l
r-4
1—1 r-*
r-4
r-4
Housatonic Valley
3WD 2T
Opening Day
20
10
2
2M 2m
25
16
Saturday (4)
51
57
1
2
52
59
Weekday after
stocking (1)
19
14
I
20
14
Weekday after
no stocking (1)
5
1
5
1
Totals
95
82
1
1
4
5 4
102
90
Stafford Hill*
Opening Day
8
8
Saturday (4)
31
31
Weekday after
stocking (1)**
4
4
Weekday after
no stocking (1)
3
3
Totals
46
46 ;
it
Barre Falls
Opening Day
7
2
9
Saturday (4)
16
16
Weekday after
stocking (2)
5
1
6
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
2
2
Totals
30
1
2
33
Birch Hill*
Opening Day
25
2
2
29
Saturday (4)
185
2
11
13
211
Weekday after
stocking (2)
36
2
2
40
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
16
1
5
22
Totals
262
2
16
22
302
it
Hubbardston
Opening Day
12
1
13
Saturday (4)
86
1
87
Weekday after
stocking (2)
14
14
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
3
3
Totals
115
2
117
Game Harvest - Birds (2)
95
535
2
1
17
1
30
5 4
102
588
* Area not sampled in 1971
WD = Wood Suck M = Mallard T = Teal
** Two weekdays each category in 1971, one each
in 1972.
Table 7 (Cont.)* Game Harvest on Twelve Wildlife Management Areas, 1971 and 1972.
Ruffed
Wood-
Water-
Subt
otal
Game
Pheasant
Quail
Grouse
cock
fowl
Birds
t-i
CV4
t-«
CSJ
i-i
cs
r-l
CM
r-l
CM
i-H
CM
f^
r*.
r>-
r^
r>i
t^
r^
r^
r^
r^
r-.
t^
r-4
t-l
1-1
(TV
OS
t-4
i-i
West Hill
Opening Day
16
16
Saturday (4)
77
77
Weekday after
stocking (2)
9
2
IBD
12
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
5
5
Totals
107
2
1
110
Winimusset
Opening Day
40
11
1
41
11
Saturday (4)
108
79
2
5
115
79
Weekday after
stocking (2)
16
12
16
12
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
17
14
17
14
Totals
IGl
116
3
5
1C9
116
Game Harvest - Birds
(3)
181
223
3
5
2
1
189
226
Birds
(2)
95
535
2
1
17
1
30
5
4
102
588
Birds
(1)
371
684
66
184
10
10
2
1
1
449
880
Total Birds
647 1442
66 186
14 27
8 33
740 1694
* Area not sampled in 1971
BD = Black Duck
Table 7 (Cont.)» Game Harvest on Twelve Wildlife Management Areas, 1971 and 1972.
Game
Cotton-
tail
Rabbit
1-4 CM
1-1 r-i
White
Hare
IN. r^
a\ ON
Squirrel
r-4 r-t
Fox
i-l CM
cr» cr>
Subtotal
Mammals
f-4 CM
Area**
Totals
Area - Dates
cr.
CM
Crane
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
stocking (2)
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
2 2
2
2
2
2
29
134
60
7
22
159
28
1
Totals
2 4
2
4
230
210
Freetown
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
1
I
18
56
Totals
1
1
74
Myles Standish
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
stocking (2)
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
2
1
2
1
31
162
47
Totals
3
3
240
Northeast
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
stocking (2)
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
2 5
1
1
IW
IG
1
3
1
7
1
32
137
48
, 8
32
196
63
6
Totals
3 5
1
2
1
4
8
225
297
,*
Crane Pond
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
stocking (2)
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
6
60
7
2
Totals
75
Game Harvest -
Mammals (1)
5 12
1
2
1 1
6
16
455
G96
* knQB. not sampled in 1971 ** Includes birds total carried forward
W - Woodchuck G = Gray squirrel
Table 7. (Cont.)« Game Harvest on Twelve Wildlife Management Areas, 1971 and 1972.
Game
Area - Dates
Cotton-
tail
Rabbit
f-« CM
ON 0\
White
Hare
i-« CM
i-i i-i
Squirrel Fox
r-< CM r-l CM
0> C> 0> ON
,_J ,_) ^ n-t
Subtotal
Mammals
f-l CM
r-l f-4
Area***
Totals
r-4 CM
Housatonic Valley
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
stocking (1)
Weekday after
no stocking (1)
2
1
1
4
2
1
1
4
25
54
21
5
17
63
14
1
Totals
Stafford Hill*
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
stocking (1)**
Weekday after
no stocking (I)
3
5
1
3
5
1
105
95
8
32
4
3
Totals
Barre Falls*
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
stocking (2)
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
1
1
1
1
1
1
47
9
17
6
3
Totals
Birch Hill*
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
stocking (2)
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
1
2
12
IG
2
I
13
35
30
224
40
22
Totals
it
Hubbardston
Opening Day
Saturday (4)
Weekday after
stocking (2)
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
1
1
1
12
1
14
1
1
316
14
87
14
4
Totals
Game Harvest
Mammals (2)
3
2
9
14
1
3
2
24
105
119
612
* Area not sampled in 1971 ** Two weekdays each category in 1971, one each in
1972.
*** Includes birds total carried forward.
G = Gray squirrel
Table 7 (Cont.)« Game Harvest on Twelve Wildlife Management Areas, 1971 and 1972.
Cotton-
tail
White
Subtotal
Area
Game
Rabbit
Hari
e_
Sqi]
lirrel
Fox
Mammals
Totals
i-i
CM
1-*
•CM
r-l
Cvj
r-*
CM
•-•
c^
f*
CM
r^
r«-
r^
t>»
r-^
r*.
r^
r^
r>.
f^
r>.
t^
a\
<y\
a\
o>
o\
0^
ON
a\
C3N
(7>
ON
C3N
Area - Dates
1-1
r-*
1-i
1-1
1-1
r-l
i-<
f-«
r-l
1-4
r-4
•-I
West Hill
Opening Day
16
Saturday (4)
2
2
79
Weekday after
stocking (2)
12
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
5
Totals
2
2
112
Winimusset
Opening Day
1
1
41
12
Saturday (4)
2
2
117
79
Weekday after
stocking (2)
16
12
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
17
14
Totals
2
1
2
1
191
117
Game Harvest -
Mammals (3)
2
3
2
3
191
229
Mammals (2)
3
9
14
1
3
24
105
612
Mammals (1)
5
12
1
2
1
1
6
16
455
896
Total Mammals
10
24
15
3
1
1
11
43
Total Harvest
751
1737
* Area not sampled in 1971.
** Includes birds total carried forward.
? > • .
&
\J-35-R-15:V-l
Woodcock were taken on six areas, with the largest harvest
again at Birch Hill (22).
Cottontail rabbit and white hare were harvested on nine
and three areas respectively, with Northeast and Housatonic
Valley tied at five each for the most cottontails, and Birch
Hill providing the most hare (12).
Harvest of the remaining species of game was scattered.
For the four areas comparable to 1971 the harvest decreased
slightly on Crane and Housatonic Valley, decreased con-
siderably at Winimusset (189 to 116), and increased some-
what at Northeast. Since stocked rather than native game
is the primary attraction at management areas, these fluc-
tuations in harvest are likely attributable to changes in
success due to increased competition, or to changes in
hunting pressure due to weather conditions, rather than to
fluctuations in native game populations.
The game harvest for Fort Devens from 1969 to 1972 is pre-
sented in Table 8. This represents a complete count, since
military regulations require sportsmen to check in and out
of the area.
Hunter success for the twelve sampled wildlife management
areas is presented in Table 9. Success percentages were
calculated for opening day, Saturdays (four combined),
days after stocking (two combined), and days after no stock-
ing (two combined) for each management area, and for the
total of all areas combined.
Combined hunter success for all areas was 35.3 percent.
Combined success for the four areas (Crane, Northeast,
Housatonic Valley, and Winimusset) comparable to previous
years was 35. 8%, the highest percentage attained during the
past three seasons (1971, 32.5%; 1970, 29.2%).
Success was greatest on days after stocking (45.7%),
followed by Saturdays (36.7%), opening day (28.2%), and days
after no stocking (22.3%). For the twelve areas combined,
and for the four areas comparable to previous years, these
percentages show a decrease in opening day success, and an
increase in success for the remaining three categories of
days •
For comparable areas, success increased by 10 percent at
Crane, and decreased slightly at Northeast and Housatonic
Valley. Winimusset showed a decrease of 6.7 percent.
Overall success was greatest at Birch Hill (54.1%), followed
by Crane (51.4%), Myles Standish (49.2%), Hubbardston
(43.0%), and Winimusset (37.7%). On the remaining areas,
less than one-third of the contacted hunters were success-
ful, vith the poorest success being recorded at Barre Falls
(13.6%).
Table 8. Game Harvest at Fort Devens Wildlife Management Area: 1969-1972.
Number Taken Per Check Period
10 Oct. to 8 Dec. 1969 to 11 Oct. to 10 Oct. to
Game 30 Nov. 1969 15 Dec. 1970 28 Dec. 1971 31 Dec. 1972
Pheasant 751 676 461 391
80 46 61
110 86 162
37 39 36
58 34 30
32 23 23
147 94 256
7 3
Fox 1 2
IThlte -Tailed Deer 2 3
Ruffed Grouse
62
Woodcock
112
Ducks (inclusive)
42
Cottontail Rabbit
10
White Hare
9
Gray Squirrel
33
Raccoon
Total Harvest 1,019 1,143 795 962
Table 9. Hunter Success on Twelve Wildlife Management Areas: 1970-1972,
1972
Percent
Number of
Number Taking
Percent
Hunters
at Least One
Percent
Successful
Successful
Area - Dates
Contacted
Unit of Game
Successful
1971
1970
Crane
Opening Day
63
32
50.8
38.5
62.5
Saturday (4)
299
156
52.2
41.5
33.4
Weekday after
stocking (2)
41
24
58.5
54.9
40.8
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
11
1
9.1
11.8
19.0
Totals
414
213
51.4
41.4
35.7
*
Freetown
Opening Day
70
17
24.3
Saturday (4)
199
55
27.6
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
23
0
0.0
Totals
292
72
24.6
Myles Standish
Opening Day
42
18
42.8
Saturday (4)
203
109
53.7
Weekday after
stocking (2)
57
25
43.8
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
7
0
0.0
Totals
309
152
49.2
Northeast
Opening Day
121
27
22.3
29.3
25.3
Saturday (4)
593
160
27.0
29.0
2G.2
Weekday after
stocking (2)
96
52
54.2
41.2
34.0
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
42
6
14.3
18.2
11.1
Totals
852
245
28.8
29.8
28.0
Crane Pond
Opening Day
35
5
14.3
Saturday (4)
171
49
28,6
Weekday after
stocking (2)
18
6
33.3
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
19
2
10.5
Totals
243
62
25.5
Area not sampled prior to 1972,
Table 9 (Cont.)» Hunter Success on Twelve Wildlife Management Areas: 1970-1972.
1972
Percent
Number of
Number Taking
Percent
Hunters
at Least One
Percent
Successful
Successful
Area-Dates
Contacted
Unit of Game
Successful
1971
1970
Housatonic Valley
Opening Day
47
13
27.6
36.7
31.8
Saturday (4)
172
51
29.6
35.7
27.1
Weekday after ^^
stocking (1)
15
10
66.7
29.8
43.8
Weekday after
no stocking (1)
3
1
33.3
14.7
9.1
Totals
237
75
31.6
32.1
20. 3
Stafford Hill*
Opening Day
42
8
19.0
Saturday (4)
122
27
22.1
Weekday after
stocking (1)**
17
4
23.5
Weekday after
no stocking (1)
9
3
33.3
Totals
190
42
22.1
Barre Falls
Opening Day
45
9
20.0
Saturday (4)
177
18
10.2
Weekday after
stocking (1)
20
6
30.0
Weekday after
no stocking (1)
22
3
13.6
Totals
264
36
13.6
Birch Hill*
Opening Day
81
30
37.0
Saturday (4)
378
226
59.8
Weekday after
stocking (2)
81
40
49.4
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
48
22
45.8
Totals
588
318
54.1
it
Hubbard St on
Opening Day
29
14
48.3
Saturday (4)
163
73
44.8
Weekday after
stocking (2)
15
10
66.7
Weekday after
no stocking (2)
28
4
14.3
Totals
235
101
43.0
* Area not sampled prior to 1972.
** One weekday each category in 1972,
two each in previous years .
Table 9 (Cent.), Hunter Success on Twelve Wildlife Management Areas: 1970-1972.
1972
Percent
Number of
Number Taking
Percent
Hunters
At Least One
Percent
Successful
Successful
Area - Dates
Contacted
Unit of Game
Successful
1971
1970
West Hill
Opening Day
67
9
13.4
Saturday (4)
252
75
29.8
Weekday after
stocking (2)
42
11
26.2
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
43
5
11.6
Totals
404
100
24.3
Winirausset
Opening Day
31
8
25.8
55.5
26.8
Saturday (4)
163
63
38.6
43.5
36.1
Weekday after
stocking (2)
29
9
31.0
52.6
42.2
Weekday after
no stocking
(2)
37
18
48.6
28.1
20.0
Totals
260
98
37.7
44.4
35.0
itic
Totals (all areas)
Opening Day
673
(262)
190
(80)
28.2
(30.5)
37.1
32.5
Saturday
2392
(1227)
1062
(430)
36.7
(35.0)
31.3
28.9
Weekday after
431
197
45.7
41.7
35.2
stocking
(181)
(95)
(52.5)
Weekday after
292
65
22.3
17.9
12.1
no stocking
(93)
(26)
(28.0)
Total (all days)
4288
1514
35.3
32.5
29.2
(1763)
(631)
(35.8)
* Area not sampled prior to 1972.
v«ft Comparable area figures in parentheses.
W-35-R-15:V-l
Opening day success exceeded 33 percent on four areas
(Crane, Myles Standish, Birch Hill, and Hubbardston) . The
highest success for a single area day-category was at Housa-
tonic Valley and Hubbardston with day-after-stocking per-
centages of 66.7.
Recommendat ions : 1 .
2.
For 1973, discontinue checks on the Crane Pond area and
initiate checks on the Delaney area.
Consider shifting utilization checks from an annual to
a biennial schedule in 1974.
Prepared by
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved by
Title
Col ton H. Bridges
Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Asst. Game Biologist
Date
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State:
Cooperator :
Project No,!
Job No.:
Period Covered:
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-15
VI-1
Project Title: Game Population Trend and
Harvest Survey
Job Title:
Black Bear Population
Dynamics
1 June 1972 to 31 May 1973
Summary:
»u t .
jf'^ents
Ll
NOV 14 19/3
fiiversity of Massachusetts
Objectives:
Procedures :
For the first time since 1969, a bear was legally taken in
Massachusetts. The bear, a female, was taken in Savoy on the
first day of the season. Another bear was killed illegally,
in Royals ton, during deer week.
There were 423 bear permit applications in 1972, the greatest
number since the requirement was initiated in 1970. Appli-
cants were contacted by postal questionnaire, and a response
of 345 (82,17o) was achieved. There were 213 persons who did
hunt bear, of whom 96 had hunted bear in previous years. The
average bear hunter expended 16.8 hours in 2.4 days.
Reports of bear were collected from questionnaire results, and
Division and cooperator records. To date, reports of 449 bear
noted on 365 occasions in 73 tov7ns have been collected for the
period 1952-May 1973. Franklin County yielded the majority of
reports (143, 40.4%) followed by Berkshire (124, 33.9%), Hamp-
shire (59, 16.1%), Hampden (18, 4.9%), Worcester (16, 4.4%),
and Middlesex (1, 0.3%).
To define the range of the black bear in Massachusetts and to
determine its population characteristics and rate of harvest
by hunting.
Current bear hunting regulations include mandatory reporting
and tagging of bear. Bear checking stations were maintained
daily during bear week at three locations (Birch Hill, Temple-
ton; Montague Fish Hatchery, Montague; and Western Wildlife
District Headquarters, Pittsfield). Station personnel were
directed to affix a metal game seal to harvested bears and to
determine the following: town bear killed in, date killed,
sex and weight of bear, and method of kill. A mimeographed
form was provided for recording this information. Successful
hunters were subsequently contacted by the project leader to
remove a tooth for sectioning.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
W-35-R-15:VI-l
Bear hunters were required to obtain a free (fifty cents be-
ginning in 1973) bear hunting permit from the Division of
Fisheries and Game, A total of 423 permits were issued for
the 1972 season. Permittees were subsequently contacted by
postal questionnaire to determine their interest and partici-
pation in bear hunting. Applicants were also asked to list
any bear sightings they had made on previous occasions.
The Information and Education Section issued periodic news
releases asking for reports of black bear. Responses to these
requests, replies to the questionnaire, and voluntary reports
from other individuals were tabulated and mapped as an aid to
determining bear distribution.
Findings: For the first time since 1969, a bear was killed, legally in
Massachusetts. A 74.8 kilogram (161 pounds) (hog-dressed)
female was taken in Savoy on the first day of the season. An
additional bear, a male, was shot illegally in Royalston during
deer week.
In 1972, there were 423 bear permit applications received from
421 individuals, as opposed to 214 requests in 1970, and 200
in 1971. One 1972 permit was returned as undeliverable. Appli-
cants represented all counties except Dukes. The greatest
number of applications from a single county was from Hampden
(90, 21.4%), followed by Berkshire (63, 15.0%), Middlesex
(58, 13.8%), Worcester (46, 11.0%) and Franklin (38, 9.1%).
Eight other counties and two other states (New York and Connec-
ticut) comprised the remaining 120 applications.
A questionnaire was mailed to each of the 420 individuals re-
ceiving a bear permit. A total return of 345 was obtained from
two mailings of the questionnaire (Table 1).
In 1972, 213 individuals stated that they hunted black bear
during that season (Table 2). Of these, 187 indicated that they
hunted specifically for bear, while the remaining 26 replied
that they only incidentally pursued bear while bow- hunting for
deer. An additional 40 persons replied that they had hunted
bear in previous years, but were unable or unwilling to go in
1972.
There were 116 hunters (54.5%) who stated that they hunted bear
for the first time in 1972, as opposed to 49 (52.1%) in 1970.
Ten hunters stated that they had bagged a bear in Massachusetts
In previous years.
No special attempt was made to determine the reasons for lack
of participation by non-hunters. Some volunteered this infor-
mation and stated that they wished to hunt, but were ill or out
of town. Others felt the season was too short, and did not
allo^; them enough time for a worthwhile hunt.
W. 35-R-15:VI-l
Table 1. Summation of Responses to 1970 and 1972 Bear
Quest ionnaires
1970 1972
Total number of permits Issued
Returned first mailing
Returned second mailing
214
420
131
207
46
133
177 (82.7%)
345 (G2.1%)
Table 2. BreakdoTt7n of Responses to 1970 and 1972 Bear
Questionnaires
1970 1972
A. Hunted bear in specified year 94 (53.1%) 213 (61.7%)
Did not hunt bear in specified year 80 (45.2%) 123 (35.7%)
Returned unusable 2)/i 70/ v 5)ro a<7\
Undeliverable ^^d-^/o) ^^(-^-^/o)
177 345
B. Hunted bear for the first time in
specified year
Hunted bear in specified year -
has hunted previously
No response
Hunted in previous years - did not
hunt in specified year
49 (52.1%)
116
(54.5%)
45 (47.9%)
0
96
1
(45.1%)
(0.4%)
94
213
25
40
119 253
W-35-R-15:VI-l
Bear hunters were further asked to account for the time they
expended while bear hunting. Total expenditure by the 210
hunters replying to this question was 3507 hours in 513 days.
This is a mean of 16.8 hours in 2.4 days, per hunter. The
unweighted mean number of hours per day per hunter was 6.76
(6.22 in 1970).
The bear season ran for six days, from Monday, 20 November to
Saturday, 25 November. Hunter effort was greatest on Saturday
(151 hunters, 30.8%), followed by Friday (84, 17.1%), Monday
(83, 16.97o), VJednesday (62, 12.6%), Tuesday (11.4%), and
Thursday (11.2%). Pressure on Friday may have been skewed
upward by the fact that Thursday was Thanksgiving Day, and some
people had Friday as an additional holiday.
Ten hunters (plus two who did not hunt in 1972) indicated that
they pursued bear with dogs . The remaining hunters searched
about in areas where they had seen bear sign, or followed bear
tracks, or took a stand in an area where bears had been seen.
Sixteen hunters saw a bear during the legal season. One of
these succeeded in killing a bear, two others treed a bear, but
refrained from killing it, and two others (both bow-hunters)
shot and missed. The remainder either stated that the bear
was out of range, or gave no reason for not shooting.
Hunters pursued bear in 63 tovms in five counties during the
1972 season. Hunting pressure vjas greatest in Franklin County
(128 hunters, 44.0%), followed by Berkshire (99, 34.0%), Hamp-
shire (32, 11.0%), Hampden (17,' 5.0%), and Worcester . (15; 5 .2%) .
Some sportsmen hunted more than one county, consequently, they
are counted more than once.
Hunters were asked if they investigated an area for signs of
bear prior to the season. There were 200 responses to this
question, of which 148 indicated the hunter did check out an
area.
Hunters were further asked to state the type of weapon they used.
All 213 of the 1972 hunters replied. A rifle was the predomi-
nant weapon (167), followed by bow and arrow (26). Thirteen
used both rifle and bow (on different days), six employed a
shotgun (an illegal weapon), and one hunter used no weapon,
preferring only to run his dogs on bear.
Reports of bear sightings or bear tracks were listed by 178
persons. These are included in the following section on bear
sightings ,
Additional comments or remarks were presented by 164 respondents.
The most prevalent of these are tabulated below (Table 3).
W-35-R-15:VI-l
Table 3. Hunter Comments, 1972 Bear Questionnaire.
Category/Comment Number Hunters
Season length - 71
Extend season 62
Close bear season 5
Other comments (3) 4
Timing of Season - 48
Have bear season same as deer season 15
Have earlier season 10
Don't have bear season same as deer season 5
Don't have bear season same as Vermont 5
Don't have bear season during archery season 5
Have later season 5
Other comments (3) 4
Regulations - 16
Allow Sunday hunting 5
Allow use of shotgun 5
Allo\r7 sldearms 4
Other comments (2) 4
Administration - 21
Provide information on bears and bear hunting 16
Other comments (5) 5
Management - 7
Stock bear 6
Maintain habitat 1
Populations - 6
Bear increasing 2
Bear decreasing 2
Other comments (2) 2
General Comments - 31
Volunteers assistance 10
Favors study of bear 8
Other comments (11) 13
F-35-R-15:VI-l
All available recent (since 1950) reports of black bear are
being aggregated and mapped to aid in determining bear dis-
tribution in Massachusetts. To date, records of 449 bears
reported on 366 occasions in 73 towns have been collected.
Bear reports were categorized as sightings (224), sign and
tracks (117), kills (23) and other (road kill, nuisance
kill) (2).
The distribution and approximate density of bear reports in
73 towns in six counties is presented in Figure 1. The
number of reports per county and the highest towns per county
are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Black Bear Reports by County and Town,
1952-1973
A.
Berkshire: 124 (33.9%)
Florida
(29)
Hancock
(7)
Peru
(6)
Savoy
(18)
Windsor
(U)
Other 21 towns
(53)
B.
Middlesex: 1 (0.3%)
Ashby
(1)
C.
Franklin: 148 (40.4%)
Ashfield
(18)
Charlemont
(12)
Colrain
(15)
Hawley
(29)
Monroe
(13)
Rowe
(17)
Other 13 towns
(44)
D.
Hampden: 18 (4.9%)
Blandford
(6)
Granville
(4)
Russell
(4)
Other 3 towns
(4)
E.
Hampshire: 59 (16.1%)
Chesterfield
(19)
Cummington
(10)
Huntington
(6)
Worthing ton
(8)
Other 8 towns
(16)
F.
Worcester: 16 (4.4%) ,
Petersham
(3)
Warren
(3)
Other 7 towns
(10)
F-35-R-15:VI-l
Until 1970, hunters taking a bear v;ere not required to
report their kill to the Division. An approximation of
the past harvest has been gathered through questionnaire
results and voluntary reports (Table 5).
Table 5.
Known Black Bear Harvest, 1957-1972
*
Town
Peru
Heath
Charlemont
Florida
Florida
Savoy
Savoy
Florida
Florida
Rowe
Savoy
Monroe
Florida
Rovye
Chesterfield
Hawley
Monroe
Windsor
Worth ingt on
Char lemont
Savoy
Royals ton
Date
Deer week 1957
1958
1961
1964
1965
1965
December 1966
1967
1968
Fall 1968
Fall 1969
November 1969
17 November 1969
3 December 1969
Deer week 1969
Deer week 1969
Deer week 1969
Deer week 1969
Deer week 1969
Deer week 1970
20 November 19^g
Deer week 1972
* Does not include one unconfirmed illegal kill in 1971.
** Illegal kill
Recommendat ions : 1 ,
2.
Continue gathering reports of bear sightings, and
checking of harvested bear.
Aggregate data on current distribution and status and
historical data collected under Job VI-2, and publish
results in a research bulletin on the history and
status of bear in Massachusetts. More detailed re-
commendations on future bear management will be pre-
sented at that time.
J
F-35-R-15:VI-l
Acknowledgements: I extend my appreciation to Mr. William Zurrin of
Pittsfield for his contribution of a bear skull.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AiqD GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved by
Colton H. Bridges
Title Superintendent
Prepared by
Date
James E. Cardoza
Asst . Game Biologist
>s
bZ?^-^ ^-5^'(^-/(^(
r-^
^^[)
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State
Cooperator:
Project No. :
Job No . :
Period Covered:
Summary :
Objectives:
Procedures ;
Findings :
Sovemment Documents
Collection
JUN 51974
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-16
1-2
Project Title: Game Population Trend and
Harvest Survey
Job Title:
Statex^ide Beaver Harvest
1 November 1973 to 31 May 1974
A total of 1,639 beaver v/ere trapped by 123 trappers in
106 towns during the 1973-1974 beaver season. This take,
the second highest on record, is 35 less than last season
and 456 more than a ten-year (1964-1973) average. Berk-
shire and Franklin Counties together yielded 888 beaver
(54.2 percent of harvest).
Over one half (53.6 percent) of the beaver were taken in
the first two weeks of the 15-week season.
To determine the statewide harvest of beavers by trappers.
Each successful beaver trapper is required by law to pre-
sent his pelts to an official checking station for tagging
and recording of data. Seven stations (six prior to 1974)
are maintained for two days at the close of the season.
Pelts are tagged with locking metal game seals and harvest
data are recorded on mimeographed forms and subsequently
tabulated by month trapped, town and county trapped in,
and type of trap used.
The 1973-1974 beaver trapping season extended for 15 weeks
from 15 November 1973 to 1 March 1974. During this period,
trappers took 1,639 beaver. This take was only 35 less
than last season's record take and was 456 more than a
ten-year average (1964-1973). There were 123 trappers
(105 in 1972-1973) taking a minimum of one beaver each,
with a mean harvest of 13.3 beaver per trapper (range:
1 to 128).
Beaver colonies located in 106 towns contributed to the
1973-1974 harvest (Figure 1). The fifteen towns with the
largest individual seasonal harvest are listed in Table 1.
The western region of the state continued to provide the
majority of the beaver harvest. However, during the cur-
rent season, the take in the eastern region increased
slightly over that of the previous season. During the
1973-1974 season, 1,058 beaver (64.6 percent) were taken
west of the Connecticut River and 581 (35.4 percent) were
taken east of the river, as opposed to 1,148 (68.6 percent)
and 526 (31.4 percent) during 1972-1973.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
* •>.« ?• ;
>^:K^
I
W-35-R-16:I*2
Table 1. Beaver Harvest for Fifteen Towns, 1969-1974 Seasons
Town 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74
Ashfield
20
14
2
53
50
60
Becket
41
20
10
51
57
52
Blandford
10
22
16
29
78
37
Cummington
13
11
5
8
2
38
New Marlboro
32
14
1
52
69
64
New Salem
11
10
27
10
56
61
Otis
36
18
14
64
72
72
Petersham
52
18
27
58
57
66
Sandlsfleld
49
13
8
52
6
62
Sheffield
30
12
7
10
26
37
Shutesbury
5
4
-
8
20
40
Tolland
31
-
2
37
48
35
Washington
9
27
7
55
27
37
Windsor
16
19
14
36
26
41
Worthlngton
7
30
14
52
54
79
.'t..
W-35-R-16:I-2
Table 2. Beaver Harvest by County, 1972-73 and 1973-74
1972
.-73
1973
-74
County
No. Beaver
Percent
Rank
No. Beaver
Percent
Rank
Berkshire
461
27.5
1
518
31.6
1
Essex
15
0.9
7
16
1.0
8
Franklin
446
26,6
2
370
22.6
2
Hampden
227
13.6
5
148
9.0
5
Hampshire
253
15.1
3
288
17.6
3
Middlesex
35
2.1
6
51
3.1
6
Plymouth
5
0.3
8
17
1.0
7
Worcester
232
13.9
4
231
14.1
4
Totals
1,674
100.0
1,639
100.0
Table 3. Beaver Harvest by Month, 1972-73 and 1973-74
1972-
-73
1973-
-74
Month
No.
Beaver
Percent
No.
Beaver
Percent
November
633
37.8
878
53.6
December
544
32.5
492
30.0
January
356
21.3
185
11.3
February
141
8.4
84
5.1
Totals
1
,674
100.0
1
,639
100.0
During the past season, Berkshire and Franklin Ctountles
together yielded over half (888, 54.2 percent) of the
total harvest. Hampshire, Worcester, and Hampden Counties
contributed another 667 beaver (40.7 percent) with three
additional counties comprising the small remainder
(Table 2). Six counties reported no beaver taken. The
harvest in Berkshire County Increased by 12.4 percent over
1972-1973 and in Hampshire County by 13.8 percent, while
the take in Franklin and Hampden Counties decreased by
17.0 percent and 34.8 percent respectively. County rank-
ings remained essentially unchanged.
As in past years, success was greatest during the initial
weeks of the trapping season (Table 3). Over one half
(54.2 percent) of the beaver were taken in the initial two
weeks (15-30 November) of the season, as opposed to ap-
proximately one third (37.8 percent) of the 1972-1973 take
occurring during the equivalent period. The take declined
each month thereafter, with only a minimal harvest (5.1
percent) in February.
Use of the Conlbear trap remains relatively constant, with
two thirds (1,091, 66.6 percent) of the 1973-1974 harvest
gained by use of this trap.
The average price of a Massachusetts beaver pelt declined
slightly from $20 in 1972-1973 to the current price of $18.
Due to the near-record total harvest, however, the total
season valuation of $29,502 is the second highest on
record.
Recommendations : 1.
Continue tagging of beaver pelts and recording of
harvest data in 1975, using the same methods as in
the current segment.
2. There has been some comment from trappers concerning
the travel distance required to check pelts. Should
this continue to be a difficulty, considering the
current energy situation, some alleviation may be
provided by permitting cooperating sporting goods
shops to tag beaver. Precedent for this has been
established by mercantile cooperation in the checking
of deer.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James £. Cardoza, Assistant Game Biologist
Date
i
JOB PERFORMANCE REPOJltv^ - r*^^
State Massachusetts
Cooperator Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
Project No.: W-35-R~16 Project Title: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Job No.: II-l Job Title: Statewide Deer Harvest
Period Covered: 5 November through 12 December 1973
Summary: The dates, type of hunting season, and the deer harvest by
season for 1973 is as follows:
November 5 and 6 - Paraplegic season - total harvest, 0;
November 5 through November 24 - archery season -total
harvest, 77; December 3 through December 8 - shotgun sea-
son, total harvest, 2037; and December 10 through
December 12 - smooth bore muzzle loader season - total
harvest, 7. Grand total - 2121.
The following number and type of antlerless deer permits
were issued in 1973: Sportsman - 4000; Farmer-Landowner -
349; Nantucket - 400; and Martha's Vineyard - 600.
The cost of an antlerless permit application was 50 cents
in 1973. Prior to this time, the application was free.
During the 18-day box^r season, archers harvested 77 deer.
Of these, 51 were males, 26 were females.
Shotgun deer hunters harvested 2,037 deer. Of 1,654 taken
on the mainland, 1,114 were adult males, 106 were button
bucks and 434 were females. On Nantucket Island, shotgun
hunters harvested 68 adult males, 22 button bucks and 65
females; a total of 155 deer. Ttro hundred one deer were
taken on Itortha*s Vineyard. Of these, 74 were adult males,
31 were button bucks and 96 were females. The Gosnold
Island harvest was 2 adult males, 4 button bucks and 21
females .
Five males and 2 females v/ere reported taken during the
special three-day muzzle loader season.
The total statewide 1973 shotgun season harvest was 2,037
deer consisting of 1,421 males and 616 females.
The top three deer producing counties were Berkshire,
Franklin, and Dukes. Sixty-three percent of the statewide
harvest was removed from the four western counties (Berk-
shire, Franklin, Hampshire, Hampden).
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
W-35-R-16:II-l
Approximately 44 percent of all deer harvested (086) during
shotgun week were taken on Monday, the first day of the
season. Of the 836 deer, 663 (75%) were males and 223
(25%) were females.
The following Is a breakdo^m of the 1973 shotgun deer har-
vest by management unit:
Martha's
Mainland
Nantucket
Vineyard
Gosnold
Total
Adult Males
1,114
68
74
2
1,258
Button Bucks
106
22
31
4
163
Females
434
65
96
21
616
Totals
1,654
155
201
27
2,037
Background :
Massachusetts
has had an
antlerless
permit, she
>tgun only;
hunting season since 1967. Male deer with antlers three
Inches or longer are legal game for all hunting license
holders. A hunter must have been Issued an antlerless
permit to harvest a button buck or a female deer.
The dates of the four Massachusetts deer hunting seasons
are as follows:
Date
November 5 and 6
November 5 through November 24
December 3 through December 3
December 10 through December 12
Type of Season
Paraplegic
Archery
Shotgun
Smooth Bore Muzzle Loader
No. of Days
2
18
6
3
Objectives:
Findings :
Three deer management units have been established; the
mainland, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The number of
sportsman's antlerless permits Issued per unit was as
follows: the mainland - 4,000; l-Iartha's Vineyard - 600;
and Nantucket - 400. Deer hunting regulations require that
all hunters report their deer kill within 24 hours at an
official Division deer checking station. There is no Sim-
day hunting allovzed in Massachusetts.
To determine the annual harvest of deer in Massachusetts.
Table 1 presents a ten-year summary (1964-1973) of the
annual deer harvest. Data for 1964 and 1965 were reported
by hunters on a voluntary basis; mandatory reporting
regxilations have been in effect since 1966.
There were no deer harvested during the ttro-day paraplegic
hunt, November 5 and 6, 1973. During the 18-day archery
season, November 5 through November 23, 1973, archers
harvested 51 male and 26 female deer. The archery harvest
of 77 deer exceeds the 1972 harvest by one deer.
W-35-R-16 : II-l
Table 2 summarizes the archery and primitive weapons har-
vests. The 1973 shotgun deer harvest was 2,037 animals of
both sexes. The total statewide harvest of deer in all
season categories was 2,121 deer. Of these, 1,477 were
males and 644 v/ere females. The l65 button bucks hairvested
are included in the male total. A simmiary of the 1973 deer
harvest and the county rank of importance in the harvest is
presented in Table 3.
The three top deer-producing counties have remained un-
changed for the past three years. Worcester Coxinty moved
to fourth place while Dukes dropped to the seventh slot.
Hampden County has ranked fifth in three of the past five
years .
Sixty-four percent of the 2,037 deer harvested were taken
in the four western counties — Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden,
and Hampshire. Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket accounted
for 19.4 percent of the harvest (396 deer), while Worcester
County, largest in the state, yielded 211 deer (10.4%).
The remaining eastern counties accounted for 6.2 percent of
the total harvest (136 deer) .
Table 4 shows the daily harvest of deer for both sexes.
Eight hundred eighty-six deer or 43.5 percent of all deer
harvested are taken on the first day of the season. Three-
fourths of the first day's harvest is in males. The nianber
of males harvested exceeds the female harvest throughout
the shotgun season. However, the percent of total female
harvest in the last four days of the season exceeds the
corresponding daily percent of total harvest in the male
segment of the kill.
The most significant data in Table 4 is the comparable rate
of harvest of females and button bucks. Apparently, a
hunter with an antlerless permit does not show selectivity
with respect to the size of the deer he harvests, but the
data in Table 4 do suggest that a hunter with an antlerless
deer permit may pass up an antlerless deer early in the
season and shoot any antlerless deer during the last two
days of the season.
Table 5 presents a nimber of deer harvest summaries of
archery and shotgun seasons from 1967 through 1973. In-
cluded in Table 5 is the success ratio per type of antler-
less permit.
There was no significant increase in the 1973 archery har-
vest of 77 deer compared to the 1972 harvest of 76 deer
(Table 5). The breakdown of the deer harvest by management
units shows a slight increase in adult males on the mainland
with the predicted reduced harvest of button bucks and fe-
males (Table 5). On Nantucket Island, the harvest by antler-
less permit holders increased from 101 deer in 1972 to 115
in 1973. An analysis of this harvest indicates the predic-
ted drop in adult male harvest did not occur. However, the
anticipated increase of button bucks in the harvest by
CO
c
o
(A
*J
^
4J
a
d
3
PQ
PQ
rH
Cfl
■U
o
H
(0
0)
iH
CO
0)
iH
Pn
(t)
<P
0
H
(0
<u
^
U PQ
O H
<u
N
N
CQ
0)
O
<
PQ
eQ
§
00
o
CO PC4
<cii
if>
CM
CO
m
CO
CO
0^
CM
CO
r^
CM
iH
00
O
rH
O
r>^
m
CO
o
CM
SJ-
CM
VO
iH
<t
p«»
iH
O
CM
CO
CM
iH
rH
CO
On
fH
iH
CM
CM
iH
CM
<t
O
<H
CO
eg
m
CM
iH
iH
CO
CO
CO
CM
in
O
r^
00
r-
CM
CM
<r
sj-
iH
(M
vD
CM
fH
o
CO
>o
r>«.
St
CM iH
CM
CM
tH tH
CM
I CM
m
o>
CO
yo
ir>
r^ 00
CO
r*. in
vo
0^
ool r^
-stl M3
CM
uo
CO
vn
CO
trt
CM
00
r>.
CM
CM
CM
O
1-4
O
VO
iH
sr
CM
O
CM
O
m
CO
CM
O
CM
00
CO
in
m
in
O
CM
St
iH
o
CM
fH
1
O
CO
tH
so
CM
00
ir»
<*
CsJ
o
CM
CM
CM
CO
00
o
-*
o
00
CO
m
CM
CM
CM
O
CO
vo
CO
O
CM
vO
tH
VD
CM
O
u
d
p
o
rH
a>
,£J
M
nj
^
tH
■U
■rs
O
CO
CO
4J
CO
a
^
03
0)
!j
^
•H
•S
PQ
FQ
PQ
Q
0)
«
5
C
to
iH
(U
^
<u
X
AS
•n
CO
tH
<U
d
O.
i:^.
-d
CO
CO
S
0
13
CO
)-l
CO
OS
•H
w
Pe<
W
cc
S
4J
^
(U
^
0)
,M
^
•M
^
4J
o
rH
d
H
CO
CO
p
O
Q
O
<u
iH
4J
(4^
I
V4
CO
CO
O
iH
3
o
O
S
s
fW
CO
&
H
W-35-R-16:II-l
Table 3. County Sunnnary of the 1973 Massachusetts Shotgun Deer Harvest
By Sex, and the County Rank of Importance from 1969 through
1973 Shotgun Season Only
Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
County I-Iale Female Total 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969
Barnstable
82
20
102
8
8
7
8
8
Berkshire
455
149
604
1
1
1
1
1
Bristol
1
1
12
12
12
12
12
Dukes
121
120
241
3
3
3
7
7
Essex
20
20
9
9
10
9
11
Franklin
242
108
350
2
2
2
2
2
Hampden
153
49
202
5
4
5
6
5
Hampshire
108
30
138
7
6
8
4
4
Middlesex
4
1
5
11
11
9
10
10
Nantucket
90
65
155
6
7
6
5
6
Norfolk
13
13
13
13
13
Pl3mouth
5
3
8
10
10
11
11
11
Suffolk
13
13
13
13
13
Worcester
141
70
211
4
5
4
3
3
Totals
1421
616
2037
n I-
W-35-R-16:II-l
Table 4. A Summary of the Hassachusetts Deer Harvest by Day of Harvest,
3 December through 8 December 1973.
Shotgun Season
Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Frl. Sat.
Dec. 3 Dec. 4 Dec. 5 Dec. 6 Dec. 7 Dec. 8 Total
Both Sexes
Total Harvest
886
285 144
139
211
372
Percent
43.50
13.99 7.07
Males
6.82
10.36
18.26
Total Harvest
663
209 94
92
136
227
Percent
46.66
14.71 6.62
Females
6.47
9.57
15.97
Total Harvest
223
76 50
47
75
145
Percent
36.20
12.33 8.12
7.63
12.18
23.54
2037
1421
616
Button Bucks
Total Harvest
53
20
16
13
24
37
Percent
32.52
12.27
9.81
7.98
14.72
22.70
163
W-35-R-16:II-l
Table 5. A Summary of the llassachusetts Deer Harvest and Hunter Success
by Type of Permit, 1967 through 1973.
21
27
24
26
49
51
13
10
12
10
27
26
1973 Paraplegic Season - November 5 and 6 - No deer harvested.
1973 Archery Season - November 5 through November 24 - 51 males; 26 females
Summary of the Archery Seasons, 1967 through 1973:
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Male 17
Female 4
Totals 21 34 37 36 36 76 77
There are an estimated 5,500 archery deer hunters in Massachusetts.
1973 Shotgun Season - Statewide - December 3 through December 3 - 1421 males;
616 females
Svumnary of the Shotgun Season Harvest by Management Unit:
Martha ' s
Mainland Nantucket Vineyard Gosnold Total
Males, adult 1114 68 74 2 1258
14ales, button buck 106 22 31 4 163
Females 434 65 96 21 616
Totals 1654 155 201 27 2037
Summary of the Shotgun Deer Harvest (Statewide) from 1967 through 1973:
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Male 937 1083 1424 1605 1359 1455 1421
Female 235 310 585 764 889 760 616
Total 1172 1393 2009 2369 2248 2215 2037
W-35-R-16 : II-l
Table 5 (Continued)
Summary of the Archery and Shotgun Seasons (Statewide), 1967 through 1973:
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Male 954 1104 1451 1629 1385 1504 1472
Female 239 323 595 776 899 787 642
Total 1193 1427 2046 2405 2284 2291 2114
Smooth Bore Muzzle Loader Season - December 10 through December 12, 1973:
2 females r 5 males.
Summary of Antler less Deer Permits:
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
No . appli-
cations 28,000 24,000 32,000 35,000 37,500 38,000 32,000
(rounded
off)
Issued:
Sportsman 2,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 4,000
Farmer- 243 331 295 347 270 326 349
Landowner
Nantucket - - 400 400 400 400 400
Martha's - - - - 600 600 637
Vineyard _>_>
Totals 2,243 2,331 4,695 6,747 7,270 5,326 5,349
Permit Harvest, Statewide, Landowner-Farmer
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Male
2
21
17
25
20
14
19
Female
20
44
45
34
26
42
37
Total 22 65 62 59 46 56 56
Statewide Harvest by Sportsman's Permit
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Deer (both
sexes) 279 356 787 1057 1268 1010 854
t7-35-R-16 : II-l
Table 5 (Concluded)
Breakdown of Harvest by Sportsman Permits per Ilanagement Unit, 1967-1973:
1967 1968 1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Adult Hale
Data not avail- 79
163
104
55
67
Button Bucks
able for 1967 107
183
175
142
102
Female
and 1968. 473
612
673
546
397
Totals
659
958
952
743
566
Permits
2000 2000 4000
Nantucket
6000
6000
4000
4000
Adult Male
29
15
26
23
19
Button Buck
11
24
29
17
31
Female
49
35
70
61
65
Totals
89
124
125
101
115
Permits
400
400
400
400
400
Martha's Vineyard and Gosnold
Adult Male
1
0
30
24
21
Button Buck
1
41
36
35
Female
19
38
95
126
117
Totals
20
39
166
186
173
Permits
600
635*
635*
Antlerless Permit Success Ratio (rounded) :
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Farmer-Landowner
1-11
1-5
1-5
1-6
1-6
1-6
1-6
Mainland
1-6
1-6
1-5
1-5
1-7
Nantucket
1-5
1-3
1-3
1-4
1-3
Martha's Vineyard
1-4
1-3
1-4
* Includes Naushon Island
W-35-R-16:II-l
antlerless permit holders did occur. The increase in the
female harvest was not significant. In the event the
harvest remains constant, not varying more than 30 deer,
it can be said that the desired balance of the herd has
been achieved. From that point in time, the control of
the herd size can be obtained by raising or lowering the
number of antlerless permits for Nantucket Island.
This is the third year the same nimiber of permits has been
issued for Martha's Vineyard. The 173 deer tak^n by per-
mittees represent 86 percent of the 201 deer harvested on
the Vineyard and Naushon Island. An unexplainable decline
in the Martha's Vineyard harvest is noted. In 1972, there
were 266 deer reported. In 1973, only 201 were reported.
The success ratio for farmer- landowner permit holders was
1:6 as in 1972. The mainland permit holder success ratio
dropped from 1;5 in 1972 to 1:7 in 1973. Permit success
ratios in 1973 were highest on Nantucket (1:3) and Martha's
Vineyard (1:4).
Recommendations :
It is recommended that the Division of Fisheries and Game
personnel continue to compile and evaluate annual harvest
data, and initiate plans, based on the preceding seven
years' permit system data for a regional permit distribu-
tion program on the mainland.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by:
James J. McDonough, Game Biologist
and
William J. Mlnior, Assistant
Date
.EA 32. 3'. w ^m ■ R' I (^iJT-x
y
State
JOB PERPORTiAl^TCE REPORT
Massachusetts
Cooperator
Project No. :
Job No.
Period Covered:
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
Summary:
Background :
Objectives
W-35-R-16
II-2
Project Title
Job Title:
Game Population Trend
and Ilai-^/est Survey
Non-Hunting Deer Mor-
tality Investigations
1 January 1973 to 31 December 1973
During the period covered by this report, Natural Resource
Officers reported 420 deer mortalities, of which 188 were
males, 207 were females and 25 with no sex reported. Motor
vehicles accounted for 322 deer mortalities follov/ed by 36
dog kills , 23 illegal kills . The remaining 39 mortalities
were due to other and unkno\\ni causes (21): drowned-9,
fences-5, trains-2, and shot doing crop damace-2.
The slightly decreased deer mortality of 420 deer for 1973
compared to the 453 deer mortalities for 1972 may again
reflect an open winter. During an open winter, deer do not
tend to concentrate in great numbers for any length of time.
Therefore, there tends to be less movement thus reducing
the motor vehicle accident rate. Dog kills are reduced
also because snov? conditions favor the deer.
There was a 7 percent decrease in the 1973 deer mortalities
compared to a 35 percent decrease in 1972.
The adj listed sex ratio of the 1973 non-hunting deer mortal-
ities was 48 percent male: 52 percent females. The 1972
adjusted sex ratio was 46 percent males: 54 percent fe-
males .
Berkshire, Barnstable and Franklin (in order of importance)
were the top ranking counties where Natural Resource Of-
ficers reported the largest number of deer mortalities.
Deer mortalities investigated by Natural Resource Officers
were reported in duplicate to the Law Enforcement office
in Boston, I!assachusetts. A copy of each report was com-
piled and tabulated at the Field Headquarters of the Divi-
sion of Fisheries and Game by project personnel. A herd
of 15 deer in a 400-acre enclosure at Uestover Field,
Chicopee, ilassachusetts is being observed for natural mor-
talities .
To determine the annual non-hunting decimating factors of
the Massachusetts deer herd.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
/
W-35-R-16:II-2
Findings: Table 1 presents a summary of the sex classes and the
causes of llassachusetts deer mortalities for 1 January
through 31 December 1973. During the twelve-month period,
there were 420 reported deer mortalities. Of these, 188
were males, 207 were females and 25 of unreported sex.
With the exception of legally harvested deer, motor vehicle
accidents remain the number one cause of reported deaths
with 322 deer killed. In order of importance, the remain-
ing 99 deer mortalities were as follows: dogs-36, illegal-
23, other unknown causes-21, drowned-9, fences-5, trains--2,
and crop dainage-2.
A five-year summary of deer mortalities per cause, 1968
through 1973, is presented in Table 2. The 1973 reported
deer mortalities were less than the average per cause for
the previous five years.
Table 3 presents a comparison of the total non-hunting
deer mortalities of Massachusetts deer from 1967 through
1973. From 1967 through 1970 there v/as a steady but de-
clining percent increase in the reported deer mortalities ,
From 1970 through 1973 there v/as a decline in the number
of deer reported and a fluctuating percent of decrease.
A comparison of the actual number of deer mortalities hy
sex per month and the adjusted sex ratios are presented
in Table 4, The sex data is adjusted on a monthly basis,
with sex of the largest percentage assigned any fractional
part of a deer so that there are only whole deer in the
adjusted sex ratio. The adjusted sex ratio of the 1973
non-hunting deer mortalities are:
Males Females
200 : 220
91 : 100
47.6 : 52.4
(1972 sex ratio = 45.9% males: 54.1% females)
Table 5 presents the Ilassachusetts non-hunting deer mor-
talities ranlced by counties, 1967 through 1973. The top
deer mortality-producing counties for the past seven years
in order of importance are as follows :
1. Berkshire
2 . Franklin
3. Barnstable
4. Worcester.
During the period covered by this report, Berkshire re-
mains number one while Barnstable moved into the second
slot. Franklin is third and Worcester remains niamber four,
Non-hunting deer mortalities change slightly in the re-
maining nine counties from year to year.
/
CO
O
•u
3
13
»^
<U
o
'H
VH
«-»
o
o
M
O
CO
OJ
02i
CO
p
o
+-'
u
o
&
Pd
CO
o
•H
+J
•H
rH
to
■u
Vl
o
u
<u
«
■P
■u
cu
CO
t;
CO
CO
CO CO
H
14-1
O U
<u
H 6
CO O
£^ «J
6 G)
d p
c/:i
O 0)
is CO
fH
CSJ
•
O r^
CM
O (U
S CO
.CO
o q;
S CO
•H
M
<:
ft.
M
o
Gj
T-i
r^
^
CO
•6
j^
•
tH
43
PH
rH
i^-i
o
CM
^::
iH
i<
o
o
^
►5-
CO
CO
3
•
^
piw
Xi
a)
fe
«
CO
CO
o
CO
Pn
CM
m
/-s
M
<t
0)
fH
^5
to CM
0
CM ^w
a)
o
Cfs
0)
H <}■
n
CM
1^ tH iH iH
rH
CX3
CM
CM
O
rH
CO
CM
CM
rH rH
r-i rH
VO CO
r^ CO CM
CM CO
n
CO
r>. in rH
O 10
CO
CO rH
CM in
rH
o
•H
iS
M
O
iH
CO
CD
/-I
CD
to
O rH
Q H
CO
CJ
a
•H
CO
CO
6
CO
^1
CU CJ
p ^
E^ O O
rH
oj
4J
O
■P
•^
CO
CO
o
r-l
CO
o
/'->
U
m
0)
VO
.o
Cvl rH
a
O iH
CM ^^
CM
>
CM
o
CA fO
rH r-^
CO
/~>
)H
CO
(U
CO
rQ
rH rH
O
CM C^J Vt
rH v-'
4.1
(J
rH
CO
O
O Cv?
^^^
rH
CM
CM ."s
u
rH
C
G)
rH
rO
rH
£3
<3- ^-^
0}
C3N
rH
4-J
C>
a
CM
o
CO
CO
CM
T-i
rH
w
/-N
CO
rH
p
'"^
cc-
«
rH
o
M
CO
CO
rH
rH
P
•-5
VD
<3- CM ON
m
O
Cv'
■vj"
CM
sX) CO
VD
rH rH rH
CM
/~\
CD
CO
CO CO
C^l ^-^
so
CO
CM f^
Oi
CM
CM
CM
CA CO
CO
C>1
CJN CM
CM
CM CvJ
1-t
o
CO
CM
in
CM
CO
vo
(»
V.O
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
Q)
rH
tJ
•H
rC
0)
>
H
13
CO
<U
M
&0
a
O
CO Q)
5
•M
tlO vH
s
O
O rH
u
,Q M
G
CO
0)
o
C
CD
CO
CO Q
I
CO 'O
•p
o
H
CO
G
•H
CO
M
O ^
M P
fs4 H o O
CO
P
O
P
,Q
P
i
rH
CO
p
o
H
CO
P
O
H
CO
o
OJ
iH
CO
f2
CJ
rH
CD
CO
p
CO
cj;
03
p
o
H
CO
GJ
rH
CO
QJ
in CM (N) rH
Cv)
rH CM CM rH
CO
VO
CO 'fj P
Q) a !H
O -H O^ QJ
PJ CO O ^C
QJ ?-i >^ P
fe H O O
CM vo CO cr>
CM CO CM
CO
rH
CM
<i- CO CM
in r-» c
>5- rH rH
CO
H
O
o
vd
en
(U
P
>
r-* 73
CO
CO G)
U
f^
U) C
o
CO QJ 15
p
MrH b
o
O rH M
•—4
f— 1
P M P
o
CM
•4-
m
CM
o
CM
CO
(30
H
CO
rH
CO
P
o
H
Table 2.
Five-Year Summary of Deer I'ortalities of Ilassachusetts Deer
Reported by Natural Resource Officers, 1963 through 1973.
5-yr.
Cause
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Total
Avp, .
1973
Hot or Vehicles
456
397
400
373
321
1
,947
389
321
Dogs
74
166
204
219
41
704
141
36
Illegal Kills
29
39
25
39
44
176
35
23
Crop Damage
7
2
14
4
1
28
6
2
Unknovm Causes
31
51
38
41
35
196
39
21
All Other Causes
16
27
17
18
11
89
18
16
Totals
613
632
698
694
453
3
,140
628
420
Table 3. A Comparison of Total Non-IIuntlng Deer Mortalities of
l^ssachusetts Deer from 1967 through 1973.
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
No. of Deer
Percent Change
508
613
21%
11%
682 693
"• 2%.-' - -.6%
694 453 420
' ' -34.7% -7.3%
Table 4. Comparison of Actual Numbers of Deer Mortalities by Sex* and
Adjusted Data for Massachusetts Deer per Month, 1973.
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Unkno\\ni
Adjusi
red
Male
Female
28
Sex
Total
51
Hale
20
Female
19
4
31
13
14
3
30
14
16
13
14
2
29
14
15
10
11
2
23
11
12
9
22
1
32
9
23
21
25
3
49
22
27
8
16
24
8
16
3
11
14
3
11
12
9
1
22
13
9
27
19
2
48
28
20
37
23
6
66
41
25
16
15
1
32
17
15
188
207
25
420
200
220
Adjusted Sex Ratio
200 males: 220 females
91 males: 100 females
47.6 males: 5 2. 4 females
* These data v;ere reported by Natural Resource Officers
en
ON
O
U
so
i
o
o
O
•s
frt
CO
Q)
•H
4-1
•H
.H
CO
4J
u
o
M
0)
0)
§
I
C
o
TO
■U
•y
CO
03
m
ra
I
o
m
-s
H
c
cs
tH
ON
VO
CO
ir>
m
CO
O
r*
<r
<^
C7\
o
^
iH
tH
rH
p^
en
r*«
ON
iH rH
to
VO
CA
VO
O
CO
00
CO
sj-
CO
r*.
O
r^
VO
CO
4J
r-
O
CM
r^
CM
CM
tH
tH
CO
o
iH
H
■^
•ci
CNj
r^
iH
ON
CO
in
VO
O
o
O
-<t-
<r
r».
CM
ctj
<H
rH
rH
H
rH
C:^
«s
r>>.
ON
tH iH
CO
oi
r^
VD
o
vO
m
t:-.
00
VO
tH
O
in
CM
CM
•W
r-.
ON
CM
VO
<?
CO
CM
tn
CM
O
H
v.>
•a
CVJ
tH
rH
o
CO
o
in
o
CO
CO
<t
CO
CN
o
.^
H
rH
tH
tH
tH
iH
P"'
a>
tH iH
CJ
CO
m
VO
in
o
tH
in
CO
tH
vD
O
a\
r«>
fH
iJ
cr»
r^
CM
ON
m
vO
tH
CO
ON
iH
iH
o
H
H
•<f
tH
rH
r«.
CN
VO
in
00
O
«*
CO
ON
O
frt
tH
iH
fH
f^
o
r^
o
r-t tH
ctt
<r
<f
00
CM
1^
r*.
VO
CM
CM
O
o\
r-
rH
4J
r^
CO
CO
CM
-a-
m
CM
CM
C5N
r~l
rH
o
tH
tH
H
^
3
vt
tH
.H
CO
CO
m
VO
r>»
CM
<r»
-vf
CM
H
O
CO
tH
tH
tH
tH
rH
p;
G>
VD
C>.
iH tH
CO
CO
00
m
<!■
c.
CM
rH
r->
in
r-.
O
<t
m
rH
4-1
o
MD
tH
CO
c\
m
m
CO
CM
O
r-i
CM
O
rH
H
H
•g
m
tH
H
r^
CO
<•
VO
CO
CO
ON
vt
CM
CM
o
CO
iH
iH
iH
tH
tH
^
CD
VO
a.
tH tH
CO
IT)
<!•
<t
CM
rH
CO
VO
ON
r^
in
O
VO
fH
in
■u
in
CO
H
sf
CO
m
<■
CO
CM
00
tH
tH
o
iH
H
•g
<}•
jH
O
iH
00
CO
in
VO
CM
CN
<f
CM
iH
fH
H
rH
vO
o*.
tH iH
CO
CM
C^
VO
<■
m
r-.
00
C3N
tH
CM
o
in
4J
in
O
H
tH
CO
m
'^
CO
CM
CO
0
iH
H
iH
<U
9
M
^4
+j
>>
.Q
!-4
a
u
CD
,d
CJ
0)
4J
nJ
•H
iH
•H
s
•H
CO
^
ti
^
4-1
■U
^
O
iH
4)
^
0)
.H
3
rH
CD
o
3
CO
m
■U
-^
'd
to
iH
O
o
o
<y
CO
3
4J
O
S
1 — I
CO
(U
S
a.
&
'TJ
IH
6
IH
o
0}
a
V4
u
•H
w
CO
6
S
-3
U
>.
IM
Vl
M
CO
(U
S-4
CO
U
CO
CO
•H
o
tH
3
o
3
PQ
CQ
PQ
iA
P--I
a
a
t-^
.-^H
S
PU
W
:s
o
I
W-35--R--16:II-2
Tnree counties; namely, !Torfolk, Bristol and Plymouth,
produce more non-hunting deer mortalities than the number
of deer reported taken by deer hunters :
County
Bristol
Norfolk
Plymouth
1973
Hunting Season
1
0
8
1973
lion-Hunting Ttortalities
6
3
17
I feel that the reported deer mortalities in this report
are valid even though it is impossible to obtain data on
every deer mortality statewide. These data indicate
trends which must be evaluated with respect to weather
conditions, the Natural Resource Officer's ability and
interest in filing a deer mortality report, and the NRO's
mandatory eight-hour working day.
In an effort to obtain greater cooperation and interest
from the ?Iatural Resource Officers, the project leader
prepared and delivered a slide lecture to all Law Enforce-
ment personnel in each of the seven Law F.nforcement dis-
tricts in Ilassachusetts,
Recommendations
It is recommended that deer project personnel continue to
determine the annual non-hunting deer decimating factors
of the Massachusetts deer herd.
Prepared by:
IIASSACnUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAIIE
Bureau of ti'ildlife Research and J'anagement
Approved;
Colton K. Bridges, Superintendent
James J. IlcDonough, Game Biologist
and
iJilliara J. llinior. Assistant
Date
JOB PERFORMAI.^CE REPORT
State
Cooperator
Project No.
Job No.
Period Covered:
Summary:
Massachusetts
»•
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35~R-16
II-4
Project Title;
Job Title:
Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Manap;ement of the
Massachusetts Deer Herd
1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974
Sex and age data collected at ten biological deer checkine
stations from 1967 through 1973 were analyzed.
Four thousand sportsman antlerless permits X7ere issued
for the mainland shotgun deer hunting season. Six hundred
sportsman permits were issued oh Martha's Vineyard; four
hundred were issued on Nantucket. •. '
Successful hunters removed 2,037 deer from the herd. Of
these, 1,421 were males of v/hich 1,258 were adults and
163 were button bucks. Six hundred sixteen female deer
were harvested of which 444 v/ere adult does and 172 were
fawns. Antlerless permits issued totaled 5,349 including
landowner permits. Thirty-eight percent of the shotgun
harvest (2,037 deer) vjere taken by permit holders.
The calculated minimal herd size for the 1973 shotgun
season was 11,431 deer. This is a .83 percent increase
above the 1972 herd of 11,336 deer.
During the shotgun season, there were .13 adult males and
.04 adult females harvested per square mile of deer range
on the mainland. On Itartha's Vineyard, adult males and
females were harvested each at the rate of 1 deer per
square mile.
There was an unexpected increase in the adult male (1.89)
and adult female (1.22) deer harvest per square mile of
deer range on ?Tantucket in the 1973 shotgun season.
Tlie total harvest of deer per square mile of deer range
in 1973 for the archery, muzzle loader and shotgun seasons
was as follows:
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
//5146
W-35-R-16:II-4
Location
Mainland
Dukes Cotmty
Nantucket
Sq. lilies
of Deer
Range
6213.6
86.5
35.9
I'lales per
Sq. ysie of
Deer Range
1
J- .
.20
45
2.81
Females per
Sq. Mile of
Deer Range
.07
1.42
2.01
Total Deer Per
Sq. Mile of
Deer Range
.27
2.37
4.32
Background:
Objectives;
Findings :
The percent frequency ratio of adult males to adult fe-
males was 0.29 on the mainland, 1.01 on Martha's Vineyard,
and 0.69 on Nantucket. Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden,
Barnstable and Worcester Counties, in descending order,
produced the greatest deer harvest. The remaining six
counties produced 0.01 percent deer or less per square
mile of deer range.
Management recommendations for the distribution of antler-
less permits on a county and/or regional (group of counties)
basis is presented in this report.
A 24-hour compulsory reporting system for deer hunters was
initiated in 1967. Deer checking stations have been
operated by Division personnel since 1948. Ten checking
stations are operated as biological stations at whicli
sex, age, weight and antler beam diameter data are col-
lected.
An antlerless permit deer hunting system, to control the
hunting pressure on the female segment of the deer herd
during the shotgun season, was initiated in 1967. The
deer project leader recommends the number of permits to
be issued after examination of the herd sex and age com-
position, the reproductive rates, annual removal rates,
hunting pressure ana the harvest per square mile of deer
range .
To estimate the size of the deer herd in Massachusetts and
recommend management techniques.
Table 1 persents a summary of the sex and age composition
of Massachus3tts deer examined at the mainland, Nantucket
and Martha's Vineyard biological deer check stations from
1967 through 1973.
Table 2 presents a summary of the Massachusetts shotgun
deer harvest and the total number of antlerless permits
issued from 1967 through 1973. Shotgun hunters removed
2,037 deer from the herd in 1973. Of these, 1,421 V7ere
male deer; 1,258 adults and 163 button bucks, being taken.
There were 616 female deer harvested, of which 444 were
adults and 172 were fawns. Although the data in Table 2
tend to mask the location of where the hunting pressure
occurs, it is possible to point out the overall effect
of the antlerless permit system in the state. As the
01
CO
0
fa
en
vD
CO
iH
0^
(NoocvjLomvOLnvDrsjo
vo <f <j- m CM
O r^ vD 'H C4 •<!■ O
cr\ in in in CN' iH rH
CSJ O iH
en
CM
CO
o
CO
t-H <)■ O^ rH CI O -vJ- tH CA O'CM
OvDVOmc^CMr-li— I |r^
o <^ o> vD a^ <t-
CTi in O -"d* CM rH
CO o o o
olnmvD•N^tHocMoo
r>. m m en CNj «-i
<tc">oo<j3tHro<i-cocOi~)
<t CO CJ rH r-l
iH CM CO CO r^ CO
CO CO tH iH
tH O CO rH
o
CO
i_ 1
in
CM
V3
cy\
o
tH
U
CO
CO
(^
CT\
tH
<u
lo.
tH
03
!l^
U
0^
(J
iH
P4
rH
r---
CA
r-^
CO
0-.
Q); cvi
iH r->
iHr-<oor^c?icMO'HOO
CM t— I
t-HvOCNluOl-nOi— IrHOO
CM iH iH
>o
-i-CMCMCOCMCOOOOO
H Cvl iH iH
CMCOCT^iH-i-CMiHOOC
CM CN rH r-l
OD
r--C7^C^-!CMOfOOOOO
tH iH T-l rH
CO
r^ 00 CO
C^l CO tH
1^ <t O O rH O O
o
CO
tH
Cs!
r>.
o •<^
VD vO <!■
r^
r-.
\D <3-
O"! *3- tH
c>
CM tH
rH
0) o
r-i ,r^
r-:,rH
ON
vO
1^
tH
o> 1^ cn o 1^ CO
O CO r>* CT> <C tH
CsJ tH
r^ vtJ CO c
iH CM O
c
m
CO
in
O tH
CO
r^
CO
CA CO vD iH
O
CO
O tH
O
r~
<!■
rH
VO
tH Cv]
rH
in
na
u
CO
t>.
0)
C
tH CO
r-*
r^
<y\
rH 1^^ r^ 1— i
O
CO
•ri
CM \0
<t
c-A
in
Cvl
CNj
>
tH CM
rH
r-«.
W
«-
r3
,C5
+>
r^ Gv
CO
CO
in
iH >;f CM Cvl
iHlcvl
^
vO Cx!
CO
en
in
CM iH
1
■^
JO
l.vD
CO
tH 00 vD 1^ in r~»
>!»'
>W U> CM UV <n tH
cr.
iH tH
tH
<? o o o
CO r^ cn! CM m o i^
CM V© CM vD CnJ tH
tH tH
-I H O
CO
CM
m
CM
CO
H Cv]
0): t-l
CO
<;• iH I^ CO CO CM iH
CM CM rH tH
o'co
CO
o -;r
CO CM
H Ln cr« vD tH CM tH o
C^»
tHiHvOrH<rcJOCMCMCOO
en tH rH tH
CO
CO
o «n r^ CM r«-
CO CM iH tH
en o o o o
(U c>q
H r*.
intHininvorHcocMoo
cdi c->
CM vCj" tH iH
S TM
00
o
C5^H<t00^mOtH
CO <■ rH
tH O tH
CM
CM
0)
CO CM CM
CM CM CM CM C-4 rH >->.
60
O ""^. -*~.
■"-». ""^ ^x^ **>. ~»^ I iH
<
S rH .H
rH iH tH rH tH C3^ 1
I '
1 1 1 1 1 1 o
vO iH CM
CO v3- t-n vo r* CO rH
WCvJCMCMCMCMCMCM
StHrHiHrHrHtHiH
I I I I i I
CM
^-. CvJ
rH "^
I rH
C7^ I
I o
vi) tH CM CO vl- in O f^ CO rH
W--35-R-16:II-4
number of antlerless permits 5.3sued per vear incraased
the harvest of antlerlccs deer Increased. Li ].967 and
1968, there were 2,236 and 2,331 antlerless permits issued.
During these years, the antlerless deer harvested by permit
amounted to 25 percent (238) and 27 percent (371) of the
total deer harvert. The adult iials^ harvest increased 136
deer from 1967 (036) to 1968 (1,022).
In 1969, the number of perinit£3 issued V7as increased to
4 J 695 permits. I'he percent of antlerless deer harvested
increased to 35 percent of the total harvest of the nhot-
gun deer week. The adult male harvest increased 277 deer
for a total of 1,299 adult males reported in 1969.
In 1970, the number of antlerless permits issued was in-
creased to 6^747 permits. Forty-tr-^o percent of the deer
harvested were button bucks and females. The adult male
harvest increased only 79 animals with a total of 1,378
deer.
Seven thousand two hundred seventy permits v/cre issued
in l!^71-. The result was that 51 percent (1,142) of the
shoi:-j,ui?. b.arvcs'i; were antlerless de'^r. The adult male
harvest dropped 193 animals for a to^al of 1,106 adult
bucks ropoi'tcd.
In 1972, the nuiuber of antlerlesc permits Issued was
lowered to 5,326 perriiits o The combined button buck and
female harvest dropped to 43 percent (959). The adult
male harvest increatsed 150 animals for a total of 1,256
adult backs .
In 1973, 5,349 antlerless permits vere issued. The antler-
less deer harvest dropped to 38 percent (799) of the total
sbotf;un harvest. There -7a9 an insignificant increase of
2 bucks in the adult siale harvest of 1,258 deer in 1973.
In summary, the data xn Table 2 can be interpreted to
demonstrate that on an overall basis the number of antler-
less p^.rmits issued per year should be increased by
relatively snail er increments than in past years, and only
when the harvest of adult males warrants an increase of
antlerless pcrraits .
A siimmar; of the percent change in the adult harvest and
the calculated minlnal deer population in Massachusetts,
1967 through 1973, is presented in Table 3. It is inter-
esting to note that the percent change for the calculated
adult female population and the calculated minimal popula-
tion has been decreasing since the 1970 and 1971 deer
seasons. It was during these seasons that the antlerless
permits had been increased to 6,747 and 7,270 respectively.
00
o
M
■M
4J
to
>
;^
0)
cu
Q
§
W)
+J
o
CO
w
iJ
CD
tn
;3
,c!
o
w
to
0)
+J
o
tt!
Pi
g
CM
0)
H
tH
m CO
M
o -y
0)
o
cu
e^ H
«
CO
^1
CO
o
0)
0
rH
PCI
2
tn
<U
o
r:!4
4J
^J
Id
3
C
«
CO
M
4J
Td
tH rl
<u
cd a
3
■!J M
CO
o <u
CO
H P^
M
iH
CO
^)
+J
<u
O
<U
H
o
CO
cu
S
pj
0
fa
a;
fa
to
4J
0)
rH
rH
3
ca
nS
e
<
<u
fa
CO
cu
tH
I— i
iH
CO
<
(H
(U
fa
d
o
to
•p
X
j-»
o
:s
3
pq
pq
w
CO
iH
0)
^5
tH
■^
CO
<
C)
iH
a
H
<H
<!
►??
f^
U
CO
CD
><
LO
r^
ir\
CM
iH
CO
CO
CVJ
CM
CO
«*
in
<!■
CO
00
rH
iH
CTN
CvJ
C^
CA
C)0
r^
iH
00
<!•
m
r^
CV)
CO
r^
C>
tH
c>
r*
VO
iH
in
r^
o
«£>
C5^
CO
CO
en
<s-
r«^
CM
-sT
Csl
CO
VO
p*.
CM
CO
CO
C-4
CM
VO
L'->
in
o
vD
G^
CJ^
O
CO
rH
CO
vO
CX3
O
CvJ
CO
m
r^
CO
1^
in
CM
CO
O
r>.
00
in
r^
r».
0\
rH
v£)
<1-
tH
CI
tH
CO
O
CO
CM
tN
O
GN
ffi
c\
c\
(A
A
r\
tH
rH
eg
Csl
CvJ
CM
CA
t^
CO
rH
CO
\D
O
CM
vi";
CN
r-.
CM
-*
CO
r^
tH
CM
CM
OvJ
rH
CO
r^
in
VO
CO
o
<f
O
tH
tH
<!■
■o-
CO
<!■
iH
CM
<>■
in
VO
in
<J-
iH
vO
CO
tH
in
O
CO
C?N
CO
in
VD
CM
CM
in
C?v
VO
rH
CM
CM
rH
rH
VO
CM
cr>
CD
VO
VO
CO
CO
CM
C^
r^
o
in
in
cG
o
CM
CO
tH
CnJ
CN
r>~
CO
<?■
00
a\
m
!H
CO
CO
CM
C\
in
in
CM
<3^
o
•<i-
in
CO
<.'
«*
r^
CO
C3N
o
rH
CM
CO
v;5
VO
vO
r^
r^
P^
r»
cy\
CTN
cn
G^
J)^
O
<y\
rH
rH
H
rH
tH
iH
H
0)
u
u
Q)
CO
o
to
CO
•H
M
0)
GJ
.Ci
o
CO
o
•H
4-»
CO
iH
a
o
CVJ
0
•H
•H
4J
o
rH
r^
(L)
c.
W3rH|
S
1
CO
o
^
r^
c:>
cyi
»H
•M
(1)
O
M
1^
v-O
tH
n
iH
o
00
00
r*.
rH
CM
o
in
CM
CO
00
•
•
rH
1
1
O
r^
<r>
<N
O Cn
o
CO
M tH
tt
0
P! t
vO
o
to G^
J3 v£)
t3 <3N
+
1
iH
«n
CM
o
en
en
CM
CM
(JO
<f
CT.
<!-
o
r>*
to
C^
rH
r>.
CO
iH
<N
O
cr\
«
<7V
A
04
iH
r-l
CO
in
in
CO
CM
CO
CO
■p
P»-
d
<D CTv
(U
fcOrH
o
d 1
M
CO CM
1)
,•2 r-.
P^
O c:^
r^
CnJ
4J
r^
d
<u c^
<u
W)rH
o
ti 1
M
CO >H
GJ
^ r«
CU
O CA
tH
00
O
O
iH
to
re
in
CO
CNi
O
CO
•vf
CM
O
o
o
CO
o
00
+
m
o
in
00
o
•
CO
rH
c
CM
+
+
CO
CO
00
a
o
VO
in
CO
vO
CM
in
m
CO
CO
r^
CM
r^
cr\
CO
0^
<r^
*s
e>
A
H
iH
CM
CO
tH
CO
CM
I
(0
4J
CO
iH
la
O
rH
CO
u
X)
CO
■P
CO
>
u
CO
a
tH
T?
<i
c
•H
<U
60
6
cu
to
CO
4J
C!
0)
CJ
en
0) cy\
O M
V
>, o
U M
CO X!
i ^
CO vc>
^ «^
<! tH
tH
CO
H
cr\
o
r>.
in
0^
<^.
CO
o
o
vO
CM
tH
o
CO
C^
«\
c»
iK
n
rH
^^
CO
'Cl-
rH
»H
c
»-l
Ph
cr>
VO
0)
o
bO fHI
d
1
CO
CD
■£
O
O
fy>
rH
■M
C
0)
O
M
CD
00
vO
<u
CT\
&0 tHl
c
1
CO
1-^
^
O
u
a\
tH
CM
in
tH
CO
CM
in
CO
•
m
o
•
in
rH
rH
+
+
c^
rH
in
CO
CM
CM
CO
iH
o
•
•n
CO
CM
O
<t
o
00
CM
tH
VC5
<f
vO
o
<1"
0^
r^
(3^
«\
A
C\
»*
00
CO
■
CM
-si-
VO
VO
CO
O^
r^
CO
m
H
CO
VO
CO
o
O
rH
ON
«
A
f\
tH
CM
CM
VO
CO
a
CO
cu
4J
w
O
E
>
^
C!
iH
•H
•H
K:
3
O
D
•P
Cl
CC
J
•H
•xi
CO
•p<
.c!
CO
CO
CO
rH
;3
s
0)
-d
rH
TJ
p-
T)
d
iH
(1)
3
(U
o
0)
o
CO
■p
a
4J
a
4J
•H
0
CO
o
CO
CO
4J
r-i
a
tH
(U
rH
CO
4J
3
3
rM
3
rH
rH
o
CD
O
CO
O
3
3
tH
iH
rH
a
rH
a.
T)
CO
CO
CO
Q)
CO
O
<!
u
S
CJ
m
o
P-
vO
t«l
CO
tH
iH
o
(Y>
CO
r^
r*.
rH
C-1
O
m
c^
9\
cs
#v.
«
C>!
«cr
4J
tH
m
_v-p!
a?
U
■M O
S
>
rH
a
tH -H
^ -
M
3
o
3 +J
c
CO
-d
•H
TJ CO
•H
tti
CO
4J
CO
CO tH
3
a
CD
T3
tH
TJ a
tJ qj
tH
0)
d
(U O
OJ o
cO
•p
a.
4J O*
+J "H
Q
CO
o
CO
CO +J
iH
cu
rH 0)
iH CO
U
:3
=> tH
3 r-i
rH
o
Q)
O CO
O 3
P
iH
rH
fH g
tH CL
"3
CO
(0
CO cy
CO O
<
U
6
o m
O P»
I
W-35-R-16 : II-4
Tables 4 and 5 present a summary of the adult male and fe-
male deer harvest per square mile of deer range in Mass-
achusetts from 1967 through 1973. IJhereas it was felt
that there was an overharvest in the female segment of the
deer population during* 1970 and 1971, the number of sports-
man antlerless permits issued on the mainland was reduced
to 4,000 permits in 1972. The same number (4,000) of per-
mits was issued for the 1973 shotgun deer season.
The adult male harvest per square mile of deer range in
Berkshire County, except for 1971, has shown a continuous
rise from .27 antlered bucks in 1967 to .51 animals in 1973.
Tlie adult female harvest in 1967 was .04 deer and rose to
a peak of .23 adult does in 1971. The harvest for 1972 and
1973 has remained at .13 adult does per square mile of deer
range ,
In Barnstable County, the adult male harvest Increased
slightly from .26 bucks in 1972 to .27 bucks in 1973. The
adult female segment of the 1973 harvest dropped from .09
in 1972 to .05 for 1973.
There was a .10 drop in both adult age classes in Franklin
County during the 1973 shotgun season. It is quite possi-
ble that the decrease was due to an overharvest of females
from 1969 through 1972.
The harvest of adult deer in Hampden and Hampshire Counties
appears as expected with the buck harvest increasing and
the female segment remaining the same or slightly less than
the 1972 harvest.
In Worcester County, the adult male harvest remained at
.09 bucks per square mile of deer range while the adult
female segment increased .01 deer to .04 females per
square mile of range in 1973.
The rem.aining counties, namely Bristol, Essex, Middlesex,
Norfolk and Plymouth, contributed an insignificant number
of deer to the mainland harvest. These counties are called
collectively the Eastern Group.
The adult male harvest in Dukes County decreased to 1 deer
per square mile of deer range; the adult female harvest
increased to 1 adult doe per square mile of deer range in
1973. Sixty- three percent of the deer harvested on
Martha ^s Vineyard x^ere button bucks and females.
The Nantucket Island adult male harvest increased from
1.36 in 1972 to 1.89 bucks in 1973. The increase in the
male harvest v/as unexpected. There v/as a slight increase
in the adult female harvest of .11 does during the 1973
shotgun season.
Table 4. Summary of the Adult Male Deer Harvest per Square Hile of Deer Range
per County in Diassachusetts , 1967 through 1973.
Sq„ Mi„
County Deer Range 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Barnstable 290.5 .14 .15 .20 .28 .28 .26 .27
Berkshire 839.0 .27 .37 .44 .44 .42 .45 .51
Bristol 422.6 .01 .01 .01 .01 .002 .007 .002
Essex 344.4 .03 .03 .04 .06 .03 .05 .05
Franklin 649.1 .27 .35 .39 .39 .36 .43 .33
Hampden 524.3 .13 .19 .24 .22 .20 .25 .28
Hampshire 431.5 .16 .25 .27 .26 ,15 .23 .23
mddlesex 583.1 .02 .01 .02 .02 .02 .01 .01
Norfolk 277.3 .01
Plymouth 544.2 .03 .02 .03 .02 .01 .02 .01
Worcester 1,307.6 .11 .06 .14 .15 .07 _^9 ^^
6,213.6 .12 .14 .13 .19 .15 .18 .18
Dukes 36.5 .71 .65 .72 .91 1.01 1.18 1.00
Nantucket 35,9 1.34 1.56 1.89 2.42 1.78 1.36 1.89
Table 5. Summary of the Adult Female Deer Harvest per Square Mile of
Deer Range per County in Massachusetts, 1967 through 1973.
County Deer Range 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Barnstable 290.5 .03 .02 .06 .10 .09 .09 .05
Berkshire 839.0 .04 .06 .12 .16 .23 .13 .13
Bristol 422.6 .005 .002 .002 .002 .002
Essex 344.4 .006 .003 .01 .03 .003 .003 .00
Franklin 649.1 .07 .11 .14 .15 .27 .22 .12
Hampden 524.1 .02 .03 .06 .06 .08 .07 .07
Hampshire 431.5 .04 .06 .11 .11 .07 .08 .05
Middlesex 583.1 .002 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .002
Norfolk 277.3 .004 .004
Plymouth 544.2 .002 .01 .01 .01 .002 .004
Worcester 1,307.6 .02 .02 .05 .07 .05 .03 .04
6,213.6 .02 .03 .06 .07 .08 .07 .05
Dukes 86.5 .14 .10 .18 .36 .67 .89 1.00
Nantucket 35.9 .17 .14 .97 1.67 1.53 1.11 1.22
I
W-35-R-16:II-4
Table 6 presents a summary of the total harvest of deer
in Massachusetts per sex per county and the harvest of
deer per square mile of deer range for the 1973 deer sea-
sons (archery, muzzle loader and shotgun seasons) . The
six top ranking deer producing counties on the mainland in
order of importance are: Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden,
Barnstable, Hampshire and Worcester. The reamining
counties produce .01 deer or less per square mile of deer
range during the hunting seasons. Nantucket Island shows
the largest reported harvest per square mile of deer range
with 4.82 deer. Dukes County, with 2.37 deer per square
mile of deer range, yields the second largest harvest on
a unit area basis.
The percent frequency ratio of adult femlaes to adult males
from 1967 through 1973 is presented in Table 7. The data
in Table 7 can be used, within certain limits, as the pulse
of the antler less permit system. In Dukes County, the
harvest of adult females was slightly over 1 female for
each adult male in 1973. The percent frequency ratio of
adult females in the Nantucket harvest decreased from 0.82
to 0.69 percent in 1973. Please note the number of animals
involved when interpreting the percent of adult females
per adult male data for the mainland. For example, the
.40 percent in Plymouth County involves 7 animals while in
Worcester County the .43 percent was derived from a total
of 170 animals (119 males :51 females).
The results of a reduction in the number of antlerless
permits is evident in the data of Table 7. In 1970 and
1971, 6,000 sportsman permits were issued for the mainland.
The percent of adult females to adult males harvested in-
creased in all counties. The nunber of antlerless permits
issued was reduced to 4,000 permits for the 1972 and 1973
deer seasons. The results seen in Table 7 show that the
percent harvest of adult females to adult males declined
for these years in all counties with the exception of
Worcester County. The reduction in the number of permits
issued removed pressure from the female segment of the deer
herd. Based on the data in Table 7, the issuance of per-
mits on a county basis is recommended.
Figure No. 1 graphs a summary of the total harvest of deer
in Massachusetts by sex per county, and the harvest of
deer per square raile of deer range from 1967 through 1973.
Only the six major deer harvest producing counties are
represented in the graph.
The sensitivity of the antlerless permit system can be
observed in Figure No. 1. In 1967 and 1963, 2,000 sports-
man antlerless permits were issued. The harvest of male
deer increased during these years while the female harvest
increased at a slower rate. The number of permits issued
was increased to 4,000 in 1969. Both the male and female
Table 6. A Summary of the Total Harvest of Deer In llassachusetts (including
Shotgun, Archery, and lluzzle Load Harvests) par County per Sex and
the Harvest of Deer per Square Hileof Deer Range in Massachusetts
for 1973
Harvest
Total
Sq. Mi.
Deer
Males
Females
of Deer
per
per
per
County
Males
Females
Total
Range
Sq. Hi.
Sq. Mi.
Sq. Hi.
Barns tab le
83
24
107
290.5
.36
.29
.08
Berkshire
472
150
622
839,0
.74
.56
.18
Bristol
0
1
1
422.6
.002
.00
.002
Essex
20
0
20
344.4
.06
.06
.00
Franklin
247
114
361
649.1
.56
.38
.13
Hampden
161
49
210
524.3
.40
.31
.09
Hampshire
114
33
147
431.5
.34
.26
.08
Middlesex
4
1
5
583.1
.009
.007
.001
Norfolk
0
0
0
277.3
,00
,00
,00
Plymouth
5
3
8
544.2
.01
,009
.005
Worcester
145
74
219
1307,6
,17
.11
.06
Total
1,251
449
1,700
6213.6
.27
.20
.07
Dukes
125
123
248
86.5
2.87
1.45
1.42
Nantucket
101
72
173
35.9
4.82
2.81
2.01
Total
1,477
644
2,121
6336,0
.33
.23
.10
<^
ON
rH
vD
ON
^
iH
M
+J
3
1-1
O
D
U
TJ
<!
CO
0)
rH
3
<j
o
W
3
<
o
o
•H
4J
CC
cr
0)
u
o
M
cu
EH
o
ON
cr
&>s 0)
u
P4
:3
-a
<
^
XT
CO
ON
vO
ON
u
PJ^
3
<
•M
O
o CD in ON vo CNi 1^
CO en -sf CO cNj <!• \o
ON CO ON CO H CO o
<N CO ON CO -sj-
o
in
iH <S-
o
O -sf o
r-\
r^ <f ON
CO
VO CVJ
m
tH H
CO
CM
iH rH
CO
o
•<1-
CO
CO
C»i
CN
O0r«.COrHv£)VOp-ltH
cvjcvicocococNj<rco
vOO<H<rcOCV!t^>d-
t-J C CTi CO •«*
CO
<3-
VO
c? HcocovDooincoco<f-
inr^ iHincvjiHiH iH
CO CV? iH rH
-si-
CO
0-1
•<rr>.ooocoinco
iHi-lCSrHCOrHCNj^
vDCOrHiHCOOOr^CO
uo vO iH <M
4J
a
•<t<j-inoocor-.r-
*Cr iH rH CO ON o
CO CV tH
CO
CO
CO
CO
<r<fcoooinoocoo
C^JrHC0rHC^O<MrH
OrHCMCS<rONVOrH
iH CO >3- rH
VO
C
iH
CO
vO
iH
\o
ON
O.
O
<t
CvJ
Csl
tH
vO
VD
rH
VD
CO
CO
Cvj
in
CO
CM
CvJ
CO
O
C7N
CO
CM
uo
VO
CM
CO
CM
VO
•-O
m
rH
CO
CO
o
CM
CO
ON
CO
C7N
ON
rH
VD
VD
0)
<u
QJ !>4
u
^
u
c
M cu
^
0)
rt
•H
iH
•H
d
•H CO
^
+J .^.
■U
4->
,«
O
tH
(U
^ CU
rH
3 rH
CO
TO
CO
■M
X
;^
T3
CO iH
O
o o
cu
tH
C
J^
CO
<u
a
a-
&«'d
4-)
o
CO
V4
u
•H
CO
cd
0
0 T3
>J
{^
4J
ni
Qi
»^
CO
M
CO
ctf -H
O
rH P
o
O
M
(Q
pa
PQ
[it
K
s
P^ Vi
13:
H
o
o
o
'A
VD
O
O
o
o
c
CM
O
O
O
Csl
§
CO
4->
U
o
CO
O •H
g
• M
O CU
ON
CO
CO
C7N
VO
CVJ
CM
VD
VD
ON
VO
o
CM
CM
rH
O
ON
vO
O
o
CO
o
o
in
in
CO
00
VO
o
o
CN
o
in
VD
in
CO
VD
CO
*J
»^
o
a.
+J
CO
QJ
CO
K^
lEJ 4-i
o
CO
O -H
d
• H
d
3
o o
CO
«
^ ix,
s
S3-
CO
a
CO
4J
O
a.
CO
CO
IW 4J
O -H
a
• >^
O cu
VO
tn
CN
VO
CO
CO
CM
CO
St
CM
CM
IW
O
U
<U
-i
S CO
2g
O <U
CO
■U)
•H
a
u
0)
d
&
o
T3
d
to
I
M
i
CO
P4
CO
CU
'O
d
iH
O
d
a"
u
PL4
ON
Ix<
4J
r-i
0
<1
u
CM
ON
Ptt
3
<3
^
n
a
•n
o
u
!5S
§
o
C5N VO
in r^ in CM in
eg CO CM CM CM
o f^
in o
iH O
<!■ ON vO CM iH
r^ f^ CM
CVJ
in
r>. <!•
vjD en in T-i <f
in cr.
r- CM
iH rH <t O
tH
"vf
eg iH iH
tH
OO^^vDtHoinCI
cofnooomcMcocn
C 00
O CO
r^CMr-lrH<HCO»::S-<f
CM iH <!■ n CO
incocnvDr>.»Hcoco
r^ 1^ tH f-» CO C3N
CO CM iH
CM r-^
O 00
00 VO iH ON O
v:3- r>.
in
CO m
o 1^ o- <f m
iH \o
in
• o
• e o • «
o •
0
in r^
CM c»
VO CM
r* <!• CO
iH r*.
CM CM rH Cv' CM CO to <^
<?D in tH en O O rH
CO CM tH
rH O
00
C7N
CM
vO
rH
CO
o
o
o
o
CO
Cn!
o
m
o
tH
t-1
O
CO
in
fn
1.0
ON
o
e
o
O
O
o
^
6
to
4-J
V4
<u
o
rH
0)
<U N
VI
■ffu
Xi
?^
d
U 0)
^
(U
CO
n)
•H
tH
•H
fl
•H W
r^
^j
+j ^
u
rC
O
r-l
o
^ 0)
tH
:3
CO tH
M-l
to
w
+J
X
,i^
T!
to rH
O
o
cu o
tH
o
0
^
CO
O
fi
9-
ex T3
IW
e
o m
CO
U
5-1
•H
CO
CO
a
0 T3
M
>.
s-i iw
4.)
0
c<S
0)
>..)
en
u
to
CO 'H
O
rH
o a
o
o
pq
pq
pq
pa
Fn
M
ffi ^3
rs
pt,
!3 en
H
53
o
rH
00
o
o
v^
00
in
C>
O
cc>
CM
CM
o
tH
00
m
00
0)
o
o
NO
o
o
c
to
s
CO
4J
u
o
a
en
CO
U-i 4J
O -H
.g
o o
P3 PM
O
C3N
o
O
CO
in
in
O
O
CD
C)
Zi
4->
CO
e
to
O
C/3
CO
IH 4J
O H
a
• U
O (!)
m
m
CM
cn
o
CM
u
Q)
•K
rQ
CO
B
4J
3
•H
S
2
-4
iH
CU
CO
Pui
u
0
IW
H
o
CD
U
e
(U
Ah
V<
CD
C!
!.
c
CO
I
U
0)
M
CO
tc
(U
T)
3
tH
O
I
I
«0
<&
^
I
«5i
I
?i
^
^
5
"5>
I
1^
fc
fe
fs.
I
^
^«
I
I
I
I
I
RJ
■fei
i^
^
t^
^
^
W-35-R-16:II-4
harvest increased with the female rate increasing at a
slightly higher rate. Six thousand periaits were issued
for 1970 and 1971. Tae harvest of male deer in most cases
peaked in 1970 and started to decline in 1971. Tae female
harvest during these years continued to climb. The 1971
harvest reflects the increase of permits in 1969 in that
it takes two years to put an antlered deer in the herd.
The harvest of males in 1971 started to decline and the
permit holders were taking more antlerless deer. The
1972 and 1973 harvests reflect the permit increase of 1970
and 1971. The 1974 harvest, therefore, should be higher
than the 1973 harvest on the mainland because of the 1972
reduction in antlerless permits issued.
A summary of the total Massachusetts deer harvest by sex
per square mile of deer range on the mainland, Dukes and
Nantucket Counties from 1967 through 1973 is presented
in Figure No. 2. The mainland data represents the bulk of
the deer range in the state, but with the six poor deer
producing counties included, the harvest of deer per square
mile of range is quite low.
The total harvest of deer in Dukes County decreased in
1973. I#ierea3 this is the third year of issuing 600
antlerless permits, further decline in the yield of this
herd may necessitate a reduction in permits for the county.
There was an unexpected increase in both the male and female
harvest of deer on Nantucket Island during the 1973 deer
season. It is quite possible that the increased harvest
was due to a build up of adult female deer surviving the
1967, 1968 and 1969 deer seasons. It had been anticipated
that the male harvest would equal the female harvest in
1973 followed by a reduction in the number of permits to
maintain an equal harvest of bucks and does.
Recommendations: Antlerless permit allocation should be modified to a county
and regional basis of distribution. The following numbers
of sportsman permits issued per county and/or region are
suggested:
County Number of Sportsman Permits
Barnstable 200
Berkshire 1,300
Franklin 700
Hampden 400
Hampshire 300
Worcester 700
Region l'< 200
Region TL-^* 200
Total 4,000
* Essex, Middlesex and Norfolk Counties
** Bristol and Plymouth Counties
S § c
^ :? ;^
I
a^
r
I
o
*0
*
J5
?^
•V.
A2
Is.
V3
*^
^
^
^
"'"*■•.
00
vS
1 '■ .
j:.
vo
«
o
/ I
^
^
^
^
?5i
^
^
S
J5
?:»
^
5^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
I
W-35-R-16:II-4
Prepared by;
Martha *s Vineyard 600
Hantucket Island 400
Haushon 50
The sale of a il'assachusetts big game license that incorpo-
rates an antlerless percdt application should be investi-
gated. Mien the antlerless application is submitted, the
hunter will be required to indicate in which county or
region he would like the application be drawn,
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES Al^D GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton Ho Bridges, Deputy Director
James J, McDonough
Game Biologist
William J. Minior
Assistant
Date
fib^ I «^02/^iW'-3^-K-/C.^jfr-X
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State:
Massachusetts
Cooperators:
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
reject No,:
Job No.
Period Covered:
Summary:
Objectives
Procedures
Findings
Goifernoient Oocoms^i's
Collection
NOV 1 4 1973
i^nivmty cf Massachusetts
I'J-35-R-16
III-l
Project Name
Job Title:
Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Mourninp, Dove Census
23 May to 13 July 1973
Calling doves were counted on three randomized routes in
cooperation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's annual
mourning dove breeding population census. The total number
of calling doves for all three routes remained unchanged from
To obtain an index of the spring breeding population of
mourning doves.
Ill accordance with instructions from the U. S. Fish and Wild-
life Service, doves were censused on the three randomized
routes used in 1967. Doves were censused by roadside coo-
counts on these routes between 23 I^lay and 1 June. Division
personnel conducted two routes and a Fish and Wildlife
Service cooperator conducted the third route.
Results of the 1973 call count of mourning doves are compared
with previous years' data in Table 1.
The total number of calling doves heard on the three routes
surveyed remained unchanged from 1972 totals. Taken in-
dividually. Route 8 decreased by 17 percent. Route 8A was
unchanged, and Route 10 increased 100 percent from two to
four doves.
The V7elghted mean number of doves heard per comparable
Massachusetts route was 6,1 in both 1972 and 1973 (Ruos,
1973). Ruos further reports that the breeding population
index for the Eastern Management Unit decreased 6.8 percent
from 17.4 doves per route in 1972 to 16.2 doves per route in
1973. Long-terra population trends also show a decline; re-
gression analyses of the 1963-73 data indicate a highly sig-
nificant downv7ard population trend in the Eastern Management
Unit (Ruos 1973:6).
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
CO
»-)
I
as
m
!U
4J
3
o
M
Q)
ft
JO
cd
!-i
CO
a,
i
u
d
o
'O
!^
CO
<u
CO
O
1-4
B
o
u
-ll
CO
■u
C
3
O
CJ
CO
r>
d
0)
(J
u
CM
t-4
o
ON
ON
CO
(3^
as
CO
as
CM
r*.
<-^
1-1
•v
O
u
r-
CO
c^
<u
r-4
US
CO
(U
c^
>
vO
o
o>
Q
t-l
CO
\o
as
as
1
o
O
o
1-1
J.
o
o
o
o
■y-
o
o
CO
CO
I
ON
O
CO
CO
o
1
r
-r
o
o
St
O
O
i-i
O
o
9.
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
"r
CO
CO
I
'I
Cvj
VO
1
O
O
rH
CO
1
CO
1
•Jc
CO
CO
CO
1
1
1
o
1-i
CM
«d-
vo
1-4
CO
CO
»
r-l
CM
CM
vo
r-4
CO
CO
•
o
1-4
1-4
1-1
CM
I-I
o
o
•
r-l
t-4
CM
CO
vo
r-4
CO
CO
t
CM
1-4
T-t
<!•
CO
CO
•
«-4
1-4
r-4
1-1
o
CM
1-4
O
o
•
Cvl
p-4
t-«.
<•
CO
CO
CO
*
r-4
t-l
CM
CM
*
CO
CM
CO
CO
•
00
CO
a
O
1-1
CO
r-i
CO
o
H
d
CO
'V
0)
u
d
o
a
o
d
o
u
3
O
W-35-R-16:III-l
Recommendations: I recoraniend that the spring mourning dove census be con-
tinued in cooperation with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James E. Cardoza, Assistant Game Biologist
Date
Literature Cited
R.UOS, James L. 1973. 1973 Mourning Dove Breeding Population Status.
USDI Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Laurel, Md. Administrative
Report. Xerox i-KlO pp.
I {,' \
y^
t\ .JC. . .J.
^^ M
I ^
/
JOB PERFORMANCE REPORT
State Massachusetts
Cooperator: Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
a'C •■
'■^:'>rf-\
Project No.: W~35-R-I6
Project Title: Game Population Trend and
Harvest Survey
Job No.
IV-
Perlod Covered:
Summary:
Objectives:
Procedures:
Findings:
Job Title: Experimental Turkey Stocking
I June 1973 to 31 May 1974
Twenty wild-trapped turkeys (five adult hens and fifteen
poults) were captured in Allegany State Park, New York,
and released In Beartown State Forest In western Massachu-
setts. To date, 37 turkeys have been released in this area
Winter observations Indicate the turkeys have adapted well
to this area, with a good potential for broods this year.
Observations on semi-wild flocks were limited, but indi-
cate slight improvement over previous years.
To re-establish the wild turkey in the Commonwealth In
sufficient numbers to allow for recreational hunting.
Turkeys were censused by roadside counts, track counts
and cooperator reports. Snowmobiles were used during the
winter to provide access to the areas and to transport
grain for baiting.
Turkeys were captured using Thornsberry style cannon nets.
Captured turkeys v/ere aged, sexed, weighed, wing-tagged,
and color-marked with patagial streamers.
Turkey Trapping
Through the courtesy of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife,
wild-trapped turkeys were again made available for trans-
planting to Massachusetts. Since adverse weather condi-
tions had restricted trapping success during the winters
of 1972 and 1973, New York biologists suggested that we
try a fall release consisting of adult hens and their
broods. Accordingly, bait lines were established In
Allegany State Park, Cattaraugus County, and two captures
were made by local technicians on 17 and 18 September.
Twenty turkeys were captured (Table I). The project
leader and an assistant traveled to the park to pick up
the turkeys, returning to Massachusetts the following day
to release the birds. All turkeys were released off
Alcott Street near Beartown State Forest, Great Barring-
ton, Berkshire County, at the same location where turkeys
had been set free the previous two springs.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
<0
"O
o
I.
Zi
+-
Cl
(0
o
CD
i.
L.
O
(0
+-
CD
O
®
to
to
o
cc
I
4-
Q.
(0
O
•o
c
(0
<D
e
3
(0
c
+-
CD
Q)
X
*
*
*
Q)
+-
<a
Q
<D
(0
*
*
0)
C
L.
O
3
•M-
-h
H-
Q.
(0
(D
o
O
o
^
(D
H-
(n
Q
0)
I-
n
+-
d
(D
O
,^
N
+-
o
x:
1
Q)
in
t-B
Xi
CD
—
2
•«^
en
)^
X
to
0)
<
D)* 1
ro
1-
i-
<D
cnxil
c
fc
*— »
3
S
z
I_
t-
L. 1_
L.
t. L.
J_
1_ t_
L.
L-
1_
l_
i_ i-
i_
J_
L. t-
Q)
<D
O CD
CD
CD 0
CD
CD CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
o o
0
0
0 0
n
JD XI
n
J3 XI
,n
XD Xi
.n
.O
JTi
Xi
X) XI
.a
X5
XD ^
F
E E
E
E £
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
fc
£ £
CD
(1)
® CD
0)
CD 0
CD
CD 0)
CD
CD
CD
CD
0 0
0
0
0 0
+-
+-
4- -H
-H
4- -!-
+-
+- +-
4-
-1-
4-
4-
4- 4-
4-
4-
4- 4-
Ol
Q.
Ci Q.
Q.
Q. O.
CL
Q. O.
O-
Q.
CL
Q.
Q. Q.
o.
Q-
Cl. Q.
0)
CD
Q CD
Q
O Q)
CD
CD CD
CD
CD
CD
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
CO
CO
CO CO
CO
CO CO
OO
CO CO
CO
CO
CO
</)
CO CO
W)
CO
CO CO
Ch
cr*
cr» a\
ON
CTv O
CTn
CTx C\
CTN
C3%
ON
ON
CiN ON
ON
C7\
ON ON
<CnOQCQCQCDCDCQCDCQ<<<<<<<<<<
L.l_i_5_L.L,L.l-L.l-l-t_
00000000 0 000
-QXiX3XlX>XNX5X5X)X)
EEEEEEEEEE
0000000000
4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-
0.0.0.0.0.0,0.0.0.0-0.0.0.0.0.0.
0000000000000000
X3 X5
E £
0 0
t. t_ L. 1-
0 0 0 0
X3 x> x> x:)
E E E £
0 0 0 0
4-4-
L. L. l-
0 0 0
.Q X5 X3
£ E E
0 0 ©
1-4-4-4-
O. Q. Q- Q.
0 0 0 0
cocococococococotocococococotncococococ/5
r^cx)cx5c5ocx)oocx)oocooDr^r-r-r-r-r*r-r-r^r-
C3N vo —
I I t
CX) CJN CO
'•^^ ^^ •«■.« I
CX) ^ "^
CO Oi 0\
• • •
N^ "st- hO
ill!
f^ hO (^
! I I
r-- CO r»
I <>»» "w v.^ I
r- — r--
tA r- hO
• • •
ff^ t<\ m
I i i I I I
U_ Ll. U.
^ J^ ^ ^ ^
c c c c c
Z5 Z) 3 =) Z3 Lu
C •
u_s:u-U-u.LL.u.s
• • •£££££££ • •££££££££
■OXJ-OEEEEEEE-O-OEEEEEEEE
<<< <<
*£)»or~cooNO — cNKN'vi-invor^cocTNO — cNihO'^
c\!r*-r^r^r^cooococooo(X>cococDoocrNONONc:iNaN
c\jaDcocoaocococx)cc»<»cocooocococococ30coco
inintniriLninLfNtniriininintninLrNLnirNininLrt
H-J-H-HH-h- f-KJ-H-H-HKh-l-i— 1-H-h-f-
C
O
+-
O)
c
n
1.
• CD
i- 4-
(0 (0
Q. 0
L.
© CD
4-
(0 •^
4- 4-
co cn
©
>■ 1-
C O
fD U-
O)
(1) m
— 4-
— CD
< 4-
co
(0
©
CD
O
4-
i_
fO
0
CD
L.
(0
0
c
0 O
c
i- E
0 (0 *
1 O 4-
O ©
CS "v 0
CsJ CD L.
ir\ 4-
h- •* CO
4- t- 4-
Q. ro 4-
© CL O
o o
X 0 —
0 4- <
(U
0 4-^
4- CO >+-
~. O
5 C TJ
(D 0
CD C7) to
L. O (0
0—0
E
(D < ©
0 i.
i_ •»
4- c in
in 3 >^
cc 0
CD Jsi
C H- L.
— — 3
5 O 4-
< < <
* * *
* *
W-35-R-I6:IV-l
Statew I de Turkey Populations
A total of 37 wild-trapped turkeys (Table 2) have been
released In Beartown State Forest between March 1972 and
September 1973. Sixteen hens, fifteen toms, and six un-
sexed poults have been released. This should be quite
sufficient to establish a sustaining population In this
area.
Table 2. Sex, Age and Date Released of Turkeys Transferred to Beartown State
Forest.
Date
Ad
. M.
Ad
. F.
Imm. M.
Imm. F.
Imm. U.
Total
10
March 1972
3^
3
II
March 1972
2
I
3
17
March 1972
1
1
23
February 1973
5
5
27
February 1973
4
4
23
April 1973
1
1
19
September 1973
—
5_
3
6
6
20
6
9
9
7
6
37
* One found dead 27 March 1972.
Since wild-trapped turkeys offer the best chance of
establishing a viable and expanding turkey population
In the Commonwealth, turkey census activities during
this segment were concentrated on the Beartown flock.
Observations In the remainder of the state were further
hampered by a reduction In gasoline availability due to
the energy crisis.
There have been few sightings of the Beartown birds
during the past year. 'Western Wildlife District per-
sonnel reported tracking one adult torn near the Becket
Wildlife Management Area (10,5 km/6.5 miles northeast
of the release site) during the spring of 1973, and
workers In the state forest were told by visitors
that "a number" of turkeys were seen In the center of
the forest near an abandoned Civilian Conservation
Corps camp (2.8 km/ I. 75 miles east of the release site).
The Project Leader and an assistant searched much of
the forest and adjacent areas on snowmobiles and foot
during the past winter. Thirteen of the twenty birds
released In fall of 1973 were located, plus a few (two
or three) toms. All birds were on the west slope above
Ice Glen Road, 2.0 km (1.25 miles) north of the Alcott
1
W-35-R-l6:IV-l
Street release point. Snow cover was slight, seeps
were open, and the turkeys were readily locating
acorns, hickory nuts, and other foods. Hopeful ly,
broods will be produced this year.
Turkeys In the Quabbin Reservation showed slight Im-
provement over previous years. Broods continue to be
produced In the southern portion of Prescott Peninsula,
near Prescott Brook, and these birds flush readily when
approached. On the other hand, birds of the same back-
ground, a few miles north In New Salem are very docile
due to persistent feeding by landowners. Natural Re-
source officers reported a flock of turkeys In Montague,
also heavily dependent on artificial feeding. Small
flocks remain In Barre, Douglas and Hatfield, but little
reproduction and virtually no dispersal has occurred
during the past few years.
A small flock of game-farm ancestry turkeys remain near
the Adams property in the Town of Mt. '/Washington, and a
limited number of semi -wild birds are scattered about
In the Wash i ngton-Becket area. These will probably be
overwhelmed by the wild-strain Beartown birds should
they disperse in this direction.
The Southeast District received an unverified report
of turkeys near Camp Squanto in Plymouth during the
spring of 1973. Should this be valid. It would be the
first indication of these birds since the summer of
1971.
Recommendations:
Acknow I edgments :
Continue evaluation of the Beartown release. Use these
birds as a source of stock for future transplant opera-
tions once populations have grown enough to permit this.
Appreciation Is extended to Messrs. Lee DeGraff, Fred
Evans, and William Shirey of the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation and to Dr. W. Rasey
of Westons Mills, New York for their assistance In se-
curing and coordinating pick-up of wild-trapped turkeys,
and to personnel of Beartown State Forest, the Quabbin
Region of the Metropolitan District Commission and the
Division of Law Enforcement for their help In reporting
turkey sightings.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by:
James E. Cardoza, Game Biologist
Date
H/\^S FA 52. 5: iA;-3->-1^-/cyOT--i
state
Cooperator:
Project No. :
Job No. :
Period Covered:
Summary:
Objectives:
Procedures
Findings:
JOB PERFORMANCE REPORT
MASSACHUSETTS
L ,
■ii
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-I6
Vl-I
Project Title: Game Population Trend
Job Title:
and i-larvest Survey
Black Bear Population
Dynamics
i June 1973 to 31 May 1974
Applications for bear hunting permits were received from 309
sportsmen. No bears were reported taken during the open sea-
son. One bear cub was killed by an automobile. New reports
of 18 observations Involving 28 bear were received from five
counties. Two instances of problem bears were investigated.
To define the range of the black bear In Massachusetts and to
determine its population characteristics and rate of harvest
by hunting.
Current bear hunting regulations include mandatory reporting
and tagging of bear. Bear checking stations were maintained
daily during bear week at three locations — Birch Hill Wild-
life Management Area, Templeton; Montague Fish Hatchery,
Montague; Western Wildlife District Headquarters, Pittsfield.
Should a bear be presented for examination, station personnel
were directed to affix a metal game seal to the bear, and to
record the following information: town of kill, date killed,
sex and weight of bear, and method of kill. Successful
hunters would subsequently be contacted by the project leader
and the bear's carcass examined and a tooth removed for sec-
tioning.
The Information and Education Section issued periodic news
releases asking for reports of black bear and the project
leader contributed an article on bear to MASSACHUSETTS WILD-
LIFE. District personnel. Natural Resource officers and
University of Massachusetts cooperators assisted in reporting
bear sightings.
Black bear hunting permit applications were received from 309
individuals during the 1973 season (Table I). No hunter suc-
ceeded in bagging a bear.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
W-35-R-l6:VI-l
Table i. Number of Bear Permit Applications and Number of Bear Taken -
1970-1973
Year
No. Permits
1970
214
1971
200
1972
423
1973
309
No. Bear Taken
Other Mortal itles
I n legal kll I; I road kll I
I Illegal kill
I road kill; I captured bear
New reports of bears received during this segment Included
15 sightings, one road kill, and one report of tracks, total
Ing 28 bear In 16 towns. Reports by county for the period
1952 to 1973 are presented in Table 2. Records of 477 bear
noted on 384 occasions In 75 towns have been collected for
the period 1952 to May 1973.
Table 2.
Repc
.rts
of Black Bear
by County,
1952-
■1973
County
1952-1972
1973
Total
Percent
Berkshire
Frank! In
Hampden
Hampshire
Middlesex
Worcester
124
148
18
59
1
16
366
5
6
1
5
1
18
129
154
19
64
1
17
384
33.6
40.1
4.9
16.7
0.3
4.4
100.0
Four sow-cub groups were observed, two with two cubs each and
two with three each.
Two problem situations were Investigated. The first. In the
summer of 1973, Involved three cubs treed in a roadside park
in Huntington, Hampshire County. One cub was captured by an
onlooker who desired the cub for a pet. Investigation by the
Division of Law Enforcement resulted in the retrieval of the
cub and the prosecution of Its captor. However, the cub was
too young to survive on its own and had to be given to a zoo.
The second situation also Involved a sow and cubs. On
20 September 1973, barking dogs treed a sow and three cubs
the Town of Clarksburg, Berkshire County. Broadcasts on a
local radio station drew hundreds of curious onlookers who
threatened the safety of the bears and themselves by their
incautious behavior. Police and Natural Resource officers
In
W-35-R-l6:VI-l
Recommendations
dispersed the crowd and the bears later departed only to
appear again later that night In the neighboring town of North
Adams. The bears were again harassed by townspeople and the
local fire department attempted to disperse the bears with
fire hoses. State police and Resource officers again responded
and succeeded In quieting the uproar and the bears were again
able to depart. The cub hit by an automobl le on Route 2 a month
later may have been one of this group.
1. Continue evaluation of bear harvest through checking sta-
tions and periodic questionnaires.
2. Continue determination of bear range and populations
through recording of sightings.
3. Investigate nuisance complaints as necessary. Promote
public education programs to lessen man-bear conflicts.
4. Incorporate data gathered to date in the planned bulletin
on the history and status of the black bear.
Acknowledgments:
Efforts of the Division of Law Enforcement are appreciated,
especially Officers Lawler, Kenary, Kullsh and Rlcardl in
Investigating complaints and sightings.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James E. Cardoza, Game Biologist
Date
JOB PERFORMANCE REPORT
<>l 'action
MASSACHUSETTS
ly
State
Coop era tor:
Project No. :
Job No. :
Period Covered:
Summary:
Objectives:
Procedures:
Findings:
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-I6
VI-2
Project Title: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
Job Title
Historical Records of
the Black Bear In
Massachusetts
I June 1975 to 31 May 1974
A comprehensive literature search was conducted to locate
historical references concerning black bear. A detailed
report on the history and status of the bear Is nov/ In
preparation.
To determine trends in black bear populations and distribu-
tion in Massachusetts from pre-Colonlal times to the present.
The facilities of seven state and municipal libraries were
utilized In conducting the literature search for this study,
indexing and abstracting journals were used as an initial
source of reference concerning bear. Local and regional
fauna I lists, travel accounts, reports of sporting expedi-
tions, and Division annual reports and correspondence files
were examined for citations pertaining to bear. Town and
county histories were a valuable source of data, and all
histories available at the libraries visited were screened
in addition to a few more histories obtained on Inter library
Loan .
Abstracts were made of all pertinent references, a file-card
bibliography was prepared, and maps were drawn diagramming
fluctuations In bear distribution since Colonial times.
In cooperation with the University of Massachusetts, this
study has been expanded to Include adjacent New England
states. A consolidated final report on the history and
status of the black bear In this region Is being prepared.
To date, 252 citations for the period 1634 to 1948 have
been located for New England and component states. Of
these, 125 pertain to Massachusetts.
Data In the published report will Include findings from
W-35-R, Job Vl-I, Black Bear Population Dynamics, and wl H
be broken down Into four main sections: topography of the
region and Indian Influences on bear; trends In bear
distribution; bears and man; status, management and recom-
mendations.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
i?5l46
W-35-R-l6:VI-2
A popular account of bears In the Commonwealth was
published In MASSACHUSETTS WILDLIFE (Cardoza, 1973).
Recoiroendations: Consolidated findings of this job should be published as
a Division research bulletin.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James E. Cardoza, Game Biologist
Date
Literature Cited:
Cardoza, James E. 1973. Bay State Bruins — Past and
Present. Mass. Wildl. 24(6): 10-14.
i-KRFORnANCE REPORT
y OF i^ASLn......ui l:::ary
State: lIASSACnUSETTS
Project No.: IJ-35-R-17
Project Title: Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Project Type: Research and Surveys
Period Covered: 1 June 1974 to 31 Ilay 1975
Work Plan I Statcvida Game Harvest
Objectives: To determine the statex^/ide harvest of selected small game
and furbearer species and to present recomroendations , based
upon management practices and regulations, to increase the
utilization of certain species:
Job 1-1 Statewide Small Game Harvest
Job Objectives: To determine the statewide harvest of selected small
game species, and to determine the characteristics of land
utilization and time expenditure by sportsmen.
Summary: No work V7as conducted during this segment since budgetary
restrictions precluded purchase of the postcards necessary
for conducting this job.
Target Date: 31 Hay 1979.
Status of Progress: Behind schedule
Significant Deviations: No work during one segment due to non-
appropriation of funds.
Recommendations: This job should be reactivated when sufficient monies
are allocated to allow for printing and mailing of the
questionnaire cards.
Job 1-2 Statewide Beaver Harvest
Job Objectives; To determine the statewide harvest of beavers by
trappers .
Summary: A total of 1,441 beaver were taken by 116 trappers in 102
towns during the 1974-75 beaver season. Tliis take is 198
less than last season, but 247 more than a ten-year (1965-
1974) average. Berkshire County yielded more than one
third (35.0 percent) of the harvest. One half (50.0 per-
cent) of the harvest, or 121 beaver, was taken in the first
two weeks of the season.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
Target Date: 31 I lay 1979
Progress; On schedule.
Significant Deviations: None
Recommendations: Continue tagging of beaver pelts and recording of
harvest data In 1976, using the same methods as in the
current segment.
Division Rer;ulation 11 currently states that all beaver
taken must be tagged within two days of the season's end.
T-Jhen those two days occur on a weekend, as they did in
part this year, Division personnel must work overtiire to
conply with the tagging requirement. Tliis would be accept-
able if trappers brought their take in on those days, but
this is generally not the case. Some installations have
waited a full day with no beaver being presented, only to
have several brought in on the following workday. Con-
sideration should be given to revising the regulation to
state: "All pelts must be tagged within two world og days
of the closing day of the open season."
Should regulations be enacted requiring the tagging of otter
and fisher, this job should be amended to include tabulation
of the harvest of those species.
Cost: $1,570.60 (Project Leader nan-days: 4)
Remarks: Procedures: Each successful beaver trapper is required by
law to present his pelts to an official checking station
for tagging and recording of data. Seven stations are
maintained for tv7o days at the close of the season. Pelts
are tagged with locking metal game seals and harvest data
are recorded on mimeographed forms and subsequently tabu-
lated by month trapped, tovm and county trapped in, and type
of trap used.
Findings: The 1974-75 beaver trapping season extended for
15 weeks from 15 November 1974 to 1 March 1975. Trappers
took 1,441 beaver during this period. Tiiis take was 198
less than last year's harvest of 1,639, but 247 more than a
ten-year average (1965-1974) of 1,194. There i^eve 115
trappers (123 in 1973-74) taking a minimum of one beaver
each, with a mean harvest of 12.4 beaver per trapper (range:
1 to 107) . One confiscated pelt was presented for tagging
by the Division of Lav? Enforcement. The number of success-
ful trappers (116) was the second highest on record, being
seven less than in 1973-74 (123), but 30 more than a ten-
year (1965-74) average
Beaver colonies located in 106 towns contributed to the
1974-75 harvest (Figure 1) . The twelve towns with largest
individual seasonal harvests are listed in Table 1.
i
Ik..
in
r^
C\
t-i
1
<r
r>.
ON
i-l
•k
CO
C
H
>N ^1
jQ <u
>
• cd
0) ^
a
(Xr-I
CC <t
%
5-1 <3-
I-l
H -1
(U
M II
u
<1> i-H
3
> «
ti;
nj iJ
•tA
a» o
fM
CQ H
I
?
^
Table 1. Beaver harvest for twelve llaasachusetta toxms, 1969-1975 seasons.
Tcvm
19
68-69 1969-70
41 20
1970-71
10
1971-72
51
1972-73
57
1973-;
52
'4 1974-75
Bscket
60
Blandford
10
22
16
29
78
37
59
Gicsterfield
14
24
12
16
18
22
41
Goshen
>
-•
11
15
17
17
33
Great Barrlngton
3
1
-
8
2
13
36
Monterey
35
-
5
18
24
12
36
New Marlboro
32
14
1
52
69
64
36
Otis
36
18
14
64
72
72
85
Petersham
52
18
27
58
57
66
42
Sandisfield
49
13
8
52
6
62
73
Savoy
9
12
18
20
21
34
36
Windsor
16
19
14
36
26
41
39
Table 2, Beaver harvest
by county
for
Hassachnsetts
, 1973-74
and
1974-75
1973-
-74
1974-
-75
Percent
County No .
Beaver Percent Rank
No.
Beaver Percent Rani:
Change
Berkshire
518
31.6
1
505
35.0
1
- 2
.5
Essex
16
1.0
8
13
0.9
7
-18
.8
Franklin
370
22.6
2
324
22.5
2
-12
,4
Hampden
148
9.0
5
133
9.6
5
- 6
,8
Hampshire
288
17.6
3
263
18.3
3
- 8
.7
Middlesex
51
3.1
6
29
2.0
6
-43
.1
Plymouth
17
1.0
7
5
0.3
8
-70
.6
Worcester
231
-
14.1
4
164
11,4
4
-29
.0
Totals 1
,639
100.0
■ 1
,441
100.0
-12
.1
Table 3. Beaver harvest by month in Massachusetts , 1973-74 and 1974-75.
1973-
-74
1974-
-75
Month
No . Beaver
Percent
No.
Beaver
Percent
November
373
53.6
721
50.0
December
492
30.0
449
31.2
January
185
11.3
176
12.2
February
84
5.1
67
4,6
Not stated
-
-
1
28
,441
2o0
Totals
1,639
100.0
100,0
The V7e3tern re;;^ion of the state continued to provide the
majority of the bsavcr harvest. Harvests declined in all
counties (Table 2) but this change was no re apparent in
the eastern region. During the 1974-75 season, 1,026 beaver
(71.2 percent) vjere taken west of the Connecticut Pd.ver and
415 (2G.G percent) were taken east of the river, as opposed
to 1,053 (64.6 percent) and 5C1 (35.4 percent) during 1Q73-
74.
During the past season, Berkshire and Franklin Counties
together yielded over half (829, 57.5 percent) of the total
harvest. Hampshire. TJorcester, and Haripdcn Counties con-
tributed another 565 beaver (39.3 percent), with three
other counties conprising the small rernainder. Six counties
reported no beaver taken. County rankings remained essen-
tially unchanged.
As in past years, success V7as greatest during the initial
weeks of the trapping season (Table 3). One half (50.0
percent) of the harvest, 721 beavnr, were taken in the
initial tv/o weeks (15-30 IJovember) of the season — a slight
decrease froin 1973-74 when 54,2 percent of the harvest was
taken during the equivalent period. The take declined
steadily each month thereafter with only a minimal harvest
(67, 4.6 percent) in February.
Use of the Conibear trap dropped slightly this season, with
906 beaver (62.9 percent) taken in that style trap, as
opposed to 1,091 (66.6 percent) in 1973-74.
The average price of a Ilassachusetts beaver pelt was $13,
the same as last season, with the 1974-75 harvest valuation
totalling $36,025.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AiH) WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and lianagement
Approved:
Colton H, Bridges J Deputy Director
Prepared by
Date
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
UOI
PERFORIIANCE REPORT
STATE Massachusetts Project Ho. W~35~R-17
Project Title: Gane Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Period Covered: 1 June 1975 to 31 May 1975
Work Plan No. and Title: I - Statewide Game Harvest
Work Plan Objective: To determine the statevjide harvest of selected small
game and furbearer species and to determine the character-
istics of land utilization and time expenditure by sports-
men.
Job Ho. and Title; 1-4. Gray Squirrel Harvest Evaluation
Job Objective: To identify the characteristics (seasons, hunting tech-
niques, and hunter preferences) of gray squirrel hunting
in other states in order to evaluate what changes could
be made in Massachusetts to improve hunter utilization.,
Brief Summary: States east of the Great Plains V7ere surveyed to determine
squirrel season regulations, hunting methods, and factor
affecting the relative popularity of squirrel hunting.
Twenty-two state had straight seasons, eight had zoned
seasons, five had split seasons and one state reported a
zoned split season. The average season length was 120
days (x = 119.8; S.D. = 61.7) with approximately 40 per-
cent (li = 38.9; S.D. - 23.2) of the seasons before leaf
fall. Squirrels were ranked in the top four game species
in 64, 85 and 70 percent of the states in terms of hunter
preference, number killed and hunter participation, re-
spectively. Hunting before leaf fall was judged more
popular in 58 percent of 26 states responding by hunter
preference and in 66 percent of 32 states responding by
number of people participating. Still or stalk hunting
was more common before leaf fall and wait-hunting was
more common after leaf fall. Tlie use of dogs to tree
squirrels increased sharply after leaf fall. Shotguns
outnumbered the use of rifles by at least 2 to 1 in
squirrel hunting. Season length appeared to be a minor
factor since only extremely short seasons (<50 days) may
influence relative popularity of the sport. Opening date
is the most important factor and there was a significant
(P <. 05) relationship between a large percentage of the
season before leaf fall and high relative popularity
rankings. The popularity of hunting before leaf fall
was also significantly (P <.05) related to the relative
popularity of squirrel hunting.
Target Date: 14 February 1975.
Status of Progress: On schedule.
Significant Deviations: None
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent, /f5146
I
i
W-35-R-17:I-4
Recommendations: An earlier opening date (v/ell before leaf fall) and a
longer open season extending later in the year are the
regulation chances which could potentially stimulate the
sport hunting of gray squirrels in llassachusetts .
I foresee little difficulty in terms of population manage-
ment or political repercussions in extending the present
season later into the year. I am recommending a
31 December closing date. Although I do not believe this
will significantly Increase the popularity of squirrel
hunting, it will provide additional recreational oppor-
tunity and may stimulate the use of dogs in treeing
squirrels.
An earlier opening date could significantly increase the
popularity of gray squirrels as a game animal. The pri-
mary biological and political concern would be to find
the mean date of cessation of nursing of young squirrels.
The effect of hunting while females are still nursing has
not been proven to be a factor in limiting yearly popula-
tion levels, but I believe the desired result of increas-
ing the utilization of squirrels could be achieved. This
data would also eliminate any humane considerations in-
volved with shooting nursing females.
Three management options are presented below for increas-
ing the use of the gray squirrel resource and determining
the date when nursing females would not be taken:
1. September 1 opening coupled vjith bag checks of se-
lected hunters 0
2. September 20 opening with prior sampling of Division
personnel and bag checks of selected hunters after
opening date.
3. September 20 opening, assuming the Ohio data on
cessation of nursing is applicable to Massachusetts.
I am recommending an experimental three-year season
under Option No. 1. This would provide us with the best
data on cessation of nursing with the least expenditure
of manpower. Any change in the popularity of squirrel
hunting x^rill be monitored by telephone survey techniques.
Cost: $1,500
Presentation of Data:
I
W-35-R-17:I-A
This paper identifies some characteristics of squirrel hunting in the eastern
United States and relates hunting season characteristics to the relative
popularity of the sport.
Squirrel hunting has never been considered popular in Ilassachusetts (Cardoza
1971), yet in most states where squirrels are hunted, they are considered one
of the top game species o This study examines hunting season regulations,
hunting techniques, and popularity of hunting to determine what regulatory
changes might be made to improve the utilization of the gray squirrel
(Sciurus caro linens is) in Massachusetts. The importance of hunting season
regulations to the relative popularity of a game animal has not received
much attention in the literature but considerable work has been done on the
effects of regulations on game population levels and hunting pressure (Allen
1943, Gale 1954, Nixon et al. 1974, Nixon et al. 1975, Uhlig 1956, U.S. Dept.
of Interior 1975).
I acknovrledge Sarah Daniels and Thomas Early, Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife, who assisted with preparation and analysis of the
questionnaire.
METHODS
A mail questionnaire (Appendix I) was sent in January 1975 to the chief
game biologist in each state's v/ildlife management agency, requesting in-
formation on the type and dates of the gray squirrel season. Fox squirrels
(Sciurus niger) are present in many of the states, but no state reported
separate hunting regulations for the species. All questions other than the
first referred simply to squirrels, so no distinctions are made between
species in this report.
Eight states had zoned seasons, and the length of the season for each
state v/as calculated by using the earliest opening date and the latest clos-
ing date. The season length for the five states with a split season was
based on the number of days the season was opened. Only one state had both
a zoned and split season so I averaged the number of hunting days for each
zone to determine season length ; the most frequently used opening and clos-
ing dates were used V7hen appropriate.
Statistical inferences in this report are based on t-test and chi-square
(x2) test, and Yates' correction for continuity (x2 adj.), x = .05.
RESULTS
All of the 37 states east of the Great Plains have open seasons on the
gray squirrel. Only one of these states did not respond to the questionnaire.
Types of Seasons
The three basic types of squirrel hunting seasons are straight, split
and zoned. The straight season is the most common (22 states) followed by
zoned (eight states) and split seasons (five states). Virginia was the only
state reporting a zoned split season.
Zoned seasons consist of separate opening and usually closing dates for
various regions within the state. Generally, these zones appeared to be
based on climatic differences, but some political differences were apparent.
For example, one state opened public land before private.
^
Appendix I
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
Westboro, Ilassachusetts 01581
Name: State
1. What are the opening and closing dates of the gray squirrel hunting season In
your state? (Indicate If season Is zoned).
Opening Closing
2. How would you rank squirrel hunting In your state in comparison to other sport
hunting? (Circle one) :
a. By hunter preference 1st
b. By number of people participating: 1st
c. By number killed: 1st
3. Generally, in what week of what month does peak (over 50%) leaf fall occur?
Month Week
2nd
3rd
4th
Other
2nd
3rd
4th
Other
2nd
3rd
4 th
Other
4. In your opinion is the squirrel season more popular before or after leaf fall?
a. By hunter preference?
b. By number of people participating?
5. Please review these definitions:
^' Stalk or Still Hunting; Moving stealthily through the woods, frequently
stopping for short periods of time (less than five minutes).
b. Wait Hunting: Moving to a likely spot and then waiting for a long period
of time (more than five minutes) before moving again.
c. Bog Hunting: Using a dog to "tree" or locate a squirrel.
Referring to the above definitions, answer each question below independently:
a. tJhat percentage of each type hunting best describes squirrel hunting
before leaf fall?
% stalk 7o wait % dog
b. X-Jhat percentage of each type hunting best describes squirrel hunting
after leaf fall?
7o stalk % wait % dog
c. Indicate your estimate of hunters using shotguns and/or rifles:
For stalk hunting % shotguns % rifles
For wait hunting % shotguns 7, rifles
For dog hunting % shotguns % rifles
6. Indicate the numbers of the questions which were answered using survey data
you have collected:
Question numbers
.?.
I
^
Appendix I (Continued)
6^7n/mofi/Wi
^^viSicm/ eJ^ ^tSne^^^y o/m^^a/me^
^, ffedm^6>^ om/
Dear Sir:
In llassachusetts we are considering a change in our squirrel hunting regu-
lations in an effort to provide more recreational opportunity to our sports-
men. Enclosed is a questionnaire v^hich will help us describe the sport of
squirrel hunting in the United States and perhaps identify how our regula-
tions might be changed for the better.
The enclosed questionnaire is designed to be folded, stapled and mailed
without an envelope. If survey data is not available to answer the questions
please give your opinion.
Due to our regulation change procedure, this questionnaire will be analyzed
starting 15 February 1975.
We invite your comments and appreciate your cooperation.
Sincerely yours.
Chet M. McCord
Chief of Wildlife Research
CMM:mb
Enclosure
W-35-R-17-I-4
A season which Is divided into distinct segments v/ithin one year is de-
fined as a split season. One state reported a spring and fall segment, but
most split seasons were simply early and late fall or winter segments.
Closing the season during the open deer season was reported by only one state,
but I suspect it occurs in others.
Length and Time of Year of Hunting Seasons
The average length of a squirrel season was 120 days (x = 119.8; N = 34;
S.D. = 61.7). New Hampshire (31 days) and Jtassachusetts (41 days) have the
shortest seasons while North Dakota (year-round) and Oklahoma (230 days) have
the longest .
September (33 percent) and October (39 percent) v/ere the most frequent
months for opening the season follox^ed by August (14 percent) , November and
May (6 percent each), and June (3 percent). For closing the season, January
(39 percent) was the most frequent month follovjed by December (25 percent),
November and February (17 percent each), and March (3 percent).
The use of months to compare opening and closing dates is not valid
here since a September opening in Alabama vjould be much earlier seasonally
than a September opening in Michigano I asked each biologist for the month
and week when peak (over 50 percent) leaf fall generally occurred. These
data were used to standardize the seasonal time of year V7hen the hunting
seasons began. The average percent of the season before leaf fall V7as 39
(x = 38.9; N = 35; S.D. = 23.2). ITassachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania
were the only states not reporting hunting before leaf fall.
Relative Popularity of Squirrel Hunting
Each state was asked to rank squirrel hunting in comparison to other
sport hunting. Comparisons v/ere made in hunter preference, number of people
participating and number of animals harvested (Table 1).
Over 64 percent of the states ranked squirrel in the top four species
by hunter preference, and 41 percent ranked them first or second. By hunter
participation and number harvested, squirrels were in the top four species
in over 70 percent and 85 percent of the states, and ranked first and second
in 50 and 56 percent of the states respectively.
Each biologist was asked if he felt squirrel hunting was more popular
before or after leaf fall with reference to (1) hunter preference and (2) the
number of people participating. Hunting before leaf fall was more popular
in 58 percent of the 26 states responding by hunter preference and in 66 per-
cent of 32 states responding by number of people participating.
Hunting Techniques
Three types of squirrel hunting were defined:
Stalk or still-hunting - Moving stealthily through the woods,
frequently stopping for short periods of time (usually less
than five minutes.
Walt-hunting - Moving to a likely spot and then waiting for a long
period of time (more than five minutes) before moving again.
Dog-hunting - Using a dog to tree or locate a squirrel.
W-35-R-17a-4
I asked each biologist to use the above definitions and give what he
felt was the percentage of each type hunting that best described squirrel
hunting before and after leaf fall (Table 2). Stalk-hunting was the most
commonly used before leaf fall while wait-hunting was the most common after
leaf fall. However, the real change in hunting techniques after leaf fall
was a decrease in stalk-hunting and an increased use of dogs. Redmond (1953:
383) reported a season average of 75 percent still-hunting and 25 percent
dog-hunting; before leaf fall 96 percent was still-hunting while after leaf
fall the use of dogs increased to 85 percent of the hunting.
Type of Firearms Used
The original question asked for an estimate of the percentage of hunters
that use shotguns or rifles for each type hunting method. The responses,
almost invariably, gave a single percentage or the same percentage for all
three methods, so I will report only the data given for the first method
listed realizing these data really represent a figure for all methods to-
gether.
The 30 states with usable responses showed a 68 percent use of shotguns
and a 32 percent use of rifles. These percentages of rifle use are higher
than Redmond (1953:383; 11 percent) and Allen (1952:88; 18 percent) reported.
I believe that my rifle-use data is inflated because several states, in-
dicating they had no survey data on percentage of rifle use, reported rifle
use above 90 percent.
Season Length Related to Hunting Popularity
The length of the hunting season did not appear to be a major factor in
these data since comparisons of the mean season length among states with
different popularity rankings showed no trends (Table 3). However, the
variability in season length vras much higher for the states that ranked
squirrel hunting below fourth in all the popularity categories. Empirically,
this would indicate that an extremely short or long season may be a factor
in squirrel hunting popularity. The three states v/ith seasons less than 50
days all ranked squirrel hunting belovj fourth vjhile the four states with
seasons longer than 200 days were split v/ith two ranking squirrel hunting
second in preference and participation and two ranking squirrels below fourth
in both categories. I believe an extremely short season can be a factor in
the popularity of squirrel hunting particularly X7hen combined with a late
opening date.
Length of the Season Before Leaf Fall Related to Hunting Popularity
States vjith a larger percentage of the season before leaf fall generally
rank preference for squirrel hunting higher than states with smaller portions
of the season before leaf fall (Table 4), States ranking squirrel hunting as
first or second in preference had a significantly larger percentage of the
season before leaf fall than states ranking squirrel hunting as "Other" (t-
test; P <.05). States ranking squirrel hunting as third and fourth also
showed a significantly larger percentage of the season before leaf fall than
the states ranking as "Other", but the difference was significant at a lower
level of confidence (t-test; P <.10).
I
W-35-R-17:I-4
Table 1. The relative ranking of squirrel hunting in comparison with
other sport hunting in 34 of the 37 eastern states with squirrel
seasons.
Rank
1
2
3
4
Other
Hunter Preference
No. of
States Percent
6
8
3
5
12
18
23
9
15
35
Hunter Participation
No. of
States Percent
7
10
2
5
10
21
29
6
15
29
Number
Harvested
No. of
States
Percent
11
32
8
23
6
18
4
12
5
15
Total
34
100
34
100
34
100
Table 2. The percent of stalk, wait and dog hunting which best describes
squirrel hunting before and after leaf fall.
Hunting Technique
Number of
Leaf Fall
Before
After
Stalk Wait
51 45
39 46
Dog
4
15
States Responding
28
30
Table 3. The mean length of the squirrel hunting season for states which
ranked squirrel hunting popularity in similar categories.
States'
Hunter
Number
of
Rank of
Runt
er Prefe
Mean
rence
P
•jrticipat
ion
Squ
irrels ¥
Mean
lilled
Squirrel
Mean
Hunt ing
N
Days
S.D.
N
Days
S.D.
N
Days
S.D.
1
6
108.3
15.0
7
110.4
14.8
11
112.0
12.9
2
8
138.5
52.5
10
134.9
47.8
8
136.0
59.8
3
3
125,3
25.7
2
122.0
31.0
6
99.3
32.0
4
5
115.2
39.4
5
116.8
39.2
4
109.8
42.6
Other
12
131.5
83.1
10
119»9
97.3
5
174.0
110.2
Total
34
119.8
61,7
W-35-R-17:I-4
The states ranking squirrel hunting as first and second by hunter
participation showed a significantly higher percentage of pre-leaf fall
hunting than states ranking squirrel hunting as third and fourth (t-test;
P <,053 Table 4). States ranking squirrel hunting below fourth shov/ed 35
percent of the season before leaf fall, which vjas not significantly dif-
ferent from either the means of the first and second or the third and
fourth categories. This indicates that the length of the season before
leaf fall is not the only factor which affects hunter participation.
The relative number of squirrels killed in a state is probably the
least sensitive method of the three used to measure the popularity of
squirrel hunting. Although the states ranking squirrel hunting first and
second reported the highest percentage (40 percent) of the season before
leaf falls the difference was not significantly higher than the third
and fourth categories except at a low level of prbability (P< .20). Again,
the "Other" states showed a relatively high percentage of the season before
leaf fall, but the sample size in that category had dropped to only four
states.
Popularity of Season Before Leaf Fall Related to Squirrel Hunting
Popularity
The popularity of hunting before and after leaf fall was compared to
the relative ranking of squirrel hunting in comparison to other sport
hunting (Table 5). Due to sample size the top two or three rankings were
combined and compared by X^ analysis to the lower categories.
States ranking squirrels in the top three game species by preference
and participation also ranked hunting before leaf fall more popular a sig-
nificant portion of the time. By preference, biologists from states
ranking squirrel hunting first and second judged hunting before leaf fall
more popular (X^ = 6.00s X^ ad; = 4,21, d.f. = 1). This relationship was
even stranger when the first through the third popularity rankings were
compared to the fourth and "Other" categories (X^- = 9.76, X^ ad; = 7.43;
d.f. =1). By participation, the first and second ranked states did not
show significant difference between before or after leaf fall hunting at
the .05 level (X" = 3.46, Y? ad; = 2,22, d. f, = 1), but the difference
was significant v/hen the first through the third categories were grouped
and compared to the lower rankings (X^ = 5.72, X'^ ad; = 4.07, d. f, =1).
DISCUSSION
Opening dates, season length, and bag limits are the basic hunting
regulations which can influence hunter attitudes or relative popularity.
Bag limits have been shown to be an effective methods of increasing or de-
creasing harvest of same species (U.S. Department of the Interior 1975),
and Christisen (1971i32o) discusses how bag limits affect the incentive of
hunters since "...a liberal limit beyond the abilities of the average
hunter may depress the hunter's interest and initiative". However, Nixon
(1975:10-11) found shooting one or more squirrels tended to increase
hunter interest, but that squirrel hunters v/ere not strongly motivated to
kill a limit. Daily bag limits on squirrels do not appear to be an im-
portant factor in hunting popularity since most hunters are not successful
I
W-35-R-17:I-4
Table 4. The mean length of the season before leaf fall for states uhich
rank squirrel hunting in different categories of popularity.
States'
Rank of
Hunte
r Prefe
rence
Hunter
Participation
Squ
irrels Killed
Squirrel
Mean
Mean
Mean
Hunt ing
N
14
Days
43.9
S.D.
19.1
N
Days
SoD.
N
19
Days S . D .
1 and 2
17
45.1
21.8
39.6 23.8
3 and 4
8
44.6
26.7
7
27.4
17,9
10
29.9 21.0
Other
11
28.1
23.2
9
35.0
27o0
4
35.0 22.2
Table 5. Popularity of squirrel hunting before and after leaf fall
related to the relative ranking of squirrel hunting to other
sport hunting within a state.
States'
Rank of
Squirrel
Hunting
Leaf Fall
Preference
Before
After
Participation
Before
After
1
2
3
4
Other
4
6
2
2
1
1
1
0
1
8
5
8
2
2
4
1
2
0
2
6
Totals
15
11
21
11
W-35-R-17:I-4
In killing even one squirrel much less the limit (Allen 1954:92; llixon
1974:70; Uhlig 1959:383).
Season length docs appear to affect squirrel hunter attitudes and
perhaps the popularity of the sport. Allen (1943:341) demonstrated that
a short (22 day) season affected hunter activities since the hunting
pressure remained high throughout the season, yet other studies dealing
with longer seasons refer to a rapid decline in hunting pressure after
the first couple of weeks (Allen 1952:100; Nixon et al. 1974:71; Ilixon
et al. 1975:10; Ulilig 1956:58). The increased variability in season
length for states that ranked squirrel hunting low in popularity plus
the low rankings by the states with short seasons indicates an extremely
short season could be a factor in low popularity.
The single most important factor in squirrel management is the open-
ing date (Ulilig 1959:339). This conclusion is based on the second or
summer litter of squirrels being independent and available for hunting.
The controversey over the importance of this summer litter in population
maintenance and fall population levels has never been completely rssolved.
Allen (1952:106) states that the time squirrel season opens is a compro-
mise between availability of the summer litters and the interest and suc-
cess of the hunter. He says that in the early season when the mast ripens,
squirrels are most active and hunting success is high. Nixon et al.
(1975:8, 10) shov/ed increased hunter success early in the season and
states, "Hunters generally stopped hunting squirrels. . .when leaf fall was
virtually complete and the opening of the upland game season attracted
them to other areas and other species." The questionnaire data also in-
dicates a strong predilection for hunting before leaf fall by both hunter
preference and participation. The significant relationship between a
high percentage of the season before leaf fall and high popularity of the
sport, plus the significant relationship between relative popularity rank-
ing of squirrel hunting and the popularity of hunting before leaf fall
leads me to conclude that the opening date is a key factor in the relative
popularity of squirrel hunting.
Obviously, there are many factors which work together to influence
the popularity of squirrel hunting. The past trends and present abundance
of squirrels, hunter success, the desirability of hunting other species
which are in season at the same time, social traditions associated with
the sport (could be a positive or negative stimulus), and the regulations
are some of the important factors which can influence the relative popu-
larity of squirrel hunting. Any one or combination of these factors may
be the most important in any particular state.
CONCLUSIONS
A straight fall and winter hunting season of about 120 days V7ith 40
percent of the season before leaf fall is the most common t3rpe of squirrel
season in the eastern United States. Hunting is most popular before leaf
fall when the stalk or still-hunting method is most often used. After
leaf fall, wait-hunting is more common and the use of dogs increases
sharply. Shotguns outnumber rifles at least two to one in squirrel hunt-
ing.
I
i
W-35-R-17:I-4
Squirrels are one of the top four game species in most of the 37
eastern states vjhere they are hunted and frequently are rated first or
second in terms of hunter preference, hunter participation and number
killed. The relative popularity of squirrel hunting is related to the
length of the season before leaf fall, and an early opening date appears
to be the most important regulation. Extremely short seasons appear to
be another factor which affect popularity of the season.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, D. L. 1943. Michigan fox squirrel management. Michigan Dept.
Conserv. , Game Div. Publ. 100, Lansing. 404 pp.
Allen, J. M. 1952. Gray and fox squirrel management in Indiana. 2nd ed.
Indiana Dept. Conserv., P-R Bull. 1, 112 pp.
Cardoza, J. E. 1971. Statewide small game harvest. Mass. Div. Fish and
Game P-R Proj. Rapt. W-35-R-13. 21 pp.
Christisen, D. M. 1971. Importance of daily bag in squirrel hunting.
Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 36:322-329.
Gale, L. R. 1954. The effect of season changes on hunting effort and
game kill. Proc. Southeast Assoc. Fish & Game Commissioners. 7:
117-120.
Nixon, C. M. , R. W. Donohoe, and T. Nash. 1974. Overharvest of fox
squirrels from two woodlots in western Ohio. J. Wildl. Manage,
38(l):67-80.
, M. W. McClain, and R. W. Donohoe. 1975. Effects of hunting
and mast crops on a squirrel population. J. Wildl. Manage. 39 (1):
1-25.
Redmond, H. R. 1953. Analysis of gray squirrel breeding studies and
their relation to hunting season, gunning pressure and habitat con-
ditions. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 13:378-339.
Uhlig, H. C. 1956. The gray squirrel in West Virginia. Conserv. Comm.
W. Va. Bull. No. 3, 83 pp.
. 1959. Squirrel management and research. Pages 387-389 In
V. Flyger (Editor) Sirmposium of the gray squirrel. Maryland Dept.
Res. Education, No. 162.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1975. Final
environmental statement for the issuance of annual regulations per-
mitting the sport hunting of migratory birds. Washington, D. C.
710 pp.
W'35-R-17:I-4
Submitted by:
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISIOIT OF FISHERIES AIID WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Ilanagement
Approved:
Arthur W. Weill, Superintendent
Prepared by
Chet M. McCord
Chief of Wildlife Research
Date
i
•lA6S.!gA^Z.3:W-3S-«-l7/iZl;'i'
PERFORMAflCE REPORT
li OF Il!;i33/;.' ,...SI LIBRARV
STATE r^JVSSACIIUSETTS
Project Type Research and Survey Project Ho. IV--55-R-17
Project Title Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Period Covered: 1 June 1974 to 51 May 1975
Work Plan Number and Title: II - Massachusetts White-Tailed Deer Study
Work Plan Objective: To determine, through the collection and analysis of
pertinent deer harvest data, the sex and age structure of
the herd, and to develop management and harvest procedures
based on project findings.
Job Number and Title: II-l - Statewide Deer Harvest
Job Objective: To determine the annual harvest o£ deer in Massachusetts.
Brief Summary: Tlie four western deer management units of Berkshire,
Franklin, Hampden and Hampshire make up over 70 percent of
the total deer harvest. The Worcester unit contributed 8
percent of the shotgun harvest, Barnstable unit 5 percent
while the combined Region I and Region II contributed only
1 percent. Tlie 1974 statewide harvest for all deer seasons
was 2,781 deer, an increase of 560 over the 1974 harvest.
Target Date: 31 August 1975.
Status of Progress: On schedule.
Significant Deviations: None
Recommendations: Continue this job. See Job I 1-4 for future recommenda-
tions.
Cost: $65,000
Presentation of Data:
Introduction : There were four types of deer seasons in
1974: (1) an 13-day archery season from 4 November through
23 November; (2) a 2-day paraplegic season from 4-5 November;
(3) a 6-day shotgun season from 2 December through 7 Decem-
ber; and (4) a 3-day primitive firearms hunt from 9 December
through 11 December. No hunting was allowed on Sundays.
Since 1967, Massachusetts has had a statewide antlerless
deer permit system. During the one -week shotgun season,
deer with antlers three inches or longer are legal game, but
to harvest a male fav/n or female deer the hunter must have
an antlerless permit. Massachusetts regulations require
hunters to report tlieir kill within 24 hours to an official
deer checking station.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
I
Last season, the state was divided for the first time into
ten deer management units and the distribution of antler less
permits was made on the basis of the new manar^ement units.
Tlie management units (Figure 1) and the number of permits
issued for each is shovm in Table 1.
Archery Season: A summary of the statewide deer harvest by
archers shov/s an increase from 21 deer killed in 1967 to 87
deer in 1974. In 1967 the archers had a 12-day season, but
in 1972 the season v/as increased six days for a total of 18.
Archers in 1974 reported an increase of 10 deer over 1973
as shown below:
Summary of Archery Kill, 1967-1974
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Males
17
21
27
24
26
49
51
62
Females
4
13
10
12
10
27
26
25
Totals
21
34
37
36
36
76
77
87
Seventy-two (72) deer ivere taken on the mainland of which 44
were adult males, 6 male fawns and 22 females. On Nantucket
Island, the archers reported 10 bucks and 3 does for a total
of 13 deer. A buck and a doe were the only two deer reported
on the Vineyard. The total of 87 deer was made up of 56
adult males, 6 male fawns and 25 females. The four counties
with the highest kill were Franklin, 23 deer; Berkshire, 19;
Hampshire, 13, and Nantucket, 13 (Table 2).
Paraplegic Season: A male and a female deer were reported
for this 2-day hunt held on Martha's Vineyard. This is the
first year deer have been taken on this hunt since it began
in 1972.
Primitive Firearms Season. Primitive firearms hunters re-
ported taking 26 deer during the second year of this 3-day
season. The 1974 harvest represents an increase of 21 deer
above the 1973 kill. It is interesting to note the change
in the sex ratio from the 1973 harvest when 5 males and 2
females were reported to 8 males and 18 females in 1974.
Seven males and 17 females vjere taken from the mainland
while a buck and a doe v/ere reported from the Vineyard.
Berkshire County had the highest kill of 15 followed by
Hampden, 4; Franklin, 3; Hampshire, 2; and Nantucket, 2
(Table 2).
Shotgun Season: Shotgun hunters reported harvesting 2,666
deer including 1,873 males (214 male fawns) and 788 females
(Table 2). The four top deer-producing counties were Berk-
shire, 1,056: Franklin, 448; Hampden, 231; and 'Worcester,
213 (Table 1) . The shotgun harvest constitutes 96 percent
of the total statewide deer harvest.
The mainland deer harvest shows 1,524 adult males, 159 fawn
males and 602 females for a total of 2,285 deer. The Nan-
tucket Island hunters reported 62 antlered males, 26 male
fa\vns, and 66 females for a total of 154 deer. On Martha's
Vineyard, 73 adult males, 29 button bucks and 95 females
v/ere taken for a total of 197 deer. Five males and 25 fe-
males were reported harvested on Gosnold Island.
Table 3 presents a suimary of the 1974 Massachusetts shotgun
deer harvest by sex and the county rank of importance from
1970 through 1974. iTie top ranking deer -producing counties,
Berkshire and Franklin, have not changed for the past five
years. Hampden County moved to third position in 1974 ex-
changing positions with Dukes County which moved to fifth.
Worcester County remained in fourth position while Hampshire
exchanged positions with Nantucket and moved into the sixth
position. The remaining counties have been in the same
lower ranks for many years .
Total Harvest Figures: A ten-year summary (1965-1974) of
the annual deer harvest by town and county is presented in
Appendix I. From 1967, when the antler less deer permit
system was initiated, to 1970 the statev/ide deer harvest in-
creased from 1,193 deer to 2,403. The harvest figure
dropped to 2,284 in 1971 and to 2,121 deer in 1973. TTie
1974 harvest of 2,731 deer is an increase of 560 deer over
the 1973 figures and 378 deer over the 1970 high of 2,403
deer. It has been demonstrated in previous job performance
reports (W-35-R:II-l, 1971, 1972 and 1973) that the state-
wide deer harvest fluctuates in relationship to the number
of antlerless permits issued annually.
Bhe percent of females in the total harvest from 1967 through
1974 shows the percent of females increased from 20 percent
in 1967 to 39 percent of the harvest in 1971. Since that
time, the percent of females has been reduced to a healthy
30 percent as shovm belov/:
Percent of Females in Total Harvest
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
20% 23% 29% 32% 39% 34% 30% 30%
A summary of the 1974 deer harvest per sex per management
unit is presented in Table 4 and the number of each sex
killed statev/ide since 1967 is shown below:
Kill Statewide for Each Sex, 1967 through 1974
1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1372 1973 1974
Male 954 1104 1451 1629 1385 1504 1477 1949
Female 239 323 595 776 899 787 644 823
Total 1193 1427 2046 2406 2284 2291 2121 2781
The ratio of male to female deer in the statewide deer har-
vest from 1967 to 1974 shows the ratio of females increasing
annually from 1 male to .25 females in 1967 to 1 male to .65
females in 1971. A reduction of antlerless permits in 1972
helped to reduce the male to female ratio from 1 male to .52
females in 1972 to 1 male to .43 females in 1974 as shown:
Ratio of Hales to Females in Total Harvest, 1967-1974
1967 1963 1969 1970 1971 1072 1975 1974
Ratio I'JZS 1:29 1:.41 1:.48 1:.65 1:52 1:.44 1:,43
Table 2 shows the total harvest by sex, age and type season
for each management unit and for the entire state.
Antlerless Permit Data. Antlerless permit applications in
1974 were 2,000 less (32,000 applicants) than the previous
year (Table 5). Tliere v/ere 4,000 sportsman, 358 farmer-
landovmer, 400 Nantucket Island and 600 Martha's Vineyard
permits issued in 1974. The statewide harvest for antler-
less deer permittees was 1,180, but the largest number ever
reported by this group was 1,289 deer in 1971.
The farmer- landowner permittees reported harvesting 80 deer
in 1974. This is the largest harvest since 1968 when 65
deer were taken (Table 5) . Twenty- two percent of the per-
mittees took deer. Thie bulk of the 358 farmer -landovmer
permits were issued for the four western units in order of
importance: Franklin, 34%; Berkshire, 32%; Hampden, 12%;
Worcester, 11%; Hampshire, 10%. ITiree permits were issued
for Region I, but there were no applications or permits is-
sued for Region II, Barnstable, Martha's Vineyard and Nan-
tucket .
Tlie 600 antlerless permit holders for Martha's Vineyard re-
ported 22 male faims, 31 antlered males and 120 females
during the 1974 shotgun season. With some minor fluctua-
tions, the deer harvests were the same as the 1973 data
(Table 5).
On Nantucket Island, the male fawn harvest by 400 antlerless
permittees decreased slightly from 29 in 1973 to 26 button
bucks in 1974. The adult male kill remained unchanged at
22 antlered bucks in both 1973 and 1974. The female harvest
was almost the same with 65 females reported in 1973 and 66
females in 1974 (Table 5).
The 1974 mainland harvest of deer by 4,000 antlerless permit
holders shov/s the harvest of adult males was slightly lower
(61) than the 1973 figure of 67 adult males. The male fawn
harvest increased from 102 in 1973 to 150 in 1974. An in-
crease of 123 females was reported by antlerless permit
holders or 602 females in 1974 compared to 379 females in
1973 (Table 5).
Antlerless Permittee Success Ratio. The hunter success
ratio on the mainland remained unchanged in 1974 with 1
deer killed for every 5 permits issued. Nantucket and
Martha's Vineyard antlerless permit holders' success ratio
for 1974 was 1 deer per 4 permits.
Table 6 presents a summary of the Massachusetts deer harvest
per antlerless per*nit per deer management unit and the suc-
cess ratio of permit holders for the 1974 shotgun season.
The success ratio of pernit holders in the Berkshire unit
was 1 deer per 3 permits. For Franklin and Hampden units
the success ratio was 1 deer for 5 permits while in Hamp-
shire the ratio was 1 deer for 6 antlerless permits. The
Worcester unit permit holders reported their success of 1
deer for 8 permits; and Region II and I permit holders re-
ported 1 deer for 29 permits and 1 deer for 40 permits
respectively.
Job Number and Title: I 1-2, Non-Hunting Deer Mortality Investigations
Job Objectives: To detenrdne the annual non-hunting decimating factors
of the Massachusetts deer herd.
Brief Summary: From 1 January to 31 December 1974 there was a 10.4 per-
cent increase in non-hunting deer mortality over 1973 re-
ports. The 467 deer mortalities consisted of 179 males
(42%) and 246 females (52%) and 42 of unknown sex (6%) .
Motor vehicles caused the highest mortality, killing 347
deer v/hile 35 were killed illegally, 33 by dogs, 11 drowned,
5 caught in fences, 2 by trains, 1 in crop damage, and 33
due to unknovm causes.
Target Date: 31 December 1974
Status of Program: On schedule.
Significant Deviations: None
Recommendations: Project should continue as it presently exists.
Cost: $14,000
Presentation of Data:
Techniques. Deer mortality reports are made by Natural
Resources officers to the Law Enforcement office in Boston.
A copy of each report is provided to the Division.
Findings . A summary of the sex classes and the causes of
Massachusetts deer mortalities for 1 January through
31 December 1974 is presented in Table 7. During this
period, 467 deer mortalities v/ere reported. Of these, 179
were males, 246 were females and no sex data on 42 deer.
In order of importance, the number and causes of deer
mortalities are as follows: motor vehicle, 347; illegal,
35; dogs, 33; drovmed, 11; fences, 5; trains, 2; crop
damage, 1; and other and unknown causes, 33.
Table 8 presents a five-year summary of deer mortalities
per cause from 1969 through 1974. Although the 1974 mor-
talities are lower than the five-year average, there was
an increase in the number of deer mortalities com.pared to
the 1973 figures.
A comparison of the total non-hunting deer mortalities of
Massachusetts deer from 1968 through 1974 is presented in
Table 9. The 1974 reported mortality of 469 deer is 10.4
percent higher than the 1973 figure of 420 deer.
Table 10 presents a comparison of the actual numbers of
deer mortalities by sex and the adjusted sex ratios per
month. The sex data v/as adjusted on a monthly basis with
sex of the larger percentages assigned any fractional part
of a deer so that there are only whole deer in the adjusted
sex ratio. The adjusted sex ratio of the 1974 non-hunting
deer mortalities are:
Males Females
198
74
269
100
58%
42%
(1973 sex ratio = 47.6% males: 52. 4% females)
The non-hunting deer mortalities ranked by counties for a
seven-year period 1968 through 1974 is presented in Table
11. Berkshire County remains in number one position as
having the largest number of non-hunting deer mortalities
reported in 1974. Franklin County moved into second place
with Barnstable County dropping to the third slot. Wor-
cester County remains in the fourth ranking position.
Hampden and Hampshire Counties were tied for fifth position
in 1973. In 1974, Hampshire County remains in the fifth
ranking position while Hampden County dropped to ninth
place. Dulles County rr.oved from ninth place in 1973 to sixth
place in 1974. Tne rank of the six remaining counties may
have changed slightly from year to year; however, no sig-
nificant changes occurred during the 1974 non -hunting deer
mortality reporting period.
Job Huinber and Title: II- 3, Deer Fertility Studies
Job Objectives: To determine the reproductive rate per age class of the
Massachusetts deer herd.
Brief Summary: Job was inactive during the period covered by this report.
Target Date for Job Completion: None
Status of Program: Inactive
Significant Deviations: None
Recommendations: Review old data and evaluate need for continuation.
Cost : None
Remarks: Inadequate funds for transportation forced the inactive
status of this job.
Job Number and Title: II-4, Deer Management Recommendations
Job Objectives: To determine the size of the Massachusetts deer herd
and recommend management techniques that will provide the
deer hunter with the greatest hunting opportunity commen-
surate with herd population levels.
Brief Summary: The calculated minimal deer population was 12,984 deer.
This was a 13.59 percent increase in the 1974 calculated
minimal deer population.
The adult male harvest per square mile of deer range was
.25 antlered on the mainland; .84 in Dukes County and 1.73
antlered bucks on Nantucket Island during the 1974 shotgun
season. The adult female harvest per square mile of range
was .07 does on the mainland; .69 deer for Dukes County and
1.23 does on Nantucket Island.
A summary of the total deer harvest shows that .38 males
and .10 female deer per square mile of deer range were re-
ported on the mainland. The harvest per square mile of
deer range for Dukes County was 1.27 males and 1.40 females.
On Nantucket, the harvest of deer per square mile of deer
range was 2.73 males and 1.92 females.
The percent frequency of adult females to adult males was
.30 on the mainland; .82 in Dukes County and .69 on Nan-
tucket Island.
The 1974 deer harvest data indicates the number of sports-
man antlerless permits issued per deer management unit in
1972 caused an increase in the male harvest this year
where planned and controlled the harvest in the female seg-
ment.
Target Date: 30 June 1975
Status of Progress: On sdiedule.
Significant Deviation: None
Recommendations: The following numbers of sportsman permits issued per
county and/or region are suggested:
County Number of Sportsman Permits
Barnstable 200
Berkshire 1300
Franklin 700
Hampden 400
Hampshire 300
Worcester 700
Region I* 200
Region II** 200
Martha *s Vineyard 600
Nantucket 400
Naushon 50
* Region I represents Essex, Middlesex and Norfolk Counties
**Region II represents Bristol and Plymouth Counties
A big game license that incorporates an antlerless permit
application should be investigated. The hunter will be re-
quired to indicate in v/hich county or region he would like
the application to be drawn when he purchases the license.
Cost: ;J750
Presentation of Data: A summary of the sex and age composition of
Massachusetts deer at biological deer check stations for
an eight -year period on the mainland and for four years on
Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket are presented in Tables 12,
13, 14, and 15. Ttie number of deer in any age class repre-
sents the number of deer aged in that class and the totals
are the number of deer aged at the biological stations.
Not all deer checked at a biological station are aged.
Some deer have the lower jaw shot away, the jaws are frozen
or the deer is on top of a car and inaccessible to the sta-
tion operator. Therefore, the total number of deer handled
by a station may differ from the total number of deer aged.
Massachusetts' shotgun harvest and the total number of
antlerless permits issued per year from 1967 through 1974
is presented in Table 16. The shotgun hunters harvested
2,669 deer during the 1974 season. Of the deer taken,
1,878 were males; 1,665 adult males and 213 male fawns.
The adult male harvest in 1974 was the highest adult male
kill since the antlerless system started in 1967. The fe-
male harvest was 791 does of which 563 were adults and 228
were female favms.
It is interesting to note that a comparison of the highest
reported harvest of deer prior to 1974 occurred in 1970
when 2,367 deer v/ere reported and 7,347 antlerless permits
issued. In 1974 there were 5,358 antlerless permits issued
or 1,989 less permits than in 1970 yet there was an in-
crease of 302 deer ta.ken in 1974. The increase in the
1974 harvest was in the adult male segment with button
bucks slightly lower than the 1970 figure. There were
slight increases in the adult female and favm females re-
ported in the 1974 harvest compared to the 1970 figures.
Table 17 presents a summary of the percentage changes in
adult harvest and calculated minimal populations of deer
in Massachusetts, 1967 through 1974. In 1974, the adult
male harvest was 1,665 deer. Tliis was an increase of 407
deer or 23.35 percent higher than the 1973 harvest of
1,258 adult males. The calculated adult male population
was 3,107 for an increase of only .86 percent above the
1973 figure (3,080). Taere was a substantial increase
(21.03 percent) in the calculated adult female deer popu-
lation from 3,850 deer in 1973 to 4,660 adult does in 1974.
The calculated minimal statewide deer population was
12,984 deer in 1974. This was an increase of 13.59 per-
cent above the 1973 population of 11,431 deer.
A suninary of the adult male and adult female deer harvest
per square mile of deer range in Massachusetts from 1967
through 1974 is presented in Tables 13 and 19. There was
a slight increase in the adult male and female harvest in
all counties on the mainland and a slight decrease in the
male and female harvests on Nantucket and Dukes Counties.
The data presented in Tables 18 and 19 will become increas-
ingly significant during the next few years. Prior to 1974
antler less permits were issued for three deer management
units; namely, the mainland (4000 permits); Nantucket (400
permits) and Martha's Vineyard (600 permits). Since main-
land has been divided into eight management units, the ef-
fect of the antlerless permits on the management units will
be observed and the number of permits issued for each unit
can be increased or decreased dependent on the number of
adult males and adult females harvested.
Table 20 presents a summary of the total harvest of deer
in Massachusetts by sex, by county and the harvest of deer
per square mile of deer range for the 1974 deer seasons
(archery, primitive firearm, paraplegic and shotgun seasons),
The island counties of Nantucket and Dukes have the highest
reported harvest of deer per square mile with 4.65 deer
and 2.67 deer respectively. On the mainland Berkshire has
a reported harvest of 1.30 deer per square mile of range.
This was the first time since the inception (1967) of the
antlerless permit system that any mainland county had a re-
ported harvest of one deer per square mile of deer range.
Franklin County has a reported kill of .73 deer per sauare
mile. Barnstable, !Iampden and Hampshire have .47; .45 and
,42 deer harvested per square mile of deer range respective-
ly. Worcester County, with 1307.6 square miles of deer
range, has only a reported ,17 deer per square mile. The
remaining counties; namely, Bristol, Essex, Middlesex and
Plymouth have .02 deer or less reported. There were no
deer reported harvested in Norfolk County,
Table 21 presents the percent frequency ratio of adult fe-
males to adult males from 1967 through 1974, It would ap-
pear that the deer management units of the mainland are in
good shape in relationship to the harvest of adult females
to adult males. All counties, with the exception of
Middlesex, have reported ,39 or less adult does to adult
males. The island units of Nantucket and Dukes Counties
have .69 and .82 adult does respectively per adult buck.
The adult male harvest in Worcester County is expected to
increase during the 1975 deer season.
A summary by management unit of the shotgun deer harvest,
the number of sportsman antlerless permits issued, the
square miles of deer range, the adult harvest per square
mile of range and the percent frequency ratio of adult fe-
males to adult males for the 1974 shotgun deer season is
presented in Table 22. The data in this report has been
presented on a county basis, but in Table 22 the data is
presented on a deer management unit basis.
i
Prepared by
Date
Figure No. 1 presents a summary of the total Massachusetts
deer harvest by sex per square mile of deer range by county
for an eight -year period, 1967 through 1974. In Berkshire
County, the deer harvest shows an increase in total harvest.
The male harvest increased at a greater rate than the fe-
male. The female harvest declined slightly in Franklin
County while the total harvest and the male harvest increased,
It is felt that this is a healthy situation and a rise in
the 1975 harvest of males is expected. In Hampden County
the male harvest and the total harvest are increasing at
about the same rate. Tlie female harvest declined slightly
in 1974. Tlie deer harvest in Hampshire County showed a
slight increase in the total harvest and the buck and doe
Harvests. The rate of increased harvest in this county ap-
pears to be healthy. In Vtorcester County there was a slight
decline in all harvest data. It would appear that Worcester
County was being overgunned but it is felt that this manage-
ment unit has not recovered from being overgunned from 1969
through 1972. The distribution of antlerless permits on a
deer management unit basis should relieve some of the
pressure on the female segment of the Worcester County
deer herd. The rate of increase of the total harvest and
the female harvest appear to be about the same in Barnstable
County. However, the female harvest is well below the male
harvest and the male harvest is still showing a slight in-
crease.
Figure No. 2 presents a summary of the total Massachusetts
deer harvest by sex per square mile of deer range on the
mainland, Dukes and Nantucket Counties from 1967 through
1974. On the mainland, the deer harvest appears to be as
expected with a continued increase in the total harvest, a
continued increase in the male segment, and a slight in-
crease in the female segment. The deer harvest on Dukes
County continued to take an expected decline with more fe-
males than males being reported. It may be necessary to
reduce the number of antlerless permits for Dukes County in
1976. Nantucket deer management unit had an expected de-
cline in the total harvest along with a decline in the
male and female harvest. Tae decline should continue in
1975. Mien the same number of adult bucks and does are
being reported the number of antlerless permits issued can
be reduced.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AT^D WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Arthur W. Neill, Superintendent
James J. McDonough
Game Biologist
Table 1. Summary of the number of antlerless permits issued, the deer harvest
per deer management unit and the ranking order of importance as a
deer-producing unit for the 1974 Massachusetts shotgun season.
Unit
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Worcester
Martha's Vineyard***
Hampshire
Nantucket
Barnstable
Region I*
Region II**
Number
Antlerless
Permits
Male
Female
Total
Rank
Percentage
of Total
1,300
763
238
1,056
1
39.6
700
347
101
448
2
16.8
400
131
50
231
3
8.7
700
144
69
213
4
7.9
600
102
95
197
5
7.4
300
125
43
168
6
6.3
400
88
66
154
7
5.8
200
91
42
133
8
4.9
200
15
5
20
9
0.3
200
12
4
16
9
0.6
5,000
1,878
788
2,666
* Region I includes Middlesex, Norfolk, Essex and Suffolk Counties.
** Region II includes Bristol and Plyiiiouth Counties.
*** Gosnold 5 males and 30 males not included.
O 4->
o
6V> H
03
pa
o
H
e
u
o
U
•H
UU
>
•P
•H
s
•H
a,
o
o
OJ
o
\o
O
O
o
CM
O
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IT)
a>
o
r-
o
r^
O^
r^
O
vO
O
to
o
o
o
rH
o
o
o
O
t>-
to
Ov
If)
i-H
(Ti
vO
CO
CM
to
(N
CM
vO
o
LD
to
t^
•<:t-
00
to
vO
r-^
1^
en
o
r— 1
t^
to
CO
VO
r-l
o
<M
'5-
r<
r-t
iH
[X.
C3
to
u.
03
4->
O
tu
•P
O
r-l
-^
■P
V)
C
o
o
CM
o
o
o
o
<M
CD
o
to
rH
(7^
-vl-
CO
o
»H
to
LO
CM
C7i
vO
■<Ni-
rH
CO
"^
O
rH
to
rH
SO
VO
to
to
CO
rH
to
r-1
"^
00
to
00
CM
CM
o
LO
o
to
LO
Cvl
LO
to
LO
CM
to
CM
'^ CM
CM CM
CM
Oi
CVJ
to
CM
to
to
to
f)
lO fH
iH to
to
cr»
CM
(JO
rH
CM
CT)
CM
o
fH
vO
CM
rH
to
rH
CM
Ok
CM
to
to
rH
vO
LO
o
LO
r-l
rH
00
rH
to
CM
CO
rH
to
LO
CM
00
00
rH
LO
CM
t>~
CM
vO
fH
rH
CM
to
r-l
o
to
VO
vO
CM
00
CO
CM
rH
LO
-^
rH
rH
o
LO
to
r-4
rH
CO
vO
'^d-
CM
O
to
rH
to
rH
CO
LO
CM
rH
CM
CO
00
to
en
VO
LO
LO
to
CM
CM
CO
(N
CM
to
CO
to
CM
00
00
vO
CM
00
00
CO
CO
•H
^
o
*
f-i
to
■p
lA
X
^
M
tn
O
o
!=!
Jh
•H
-^
v>
crt
«
t-i
OT
(^
;^
ca
i:3
W
u*
o
•H
i-
«5
CD
V)
<D
rH
'd
•H
o
p
O
IP
o
rd
3
o
Cu
rH
u
<0
•p
'^
V)
rH
V)
o
O
t—i
p
c
rt
p
tf)
p
o
o
o
CJ
H
1
rH
o
c
•H
■P
o
O
C
O
Table 3. County summary of the 1974 Massachusetts shotgun deer harvest by sex and
the county rank of importance from 1970 through 1974.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
County
Male
Female
Total
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
Barnstable
91
42
133
8
8
8
7
8
Berkshire
768
288
1,056
1
1
1
1
1
Bristol
4
1
5
11
12
12
12
12
Dukes*
102
95
197
5
3
3
3
7
Essex
13
4
17
9
9
9
10
9
Franklin
347
101
448
2
2
2
2
2
Hampden
181
50
231
3
5
4
5
6
Hampshire
125
43
168
6
7
6
S
4
Middlesex
2
1
3
12
11
11
9
10
Nantucket
88
66
154
7
6
7
6
5
Norfolk
13
13
13
13
13
Plymouth
8
3
11
10
10
10
11
11
Suffolk
13
13
13
13
13
V/orcester
144
69
213
4
4
5
4
3
Total*
1,873
763
2,636
Gosnold
5
1,878
25
788
30
2,666
* Gosnold not included.
Table 4. A summary of the 1974 deer harvest per sex per management unit, shotgun
season only.
Unit
Males
Females
Total
Male Fawns
Berkshire
768
288
1,056
79
Franklin
347
101
448
31
Worcester
144
69
213
11
Hampshire
125
43
168
9
Hampden
181
50
231
21
Region I
15
5
20
Region II
12
4
16
2
Barnstable
91
42
133
6
Martha's Vineyard*
102
95
197
29
Nantucket
88
66
154
26
Gosnold
5
25
30
Totals
1,878
788
2,666
214
*Gosnold not included
O
o
O CO (N
O
00
00 (M
o
o
(M vO vO
•^
o
Lrt (7> LO
cr^
00 to
■^
o
o
00 •«* o
to
LO
^o Tt
00
o
CNJ CM \£>
rH
o
CN <Ni en
ri-
m a\
t^
o
o
r-l VO
00
to
^
r-H
vO
i-t
to o
cr>
•*
•*
*\ *>
r-{
o
to
':t
U^ 1-4
c
•H
-P
•H
c
e
0)
bjO
cd
C
£
O
o
r«- CM vo
LO
cn
en r>.
VO
o
CM Ol U-}
to
O
o
\0 o o^
vO
•^
1-4 to
LO
o
Cvj CM vO
r-
o
o
rH to
LO
to
-^
C7i
A
A
rH
CM
to
X*
VO
*
t>>
rH LO r^
to
vO '^
to
(N to rH
r>.
00 LO
vO
rH
fH
to CO
o
o
LO VO rH
(NJ
vD
"vl- CM
vO
o
to r-» iH
(SJ
o
o
LO to to
CM
CM
rH -*
LO
o
(N rH vO
r>-
o
o
rH LO
r-
to
""^
o
*\
<H
fH
CO
to
-"^
o
•«^ r^ vo
r-
v£> O
o
rg to <N
CO
CM rH
v£3
rH
iH
to o
O
o
^ LO 00
CM
o
O vP
'■D
O
VO CT> O
lO
O
O tH LO
vO
o o
iH
o
o
o t^ en
r^
r^
CM CM
-^
o
CM CM t^
CM
o
t^-i rt at
vO
r--. vo
r-s
LO
o
ft r-i \0
a>
CM
^
rH
vO
rH
CM CM
<T>
•\
•»
•\ •
iH
to
vO
t-- iH
LO
r-- rH
O
u
o
o
^ to CM
CPi
h-
LO '*
at
o
LO "5t LO
'>f
o
o
o
CM 00 rH
iH
•^l-
CM to
LO
o
rH CM CO
(M
r--
o
o
rH rH vO
C7»
to
•t
rH
a>
•i
#\
t-H
lO
to
vO
O rH CO
cn
r>- CM
to
to
«vf 00
t-- o
vO f-*
e
o
V,
o
<u
+J
+->
•H
g
>s
rO
•P
to
o
>
o
Qi
'V3
-d
c
C3
tn
-p
•H
E
5h trt
(U P
, <>>
«4H W
°s
U O
^ to
S to
5 rt
LO
rH
O
o
cn r-> to
at
LO
h- LO
CM
O
Oi rH <?>
Ot
Oi
o
o
cr> o r-
r-.
o
rH '>:^
vo
o
CM rH Ti-
CC'
VD
o
O
f-f -^
vO
CM
•=*
CT^
•k
^
rH
CM
to
-^
f-* <D at
o
LO CO
(M
at 00
\D t^
o
O
CO
o
o
vO
o
o
C^
n
•s
t-\
CM
<N
to
to
o
o
t^
o
o
vO
o
o
cr>
•\
rH
00
CM
CM
to
(M
*
to
C
.s
to
p
4J
0)
O
•H
•H
rH
s
C3
u
s
rH
o
r\,
a.
p
^
^
rH
ca
rH
< a. u.
10
rH
cd
P
O
H
CM
■^
'!l-
LO
vO
CM O
CM
CM
CM
rH
^ S
to
rH
P
O
E-
to
P
•H
E
!h
(D
O.
P
0)
o
B
2:
o
rH <D
rt rH
S eg to
P <-^
rH C CtJ
3 § e
< tl, Ci,
to
rH
P
O
H
to
■p
U
O
•a
X
O
to
■P
!3
O
rH
rH
rt to
r: a>
P rH
3
T5
^ S
03 <1>
< Uh U,
to
rH
Oj
P
O
H
rH vO
to LO
to to
CM
to at
CM (M
CM
O
3
to /— \
to to
HH O
X
to <u
p to
•H
fH P
<u o
a. X)
Oj }h
p o
O (D
rH
to
g
rfi
to
■B
u
to
o
fH
3
•H
<P
13
O
c
■P
•H
<P
CD
e
o
§
o
o
?^
o
-p
•H
g
ri.
(0
U)
<D
fH
U
<D
t-H
§
V)
g
?= ^
?^ »-<
O
a* fH
tf) o
0) w
&< u
o
t/l rH
O O
^^
f-i M
<D Qi
-a
w
4-) a>
4J rH
O U
V) O
5 rH
o a
w
to tw
rt o
o
o
•H
-M
03
fi
to
u o
g 3
V) Q>
(/)
o
to
•H
(U
■P
<P
r-H
•H
rt
u
B
fSJ
o
rH
<D
t/)
■JJ
a.
^
o
• «
o
fH
3
<1>
CO
0
Q
f-l
Q
fH P
(U -H
fH (U
o o-
Cl to
to
O rH
U
O O
•H fH
P P
.1^
(U
rH
rt
e
<D
Ph
<D
fH
Oj
-- ..-1
p
rH
o
3
rH
•n
Oj
<
C
o
.iii
p
O
p
3
3 P^
ca
1
fH
0
(U
a P
•H
to S
to h
O <D
iH Ou,
fH
•-< .J3
P
■§ to
tH >
O fH
<D
t-H
<r*
6
OJ
tL.
rH
C(J
<D
P
rH
o
CU
H
*t-H
P
rH
<D
P
fH
X!
a
<
■vr^
C
O
^
P
o
P
P
s
CG
CD
to TS
<+-l
P <D
o
•H 13
£ fH
•
U n)
o
o s
S D- <!
to
o o
•H
P
O O
^ -H
S rH
3 P^
>s
p
o
t_3
a>
o
• •
rH
Lfi
m •
rH
00
• •
rH
vO
• •
rH
in
■ •
rH
csj
• •
rH
CM
• •
rH
9 •
to
« «
• •
fH
• •
rH
•-0
• •
O^
'*
o
to
C7k
t>^
r^
fH
o
c?>
•^
to
o^
'*
Ol
LO
r^
lO
to
TJ-
rH
CTi
to
rH
o
•St
o
o
CO
rH
fH
o
rH
LO
• •
• •
iH
• •
• •
rH
• •
to
• •
• •
• •
vO
• •
• 9
• •
rH
rH
fH
rH
i-H
rH
O
rH
fH
rH
rH
rH
f-i
CM
m:>
to
O
sr
O
r>.
CM
CD
r~i
to
LO
a •
rH
rH
• •
to
• •
fH
to
« *
rH
fH
• »
fH
rH
• •
o
vO
• •
rH
O
• •
rH
tH
• •
rH
rH
fH
en
* •
fH
rH
• •
•^
CO
•<:t
Li*>
'^
o
o
t^
o
"<*
00
C?i
to
• •
If)
• •
• 0
• «
rH
« •
CM
a «
* *
LO
• •
CM
« •
ft
• •
to
• •
rH
t-H
rH
iH
rH
rH
O
rH
t-4
rH
.H
fH
00
to
O
o
O
o
to
t^
fH
LO
lO
rH
CM
• •
• •
in
• •
CvJ
• •
O
rH
• •
to
• •
CM
* •
CM
• •
tH
• •
CM
r-i
rH
i-H
fH
fH
rH
rH
rH
.H
fH
r-i
CO
r-i
O
to
o
lO
"^
CM
CM
LO
VO
to
<r>
*^»
VO
«-^
•O
^
«?>
7^
V^
«r.
CVJ
fH
VO
r^
rH
to
rH
o
o
CM
to
o
CO
■^
CO
o
fH
rH
"*
CM
rH
Cvi
CM
CM
LO
-sS-
to
to
CO
CM
rH
•Si-
(J%
CM
»H
to
o
LO
CM
r--
to
r-^
rH
CO
CM
CM
CM
t-H
to
iH
O
VO
o
O
<M
vO
00
cn
vD
to
r>.
to
fH
CM
f-H
CM
CM
o
CM
o
o
o
O
^
o
O
o
o
O
O
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
to
I^
r^
to
■^
CM
CM
CM
o
vO
^
o
fH
LO
to
CO
^
CO
o
o>
(-J
\u
O
00
r^
LO
^'■
o
CO
LO
-^
CM
CT»
CO
■*
to
00
vO
to
LO
CO
vO
VO
00
CO
r«.
LO
00
LO
C7>
c\
e\
f^
•K
•\
•t
•»
*i
00
o
^
>J
CM
fH
oo
CM
CM
<D
o
5^
p
I-H
r-t
P
u
c
<D
u
hH
HH
Xi
to 'O
0)
•H
«H
P
•H
C
C^J
- fH
,i4
Xi
rH
to
,£:!
<0
C
C
P
ca CIS
o
to
,^
O
to
-d
o
o
to
X X
3
¥
c
o
p-l
•H
•H
1-4
H
p (]>
P
u
<7i
u
S
5
bO
bO
u c
^
o
fH
o
OJ
ctf
a>
0
C(J
Ctf -rJ
CQ
u.
t»
ix^
■•^
r,>
1^
EC
^>
0)
•H
o
p
p
CO
o
u
u
o
o
•H
o
o
u
§
tn
OS
^(
s
T)
O
<->
f-i
O
w
u
Vi
0)
•H
•P
•H
rH
u
i
0)
-o
to
<p
•p
w
3
-6
tn
w
ca
«+^
o
CD
^■§
i o
3 C!
V)
03
rH
O <D
s en
<D
I
[i.
X
o «
^
(i.
o o
b.
X
o
<D
s
CO
;c:
o
M
•
rt
u.
O O
U
tu
u
3
•-3
X
O (D
CO
b
(N
r-l ^o
CM
in
o
to
to
CM
00 i-l
to
<7l "^ rH
VO to CM
CM
CM
to
CM
** to
LO
o
VO
LO VO rH rH
in Tf >H rH
to
CM
CO
o
«H
u
•H
JH
o
■p
o
•H
rH T3
Ctf (U (0 V)
to O S
bOrH O
O rH ^H
0)
o
c
O Xi
(-* p
■P
o
s
p
—I u
ci ^— '
P
O rH
P 03
■5 ^
3 O
/—\
u
00
o
CO
to r-^
■i
CO lO CM rH
CM ^-^
(D
O
iH iH
rH
ft)
LO
Q
/ — \
u
vO
o
cri
rQ
vO
< — '
o
p
«H
''S
O
CM
O
O
CM
/-N
u
ft)
CNj
XI
r^ r>.
r:
.H V_^
ft)
p
CM
a
to
o
to
CO
p
to
a
s
3
•-3
Cr> vO
CO CM
CM
CN
to "d-
CM
/ — \
^1
r-
ft)
to
.Q
O r-t
E
00 CM CM
CM ^— '
ft)
>
CM
rH
O
rH
12
to
to
LO
o
to V— '
to
vO rH tH rH
CM
to
to
CM
o
to
iH
,-i to
CM V— '
CM
CM
\0
to rH rH
vO iH rH
CM
NO
CM
CO
Oi
to
<M
vO
CM
to
CM
\0
CM
to
CM
oo
CM
to
QKHQ UhHUOCOH
5
cd
O
P
to
p:
O
o
^
H
iH
o
ft) D
•
•H
bO
s
,C
ctJ TJ
3
<I>
e c .-J
U
>
rH
TJ
c« 03 cU
^•-^
a
ft)
to
to
Q P
u
oo
ft)
«
f^ O
rH
o
to 4)
2
<J
•H
a. ft) p
CC
p
eiOrH
O
C
OJ
O ^ XI
P
o
O rH
U
ft)
^
M P 3
O
p
o
H
X
ft)
CO
o
3
ft)
rH
cd
S
ft)
ft)
(0
§
p
o
X
ft)
CO
o
I
ft)
§
ft)
tu
ft)
to
i
CJ
LO CM rH to
to
vO
CM
to
00
CM CM
CM
o
n
^
to
c
t-^
ft) 3
a
bO
p
d -d
o
s c
H
TO cS
to
to C:
ft)
C ^H
t)
•H Ph ft)
c
c3 O ^
ft)
^6S
t^ to lO rH
^ to to iH
to
LO
to
rH to CM
CT> o OO r^
r*. CM rH
S.QHHQIl.HCJOCOE"'
^'> CM "St CM
to rH rH
CO
ft)
iH
o
•H
> rH TJ
rt ft)
^ bO C
O to ft) 5
P bOrH O
O O rH fw
S Q HH Q
Table 8. Five-year summary of deer mortalities of Massachusetts deer reported by
Natural Resources officers, 1969 through 1974.
5-yr.
Cause
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Avg.
Total
Motor Vehicles
397
400
373
321
321
347
362
1,812
Dogs
166
204
219
41
36
33
133
666
Illegal Kills
39
25
39
44
23
35
34
170
Crop Damage
2
14
4
1
2
1
5
23
Unknown Causes
51
38
41
35
21
33
37
186
All Other Causes
27
17
18
11
15
18
18
88
Totals
682
698
694
453
420
469
589
2,945
Table 9. A comparison of total non -hunting
from 1968 through 1974.
deer mortalities of Ilassachusetts deer
1968 1969 1970
No. of Deer 613 682 698
Percent Change 11% 2%
-.6%
1971 1972 1973 1974
694 453 420 469
-34.7% -7.3% +10.4%
Table 10. Comparison of actual numbers of deer mortalities by sex* and adjusted
data for Massachusetts deer per month, 1974.
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Unknovm
Adjusted
Male
Female Sex
Total
24
Male
11
Female
11
13
13
7
5 4
16
10
6
13
7 2
32
14
18
10
11 3
24
11
13
14
20 7
41
17
24
21
23 7
51
24
27
7
28 2
37
7
30
4
11 1
16
4
12
8
17 1
26
8
18
22
21 3
46
24
22
45
37 10
92
51
41
17
43 2
62
17
45
179
246 42
Adjusted Sex Ratio
467
198
269
198 males: 269 females
74 males : 100 females
42f males: 5S<females
These data were reported by Natural Resource officers.
to
i-H t^
CO
o
^0
(NJ
O
05
Ln
to
(N
•*
00
o
CM
to
CM
^O
CM
to
CM iH
W)
00
vO
C?»
to
c«:
CM
■P
O
H
I
•P
O
H
O
G\
vO
vO
O
to
to
to
CO
CM
LO
CO
CM
OO
o
to
■^
lO
CT>
SO
to
CM
vD
Oi
o
CM
to
in
vO
CO
to
00
00
CM
lO
LO
CM
CM
CM
C>J
C
§
u
ce
C8
P
O
H
rsi
to
i-i o\
to
VO
LO
to
o
vO
LO
lO
LO
to
1-4
00
00
vO
to
to
Oi
o
J-l
V)
o
•H
P
• H
i-H
OJ
u
u
o
o
•S
p
I
§
c
v>
-p
p
w
(n
«n
I
o
<-•
1-4
O
p
o
P
o
H
.ii
oe:
vO
cy>
p
o
H
n- i-<
'St
00
00
CM
to
CM
CM
NO
LO
LO
CO
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
O
to
CT>
C7>
';^ rH rH
to
00
LO
00
to
to
o
to
CM
LO
vO
LO
to
CM
to
o\
CM
CM
o
LO
CM
to rH fH
to
LO
LO
<0
to
CM
CO
00
to
vO
00
to
to
C7>
to
CM
CM
SO
00
CM
to
T-(
<D
X
-Q
fH
C
p
ctf
•H
i-l
•H
tf5
O
P
X
o
c
.^
w
o
C
u
u
fH
•H
V)
rt
nJ
O
fH
U)
U
CQ
CQ
«
w
b
p
>«<
U
■p
Vl
CD
4:;
0
<u
•H
w
^
4J
^
+J
^
x:
(U
rH
3
1-1
(0
0
w
I-l
O
0
0
(U
w
13
9^
•n
'3
e
tp
0
(U
P
e
-o
X
tp
^
-^
p:
n)
•H
O
rH
3
0
c3
K
S
2
a,
(n
a
z
Table 12.
Age composition of mainland Massachusetts male deer checked at biological
stations, 1967 through 1974.
Age
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
6 mos.
28
61
67
121
100
77
69
78
1-1/2
167
198
229
263
211
260
237
255
2-1/2
122
126
133
147
103
144
173
156
3-1/2
62
87
98
97
77
96
90
36
4-1/2
25
35
55
59
43
46
47
35
5-1/2
10
17
21
21
19
14
18
11
6-1/2
S
4
14
7
3
11
7
5
7-1/2
1
0
2
7
6
2
6
4
8 to 9-1/2
1
0
2
1
1
0
3
0
10-1/2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
421
528
652
723
563
563
650
730
Table 13. Age
composit
ion of
mainland Massachusetts female
deer
checked at
biologi-
cal
stations
from
1967 through
1974.
Age
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
6 mos.
31
44
76
90
101
90
62
62
1-1/2
32
33
55
54
64
57
48
53
2-1/2
18
28
55
69
69
56
42
51
3-1/2
13
16
36
46
51
51
35
33
4-1/2
7
11
24
29
33
22
25
23
5-1/2
3
3
11
14
20
14
6
8
6-1/2
1
4
0
8
14
10
5
7
7-1/2
0
3
2
0
11
2
6
6
8 to 9-1/2
3
3
0
0
9
0
2
3
10-1/2
1
1
146
0
259
0
310
0
372
1
303
0
231
1
Totals
109
247
Table 14. Age composition of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts deer check at
biological stations from 1971 through 1974.
Males
Femal
es
Age
1971
1972
1973
1974
1971
1972
1973
1974
6 mos.
39
25
30
27
31
30
24
32
1-1/2
41
41
25
32
11
24
21
21
2-1/2
14
15
17
9
16
11
17
12
3-1/2
8
15
12
19
11
15
13
9
4-1/2
4
6
7
5
4
9
8
5
5-1/2
3
1
3
I
8
6
2
5
6-1/2
0
3
0
0
2
1
1
2
7-1/2
1
2
0
1
2
2
1
0
8 to 9-1/2
1
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
10-1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Totals
111
108
94
94
88
99
88
87
Table 15.
Age cor/rposition of Nantucket, Massachusetts deer checked at biological
stations from 1971 through 1974.
Males
Female
!S
Age
1971
1972
1973
1974
1971
1972
1973
1974
6 inos.
27
17
22
25
14
21
21
20
1-1/2
38
19
28
31
22
16
17
21
2-1/2
13
12
19
15
12
12
8
10
3-1/2
7
12
11
12
13
5
7
1
4-1/2
4
0
4
2
2
5
9
6
5-1/2
0
3
2
1
3
0
2
2
6-1/2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
7-1/2
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
8 to 9-1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10-1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
90
63
86
86
66
61
65
61
vO
r-i
«4H
cd
M
O
•P
o
o
0)
o\«>
H
Q
LD
r>.
LO
CNJ
rH
to
00
00
(N
CvJ
to
"«*
LO
•^
to
to
«/)
^
w
o
<D
3
r-l
pa
crt
E
C
<D
o
tin
+j
■»->
X)
:3
C
CQ
rt
CO
i—l
tH
Oi
CNi
Oi
cr>
'^i-
CO
r«-
rH
CO
•^
LD
t^
o
CM
to
r>.
o^
1-1
o
r>.
o
V)
■p
-0
rH
•H
(ij
rt
e
>-<
*--
,0
fH
w
O
<D
W)
H
a.
HH
o
rH
LO
r--
o
vO
\o
00
to
to
cr»
"*
t^
CM
00
LO
'^
lO
(N
to
(N
to
to
to
CM
CM
LO
LO
LO
LO
P
o
u
•p
NO
rH
CM
to
o
t^
00
LO
r--
a^
rt ^^
r^
Cf^
I—l
o
'^
rH
to
vO
+J o
f-i
to
o
to
CM
CM
o
vO
O (0
ov
9s
^
tf^
<f\
•S
•\
«^
H Ci
rH
n-t
CM
CM
•^
CM
(M
CM
tf)
J^J
<D
s
fH
cti
aj
IX,
E:
0)
Uh
h-
to
tH
to
vO
O
CM
CO
\D
cn
r^
CM
^
to
r^
CM
rH
CM
CM
CM
rH
CM
V)
o
>
u
C!3
o
w
+J
<D
rH
rH
3
cd
tJ
S
<
<U
Um
00
CM
LO
vO
to
o
'=t
to
•<^
'=3-
to
«*
\£>
to
\D
LO
"vf
LO
a
O
+->
■p
(1>
w
o
Vi
to
•— i
CO
c
o
V)
-p
^
•p
o
3
3
CQ
ca
LO
o
\o
Ch
<7>
o
tn
rH
00
vO
00
VO
CM
to
to
r-.
00
t^
vO
rH
vD
<7»
to
rH
LO
O
to
cn
to
to
LO
vO
(M
CM
LO
o^
vO
rH
rH
CM
CM
iH
rH
CM
•P
tp
3
<
c3
vO
(M
cn
00
VD
-O
CO
LO
00
CM
O'^
r^
O
LO
LO
vO
u>
o
CM
to
r-^
CM
C>4
M^
rH
rH
1-i
tf)
t^
to
<f
CO
C^
LO
rH
CO
rH <D
to
00
CM
CTk
LO
LO
CM
r^
rH rH
en
o
•^
lO
to
■^
•«3-
00
< Ci
•*
•*
ff^
A
«^
OS
**
S
T-^
rH
rH
rH
rH
rH
1-f
Si
E-
^1
h-
CO
(Tt
o
rH
CM
to
'=3-
ctf
vD
vO
VO
r-^
h-
r>.
r^
t^
<D
C?^
c?^
cy>
c^
cr>
en
en
CT>
>-
t-t
fi
rH
rH
rH
fH
fi
rH
V)
-p
+J
o
nl
V)
C
•H
u
<a
o
'■a
o
w
fi
o
•H
•P
RJ
f-l
:3
p^
o
a.
I— i
e
•H
P!
•H
E
TJ
O
•M
I— I
O
nJ
o
-d
c
•p
>
3
CS
C
•H
o
o
<n
■p
o
^1
Qm I— I
O OO
^§
fa u
< r-4
r-(
p
t^
d
<D O
o
t)0 r-l
o
C 1
f-t
rt o
(U
.rn r--
CU
U o
rH
o
o
p
r^
p:
a> o>
<i>
tiO rH
o
P! 1
u
C* C"
o
J2 O
Cu
U O^
r-H
p
o
o
vO
u
CTi
60 rHi
c
1
rt
00
^
vO
CJ
C7>
1— 1
cc-
tOrH
CD ^ v£)
p
o
f-4
o
rH
to
rH
o
CO
00
r>»
»-(
(M
o
LO
CO
o
un
to
•
in
rH
+
fvj
00
to
CM
CO
o
o
rH to
c
rH
lO
a.
•
•
(M
r-l
t-O
+
+
o
LO
CM
•
CM
to
Ci
to
CM
to
+
to
en
•
CM
CM
CO
-vj-
Cfi
•<=!•
r^
LO
Cr>
1-4
to
iH
CM
O
LO
00
CM
cn.
o
t^
in
C5
00
o
o
CM
rH
o
CO
LO
to
+
CM
O
•^
O
CO
CM
rH
vO
«*
vO
o
•^
O
h-
CT)
n
«v
•%
•»
rH
iH
CM
CM
00
to
CM
VO
vO
CO
cr»
r-
CO
LO
rH
to
vO
oc
o
O
rH
CTs
9\
^
•\
rH
CM
CM
\0
-M
i-H
tf)
^>4
rt
O
P
P
O
S
>
fH
c
rH
• H
•H
u
P
o
3
P
s
a
TJ
•H
'O
cd
•H
ft
ce
P
03
cti
i-H
3
s
U)
o
'a
rH
T3
Pa
T3
c
r-t
CD
3
<D
O
O
o
S
P
A<
P
P^
P
•H
s
Gj
o
c^
cti
P
iH
a.
rH
(D
,~i
<a
p
3
3
fH
3
rH
rH
o
CD
O
nJ
O
3
3
rH
rH
i-H
s
rH
O^
'S
rt
rt
CU
(D
rt
O
<
u
u
4^
o
fa
i:1
o
a.
■^
t^
o
c^
fcOrHl
'■H
1
d
to
6
i-H
■p
<D
O
U
<D
G,
to
r^
<u
CT>
bO
rH
1
pj
CM
r-
r^
u
a\
rH
CM
CM
. . o O^
O MrH
O C I
P
6^
c^
LO
t^
o
•^
VO
o
vO
CO
vO
.H
vO
o
rH to
m
to
CM
to
CM
O
o
o
VO
to
to
VO
CO
to
o
00
CM
00
o
CM
to
o
CM
+
to
CM
o
to
vO
^0
CM
LO
•
to
r-4
00
o
o
rH
LO
00
LO
to
CM
o
00
•^
to
CO
o
o
VO
LO
to
vD
LO
lO
to
to
CM
r>-
o^
to
to
o
CM
vD
i-H
to
I-H
rH
O
(X5
CO
t>-
r»~
I-H
CM
o
to
cn
•\
•t
•t
•t
fi
f-t
CM
»*
I-H
p
tH
tn
«
rt
o
4->
P o
S
>
rH
C
rH .H
•H
u
3
o
3 P
Im
vd
d
•H
-O «}
•H
rC
ctf
P
C^J rH
3
S
o
T)
rH
TJ t:v,
t3
c
t-i
O
3
(U o
CD
o
a
P
iO,
P cu
P
•H
s
rt
o
nj
CS
P
rH
Pa
rH O
rH
CCS
p
3
3 rH
3
rH
rH
CJ
0)
o Pi
o
3
3
rH
.H
rH S
rH
cx
'^
Cti
?1
C^5 <U
Ctt
o
<
U
b^
u ^
u
<^
Table 18.
Summary of the
adult
male deer harvest per
square
mile (
Df deer
range per
county in Mass
achusetts, 1967 through 1974
w
Sq. Hi.
County
Deer Range
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Barnstable
290.5
.14
.15
.20
.28
.28
.26
.27
.29
Berkshire
839.0
.27
.37
.44
.44
.42
.45
.51
.82
Bristol
422.6
.01
.01
.01
.01
.002
.007
.002
.009
Essex
344.4
.03
.03
.04
.06
.03
.05
.05
.04
Franklin
649.1
.27
.35
.39
.39
.36
.43
.33
.49
Hampden
524.3
.13
.19
.24
.22
.20
.25
.28
.31
Hampshire
431.5
.16
.25
.27
.26
.15
.23
.23
.27
Middlesex
583.1
.02
.01
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.003
Norfolk
277.3
-_-
--_
.01
_-_
-.-
_-_
Plymouth
544.2
.03
.02
.03
.02
.01
.02
.01
.01
Worcester
1,307.6
.11
.06
.14
.15
.07
.09
.09
.10
6,213.6
.12
.14
.18
.19
.15
.18
.18
.25
Dukes
86.5
.71
.65
.72
.91
1.01
I.IS
1.00
.84
Nantucket
35.9
1.34
1.56
1.89
2.42
1.78
1.36
1.89
1.73
Table 19.
Summary of the
adult
female
deer harvest j
)er square mile
of deer range
per county in
Massachusetts,
1967
through
1974.
Sq. Mi.
County
Deer Range
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Barnstable
290.5
.03
.02
.06
.10
.09
.09
.05
.11
Berkshire
339.0
.04
.06
.12
.16
.23
.13
.13
.25
Bristol
422.6
.005
.002
.002
-_-
__-
.002
.002
.002
Essex
344.4
.006
.003
.01
.03
.003
.003
.00
.009
Franklin
649.1
.07
.11
.14
.15
.27
.22
.12
.12
Hampden
524.1
.02
.03
.06
.06
.08
.07
.07
.07
Hampshire
431.5
.04
.06
.11
.11
.07
.08
.05
.07
Middlesex
583.1
.002
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.002
.002
Norfolk
277.3
.004
---
--_
.004
...
--.-
...
_--
Plymouth
544.2
.002
.01
.01
.01
.002
...
.004
.004
Worcester
1,307.6
.02
.02
.05
.07
.05
.03
.04
.04
6,213.6
.02
.03
.06
.07
.08
.07
.05
.07
Dukes
86.5
.14
.10
.18
.36
.67
.89
1.00
.69
Nantucket
35.9
.17
.14
.97
1.67
1.53
1.11
1.22
1.23
Table 20. A summary of the total harvest of deer in Massachusetts (including
shotgun, archery, and muzzle load harvests) per county per sex and
the harvest of deer per square nile of deer range in Massachusetts
for 1974.
Males
Females
Total
Sq. Mi.
of Deer
Range
Harvest
County
Total
Deer
per
Sq. Mi.
Hales
per
Sq. Mi.
Females
per
Sq. Mi.
Barnstable
94
42
136
290.5
.47
.32
.14
Berkshire
781
309
1,090
839.0
1.30
.93
.37
Bristol
4
1
5
422.6
.01
.01
.002
Essex
13
4
17
344.4
.05
.04
.01
Franklin
366
108
474
649.1
.73
.56
.17
Hampden
185
53
238
524.3
.45
.35
.10
Hampshire
134
49
183
431.5
.42
.31
.11
Middlesex
4
2
6
583.1
.01
.01
.003
Norfolk
—
277.3
Plymouth
8
3
11
544.2
.02
.01
.01
Worcester
151
70
221
1,307.6
.17
.12
.05
Total
1,740
641
2,381
6,213.6
.38
.28
.10
Dukes
110
121
231
86.5
2.67
1.27
1.40
Nantucket
98
69
167
35.9
4.65
2.73
1.92
Total
1,948
831
2,779
6,336.0
.44
.31
.13
-a
o
u
r— 1
i
c3
O
4->
to
s
3
O
O
•H
■M
03
u
>>
c
g-
m
+j
c
o
o
f-1
(D
M
IX,
o
CT» CO CT> CO r-l 00 vO
t^
•
(NJ to <Tl tT) -^
cr>
PL,
i-i
r-(
•P
i-H
3
na
<
•
o vo '^ o i-< t^ "=^f a*
00 \0 CNJ Ln fH ,-)
to <N rH l-H
P
3
CO
vO
rH
3
Uh
u.
3
3
•P
g
o
o
vO GO
lO to
Lo cfj vo CM r-
«* to rv) •<* v£)
CD
vO
■^
CO
00
CO
CM
(NCMtOtOtOCN-^tO
to
to
\o o
rH O
'^s- to rv) r-- '^i-
cr» to ^
o
c*
(N
o
LO
vO
o
to
o
OOrHtOtOvOtOlOtOtO'!*
LOr-' rHLOO>Ji— If) «— I
to CM I— 1 t-H
^t^OOOtOLOtO
r-lr-HCNlrHtOi— ICNJ'tt
to
to
O to i-H
lO
»H CO ^^ r^ to
\0 r-i CM
to
00
'*'<*inoooor^t^
rt t-H rH to cr» o
to CM rH
•?t"*tocoLncotoo vo
CM»HtOrH(MOCMf-H O
• ••••••• •
OrHCMCMTfO^vOrH
fH to '^t rH
00
LO
to
CM
CM
to
i-ltOvO'-H\0 0>C^O
vO
O
vO
rj- CM rH r>. vO ^O «-l
rH
«=*
\o
C^ rH
r-i
r>«
rH <D
03 -H
■p j::
•H
•H
W -Vi P ^
- (j; i-H 3 rH to
to
CM
O
LO
O
-St
O
VO
vO
(M
to
LO
to
CM
to
c
CM
00
O
O
O
O
CM
C7>
O
o
o
CM
C ^ V) <D C p^ 'Tun ^ S '^ O rt
fH5H.HV)rtSST5fHX'+HFH P
rt<DMWfHCtiCT}'H0rH30 O
E
u)
+J
O
CO
V)
4-) p
O -H
• Jh
to
to
vO
vO
vO
C7i
vO
LO
o
CM
CM
O
e
V)
p
J-l
o
to
^ p
O -H
O (1>
S a.
C7^
O
vO
O
O
T3-
00
LO
LO
CD
LO
to
o
cr>
Tf
vO
CO
O
LO
vD
LO
to
vO
CO
to
to
CM
P
,^
o
P
03
S
tn
p
o
CO
o
p
•H
S
to
CM
CM
o
P
o
*
to
p
•H
s
to
P
•H
e
a,
o
c
03
•-J
I
f-i
(U
s
u
to
T)
r-(
o
c:
H a.
•73
•H
o
u
rH
u
b
•??
cr
[X,
•
tn CT>
^
Ol VO (M r-l
b
i-H
r>- to <Nj
■p
iH
3
•T3
<
«
r- '^t-
vO
rO LO iH ^
s:
r^ (N
r-t
r-l rt O
^
CM rH rH
cr
CM
cr
u
3
3
O
U
\D<-ILr>tO'!:ftOCOO
totocMcgrvi(M<MLO
to
to
en
to
to
vO
to »0 t^ C>3
r» to to
r^j
CO
CM
LOC7>'^tO^Ov£)<M
00 CO rH rH VD i-H
VD to rH rH
v£5
to
to
rH 03
;-o r^ LO CM in
OJ to CM c^ OJ
o
to
CM
LO
LO
o
vOOtOvOrHCTlLOtO
tOtOtOOlOCNtOtO
o
o
CO
to
t
r^-CMrHiHrHOO'?}-'":!-
tu
(N iH ^ to to
<->
iH rH •
iH
P
T)
<
•
LOtOtOvOr^rHOOtO
t=j
t^ r^ th t*~ to a»
to CM rH
CM
o to
to LO
LO r^
OJ 00
CO o
rH C7i O
'^t ^ LO
vD CM rH t^
r>. 'tt to
CM
<N
rH
(N
CM
to
to
-?}•
00
LO
to
fH
to
CM
o
iH
v£>
rH
o
cy>
CO
rH
Xi
+->
to
g
o
fH
•H
U
•H
rH
w ni
0)
p.
E
<1>
•H
X
O
c3 oa ca w ci, a
rt 'H o
T* '^;? 'r^
►H lii f^
3 rH
o o
e ^
iH 3
u
O
O
O
to
to
CM
lO
cn
CM
o
o
o
to
O
O
O
o
to
CM
o
in
o
o
o
o
lO
LO
o
to
LO
LO
LO
C7i
o
o
o
•P
o
s
o
a,
CO
4h +j
O .H
O O
2 Cl,
CM
00
o
NO
o
o
to
00
o
o
00
LO
CM
o
o
o
VD
CO
m
00
o
o
vO
to
3
Q
G
(n
•P
o
CO
trt
O -H
e
• u
O (U
2 a.
vO
O
O
•*
^o:)
vO
o
o
CO
vO
CM
00
00
LO
to
LO
to
lO
o
o
o
CO
LO
LO
vO
o
o
•p
o
S
V)
+J
fH
O
O.
CO
o
w
•H
e
f^
a,
vO
CM
to
LO
o
CM
fH
<0 *
Xi in
S -P
3 'H
s e
rH «
Ctf O,
P
O 4h
H O
P
•H
e
U
o
I
fH
a)
s
u
nJ
a.
CO
<D
T3
rH
a
c
HH
u
0) 1
?u o
m
Vt
4J <j
•H 1-t
E 3
ft T)
O OJ
&I
m
«n o
tf)
<u o
i-< -H
M 4J
« nJ
-* ft
•P
C >s
OS O
C
3 3
S ^
(0 o
-p ft
ft «w
o
p^p
w) C
(U
Hh o
O Fm
O
ft Ph
fli
O O
g -^
P P
c
•xi
<i> c
^ rt
P
p
«.H
P c
•H 3
3 ft
a>
P Pu
c
O P
e w
<U (U
feO >
c<i {-1
C rt
rt X
e
■p
ft rH
© s
<u -a
T) CJ
ft <i>
<U X
AP
p «
w o
<U bO
> P!
ft c4
rt ft
X
ft
•
ft O
'd-
o o
r>-
O t3
a\
TJ
t-^
tp
s °
ft
W) W
^
P Q)
O rH
«5
A -H
<D
w S
rH
c3
(U (D
g
X ft
P cti
■P
P
i-H
^-. o
t>
o w
-o
«$
X o
TO -P
o
p
g •>
w
3 P
o
W -H
f-4
<§
•
C4
0)
r-l
^
CJ
H
o o
c -P
P (U
cr <D I-H
(1> rH 05
ft SS ^
0) P
P U, fH
C 3
a> 4J n3
O rH <
ft P
a. <
cd ft
p <u
o a>
H Q
*
to
o
rH
6
p
w
>
I
3
S
(.:
<p e p
• ft S
O O 0)
CO
1-4
p
•H
3
\0
to
«*
fO
00
O^
vO
o
rvj
«N
CM
CM
JO
CM
ro
CO
to
to
vO
LO
o
00
to
00
to
CM
O
CM
vO
h-
o
uo
CN
CM
to
r^ rH
to tH
vD
NO
v£>
h«.
CM
CM
tH
r^
to
to
ir>
CM
to
LO
00
CJ>
00
NO
to
vD
rH
to
CM
CM
o
vO
to
to
LO
in
to
o
CM
to
CM
CM
'5^
VO
CM
CM
NO
o
o
CM
o o
o o
to r>.
o o
o o
■«;r to
o
o
o
CM
o
o
CM
o
o
vO
o
«>
rH
<D
Xi
ft
C($
•H
P
,c!
tfl
W
H
«
C«
o
K
CQ
•H
rH
ctf
ft
•H
c3
ft
O
P
tf)
CD
CJ
ft
o
-r* •T-' "5^*
M-4 H*^ P-i*
*
*
o
•H
o
*
*
*
I— I
o
•H
to
«
Pi
o
I
■p
O
P
o
•H
p
ca
p
w
C
•H
/::
o
ft
o
03
O
•H
W)
o
rH
o
•H
P
cd
<D
p
ft
o
a*
o
ft
•
w to
S 'H
ClJ P
M-l C
«P O •
O U to
o
H
P ^
C rH
<1> O
O *P
ft ft ,
o o u
P.S
0) T3 P
^ C
P 03
O
O
C (t> r-t
•H to &.
to O
P r-l T3
t3 n3 03
P S rH
nj O
r-» • +J
3 X to
rH W Jh
o3 (0 CO
O u-i
to
o to o
ft CJ -o
o -g P
rH O
to O C
? -H
*P t-l (-H
<1> C fi
rH O O
Ctf -H .H
£ &0 &0
a> a> o
ti, a: oc:
*
*
*
*
tJH
o
<l>
iH
•H
0
<D
f-l
rt
3
cr*
tf)
^
(U
A
X
(U
tf)
>^
^
■P
to
©
>
f-l
a
ft
u
•
(i>
^-\
0)
■>rf
-«
r^
Ci
V)
rH
+J
•p
^
©
to
w
D
:3
O
^
fH
o
^
oJ
P
w
tf)
t^
rt
\D
C\
rH
rH
v_/
03
•»->
>-,
o
.'.J
+J
C
P
<D
o
X
o
■P
>N
H-<
rCl
o
0)
>-.
to
u
n
rt
rt
1
^
3
Vh
w
<1>
u>
<
"d
•H
p
to
C4
o
CO
in
o
•H
{^
b.
a>
fH
•H
in
^1
fl>
rH
03
O
O
^
N V
1 i
i / ■
{ /
I
1
{
\v \
f t^
. vH
o
00
O
o
o
o
CD
t^
O
P
to
C9
P
'/)
O
o
o
>H
•H
<-•
r««
i-
^
i* 0
rr
t---
y
h/
(
1 ^
1
t
I
1 \-
\
CO
LO
o
O
c
LO
o
o
V
to
o
00
Ln
«
o
o
o
'■Si
*
o
o
M
C
cU
^4
u
o
<0
-o
IH
O
<U
»H
•H
s
<D
^
*
cti
/— .
3
•e
cri>-
V)
C3-)
rH
u
o
rC
f5<
Kn
3
X
O
o
^
V)
X
+J
X
^
t^
o
4J
CTi
V)
i-H
o
s— '
>
u
to
nJ
o
,ci
•H
■M
U
C
o
P
Q)
o
TS
u
w
+J
>•->
o
+J
^
a>
o
tf)
*-<
s
4-)
^
c
o
rt
rt
1— Tt.
W)
irt
TJ
J3
c
r^
rt
i-i
v>
cd
0
■M
M
O
■a
•M
Q
0>
•*
/3
TJ
•P
%
t*H
r-i
O
C
•H
>s
nJ
fH
e
JS
E
(D
i
4:
V)
c
<
0
CM
o
•H
O
o
o
to
o
04
■^
«
r-^
to
i-i
CN|
4->
r».
<0
0
i-H
M
t^
0
■p
0
I^
S
CO
1 1-
1
^ .
1,^
•
0
o
in
o
o
to
o
CM
o
«
10
o
to
o
CM
<
•* to
t^
- <^
r^
<0
■"
1—1
V}
G
t^
0
0
^
u.
•••..
-^^
g
\
\
. cr>
vO
) -
CO
0
1
«
10
•
0
\
to
CM
0
rH
*• ^
1— 1
T)
rt
/I
0
r-i
-■^
'
t>.
c
lI
•H
li :
Cj
¥
CT>
vO
\
CO
0
1
LO
•
0
^
JOB PERFORMANCE REPORT
^
State
Cooperator:
Project No. :
Job No. :
Period Covered
Summary:
Objectives:
Procedures:
Findings:
"-^ f>.
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game
W-35-R-I7 Project Title: Game Population Trend
and Harvest Survey
lll-l
Job Title
Mourning Dove Census
21 May to I July 1974
Calling doves were counted on three randomized routes In
cooperation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's an-
nual mourning dove breeding population census. The total
number of calling doves decreased nearly two-thirds as
compared to 1973 counts. One route was relocated due to
an impassable road.
To obtain an index of the spring breeding population of
mourning doves.
In accordance with instructions from the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, doves were censused on two of the three
randomized routes established in 1967. The third route,
8A (0081) was permanently relocated since part of the old
route became Inaccessible due to washouts. Doves were
censused by roadside coo counts on these routes between
21 and 30 May. Division personnel conducted two counts
and a Fish and Wildlife Service cooperator conducted the
third.
Results of the 1974 call count of mourning doves are com-
pared with previous years of data in Table I.
The total number of calling doves for all routes combined
decreased 62 percent from 1973 results. Taken individually.
Route 8 decreased by 100 percent, and Route 8A and 10 re-
mained unchanged.
The weighted mean number of doves heard per comparable
Massachusetts route was 6.1 in 1973 and 4.8 in 1974
(Ruos, 1974). Ruos further reports that the breeding
population index for the Eastern Management Unit decreased
3.1 percent from 16.2 doves per route in 1973 to 15.7
doves per route in 1974. Long-term trends also show a de-
cline though regression analysis indicated a slight upward
trend In the combined non-hunting states.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
I
vo
vo
0
+-
o
a:
®
ro
ro
o.
E
o
o
c
O
TJ
L.
(0
<D
X
tn
(D
>
o
o
Si
0^
CM
ON
o
C3N
VO
CO
vo
0^
vo
o\
VO
vo
0^
+-
o
o
o
o
CM
VO
^MH
'
'
o
o
o
o
o
VO
•«w
M«*
1
+
1
o
o
1
o
o
+
o
o
+
o
in
1
o
o
o
ro
CM
VO
1
+
1
o
o
1
o
o
+
o
o
+
o
in
+
o
o
1
o
o
+
o
o
+
o
in
1
o
o
o
o
(SI
00
1
4-
1
1
o
o
*
fO
ro
VO
0^
O
ro
O
CM
c^
CM
ON
O
o
0^
—
o>
VO
o>
Csj
CO
vo
~
vo
0^
VO
CM
vo
vO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
ro
— r-
ro
vD
VO
vo
Csl
VO
CM
ro
in
CM
O
O
CM
ro
ro
in
rO
rO
•
in
o
o
ro
ro
in
ro
ro
O
O
ro
ro
ro
ro
00
tr)
*
(D
sz
*
4-
03
<.
o
o
CI)
00
h-
">-
TJ
<D
4-
O
Z5
•
•o
"St
c
r-
o
ON
o
+-
-o
o
0)
c
+-
ro
o
o
4-
o
n
O
CI)
tr
cr
*
*
*
'
W-35-R-l7:lll-l
Recommendations: It is recommended that the spring mourning dove census
be continued In cooperation with the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wl Idllfe.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Colton H. Bridges, Superintendent
Prepared by
James E. Cardoza, Game Biologist
Date
Literature Cited: Ruos, James L. 1974. 1974 Mourning Dove Breeding Popu-
lation Status, USDI Bur. Sport Fish. & Wlldl.,
Laurel, Md. Administrative Report. Xerox I + 35 pp.
(-/ ASS. ^ 32- . 3 : W'^5-'R'I7/Ci-J
PERFORIIANCF REPORT
State
Project No. %
Project Title;
Project Type;
Period Covered:
OOf
If t
llassachusetts
H~35-R-17
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 1974 to 31 liay 1975
Work Plan IV
Wild Turkey Restoration Study
Work Plan Objectives; To re-establish the wild turkey in the Coinnonx\realth
in sufficient numbers to allovj for recreational hunting.
Job IV-1
Job Objectives:
Summary ;
Target Date?
Experimental Turkey Stocking
To re-establish the wild turkey in the Commonvzealth in
sufficient numbers to allow for recreational hunting.
Turkeys in Beartoxm State Forest nov? shov; signs of dis-
persal from the release area. Flocks were located both
east and west of Beartoxm as well as on the forest it-
self o Reports of turkeys to the north and south need
verification.
Reports from cooperators and investigations by project
personnel indicate that released birds produced young
during the past summer.
31 Hay 1979
Status of Progress: On schedule.
Significant Deviations: None
Recommendations: Continue evaluation of the Bearto^-m release. Investi-
gate other release sites in western llassachusetts and
release trapped birds from the Beartox'Tn area on these
sites once populations have grown enough to permit this
Cost:
Remarks :
$4,065.25 (Project leader 41-1/2 man days)
Procedures: Turkeys were censused by roadside counts,
track counts, and cooperator reports. SnoX'Tmobiles were
used during the winter to provide access to the areas
and to transport grain for baiting.
Finding: Beartown State Forest Area
A total of 37 wild-trapped turkeys (6 adult males, 9
adult fenales, 9 immature males, 7 immature females,
6 immature unknovm) from Allegany State Park,
Cattaraugus County, New York, were released in Bear-
town State Forest, Great Barrington, Berkshire County,
between JIarcIi 1972 and September 1973.
Few sightings were recorded during the first two years
of the release, x-rith the only substantial flock found
consisting of 13 of the 20 birds released in fall 1973
X7hich were located in early winter 1974 2.0 km (1.25
miles) north of the release site. During the current
segment, hovrever, siglitings have increased, vjith
turkeys being found at several locations on and about
Beartoxm forest.
In June 1974, a single adult bird with a red wing tag
was seen on the road to the Kt. Wilcox fire tov;er,
about 4o3 km (3 miles) southeast of the release site.
In late August, natural Resource Office Gordon Leeman
saw a wing-tagged (orange) hen and one poult crossing a
road near the center of the forest , Three of the
stocked birds released March 1972 had red or red-
patterned patagial tags , while three additional turkeys
(two released ! larch 1972 and one September 1973) had
orange tags.
In late fall 1974, the Division issued news releases
soliciting reports of turkeys. This publicity, coupled
with a snowfall during the deer hunting season, resulted
in several sightings of turkeys and turkey tracks which
were subsequently reported to the Division. One flock
of five turkeys was seen repeatedly by sportsmen on
the southwest slope between Stony Brook and Benedict
Pond. Project personnel, however, found tracks of
six to seven turkeys in this location, while forest
workers saw about ten near an abandoned cemetery on
this slope, and again roosting just north of Blue Hill
Road near the crossing of the Appalachian Trail. Pro-
ject personnel also tracked seven birds through the
beaver swamps between Beartovm Mountain and Ht. VJilcox.
Two roosts V7ere located, but the turiceys were seen on
only one occasion. Tracks of three toms were found off
Monterey Road in the forest in early spring. Apparent-
ly, there are at least ten to twenty turkeys on the
forest itself, predominantly in the area between
Benedict Pond and Mt. Wilcox.
Deer hunters also reported thirteen to fifteen turkeys
in December near Fountain Pond 2.7 km (1.7 miles) south-
west of the Beartovm release site. Western District
personnel found tracks here soon after the report, but
the project leader and assistant found no sign in
January. We did locate tracks of about eleven turkeys,
apparently hens and young, 2.1 km (1.3 miles) further
along Three ilile Hill which borders Fountain Pond. In
late February J tracks of two to three torus were located
on the same rld^e, 1,1 kra (0.7 miles) north of the pond.
Turkeys were also reported in December northeast of the
forests off Jerusalem Road in Lee. We found no sign
here in winter, but did receive another report of "a
number" of birds across the Tyringham Valley, on the
western slope of Cannon Hill on the Lee-Tyringham line,
9.0 km (5.6 miles) northeast of the release site. After
several unproductive searches, we were able to verify
that turkeys were present, but the snow had melted too
much to be able to get an accurate track count.
A report of four to five turkeys near Taylor Brook in
Tolland, about 34.3 kra (21.3 miles) southeast of the
Beartown release site, may not be valid. IJhile the
original account of the sighting seemed convincing, dis-
cussions V7ith one of the reputed observers indicate
probable confusion of turkeys with pheasants. More
definite observations are needed before including this
area in occupied turkey range.
A single adult turkey was seen in December 1974 near the
U. S, Fish and Wildlife Service fish hatchery in Harts-
ville. An unmarked hen found dead in the road near the
center of lionterey in early June 1975 may have been
this bird.
In May 1975, an adult male turkey v/ith an orange wing
tag V7as seen crossing H.oute 7 in Lanesboro, 28.6 km
(17,8 miles) northwest of Beartown, Tliree unmarked
hens were also seen t^/ice off Balance Rock Road in the
same town. Only one male turkey with an orange wing
tag was released in Beartown so either that one bird
moved north, or else the bird or its tag was mis identi-
fied.
Findings? Statewide Populations
Turkeys in the Quabbin Reservation have continued to
improve in wildness since the discontinuance of arti-
ficial feeding in 1971, though they still do not approach
wild-trapped birds in overall viability and wariness.
Division personnel observed a flock of 17 birds (9 hens
and 8 toms) near Prescott Brook, Krith a smaller flock
of six birds off Thurston Brook on the tip of the penin-
sula; and another group of four just inside Reservation
boundaries in south New Salem. Metropolitan District
Cocmiission and University of Massachusetts cooperators
also reported four birds near Egypt Brook on Prescott
Peninsula, and several birds on the east side of the
Quabbin in Hardwick. A flock of 13 turkeys was reported
on the Swift River Wildlife Management Area in Belcher-
town, south of the Quabbin, early in October 1974, but
District personnel were unable to find any turkey sign
at that location.
A hen vras accidentally flushed fron a nest of 13 eggs
at the northern end of Prescott Peninsula on 10 May,
The nest was abandoned and the eggs collected. A
cooperator attempted unsuccessfully to hatch these in
an incubator. Division personnel and University co-
operators observed two broods durin<> June, one of
about nine poults OoS Icn (0,2 miles) north of Prescott
four- corners s, and one of about seven poults near lit.
Pleasant.
Fei-x birds remain in the Barre and Douglas State Forest
areas. One unhanded bird V7as kil3.ed by a car near the
Barre Falls Dam in June 1974, and one bird uas seen
that fall in Douglas near the Pvhode Island line.
Flocks of game-farm ancestry turkeys in the Berkshires
have declined considerably. Only two to three birds
were reported in the Toxm of lit. Washington, and no
birds were reported from lliddlef ield. Forest personnel
did report tv70 birds- — one unmarked and one with a red
wing tag — from October liountain State Forest. Since
the last serai-wild bird marked with a red tag any';;here
in this area was an adult hen released in Iliddlefield
in spring 1963, I suspect that either marked birds
from Beartov7n moved into this area or else the tag
color V7as not correctly recorded.
Single turkeys V7ere seen in Sunderland, ^/Ihately, and
Peru, Ti70 or three birds seen in llonson are probably
survivors of an illegal release by private individuals.
The project leader gave one slide shoxj and taped one
television commentary on the turkey project.
Acknowledgment ;
I extend my appreciation to personnel of the BeartovTn
State Forest, the Division of Law Enforcement, the
Metropolitan District Commission, and the iiassachusetts
Cooperative Uildlife Pesearch Unit for their cooperation
and assistance in reporting turkey sightings.
■k
a
tfe
*
Job IV-2
Evaluation of Habitat Utilized by Transplanted Wild
Turkeys
Job Objectives:
Habitat utilized by transplanted wild turkeys will be
evaluated in relation to total habitat available, with
special reference being given to habitats selected for
winter roosting, winter feeding, nesting, and brood
rearing .
This job was inactive during this segment .
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISIO!! OF FISHERIES A^TD WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and llanagement
Prepared by
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Approved by
Colton H. Bridges
Deputy Director
Date
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State
Project IIo. :
Project Title:
Project Type:
Period Covered:
I'asGachusetts
V7-35-R-17
.a i^ _rj i
■iJ. c
iw «
.^. I
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Survey
1 June 1'374 to 31 Hay 1975
Work Plan VI
Black Bear Study
Work Plan Objective: To define the range of the black bear in liassachusetts
and to determine its population characteristics and
rate of harvest by hunting.
Job VI-1
Job Objectives:
Summary :
Target Date:
Black Bear Population Dynamics
To define the range of the black bear in liassachusetts
and to determine its population characteristics and
rate of harvest by hunting.
Applications for bear hunting permits were received
from 390 sportsmen. T\7o bear were taken during the
open season, and one was killed by an automobile. New
reports of 29 observations totalling 38 bear were re-
ceived from five counties. Two instances of problem
bears were investigated.
31 May IS 79.
Status of Progress: On schedule.
Significant Deviations: Hone
Recommendations: Continue evaluation of bear harvest through checking
stations and periodic questionnaires.
Continue determination of bear range and populations
through recording of sightings.
Investigate nuisance complaints as necessary. Promote
public education programs to lessen nan-bear conflicts ,
Cost:
Remarks:
$555.46 (project leader man days - 7-1/2)
Procedures:
Current bear hunting regulations include mandatory re-
porting and tagging of bear. Bear checking stations
were maintained daily during bear week at three lo-
cations: Birch Hill Wildlife Management Area, Baldwin-
ville; Bitzer State Fish Hatchery, Montague; Western
Wildlife District Headquarters, Pitts field.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
IJIien bear vrere presented for examination, station per-
sonnel affixed a metal gane seal to the bear, removed
a premolar tooth, and recorded the following inforna-
tion: tovm of hill, date killed 3 sex and weight of
bear, and method of kill.
The Information-Education Section issued periodic news
releases asking for reports of bear. The project
leader gave one slide talk on the bear study. Several
sight irgs uete reported by cooper ators from the Uni-
versity of Massachusetts and the Division of Lav; En-
forcement .
Findings:
Bear hunting permit applications were received from 390
individuals during the 1974 season (Table 1), with two
hunters succeeding in taking a bear. One 37,2 kg
(192 lb.) sow \-jas shot in Hiddlefield, Hampshire County,
on the first day of the season (18 November) by a
hunter using dogs. The second, a 123.5 kg (272 lb,)
boar, was taken without dogs in Savoy, Berkshire County,
on 22 November, the fifth day of the season. These are
the second and third bears legally talcen since the
season was shortened in 1970.
One cub , sex undetermined , was killed by a car on Route
2 in North Adams on 5 September. The bear v/as retained
to be mounted whole as a display specimen. A cooper ator
reported finding a dead bear near Thunder Mountain in
Ashfield in December and sportsmen reported a second
dead bear near the Middlefield-Washington tovm line dur-
ing deer week. Division personnel investigated, but
could not confirm either of these reports.
Table 1, Number of bear permit applications and number of bear taken in
llassachusetts from 1970-1974.
Year
No, Permits
No. Bear Taken
Other Mortalities
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
214
200
423
309
390
1 illegal kill; 1 road
kill
1 illegal kill
1 road kills 1 captured
bear
1 road kill
New reports of bear received during this segment in-
cluded 21 sightings, five reports of track or sign, two
hunter kills, and one road kill, totalling 38 bear seen
in 19 towns. Reports by county for the period 1952 to
1975 are presented in Table 2. Records of 512 bear
noted on 415 occasions in 77 tovms have been collected
for the period 1952 to liay 1975.
Table 2, Reports of black bear by county for llassachusetts, 1952 to Hay 1975
County
1952
-May
1974
June
1974-IIny
1975
Total
Percent
Berkshire
129
9
13 G
33.4
Franklin
154
6
160
38.8
Hampden
19
'}
21
5,1
Hampshire
64
o
o
72
17.4
Middlesex
1
0
1
0.2
Worcester
17
3G4
4
29
21
413
5.1
100 oO
Four family groups were observed, two v/ith one cub each,
one with tvro cubs, and one with three cubs.
Two problem situations were investigated. The first, in
Westminster, Worcester County, in late July 1974, in-
volved a bear which was frequenting woodland adjacent
to a local golf course. The owner, having located
several spots where the bear had dug into logs and
stone vjalls, vras concerned that the bear would dig up
the golf greens. Also, since bear are rarely seen in
this area, the tovmspeople x^ere fearful of it and were
keeping their children inside. Division personnel con-
tacted the local police and the golf course owner,
examined the area where the diggings were found, and
explained that the bear would not dig up the greens or
attack the children. The bear and bear sign was seen
a few more times in subsequent weeks but no damage
occurred, and the bear apparently left the area that
fall.
The second incident involved bear depredation on several
hives in lliddlefield in late October. Since the bear
hunting season opened a few weeks later, Division per-
sonnel did not attempt to control the animal. The
bear remained in the area and was shot by a hunter on
the first day of the season.
Acknowledgments; I appreciate the efforts of the Division of Law Enforce-
ment in investigating complaints and sightings.
******
Job VI-2
Job Objectives;
Summary
Historical Records of the Black Bear in llassachusetts
To determine trends in black bear populations and dis-
tribution in llassachusetts from pre-Colonial times to
the present.
Trends in black bear populations from pre-Colonial
times to the present were determined by an intensive
literature search of published and unpublished records
Maps have been prepared showing fluctuations in bear
distribution.
Instances of nuisance bear situations have been compiled
and described and possible solutions discussed.
The historical aspects of bear manaf^einent have been
examined and the present hunting regulations for the
Northeast tabulated. The effect of various management
programs on the beards status is discussed and recom-
mendations for Massachusetts are presented.
Target Dates 31 May 1976.
Status of Progress". On schedule.
Significant Deviations: None
Recommendations; Publish findings of this job, and accrued data from
Job VI-lj as a Division research bulletin.
Cost: $3j9S8.2S (project leader man days, 93.5)
Remarks: The first draft of a comprehensive report on the history
and status of the bear in Massachusetts and adjacent
states has nearly been completed. The outline for this
report is as follows:
I. Introduction
II. Procedures
III. Regional background
A. Topgraphy and vegetation
B. Indian population and hunting methods
C. Discovery and settlement
D. Civil history
E. Land use and general wildlife situation
IV. Eistory and Status of the Black Bear
A. Pre-Colonial
B. Massachusetts
1. 1620-1750
2. 1750-1850
3. 1850-1950
4. Present (1950-date)
C. Connecticut
D. Rhode Island
E. New Hampshire
F. Vermont
V. Bears and Han
VI „ Bear Ilanac'ement
VII, Summary and Conclusions
Prior to European settlements bears x/ere well distributed
throughout New England with the possible exception of
parts of southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Tribal hunting for food and clothing may have had some
effect on those peripheral areas, where bears were
scarce, but Indian numbers away from the coast and river
valleys were low and the overall bear population was
probably not threatened by native hunting.
After colonization, though, human populations climbed
rapidly and bears were severely persecuted because of
their depredations on crops and flocks and their reputed
danger to man. The clearing of the land for farms and
settlements restricted the bears' available habitat and
brought them into closer contact with man v7ho persisted
in killing the shaggy varmints xi/hich dared to infringe
on human territory. This V7idespread eradication of the
forests, coupled with the unrestricted year-round shoot-
ing of bears resulted in a serious slump in populations .
After 1300, bears were uncommon in southern New England,
and by 1870-1830 were at a low point regionwide, being
restricted to the more remote mountainous sections of
Vermont, Nex^ Hampshire and extreme northwestern Massa-
chusetts .
Persecution slackened as bear numbers dropped and
agriculture declined, and after 1900 remnant populations
began expanding as Bruin straggled back into the wood-
lands springing up on long abandoned farmsteads. After
World ITar II, with bear numbers apparently increasing,
its popularity grew and its status gradually shifted
from despised vermin to favored game animal, v/ith com-
mensurate legislative protection and research and man-
agement programs being initiated. Bears are now found
at least as stragglers, in all Nev; Hampshire and main-
land Vermont counties, and the v/estern half of Massachu-
setts and adjacent areas of Connecticut.
Bear problems may arise, not so much from unencouraged
attacks on man or depredations on crops or livestock,
but from close contact situations where careless or
heedless persons feed or harass wild bears, V7ith sub-
sequent potential for injury or property damage. Man-
agement programs should incorporate public education
efforts aimed at decreasing this adverse conflict.
Response to "nuisance" or depredation situations should
be flexible, and solutions short of destroying the bear
be emplojred x-jherever possible.
Bears in the Northeast are maintaining populations
at huntable levels, though seasonal changes nay be
necessary in some instances. In Iiassachusetts, bear
populations are niniraal and seasonal limits should be
regulated so that the annual harvest does not greatly
exceed present levels. Use of checking stations, hunt-
er report forms, and distributional surveys should be
employed as necessary to monitor and assess bear har-
vests and distribution,
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and tianagement
Approved:
Colton II. Bridges
Deputy Director
Prepared by
Date
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
q^UM'?
'
ACME
fOOKR'^OiNn CO.. INC.
AUG Z'3 1984
100 CAMBRIDGE STREET
CHARLESTOWN, MASS.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11