Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013 with funding from
Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries
http://archive.org/details/massachusettsgam1820mass
nn^^. tyr ^^ ^' ^
PERFORMANCE REPORT
sj
I
State
Project Title
Project Type
Period Covered:
Work Plan I
Massachusetts
Project No.
W-35-R-18
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 1975 to 31 May 1976
Statewide Game Harvest
COLLECTIUN
MA: 3 1 IJ//
Unive:
Plan Objectives;
Job I-l
Objectives:
Summary:
To determine the statewide harvest of selected small game
and furbearer species and to present recommendations, based
upon management practices and regulations, to increase the
utilization of certain species.
Statewide Small Game Harvest
To determine the statex^fide harvest of selected small gan^e
and furbearer species and to determine the time expenditX^re
by sportsmen,
A sample of 400 hunters (consisting of two subsanples of
200) was surveyed by telephone to determine their harvest
and participation in small game hunting. Additional special
questions concerned deer and squirrel hunting and the land
use practices at Quabbin Reservation.
Hunter effort was greatest for pheasant, ruffed grouse,
cottontail rabbit, woodcock and ducks. Hunter success was
greatest for pheasant, cottontail rabbit, ducks, ruffed
grouse, and gray squirrel. Estimated harvests were greatest
for ducks, cottontail rabbit, raccoon, pheasant and gray
squirrel. Sample totals may not accurately represent actual
totals. However, useful trend information can be estab-
lished.
The estimated number of Massachusetts deer hunters was cal-
culated as 66,684 +4.7 percent. Shotgun hunters ranked
first (97.8^.), with archery and primitive firearm hunters
both comprising approximately 7.5 percent of the total.
The sampls estimate of 5,474 successful antlerless permit
applicants was not significantly different from the actual
total of 5,570.
Most hunters had no opinion regarding the length of the
squirrel season. The majority (79%) of those desiring a
change v/anted an earlier opening date.
Of those respondents indicating a preference, 65.4 percent
supported no change in the land use policies at Quabbin
Reservation.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
//5146
W-35-R-18:I-l
Target Date: 31 May 1979
Progress: On schedule
Deviations: None
Recomnendations: Continue the small game harvest survey annually for the
next three years la order to establish trends In hvinter
numbers and bag take.
Use the same sample quantities and procedures as in 1976
except that the sample should consist of 400 small game
hunters rather than 400 hunters.
Continue liaison with cooperators to refine sampling and
analysis of the survey.
Remarks: Procedures. A sample of 400, consisting of two subsamples
of 200 each, v/as used for this telephone survey based upon
experiences in previous postcard surveys and recommenda-
tions from cooperators.
The sample was drawn from the calendar 1975 license sales
of resident hunting and sporting licenses. Each county was
represented in the sample by a percentage equal to the per-
centage of the combined license sales for that county. For
example, if Worcester County had 40 percent of the licenses
sold, then 40 percent of the sample was from Worcester
County. Towns to be sanpled in each county were determined
by listing each to^rn in alphabetical order and numbering
sequentially, commencing with one. Town numbers were then
extracted from a book of random numbers separately for each
county. Selected pages were read continuously until the
requisite number of town selections had been attained. In-
dividual towns could be and were frequently selected more
than once. Twice as many numbers as required were drawn to
allow for negative contacts.
License stub cards were filed by tovm in several filing
cabinets . There was no sequence to the cards within the
town. Individual stubs Mere selected by drawing a random
number and measuring in the requisite number of inches or
millimeters (depending upon the thickness of the pile) .
The first legible resident hunting or sporting license at
or after that point was the card selected.
The survey was conducted using a statewide WATS line. Calls
v;ere made between 4:30 and 3:30 P.M.
Response data were transferred to IBIt cards and totalled by
computer by a cooperator at the University of Massachusetts.
W-35-R-18:I-l
Findings; In the first sample (i.e., subsample) , 240
sportsmen had to be contacted in order to reach 200 in-
dividuals v7ho did hunt. In the second sample, 226 were
contacted in order to yield 200 actual hunters.
Responses were initially tabulated separately for each
species. Tlie number of hunters seeking and the number
of hunters successful by species for the two subsamples
and their expanded statewide estimates are presented in
Tables 1 and 2.
The subsample s were dravm from license sttibs filed by
calendar year. However, license sales totals for the
year sampled (1975) had not been tabulated on a calendar-
year basis. Therefore, the mean combined sales of
resident hunting and sporting licenses for the last two
years (1970 and 1971) for which calendar year totals
were available were used as an approximation of 1975
sales. This mean license sale figure was used in the
expansion of the data.
Approximately 16.7 percent (40 of 240) of the hunters in
the first sample bought a license but did not hunt. In
the second sample, this percentage was approximately
11.5 and in the combined sample was 14.2. For each
sample and for the combined sample, the approximate 1975
hunting and sporting license sales (115,946) were reduced
by the respective percentage to obtain an estimate of the
total number of hunters statewide.
For each subsample, the number of hunters reported seek-
ing each species was expressed as a percentage of the
total number of hunters in the sample of 200. This per-
centage was then multiplied by the estimated total number
of hunters as calculated for that sample to obtain an ex-
panded number of hunters seeking each species.
A successful hunter was defined as a hunter who took at
least one individual of the species he sought. Hunters
seeking more than one species were regarded as successful
or unsuccessful separately for each species hunted. The
number of successful hunters was then tabulated by spe-
cies and expressed as a percentage of the total number
of hunters seeking in the sample. For each sample, the
expanded number of himters seeking each species was re-
duced by the respective percentage to yield an expanded
number of successful hunters.
There were 167 (83.5%) hunters seeking one or more of 13
small game species in the first sample and 171 (85.5%)
hunters in the second sample. When tested by chi-square
analysis, these were not significantly different
(x2 = 0.09, t.05 = 3.841). However, if hunters seeking
0)
I
CO
4J
OB
M
<H
1^
M
O
«M
03
(U
•H
O
0)
Ou
CO
>»
VI
0)
I
u
0)
(1)
g
09
0)
§
P3
«M
(0
CD
0)
O
O
3
CO
«M
o
M
0)
,o
c
p
s
g
to
«\
■u
tL
V4
C
o
•H
a
^
CO
CJ
O
o
CO
■u
4J
0)
(U
M
w
(U
d
u
^
q
a
i*
v«
K
w
tn
«4^
o
•— <
u
o
0)
o
^
Cv|
0)
iH
0) (D (u c:
S H PM 3
3^
•o
3
CO
<u
M
M-4
u
T3
0)
CO
Q)
C
^
to
■P
fl)
OJ
c
a
3
O
3
X
s
O
:3
w
3
CO
4J
1
0)
t;
c
IW
rH
d
r^
CSJ
CO
c
c^
•<r
c
cr\
in
>*
C\
o
o
<u
to
a -H
•
•
•
«
•
•
•
ft
•
•
•
•
•
o
CO
0
X
rH
o
<r
vO
o
CM
o
iH
evj
«y\
CM
o
c
M
Q)
to
Q)
•Cf
lO
o
in
CM
r^
o
r>.
o
p»-
c.
0)
O
CO
0)
iH
CX4
CJ
CO
o
CO
0} 0)
CO CO rH
<U >-• ci{
o CJ G
y +J r,)
3 g CO
CO 9
I— I G
. M
to
<u 0) c:
•owe
ca 3 ^
ex £3 0)
M • CO
O
0
0) •
M O
0)
P4
0)
e
CO
0}
U <i)
<U tiC iH
4-1 CS CM
ffi 0) CO
• CO d
O -H
o
CO
in
in
rH
1^
o
o
o
in
-a-
CO
o
o
iH
rH
<T
CM
O
CO
rg
en
iH
<!■
CO
o
o
O
m
in
(N
CO
o^
CO
Csl
cr\
r*>
nH
o
CA
CM
•<J-
r^
CO
C^!
CM
CO
CO
iH
O
in
C>J
C>J
«*
CM
CO
o
Cvj
A
:%
A
«
c*
A
c%
9k
«
r^
CO
CO
CO
o
CM
•<3-
CO
o
CO
iH
rg
CM
1-4
o
CO
0)
•H
O
<U
i^
CO
in
CO
C3
CO
CV4
CM
c^
CO
o
CO
ro
CO
in
C^
CM
VO
CO
C^
CO
r*
r«.
a.
rH
crv
o
r^
CM
-*
f>.
O
CO
c
CM
1-i
VO
^
in
r--
m
iH
c
O
<r
as
r^
<t
r^
»;f
ff«
«
vk
^
fi
M
•k
A
A
#*
•
c
CM
CO
*3-
c<\
CO
o
r^
o
VO
»H
<t
O
fH
CM
rH
CM
CO
rH
O
C
c
o
in
O
in
c
C
o
c
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CM
m
<t
m
CM
c^
o
CM
CO
r>.
r-*
**
VO
T~\
C^J
iH
CM
CO
»H
m
o
o
«cr
c
CO
o
in
CO
rH
»*
VO
^
CO
CO
CM
in
CM
in
VO
rH
CO
CO
o
in
o
o
to
4>
3
00
o
o
M
o
O
o
TJ
to
o
CVJ
<U
to
r-i
o
no
^
iw
CO
•H
'd
CO
1+-4
0)
CD
O
d
o
3
rt!
3
o
CO
3
Pd
hi
O'
^^
u
o
.a
ja
to
(V
f-i
c^
CO
cu
M
iH
a
»^
•H
•H
<0
0)
3
g
U
o
cr
d
d
x:
CO
o
4J
CO
o
CD
o
to
rH
CO
4J
[5
>N
o
o
CO
O
4J
O
cO
o
X
XJ
U
8'
o
d
l-i
CO
o
0
o
u
CO
o
c^
I*
P3
H
0)
O
VM
O
^?
•
C
M-l
a
O
0
CD
U
U
0)
M
h3
O
a
J3
w
*ii
CO
«%
*J
to
*J
c
(U
•H
m
^
3
(U
x:
0)
o
cn
cd
en
n
CO
49
4J
c
o
p
t^
s
CM
iw
U-l
O
o
V4
0)
0)
iH
XI
a,
3
c3
w
•
r^
<u
l-l
x>
(fl
H
0(0 <U
a ^ u u
(u CO (u a
3 H Pui 3
T3
d
CO
0) M
<4-l
M
m
m
iH
CO
CM
o
r^
o
en
CO
rH
CM
tH
T3 <U
CO
Q)
CO
vO
in
cr*
vO
o
en
m
VO
cn
CN
o
in
S-g
CO
•p
o
C\
r*
m
en
o
tH
r^
r-l
C3^
VO
»H
cu
c
A
•
A
M
A
A
c\
CN
#*
91
ou 5
o
5
iH
o
0^
m
O
o
C5^
VO
VO
r^
X S
u
ffi
CM
en
f-i
CM
CM
fH
w
3
CO
fH
CO
4J 3
(U
C)£
C ^
iH
d
o
00
ro
CM
o
o
r^
v£3
a^
VO
CN
O
c
d) CO
a«H
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O CO
6
,a
1-i
o.
•«*
o.
o
c:-
VO
iH
CM
CO
CO
O
in
U 0)
CO
<u
<t-
m
m
>*
«:1-
r«.
VO
r*
s*
r^
r*.
in
CM
<u o
CO
d)
(U o
to
3
^-t
CO
o
3
CO 0)
09 to iH
CU V4 CM
U (U g
3 C CO
CO 3
CD
-O 4J C
C C -H
CO 3 -i«J
(X S 0)
X OJ
W . CO
O
<U tH
M O 0
0) CO
CU CO
CO
(U to iH
4J c EM
C -H C
3 ^ CO
53 OJ CO
<u
. CO C
O "H
CM
CsJ
Cn
m
iH
o
fH
O
cn
cn
cn
m
CM
CO
CO
CN
CO
o
m
m
CM
CM
CM
p^
CM
cn
tH
cn
CO
o
o
VO
CN
o
cn
CM
C7N
cn
CM
CO
m
CvJ
cn
cn
m
CM
o
CO
(7n
cn
VO
in
cr.
m
in
VO
m
0-.
CJN
CM
cn
m
c
CN
in
cn
m
o
in
CM
m
o
CM
00
m
m
NO
vD
cn
St
m
CM
CO
c^
in
o
CM
m
o
CM
in
o
m
cn
VD
m
m
o
cn
m
in
m
CM
Cv)
CD
m
o
o
c
tH
CM
in
ON
CM
a
Csl
d
o
o
CM
in
cn
VO
cn
o
m
o
CO
CO
CM
CM
ON
in
CO
in
*Q
^
0)
S
cu
tH
(0
CQ
0)
u
•J
0)
•H
3
O
o
iH
ca
U
O
u
5
•H
•H
<U
o
4J
^
CO
(U
3
d.
53
o
0
4J
o
C
d
CO
•T3
CO
o
CO
3
a
^
CO
o
(U
CD
tH
o
TS
CO
CO
o
CO
o
U-i
I
•H
T3
CO
^
CO
u
>
>%
CJ
vw
CO
O
d
o
o
u
o
CO
o
3
S
3
O
CO
3
a.
o
a
M
CO
ci
Ct
►2
u
P
o
u
CO
O
a
fa
CO
(J
o
CO
o
H
in
CM
CO
M
0)
U
§
CM
rH
vO
CM
O
d
o
CU
cn
CO
Xi
d
o
•H
CO
d
CO
a
o
CO
g
O
d
•H
•O
0)
(0
CO
^
Q)
■M
g
^
>>
i«-i
rH
o
<§
^^
m
u
•
0)
VO
J=
tH
W-35-R-18:I-l
more than one species v/ere treated separately for each
species, there were 507 hunters seeking small game in
the first sample and 585 in the second sample. This
difference is significant (x^ = 11.20, t.Ol » 6.635).
There was no significant difference between samples in
the number of hunters seeking individual species, except
for cottontail rabbit (x^ = A. 05, t.05 = 3.841) and snow-
shoe hare (x^ = 7.07, t.Ol = 6.635). No explanation can
be advanced as to the reason for the differences on these
two species.
There were 138 hunters in the first sample and 139 in the
second who were successful in taking at least one unit
of small game of any species. This difference is not
statistically significant. The percentage of successful
hunters taking individual species was significantly dif-
ferent for three of 13 species — Canada goose (x^ = 5.24,
t.05 = 3.841), onossum (x^ = 13.57, t.Ol = 6.635), and
snowshoe hare (x^ = 7.11, t.Ol = 6.635). No comparisons
could be made for fox and bobcat due to the absence of
successful hunters in one sample. The differences for
opossum are likely due to the small sample for that
species. Ho reasons can be assigned for the differences
in success percentages for the other species.
The reported, mean and expanded bag take for both samples
is presented in Table 3. The expanded bag take per
species was derived by multiplying the mean take per
successful hunter times the expanded number of successful
hunters.
There was no significant difference in the total reported
take between the first sample (1,655) and the second
(1,643), (x^ = 0.09, t.05 3.841) nor between the mean
take per successful small game hunter (9.91 versus 9.61;
x2 = 0.01, t.05 = 3.341). There was also no significant
difference in mean take per successful hunter as compared
for each individual species.
Expanded hunter numbers and bag take for the combined
sample of 400 are presented in Table 4. The expanded
take is probably not an accurate representation of the
statevjide harvest of some species. Furbearer harvest
data for the 1975-1976 season shows pelt returns from
licensed furbuyers of 5,572 raccoon, 517 fox (red and
gray) and 11 bobcat as opposed to an estimated take
(from the survey) of 90,292 raccoon, 498 fox and 249
bobcat. Estimated 1975 waterfowl harvests, presented in
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicers Administrative Re-
ports, are 90,489 ducks and 6,563 Canada geese, as opposed
to telephone survey totals of 221,503 ducks and 20,661
geese. Survey figures, however, can provide useful trend
data if conducted in a consistent manner from year to
year.
(U
■M
U
O
a
w
m
4J
4J
0)
CO
o
TO
CO
o
o
«M
O
(0
0)
CO
o
o
(D
H
•o
C
C
C
(0
<u
o
a.
(U
C4
rH
0)
CN|
o
v£)
r^
iH
vO
CO
in
O
cn
m
CO
^
•T3 0)
CO
00
t-v.
CO
cr>
m
iH
o
rH
C_>
r^
VD
CO
C rid
iH
CO
si-
<f
<!■
CO
m
<■
CTv
in
r^
cn
vr
(0 CO
e«
M
9\
A
^
0
A
«
A
c\
A
a H
<}•
m
CM
ro
CO
\D
sr
OD
P^
t^
iH
X
in
a
cn
VO
CO
CO
m
iH
r«.
U)
u
fH
iH
iH
0)
a
CO
C
O
o
(U
CO
(U
3
^
<4-l
>-l
c«
W
a
m
CO
CO
r^
CO
r^
c
CO
CO
in
r^
O
O
rH
H
CO
0)
CO
•
cn
•
in
•
CO
•
tn
•
CN
m
o
•
CO
•
•
O
•
O
•
•
c
cu
o
3
CM
CSJ
CO
<i-
in
CN
CO
<t
CO
S3-
iH
O
o
CN
03
o
K
iH
o
o
0)
3
rH
iH
>i-i
^-4
CO
U 0)
o nj
(U
tH
a
CO
(0
•H
Pt4
CO
H
(0 CLi
0)
iH
u CO
0) 0)
o
o
3
CO
(1)
4J (U
M ^
O CO
Pi
CO
<y
•H
o
(U
CM
CO
rsi
rH
CV!
o
CO
VO
m
CO
CO
o
r^
O
CO
CO
o
Cs)
rH
r«j
fO
VO
T>
<U
r^
in
00
in
iH
o
CO
■^
CO
r^
o
•o <y
r*
C>J
CO
CO
Cvj
CO
VO
r>.
rH
<?■
iH
C ^
in
VC
o
in
•<}■
CO
c^
<•
VO
VO
CO
CO CO
A
M
•^
ffs
A
0s
A
Wk
«^
»
a H
CO
CO
cr>
rH
r^
<f
NO
rH
cs
CO
^
«*
ON
m
VO
<•
o
rH
t^
CN
e*4
rH
m
CM
vO
VO
•
CM
CO
VO
in
CM
CM
CM
O
•
Cvl
O
c
CM
CO
o
CM
VO
in
m
ON
ON
OS
m
c
CNl
CM
CM
vO
in
o
in
CM
o
-*
O
CM
CM
m
CM
tH
sr
ON
in
in
VO
<i)
CO
d
o
O
OJ
M-l
3
4J
c
CO
CO
CO
CO
3
u
o
o
o
o
a)
CO
o
o
o
CO
CO
Z2 u
CO
u
3
Q
CO
CO
o
o
<M
I
03
d
o
u
u
o
0)
u
o
Xi
CD
o
CO
o
u
u
•H
3
cr
CO
CO
M
O
a
o
o
o
CJ
CO
(IS
X
o
U4
CO
o
Xi
•a 0)
CO CO
a. H
>i
0)
3
,1-:
^
U
CO
CO
<U
H
M
ca
4J
0)
<u
c
C
d^
o
3
CO
o
l»l
ii
P
»-4
CO
0)
C
0)
4J
CO
u
a
(U
CO
<u
3
i^
H
(Vi
H-H
'O
/-v
(1)
<U
■M
<?J
tc
U
^
c
o
CO
CO
a H
c^:
0)
Pi
TJ 0) CO M
C ^ CO cu
CO 6 cu -u
P- 3 o c
O P
CO
4J 3 iH 60
0) cn 6 "H
CO CO ^
O CO (U
u a;
o CO
3 vw
CO o
CJ
u
0)
3 iH
M tM CO a
(U
CO
u
B
^
CO
o
CO
6
0)
■u
CO
3
o
c
CJ
3
3 PC C
CO -H
Q)
•H
CJ
(U
CO
m
tn
CO
CO
r-^
CO
CO
r«*
CO
CO
fM
CO
cr>
c>
cr^
<r
rH
o
o
CO
LO
SO
cro
C7^
CTn
•<r
CM
p«.
o
CM
vo
m
r>i
r^
tH
tH
CM
S3-
CM
A
oy
<H
<\
Vs
0*
0\
ff\
<Ht
A
f\
o
o
P-.
sr
o
iH
CM
in
in
r^
O
m
CO
•<r
vo
OJ
CM
CM
Csj
rH
rH
r«.
cy>
o CO fH Ln
r«s CN o
o
r^
r^ vO O O
so CM iH «cr
CO c^ o
CO
r>»
iH cn o o
• • • •
• • •
•
•
• • • •
eg CM in sf
s* o en
•<r
CM
in CM fH rH
O O O CM
iH CO O CO
00 -;f in
<r CM CM
cr\
cyv
CO
CO O C3N
O O cs|
• B • O
iH pH CO CM
rH CCJ CM
CO
•
fH
• • •
s* rH O
rH
o
/"s /-^ /"^ /"N
<t csj m <r
fH rH CM CNl
1 1 1 1
iH rH fH fH
s^ \-/ v«^ ».•
(1-17)
(1-100
(1-6)
r-
CM
1
rH
^-\
CM
iH
1
fH
(1-25)
(1-70)
(1)
fH
cvi o c^ 00
o <}■ CO in
CM CO rH CM
CO O C3^
CO C7^
00
m
rH
VC
O CO CM
rH VO
CO CO
rH
CO
CM
CM
CO
CO cr r«. rH
O vD O CO
c^ cr CM <r
CO in vD
CM in sd-
r^ fH r^
00
ON r-» CO
CM vo cr\
cr\ CT\ <r
CM
<\ 9^ «^ (\
« ff»
«^
(A
A «K
CO CO en sd-
rH CO iH
■<!■ C
CM
m
CM
m
<t VO
C fO CO in
CO c o
CM
O
in in r<> o
CO in r>» CM
CTi o o
r-
o
c^ CO in o
• » • •
» • •
•
•
• • • •
fH Cr> CO CM
CO in in
iH
o
CO <!• CO m
sr m m m
CO r^ rv
r>*
in
r» CO CM CM
vo CO r- CO
r*. m CO m
0> rH CO
rH 00
o
iH
CM
CM
O 00 CM
vO CM
vo
CM
CO r^ O ON
<r CO m
C7N
CO
O rH CSJ in
CO <■ fs. fH
CO r^ c7\
r^
vr
fH iH <r ON
f^ C3N vO vo
ON 00 CJN
O
C!N
ON CM r^ ON
f^ M #k M
A n
A
A
«S M «H
m CO m r^
CO o
vO
O
CO 00 rH
<S- VO fH CM
rH eg
CO
rH
iH
o m m m
O o o
m
O
o in
in
O
o CM i>s r>s
o o o
CM
o
O CM
r>>.
O
• • • •
• • •
•
•
• •
•
•
vO -d- in r»»
<r r^ rH
vO
fH
0% CO
fH
fH
-d- vo rH CM
tH CM
CO
fH
rH
<}■ r^ o-
CO in vc
fH c^i
vo CO sa-
in o
in
vo CO r^
r^ CO
CM
o
fH
CO
CO
CO
U M CO 0) rH
C CJ (3 *J O Q) 3
%3a)cO ocO 334Jjc: MO
CUCOCOrHanJaJCOCOO-HCO Mo
4-1 3 CO'H'-J (0 CO^ tO-U^ 5 CJ p>s'H O
M-tOCUctiOdOOO-U^OMc03O
3M^30C003 iO,Oc03(0Mcrd
4J
CO
tJ
X ,0
O O
e^OPuc&cjOQOuc-lcoKOcopiiiiccj
o
in
•
in
CM
o
>s
fH
s
u
o
CO
u
o
CO
CM
in
A
ON
cy>
3
o
(U
CO
CO
c
o
•H
CO
3
CO
O
CO
i
fC
O
3
0)
fH
i-
CO
CO
u
O
&>?
CM
W-35-R-18:I-l
The 13 small game animals sampled were ranked by hunter
effort, hunter success, and abundance In the bag and
then compared with results of the 1970 postcard survey
(Table 5) . Rankings of the earlier survey did not in-
clude opossum.
The top five animals by hunter effort in the 1976 survey
(combined sample) were pheasant, ruffed grouse, cotton-
tail rabbit, woodcock and ducks (in decreasing order of
effort) , V7ith the remaining eight species having less
than 9.9 percent of the hunter effort. Rankings were
similar in 1970 with the first seven of 12 species equal
in preference to those in 1976.
The top six species by hunter success in the 1976 survey
were pheasant, cottontail rabbit, ducks, ruffed grouse,
gray squirrel and woodcock, with the remaining seven
species each having less than 10,000 successful hunters
each. Rankings in 1970 were similar, but with ducks-
grouse and squirrel-woodcock switching rankings with
each other.
The species with the greatest estimated harvest (combined
1976 survey) were ducks, cottontail rabbit, raccoon,
pheasant, gray squirrel, woodcock and ruffed grouse.
Harvests of the remaining species were less than 50,000
units each. Rankings were largely different in the
earlier survey, with cottontail rabbit, ducks, pheasant,
woodcock and gray squirrel predominating in the bag. One
major discrepancy in these rankings is the abnormally
high estimate of raccoon harvest in 1976. Comparisons
are closer if this species is disregarded.
One special question . asked if the respondent hunted deer
in Ilassachusetts in 1975. There were 131 (65.5%) affirma-
tive ansv;ers in the first sample of 200 and 137 (68.5%)
in the second. These percentages were multiplyed by the
estimated statewide population of hunters for that sample
in order to derive an estimated number of deer hunters in
the state. The sane procedure was followed for the com-
bined sample of 400, which had 268 (67.0%) deer hunters
(Table 6).
The estimate from sample one was 63,262 deer hunters; from
sample tv/o 70,049, and from the combined sample 66,684.
All three estimates were within the range (68,104 +
5,380) of a deer hunter estimate derived from an earlier
telephone survey of 151 regional deer hunters .
Another question surveyed hunter participation in various
types of deer seasons. Respondents were categorized in
six seasons and combinations of seasons and expanded for
each sample to an estimated number of hunters for each
category of season (Table 7). The greatest number of
sportsmen hunted the shotgun season only, followed by
H
CO
a)
•H
O
Q)
^
CO
o
a
r^
CO
c^.
Ci
rH
ij
O
"c
t^
CO
CN
«
iH
J2
iH
•H
CO
4J
c
CO o
O ♦J
:3 o
r-ICSfO<tir>vOr^C0CNC'iH<vjCO
.-J <U
(U
0) CO
Q)
Wi
U 3
W
CO
M O
O
«
•H U
O
4J
3 ^ C5
C^^
0)
fl
c
cr o
o
n
o
fT*
CO O 'O
a
,r:
3
4J
o
CO
a oi
fH
■■■o
CO
CO
to
o
to
5>.T3 y-i
•H
CO
»>
►-■•
CO
o
u
(i)
CO o y-4
CO
C
o
o
X
,Q
^
M O 3
r"! r^ fii
3
CO
CLD
c^
i^^
o
Cx^
o
cgtHc^com-vfvofoor^cOiHcM
00
u
«
4J
CO
§
CO
s
0)
o
iH
CJ
3
3 «4-l
w
CO
CO
M
a)
(U
o
4J
o
§
3
en
►— «
t->4
•
o
s
CO
(U
•H
O
a
p.
en
^
vO
a
r>.
CO
C^
fii
fH
a;
C
(^
iH
4-1
•H
,Q
^
CO
CJ H
cu
Oi
CO (U
3 H
M CU
to (0
iH
O V<
ffi o
•H
U -H
0) O
*J CO
O 3 ^
C *J
cy o
C
o
g
CO C
•X3 en O
O
^ CO
3
4J
CO o
CO
0) U
tH
o
m T3
CO
CO
CO 4J
^
«*^ >N'3
•H
o
& CO
(0
o
0) ^
o
«+^ to O
CO
o
O C5
o
X
x>
iP o
3
3 M O
3
CO
CI CO
a
o
o
Z CJ
Q
P^ o :2
C tf
cn u
o
fe
m
r^c^J^|^«;rmvor>»cx^c^Or^^^^co
iH rH »H rH
rHCM«^CO\OmOOOr--C?.OTrHCsl
CO
0)
•H
CJ
QJ
a
en
s
^ o
■ c
S
c
CO
CO
4J
cu CO
CO (Xi
3
O rH
U
O
CO >*^
CU
CO
c
O
iJ
3 O
(Xi O
•T3
0)
O
O
CJ
o
o
<u
M
•H
3
cr
en
to
o
3
>i«H
cJ CO
M 3
0)
CO
o
o
o
to
T)
CO
C
CO
(U
M
CO
<U
o
CO
:s o o o* o en
d
o
o
o
O N
CO O
CO CO
CO o
a. o
o «
iHtSCON;t-invOr-OOCy>OrHCM<N
tH fH fH tH
rHCMcn-<rir)\£)r^cyic::)rHOcncN4
fH rH • tH
I
cu
CO
o
55
en
5^
Table 6. The Estimated Number of Deer Hunters In Massachusetts in 1975 as
Derived from Two Surveys of License Holders
Survey
No.
1
Sample
No. Hunters
Estimated
Range
Size
in Sample
Percent
Mo. Hunters
(95% C.L.)*
151
93
61.6
68,104
62,724-73,484
Survey
No.
1
Sample
No.
Hunters
Estimated
Range
Size
in
Sample
Percent
No. Hunters
(95% C.L.)*-'<
(1) 200
131
65.5
63,262
59,023-67,501
(2) 200
137
68.5
70,049
65,426-74,572
(T) 400
268
67.0
66,684
63,550-69,818
* t 7.9%
** (1) = +
6.7%;
(2) - +
6.6%;
(T) =« ± 4
u7%
I
00
4J
M
CO
(U
CD
M
&
o
M
O
0
4J
H rH
0>
o
o
0)
§^
CO
en
o
0)
c
o
CN
(4-4
O
fi>
iH
CO
t3
O
O
<U
o
o
iH
(^
ri
to
4->
CO
VI
•H
W
O <U Q)
§
a rQ -u
4J
CO
4J
o
O 0)
,0
>-l di
g
w
B d
na
(U
CO
4J
»^
M
cd
0)
0)
{^
.xa
4J
•H
C
4J
jj
3
w
IT»
M
w
0)
0
<1)
w
iH
M
>-4
C
Q)
<u
e
^
4J
en
E
c
tn
P
^'
S
ffi
ti
TJ
<U
CO
■P
V4
v<
CO
cu
(U
E
,Q
•u
•H
C
c
■U
3
CO
S
Kf-I
u
4J
§
0
M
CU
(1)
CO
rH
p
V4
p.
<u
<u
0
u:i
4-1
CO
i
§
en
S
ffi
C
c
O
CO
CO
a)
en
vO
0
so
in
iH
0
0
0
iH
0
0
CO
CO
CO
CO
VO
rH
0
rH
0
rH
CM
«t
»
9k
#k
«^
tfh
«^
m
<r
■<t
VO
»n
m
m
VD
0
0
in
0
0
in
0
m
m
CX)
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
tH
iH
m
0
vO
0
0
0
rH
r«.
r*
en
CO
eg
CM
0
0
rH
rH
CO
VO
CM
0
CM
0
CM
CM
vO
CM
to
0
in
0
CO
0
iH
0
CO
0
0
St
0
CM
CM
m
St
rH
CO
rH
(ft
A
A
M
^
C^
»t
PV
«
T-\
iH
SO
fH
•<!-
0
CM
VD
CO
VO
in
m
C
0
0
0
0
VD
00
rH
•
iH
CO
CO
cs
r>.
d
e
0
rH
CO
c»
CJ
OJ
0
<M
rH
CO
0
rH
0
CO
rH
m
CM
rH
CO
CO
rH
en
0
CO
CO
0
m
VO
CN
CO
0
CO
m
CO
CO
VO
CsJ
VO
CM
CM
iH
CM
m
CO
CO
rH
CO
*«
tK
M
9(
«1
A
•»
VD
CM
CO
VO
r-^
CO
CM
VO
iH
tH
CO
00
0
■<f
rH
0
0
rH
St
•
iH
rH
rH
•
VO
in
•
CO
tH
rH
o>
0
iH
CO
rH
VD
■U
•H
M
rH
iH
CO
rH
in
rH
CO
■u
•H
M
PL,
iH
ON
CM
rH
0
u
<
>
•H
4J
•H
E
•T-
Vi
§
60
0
x:
en
§
4J
0
-d
en
•0
4J
iH
3
CO
iH
(0
<U
0
H
>>
U
<U
J3
0
M
<
.H
3
i
CO
4J
0
Xi
en
»H
5
W-35-R-18:I-l
equal numbers in the shotgun-archery and shotgun-primitive
seasons, equal numbers in the exclusive archery and ex-
clusive primitive seasons, and the least hunters partici-
pating in all three seasons. No respondents hunted only
in the archery-prinitive combination of seasons.
Respondents were then regrouped into three participation
categories — archery, primitive, and shotgun hunters — and
expanded accordingly for each sample. The combined total
yielded an estimate of 65 j 217 shotgun hunters and 5,001
hunters each in the archery and primitive seasons. The
calculated number of archery hunters is significantly
different (x2 = 129.2, t.Ol = 6.635) from the 1975 sales
of archery stamps (5,872). This can partially be ex-
plained by: (1) the sample was dravm from calendar 1975
license sales, but the archery stamp sales \;ere from
Fiscal 1975 T-Thich included only the calendar 1974 archery
season, (2) there is no estimate of how many hunters
bought stamps but vzere later unable to hunt, (3) there is
no estimate of how many stamps were bought by collectors.
Respondents indicating that they did hunt deer in
Ilassachusetts in 1975 were further asked v/hether or not
they applied for an antler less deer permit, and if they
did apply, whether or not they were successful. Responses
are listed in Table 8. The combined sample estimate of
the number of applicants V7as 39,562 (38,150 - 41,045 in
subsamples). This considerably exceeds the actual number
of applicants (33,0^^0) . ITo reasons can be assigned for
this difference. The expanded number of successful ap-
plicants (combined sample) » however, was 5,474 which is
not significantly different (x^ = 1.65, t.05 = 3.841)
from the actual number of 5,570.
Another special question concerned the dates of the
squirrel hunting season. Hunters were asked whether they
were satisfied with the present 20 October opening date,
and if not, whether it should be earlier or later. Tlost
hunters (224 or 56%) v/ere satisfied, with 135 (33.75%)
having no opinion. Thirty-eight (9.5%) desired a differ-
ent opening date, and 3 (0.75%) did not respond.
The majority (30 or 79%) of those desiring a different
opening date preferred an earlier date, while four (10.5%)
hunters each preferred a later date or did not respond.
Those hunters who preferred a change were asked if they
had read any articles on an earlier opening date for the
squirrel season. Thirty (79%) had done so, with 11
(36.7%) reading it in Massachusetts Uildlife magazine,
eight (26.5%) reading newspaper articles, five (16.7%) in
other sources, one (3.2%) in both magazine and newspaper,
and five (16.7%) not disclosing their source.
u
o
s
w
CO
0)
•s
rH CO
y-t :3 ij
"d O "4-1 C
0) m CO
r-v
1^
•d-
TS M w o
o
in
r*.
d o <y -H
CO
rH
sr
to /3 O rH
^
M
0t
cu a o &
<t
NO
ir>
X 3 d a.
te 3 w <:
o
u
<a
tH CO
o u-i g
CO ra
u o o
0) <u -H
§o &
=* 9-
5 cAi <
CO
^ 4J
U -ri C
oj e CO
XI M u
S CD -H
9 (i. rH
s a
o <^
CM
o
•n
CO
CO
CM
CM
00
«4-4 4-1
T3 O C
O (0
o
to
CM
X) M CJ
in
sr
VO
C (U -H
rH
o
lO
CO J3 rH
«%
•
A
asp.
cc*
r-i
C!>
>«' 3 a
CO
sr
cn
w ^: <
C
c
o
m
o
m
o
r^
o
•
•
0
M
(TV
o
ON
(U
en
vt
cn
a<
O
00
en
in
.^ CO
4J M
c: (u
3 u
/-^
/«^
^N
o s
c
o
o
45
c
o
o
CM
CM
<r
>-«'
>«•
\^
s*/
M
^v
/-s
/'v
<u o
rH rM
CM r^
•T3 CO
iH Q)
m
CO
<U vO
ac
<U rH
0) rH
C IN
E3
.H >-'
rH ^-^
•H v-'
CO •
a
O.
,Q
en o
a
CO
§
a
o
^
CO
CO
U
U-35-R-18;I-l
A final special question asked all contacts (including non-
hunters) to respond to the statement, "The current land-use
policies for Quabbin should remain unchanged." with one of
five opinions. Host (215, 46.1%) v/ere uncertain, V7ith
147 (31.6%) agreeing, 57 (12.2%) disagreeing, and 27 (5.8%)
and 20 (4.3%) expressing strong agreement and disagreement.
Nearly two-thirds (65.4%) of those expressing an opinion
desired no change in the land-use policies for the Quabbin
Reservation.
Acknowledgments: I extend my appreciation to Mr. Joseph liawson of the De-
partment of Forestry and Wildlife llanagement of the
University of llassachusetts for his continuing cooperation
in devising and analyzing the survey.
IIASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AITO TflLDLIFE
Bureau of Uildlife Research and TIanagement
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
Prepared by
James E. Cardoza, Game Biologist
Date
7
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State:
u
Project Title:
Project Type:
Period Covered;
i^assacl^usetts
Projectf^ll^ber:' W-^9^^1^
COLlitllwH
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey ... . ,-,
Research and Survey
I June 1975 to 51 May 1976
« 4( « « « « 4t
Of.
Ui u<-
Work Plan I
Objectives:
Job 1-2
Job Objective:
Summary:
Target Date
Progress
Statewide Game Harvest
To determine the statewide harvest of selected small game
and furbearer species and to present recommendations, based
upon mafiagement practices and regulations, to increase the
utilization of certain species.
Statewide Beaver Harvest
To determine the statewide harvest of beavers by trappers.
A total of 1,135 beaver was taken by 107 trappers in 103
towns during the 1975-75 beaver season. This take is
significantly less than both the 1974-75 take and a ten-
year (1966-1975) mean take. Harvest trends from 1967-71
to 1972-76, however, have significantly Increased in all
counties and regions.
31 May 1979
On schedule.
Significant Deviations: None
Recommendations: I. Continue tagging of beaver pelts and recording of
data In 1977, using the same methods as In the current
segment.
2. Although this year's harvest is significantly less
than the previous year's, I I do not interpret this as
necessarily indicating a similar decline In beaver popula-
tions. Pelt prices were initially quite low and trapping
effort was correspondingly less. Several long-time trap-
pers have stated that they spent less time afield this
year. Further, long-term trend Information Indicates an
Increase rather than a decline in the beaver harvest.
Nuisance complaints dropped slightly from III in 1974 to
96 in 1975, but the cost of handling them was up from
about $4,850 to about $5,025.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
W-35-R-l8:l-2
Harvests J« individual towns do fluctuate considerably,
particularly in those towns witli normal ly high beaver
populations. Parsons (N. Y. Fish Game J. 22:57-61, 1975)
Indicates that concentrated trapping pressure can signifi-
cantly reduce localized populations. Fluctuations In
Individual towns are probably due to a period of heavy
trapping, followed by a period of lesser effort as the
trapper's take declines. When populations have recovered
trapper effort and harvest again Increases.
3. I understand some trappers wish to eliminate the two-
week November portion of the season on the basis that the
pelts are not yet prime. This may be justification for
them. On the basis of harvest trends, however, I see no
evidence of a continuing population decline and no present
necessity for reducing the season. Harvests for 1976-77
should be compared with the current harvests and recommen-
dations revised then. If necessary.
Cost: $859.51 (project leader man days - 10)
Remarks: Procedures: Each successful beaver trapper is required
by law to present his pelts to an official checking sta-
tion for tagging and recording of data. Seven stations
are maintained for two days at the close of the season.
Pelts are tagged with locking metal game seals and harvest
data are recorded on mimeographed forms and subsequently
tabulated by month trapped, town and county trapped In,
and type of trap used.
Findings: The 1975-76 beaver trapping season extended
for 15 weeks from 15 November 1975 to I March 1976.
Trappers took 1,135 beaver during this period. This take
was 309 less than last season's harvest of 1,441 and 84
less than a ten-year (1966-1975) average of 1,219. There
were 107 trappers (116 in 1974-75) taking a minimum of one
beaver each, with a mean harvest of 10.6 beaver per trap-
per (range: I to 72).
Beaver harvests for 1974-75 and 1975-76 for the five
western couniies were compared statistically by chl-square
test for goodness of fit (Table I). Harvests declined
significantly (99)^ level) In al! counties except Worcester.
Current harvests were also compared with ten-year (1966-
1975) countsand state means (Table 2). Franklin county
showed a highly significant (99p) decline. ^Jon-sign if leant
changes were recorded in Berkshire, Hampshire and Worcester
counties. Hampden County showed no change.
The 1975-76 harvest In the western region (those towns
west of the Connecticut River) was significantly less (99/b
level) than both the 1974-75 take and the ten-year mean
(Table 3). The eastern region, however, showed no signifi-
cant change from either the previous season or the ten-year
mean.
W-35-R-l8:l-2
Harvest trends were examined by comparing mean harvests
for the five seasons from 1967-71 to the five seasons
from 1972-76 (Table 4). The five western counties, both
regions, and the statewide total all show highly signifi-
cant {99$ level) increases in the harvest trend.
Harvests were also examined for several individual towns.
Current harvests for the 12 towns with the highest ten-
year (1966-1975) mean takes were compared with the past
year's harvest and with the ten-year mean (Table 5).
Highly significant (99^^ level) declines from 1974-75
showed for seven towns while the five remaining towns
had non-significant changes. In comparison with the ten-
year mean, three towns showed highly significant decreases,
two highly significant Increases, one a significant (95p
level) increase, and six showed non-significant changes.
However, when these same towns were also compared for the
five-year periods, 1967-71 and 1972-76, an increasing trend
is still evident. Nine towns showed highly significant In-
creases In the harvest trend, while three had non-
significant changes.
Towns with lesser harvest rates probably also experienced
fluctuations in harvest trends. The three lowest towns
with ten-year mean harvests of at least ten beaver all
show non-significant changes In harvest trends (Table 6).
Beaver colonies located In 102 to'.vns contributed to the
1975-76 harvest (Figiii-e i } .Berksh ir.^ and Franklin counties
yielded slightly ove*" one-half (536, 5i.7^) of the harvest.
Hampshire, Worcester and Hampden counties contributed an-
other 476 beaver (41.95^), with Middlesex, Plymouth, Essex
and County Unknown comprising the small remainder.
Success continues to be greatest In the first two weeks of
the trapping season. Over one-half (573, 50.55?) of the
beaver were taken from 15-30 November (Table 7) with an-
other 352 (31. Op) taken In December. Slightly more were
taken in February this season (78, 6.9^) than in 1974-75
(67, 4.6^), probably due to increased trapper effort In
response to a late increase in pelt prices.
Use of the Con I bear trap was up slightly this season, with
788 beaver (69.4^) taken In that style trap, as opposed to
906 (62. 5f.) in 1974-75. This increased usage of the Coni-
bear may be due to precautionary Fhunning of the leghold
trap which was subjected to a partial ban commencing
I July 1975. Both the Con I bear and the leghold are legal
for drown-set beaver trapping, however.
W-35-R-l8:l"2
Table I. Analysis of beaver harvest by county, 1974-1975 and 1975-1976.
1974-75
1975-76
X2
County
Harvest
Harvest
Berkshire
505
356
106.324
Frankl In
324
230
65.689
Hampshire
263
187
52.850
Hampden
138
1 19
5.650
Worcester
164
170
0.432
Slq. DIff. /Level
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
.01
.01
.0
,05
Statewide*
,441
1,135
147.479
Yes
.0!
* Includes also Essex, Middlesex and Plymouth Counties.
Table 2. Analysis of beaver harvest by county, 1975-1976 and ten-year mean
Ten -year
1 975-76
X2
3.306
County
Mean
Harvest
356
Siq. DIff. /Level
Berkshire
392
No
Frankl in
270
230
9.259
Yes .01
Hampshi re
180
187
0.272
No
Hampden
1 19
119
0
No
Worcester
192
170
2.521
No
Statewide*
1,219
1,135
5.788
Yes .05
* See footnote on Table I.
W-35-R-l8:l-2
Table 3. Analysis of beaver harvest by region, 1974-75 to 1975-76 and ten-
year mean to 1975-76.
1974-75
1975-76
Reqion
Harvest
Harvest
Western
1,026
698
Eastern
415
428
Ten-Year
1975-76
Reqion
Mean
Harvest
Western
813
698
Eastern
403
428
258.990
0.802
Siq. DIff. /Level
Yes .01
No
16.267
1.551
Siq. DIff. /Level
Yes
No
.01
Table 4. Analysis of beaver harvest by county and region, 1967-1971 to
1972-1976.
1967-1971
1972-1976
X2
Area
Mean
Harvest
Mean
Harvesf
Siq.
DIff. /Level
Berkshire
300
465
149.298
Yes
.01
Frank 1 in
193
334
162.534
Yes
.01
Hampshire
130
240
143.494
Yes
.01
Hampden
79
149
94.911
Yes
.01
Worcester
164
197
12.168
Yes
.01
V/e stern
588
970
398.607
Yes
.01
Eastern
389
478
36.933
Yes
.01
Statewide*
927
1
,489
552.834
Yes
.01
* See footnote Table I.
vO
«
in
c
ro
E
U
(D
0)
5^
I
C
0)
•D
C
(0
r-
J
in
ON
in
ON
I
"it
0^
c
o
o
+-
>
(O
CD
>
(0
Q)
O
c
<
in
JO
>
CO
o
tn
o
ri_J
in
>-
^
0
in
>-
O
2:
in
CD
>-
tn
<D
>
CD
>
in
0
2:
0
0
2:
^X
ON
o
CM
O
VO
o
o
CNJ
0
CD
CN
ON
CM
in
to
0
0
0
0
ON
CO
in
0
VO
O
lo
in
CM
0
in
ON
CNI
p^
CN
0
0
vO
+-
r^
in
1
0
in
>
r^
i-
CJN
ro
—
X
o
in
in
rn
CN —
in
CN
in
ON
CJN
CN
(N
CN
L.
ro
<D
c
>»
(0
1
0
c
s
0
^
C3N
r^
vO
CN
CN
•^
0
CO
CO
00
in
VO
•d-
■«:t
^
■^
ro
fO
rO
CN
CN
(N
CN
>
en
o
n— 1
in
to
in
in
in
in
in
0
<D
(D
0)
0
0
0
0)
0
0
0
0
)
■z
>-
>-
>-
>■
>-
Z
>-
>-
z
2:
2:
CN
00
0
CN
00
CN
CJN
ro
CN
CO
CN
r--
K>
0
CN
CN
r-
CN
CO
0
0
CO
CN
CN
ON
0
0
00
CN
r^
C3N
^
r^
m
X
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
—
(X)
—
"«*
"^
0
—
^
ro
tn
0
0
N^
VO
VO
''l-
—
VO
+-
r^
in
1
0
in
>
r^
t_
ON
(0
— -
X
o
in
in
CN —
in
•St
Csj
in
<3N
c^
CN
CN
CN
in
•f-
r^
in
»
0
"^
>
r*
i.
ON
<a
—
X
CN
in
to
vO
0
,—
C7N
CN
in
•<i-
r^
0
"^t
CO
r--
m
VO
CN
in
tn
CN
CN
CN
0
TJ
0
c
0
c
E
^
JD
-f-
■0
e
0
c
ro
—
cn
L.
0)
■a
■a
jii
5
x:
M-
1_
c
0
—
TJ
cr
0
0
in
U)
(0
+-
•—
M-
(D
(D
C
0)
1-
I-
•^
^
Q)
x:
■0
CO
rtJ
x:
?
®
in
-0
^
t
C
4-
0
■0
+-
•—
c
5
CJ
(0
3
Sl
—
c
L
il>
s
(D
Q)
0)
0
0
to
0
(D
CL
to
:z
CD
S
GQ
Z
<
H-
3
X
w-j^-rv- I o; i-ii.
Table 6. Analysis of beaver harvest for 15 towns, 1967-71 to 1972-76.
1967-71
1972-76
Town
Mean Harvest
Mean Harvest
X2
Siq.
Diff. /Level
Petersham
62
52
3.536
No
Otis
31
67
61.149
Yes
.01
Sandlsfield
46
41
1.153
No
New Marlboro
34
47
8.566
Yes
.01
Becket
32
52
20.192
Yes
.01
Worth Ington
17
50
85.839
Yes
.0!
Blandford
15
51
111.812
Yes
.01
New Salem
18
42
45.714
Yes
.01
Ashfleld
32
40
8.100
Yes
.01
Tol land
15
31
25.325
Yes
.01
WInchendon
21
36
16.964
Yes
.01
HardwIck
21
24
0.803
No
Shelburne
11
9
1.818
No
Townsend
8
12
3.333
No
Lenox
8
10
0.900
No
Table 7. Beaver harvest by month, 1974-75 and 1975-76.
1974-
■75
1975-
■76
Month
No.
Beaver
Percent
No.
Beaver
Percent
November
721
50.0
573
50.5
December
449
31.2
352
31.0
January
176
12.2
100
8.8
February
67
4.6
78
6.9
March
--—
4
0.4
Not Stated
28
2.0
28
2.4
Totals
1
,441
100.0
1
,135
100.0
_J
o
l\l if Y'-i
A
:y/6o/f,Ji
3r^
:i>
•n.^
V^
•"♦►^♦■W/ -*■
vO
r^
in
r-.
as
f-\
•
U
^
CU
CO
>
cd
(U
o
•
,£5
■p
u
(1)
cr»
t^
>
JQ
CO
j-i
CU
o
Xl
x>
UH
0)
CX lO
p
a CO
5
ct3
iH
o
•
>-l
rH
fl
iH
■u
^
II
c
0)
M
3
M
(U
rH
3
>
CO
p
GO
CO
■M
[j
•H
<u
O
O
pt^
pq
H
H
<?
W-35-R-l8:l-2
Average spring prices were about $19 per pelt, for an
estimated harvest valuation of $21,565.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Richard Cronln, Superintendent
Prepared by
James E. Cardoza, Game Biologist
Date
i'liKFyKIlATJCE IlEi'UKT
wn^
State
llassachusetts
IT UBP"
Project No. IJ-SS-R-IS
Project Title
Project Type
Period Covered:
Work Plan II
Plan Objectives;
Gane Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Survey
1 June 1975 to 31 Itoy 1976
llassachusetts l-Jhite-Tailed Deer Study
GOVFftmvit,v; uvCufwtMTS
M/V; 0 1 IS//
Job II-l
To determine through the collection and analysis of perti-
nent deer harvest data, the sex and age structure of the
herd and to develop manageroent and harvest procedures based
on project findings.
Statewide Deer Harvest
Job Objectives: To determine the annual harvest of deer in llassachusetts.
Summary:
Target Date:
Progress :
Deviations:
The 1975 statewide deer harvest for all deer seasons was
2,522 deer which is a decrease of 257 deer below the 1974
harvest of 2,779 deer. The reason for the decline in the
harvest vjas not determined. Seventy percent of the deer
harvest v/as reported in the four western counties of Berk-
shire, Franklin, llarapden and Hampshire. Worcester County
contributed 9 percent of the statewide harvest and Barn-
stable contributed 4 percent. The islands of Dukes County
reported 8 percent and Nantucket contributed 7 percent of
the reported harvest. Deer management zones one and two
contributed 1 percent each to the overall statev/ide deer
harvest .
31 August 1976
On schedule.
None
Recommendations: Continue this job. See Job II-4 for future recommendations.
Cost: $65,000
Presentation of Data:
Introduction
In Massachusetts there are four different types of deer
hunting seasons. In 1975 (1) a two-day special hunt for
paraplegic deer hunters was held on 3-4 November; (2) the
18-day archery season continued from 8 November through
27 November; (3) the six-day shotgun deer season,
1 December through 6 December ; and (4) the three-day primi-
tive weapon season from 3 December through 10 December.
Hunting is not allox/ed on Sundays.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
//5146
W-35-R-18:II-l
Since 1967 j Massachusetts has had a statewide antlerless
deer hunting permit system for the shotgun season. All
hunters may legally harvest a deer vjith antlers three
inches and longer. To harvest a female or a male vzith
antlers less than three inches, the hunter must have been
issued an antlerless deer hunting permit. All hunters dur-
ing all four deer himting seasons are required to bring
their deer to an official deer checl:ing station to be re-
corded and tagged v/ithin 24 hours of harvesting a deer.
Antlerless deer hunting permits are issued on a deer manage-
ment unit basis. The number of sportsmen's permits per
management unit, the deer shotgun harvest per sex, rank of
importance, and the percent of the total harvest per manage-
ment unit is presented in Table 1.
Archery Season
In 1972, the archery season was expanded from 12 days to an
lS-da}7 season. A summary of the statev/ide archery harvest
below shows an increase from 76 deer in 1972 to 113 in 1975,
1967
Summary of the llassachusetts Archery Harvest, 1967-1975:
1963 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
Male
Female
17
-A
21
21
13
34
27
10
37
24
12
26
10
36
36
49
27
76
51
26
77
62
25
87
74
39
113
The mainland archers reported 96 deer taken consisting of
62 males and 34 females. The four mainland counties v/ith
the highest archery harvest in order of importance were
Berkshire (34 deer), Franklin (18 deer), Worcester (15 deer),
and Hampshire (13 deer) .
The Nantucket archers reported 14 deer (10 males and 4 fe-
males) . Three deer v/ere reported by Martha's Vineyard bo\;-
men (2 males and 1 female, see Table 2).
Paraplegic Season
Paraplegic hunters took 3 male and 2 female deer during the
two-day special season on Martha's Vineyard
Primitive Firearms Season
During the special three-day primitive firearms deer season,
the hunters reported harvesting 24 deer statewide (11 males
and 13 females) . T\\e kill per county in order of impor-
tance is as follows: Berkshire, 10; Hampshire, 4;
Worcester, 3; Hampden, 3; Dukes, 2; Barnstable, 1 and
Nantucket, 1 (Table 2).
W-35-R-18:II-l
Shotgun Season
During the six-day shotgun only deer season, hunters re-
ported harvesting 2,353 deer. Of these deer, 1681 v/ere
males (199 male favms) and 672 were females (Table 2) .
The four top deer-producing counties v;ere Berkshire (843) ,
Franklin (425) , Hampden (224) and Worcester (208) as in-
dicated on Table 1. Tlie reported shotgun deer harvest
of 2353 represents 93 percent of the total deer harvest
statewide.
Deer harvest data shows that 1366 adult males, 138 favm
males and 521 females, a total of 2025 deer, were taken
on the mainland. The Nantucket deer hunters reported 163
deer consisting of 62 adult males, 27 male fawns and 74
females. On Martha's Vineyard, a total of 165 deer were
reported taken (54 adult males, 34 male fawns and 77 fe-
males). The Gosnold Island hunters reported taking 10
males and 28 females.
A summary of the 1975 !Iassachusetts shotgun deer harvest
by sex and the county rank of importance from 1970 through
1975 is presented in Table 3. Berkshire and Franklin
counties have remained the top-ranking counties for the
past six years. Hampden and Worcester counties remain in
the third and fourth slots unchanged since 1974. Hamp-
shire and Dukes counties swapped rankings with Hampshire
moving in the fifth ranking position. Nantucket remained
unchanged from the 1974 rank. With the exception of Barn-
stable, the remaining counties may fluctuate from year to
year, but harvest in any county is seldom over 30 deer per
year.
Total Harvest Figures
Appendix 1 presents a ten-year summary (1966-1975) of the
annual deer harvest by town and county. There was a de-
crease of 257 deer below the 1974 kill of 2,779 deer. All
preshotgun season indices (statewide reported deer mortal-
ities and the 1975 archery deer hunter success) indicated
that the 1975 shotgun season harvest should exceed the 1974
kill. However, the final tally shovzed only 2,522 deer
reported for the 1975 deer seasons. The reason for the
decline in the 1975 season has not been determined. It
is speculated that a combination of factors such as un-
seasonably hijh temperatures, a lack of snow and lack of
hunting pressure may have influenced the harvest. Ilany
hunters reported seeing more deer this year.
From 1967 through 1971, there was an annual increase (from
20 to 39 percent) in the female deer harvest due to an in-
crease in the nunber of antler less permits issued. In
1972, the number of antlreless permits was reduced to 4,000
permits on the mainland. From 1973 through 1975, the per-
cent of females in the total harvest has remained at a
healthy 30 percent as shox^m below:
W-35-R-18:II-l
Percent of Females in the Total Harvest
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
20%
23%
29%
32%
39%
34%
30%
30%
30%
Male
Female
Total
1967
954
239
1193
Table 4 presents a summary of the 1975 deer harvest per
sex per management unit. The statewide harvest per sex
since 1967 is presented as follows:
Kill Statewide for Each Sex, 1967 through 1975
1968
1104
323
1427
1969
1451
595
2046
1970
1629
776
2406
1971
1385
899
2284
1972
1504
787
2291
1973
1477
644
2121
1974
1949
832
2781
1975
1779
754
2533
The ratio of male to female deer determined from the state-
wide deer harvest for 1975 was one male to .42 females.
This ratio has remained constant since 1973. The ratio
of male to female in the deer harvest fluctuated v/ith the
number of antler less permits issued. In 1967 and 1968,
2000 sportsmen's permits were issued and the sex ratio
was 1 male to .25 females and 1 male to .29 females,
respectively. In 1969, the number of permits was increased
to 4000 and the male to female ratio was 1 male to .41
females. The number of antlerless permits was increased
to 6000 permits and ratio of males to females in the
harvest was 1 to .43 in 1970 and 1 to .65 in 1971. A
slight decline was noted in 1972 of 1 male to .52 females
with the reduction of 2000 permits to the present issuing
of 4000 permits per year.
The shotgun, archery, primitive and paraplegic hunter har-
vest per sex per county for 1975 is presented in Table 2.
Antlerless Permit Data
An Increase of 3000 antlerless permit applications was re-
corded for the 1975 season with 33,000 applicants compared
to 30,000 applications in 1974. There were 4200 sportsman
permits; 370 farmer- landox^ier permits; 400 Nantucket and
600 Martha's Vineyard antlerless permits issued in 1975.
Due to an oversight at the card sorting machine, it was
necessary to issue an additional 200 permits for Frankli
County. This accounts for the increase to 4200 permits
in 1975 above the 4000 permits issued in 1974. The 1975
harvest of deer by antlerless permit holders was 1012
deer (Table 5) .
In 1975, the 365 famer-landowner permittees reported
harvesting 71 deer. Nineteen percent of the 370 permit
holders reported taking a deer (Tables 5 and 6).
W-35-R-18:II-l
Table 7 presents a summary of the deer harvest per
sportsmen's permit per deer management unit and the suc-
cess ratio of antlerless permit holders for 1975. The
permit holders success ratio remained about the same as
for the 1974 shotgun season with a ratio of 1 to 6 on the
mainland; 1 in 4 on the Vineyard, and 1 in 3 on Nantucket.
There were 400 antlerless permits issued for Nantucket
Island. The harvest by permit holders showed that the
harvest of male fawns was about the same as the previous
year with 26 button bucks taken in 1974 and 27 male fawns
reported in 1975. The antlerled male harvest by permit-
tees decreased by 5 deer in 1975 with 17 reported and 22
reported in 1974. The female harvest by permittees in-
creased 8 deer with 74 reported in 1975 and 66 reported
in 1974. The total harvest by permittees V7as 118 deer
in 1975, a slight increase of 4 deer above the 114 deer
reported in 1974 (Table 5).
There were 600 antlerless permits issued for I^lartha's
Vineyard. The permittees harvested 132 deer in 1975.
This v/as a decrease of 17 deer less than the 149 deer re-
ported by permit holders in 1974. There was a slight in-
crease in the male fa^^ms with 34 button bucks reported
in 1975 compared to the 29 skippers reported in 1974.
The 22 antlered males reported by permit holders in 1975
was 3 deer less than the reported 25 antlered bucks in
1974 (Table 5) . There was a decrease of 19 females in
the 1975 harvest with 76 reported compared to the 95 fe-
males in 1974.
The 4200 antlerless permit holders on the mainland reported
harvesting 762 deer. There was a decrease of 23 male
fawns from 148 in 1974 to 125 in 1975. The antlered male
harvest doubled from 80 deer in 1974 to 161 in 1975. The
female segment decreased by 126 from 602 females in 1974
to 476 females in 1975 (Table 5).
************
Job II-2 Non-Hunting Deer Mortality Investigations
Job Objectives: To determine the annual non-hunting decimating factors of
the Massachusetts deer herd.
Brief Summary: From 1 January to 31 December 1975, Natural Resource Of-
ficers reported 508 non-hunting deer mortalities. There
were 183 males, 286 females and 34 deer with no sex re-
ported resulting in an adjusted sex ratio of 39 percent
males to 61 percent females. The highest cause of these
mortalities was motor vehicles with 362 deer reported.
Dogs caused 60 mortalities and there were 25 illegal kills,
29 dead of unkno^^m causes and 32 from other causes.
Target Date: 31 December 1975
W-35-R-18:II-2
Status of Progress: On schedule.
Deviations: None
Recommendations: Project should continue as it presently exists.
Cost: $14,000
Presentation of Data: Techniques
Natural Resource Officers report deer mortalities to the
Law Enforcement Division in Boston. A copy of each report
is provided to the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Findings
From 1 January through 31 December 1975, Natural Resource
Officers reported 508 deer mortalities. Of these, 158
were males, 286 females and no sex was reported on 34 deer.
The number and causes in order of Importance were as fol-
lows: motor vehicles, 362; dogs, 60; illegal, 25; crop
damage and other causes, 17; fences, 7; drowned, 4;
trains, 4; and unknovm causes, 29 (Table 8).
A five-year summary, 1970 through 1975, is presented in
Table 9 and compares the 1975 deer mortalities per cause
with a five-year average. With the exception of the 1975
motor vehicle mortalities which is 10 deer above the five-
year average of 352, the mortalities are below the five-
year average.
The 508 deer mortalities reported in 1975 are 7.68 percent
higher than the 469 deer reported in 1974 (Table 10) .
The adjusted sex ratio (Table 11) for 1975 deer mortalities
is as follows:
Adjusted Sex Ratio
200 males : 303 females
60 males : 100 females
39% males : 6l% females
(1974 sex ratio =
42% males : 58% females)
Table 12 presents the non-hunting deer mortalities ranked
by county, 1969 through 1975. The first three counties,
in order of importance, v/ere Berkshire, Franklin and Barn-
stable. These counties remain in the same rank as in
1974. Nantucket Island moved from tenth place to fourth
this year. I believe the move was due to the stationing
of a permanent Natural Resource Officer on the island.
W-35-R-18:II-2
Hanpshire and Worcester counties are tied for fifth rank.
Hampden County moved fron ninth spot to sixth, V7hile
Essex County remained in seventh place. Middlesex County
moved from tenth place to rank ilumber Eight. It is inter-
esting to note that Dukes County dropped from sixth rank
in 1974 to tenth rank in 1975.
Job II- 3
Job Objectives
Summary :
Target Date:
Progress
Deviations
Deer Fertility Studies
To determine the reproductive rate per age class of the
Massachusetts deer herd.
This job V7as inactive during the period covered by this
report.
None
Inactive
None
Recommendations: If fimds are available, the job should be continued,
Cost:
Remarks :
None
Inadequate funds for transportation forced the inactive
status of this job.
Job II-4
Job Ob j ectives :
Summary :
Deer Management Recommendations
To determine the size of the Massachusetts deer herd and
to recommend management techniques that will provide the
deer hunter with the greatest hunting opportunity commen-
surate with herd population levels.
There was a slight decline of 278 deer in the 1976 state-
v;ide shotgun deer harvest, yet the male favm and female
harvest made up 38 percent of the harvest. This percentage
has remained unchanged for the past three years and we
have no explanation of the decline at this time. The pre-
dicted increase in the 1-1/2 year old male class occurred
in 1975 with 303 1-1/2 year old males aged at mainland bi-
ological deer check stations. There vrere 255 1-1/2 year
old males reported in 1974.
The calculated minimal population, based on the percent of
1-1/2 year old males reported at the biological deer check
stations, was 11,975 deer. This is an eight percent de-
crease from the 1974 minimal population figure of 12,904
deer.
W-35-R-18:II-4
Target Date:
Progress:
Deviat Ions :
Recommendations :
The percent frequency ratio of adult females to adult
males on the mainland V7as .27 while on Ilartha's Vineyard
the frequency ratio was .90, and on Nantucket the ratio
was .70. The percent frequency ratios for the shotgun
only season were slightly lov/er.
The success ratio of antlerless permit holders for 1975
on the mainland was 1 ; 6. On ilartha's Vineyard, the
success ratio was 1 : 4 and on Nantucket, the ratio V7as
1 : 3 for successful permit holders.
30 June 1976
On schedule
None
The following numbers of sportsmen's antlerless permits
issued per county and/or region are suggested:
County
Barnstable
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
Worcester
Region I*
Region II**
Martha's Vineyard
Nantucket
Naushon
Number of Sportsmen
Antlerless Permits
200
1300
700
400
300
700
200
200
600
400
50
Cost:
* Region I - Essex, lliddlesex and Norfolk Counties
** Region II - Bristol and Plymouth Counties
The application number of the antlerless permits beginning
with first and last numbers for each county and for each
type of permit should be recorded and filed in the deer
project files. This data will facilitate the programming
and the analysis of the deer harvest by permit holders.
$750
Presentation of Data:
An eight-year summary of the sex and age composition of
Ilassachusetts deer at biological deer check stations on
the mainland and for five years on Martha's Vineyard and
Nantucket Island is presented in Table 13. Interestingly,
althou;3h the mainland deer harvest was lower in 1975
than the 1974 harvest. The predicted increase of 1-1/2
year old males did occur in 1975 (Table 13) . There were
255 1-1/2 year old males reported on mainland biological
stations in 1974. The 1975 harvest of 1-1/2 year old
W-35-R-18;II-4
males was 303 reported at the biological stations.
Uith the exception of the decline in the expected har-
vest in 1975, the sex and age composition on the main-
land and the island appear to be in good shape (Tables
13, 14, 15, and 16).
Table 17 presents a summary of the JIassachusetts shotgun
deer harvest from 1967 through 1975. The statev/ide shot-
gun harvest vjas 2391 deer which is a decline of 278 deer.
The greatest decline in 1975 v/as in adult males (1492)
when compared to the 1974 kill of 1665 adult males. There
was a small decline of 14 male fawns (199) from the 1974
harvest. The adult female harvest was down by 85 deer
(473) in 1975 compared to the 1974 kill of 563 adult does.
The smallest decline in the harvest x^as the 6 fawn females
V7ith 222 reported in 1975 and 228 shot in 1974. Thirty-
eight percent of the total deer reported during the shot-
gun season were button bucks and does. The 38 percent
figure has remained constant for the past three years of
1973 through 1975.
A summary of percent change in adult harvest and calcu-
lated minimal populations of deer in Massachusetts, 1967
through 1975, is presented in Table 18. There was a de-
crease of 11.6 percent in the adult male harvest with
1665 adult bucks reported in 1974 and only 1492 adult
males taken in 1975. As a result of the decrease in the
adult male harvest, all calculated populations showed
varying percentages of decrease. No explanation for the
decline of the deer harvest can be offered at this time.
However, I believe that there were adequate deer present
in the herd so that the harvest could have reached 2800
to 3000 deer statewide in 1975. This was based on mortal-
ity reports and reported sightings of numbers of deer by
Natural Resource Officers and Division personnel. In
other words, the deer were there, but the hunters just did
not harvest them.
Tables 19 and 20 present a summary of the adult male and
female harvest per square mile of deer range per county
in Massachusetts from 1970 through 1975. The statewide
deer range per square mile data was recently updated using
aerial photos taken in 1970 (Land Use Changes and the
Massachusetts Deer Herd, 1976, Phillip J. Sczerzenle ,
Massachusetts Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts).
Prior to the updating, the deer range per square mile was
based on aerial photographs taken in 1950 and 1951.
The number of adult males per county (Tables 19, 20, and
21) was computed by subtracting the number of male fawns
from the reported male harvest found in Table 2. The
adult female harvest (Tables 19 and 20) was determined
by subtracting the percent of female fawns from the total
reported female harvest per county. The percent of female
W-35-R-18:II-4
fawns V7as computed from the reported female harvest at
the biolof>ical stations (Tables 14, 15 and Ifi) . The adult
male and female harvest per county vras determined by
dividing the square miles of deer range per county into
the adult harvest (Tables 19 and 20) .
The decline in the 1975 deer harvest was reflected in all
counties with a slight decline in the adult harvest per
square nile of deer range. This was true for both adult
sexes except for an increase in the adult male harvest in
Hampshire County. In 1974, .27 adult males were reported
and in 1975, .34 adult bucks per square nile v/ere reported
in Hampshire County.
The computed harvest of adult males per square mile of
deer range for the mainland in 1975 was .25 antlered bucks.
This is .02 of a buck lov/er than the high of .27 adult
males reported in 1974. There was a decline of .14 ant-
lered males in Dukes County with .70 adult males reported
in 1975 and .84 reported in 1974. There was an unexpected
increase in the adult male harvest reported on Nantuck.et
Island with 1.99 males reported in 1975 and 1.69 reported
in 1974 (Table 19).
The adult female harvest reported on the mainland declined
slightly in 1975 with .07 adult does harvested per square
mile of deer range compared to a harvest of .08 adult fe-
males reported in 1974. There v;as a decline of .04 adult
does per square mile of deer range in Dukes County with .63
females reported in 1975 and .67 adult females reported in
1974. There was an increase of .19 adult does reported
taken on Mantucket Island in 1975 v/ith 1.39 adult females
reported in 1975 and 1.20 adult does taken in 1974
(Table 20).
A siimmary of the total harvest of deer in Ilassachusetts
(including shotgun, archery and muzzle loader harvest) per
county per sex and the harvest of deer per square mile of
deer range in Nassachusetts for 1975 is presented in
Table 21.
The statev/ide harvest of deer per square mile of deer range
was .42 in 1976. Of the .42 deer, .30 were males and .12
were females. There v/as a decline of .02 deer per square
mile from the 1974 harvest of .44 deer per square mile
(Table 21).
Table 22 presents the percent frequency ratio of adult fe-
males to adult males from 1968 through 1975. Although
there was a decline in the deer harvest for 1975, the main-
land deer herd appears to be in good shape in regard to
the harvest of adult females to adult males (Table 22) .
On Martha's Vineyard, the adult harvest is approaching a
one-to-one frequency and it may be necessary to reduce the
number of antlerless permits if it appears that the overall
herd is being overharvested.
W-35-R-18;II-4
Prepared by
There was a slight increase in the Nantucket harvest and
yet the adult male to adult female frequency (.69 in 1974
to .70 in 1975) has not changed significantly (Table 22).
Table 23 presents a summary by deer management unit of the
shotgun deer harvest, the number of sportsmen antler less
permits issued, the harvest per square mile of deer range
for adult male and female deer and the percent frequency
ratio of adult females to adult males for 1975. All in-
dices (adult harvest per square mile of deer range, per-
cent frequency adult male to adult female ratios and the
male fawn harvest) suggest that the mainland deer herd is
in good biological balance; i.e., no out of proportion
harvest of any sex or age of deer herd. In Dukes County
the adult deer harvest is almost one adult male to an
adult female. The Nantucket harvest of adult males to
adult females shows that for every 100 adult males taken
77 adult females are harvested. Apparently the Nantucket
deer herd can stand the pressure for another year before
it is recommended to reduce the number of antlerless per-
mits for the island.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AITO WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research & Management
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James J. IIcDonough, Game Biologist
Date
Table 1. Summary of the ITumber of Sportsmen's Antlerless Permits Issued,
the Deer Harvest per Deer Management Unit, the Sex of the Harvest,
the Ranking order of Importance as a Deer-Producing Unit, and the
Percent of the Harvest by Unit for 1975.
Number
Antlerless
Percentage
Unit
Permit s
Hale
Femal e
Total
Rank
of Total
Berkshire
1,300
628
215
043
1
36
Franklin
700
299
126
425
2
18
Hampden
400
170
54
224
3
10
Worcester
700
151
57
208
4
9
Hampshire
300
142
33
175
5
Itertha's Vineyard***
600
88
77
165
6
Nantucket
400
89
74
163
7
Barnstable
200
72
15
37
8
Region II**
200
22
12
34
9
Region I*
200
20
9
29
9
5,000
1,681
672
2,353
* Region I includes Middlesex, Norfolk, Essex and Suffolk Counties.
** Region II includes Bristol and Plymouth Counties.
*** Gosnold's 10 males and 28 females not included.
O U
O
O
H
P:<
09
(1)
i-i
•H
S
U
ft,
o
p^
o
CO
fa
§
o
o
o
CM
o
00
m
•<r
in
CO
o
rH
iH O NO
m
•
m
en
•
O
r^
d
ON
r^
<D
r^
d
rH d 00
r-i
ro
o
in
en
CM
CO
in
ON
CM
tH
CO
r-{
CO
rH
ON
CO
00
m
in
ev|
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
ON
iH
CO
00
rH
CN
<7N
CM
VO
CM
CM
00
CO
vD
CM
O
00
VO
CO
iH
rH
vO
CO
Sf
03
tH
CM
VO
CO
CM
m
m
ON
VD
CM
H
CO
VO
m
in
iH
•*
g
tH
iH
1^
CM
:5
O
tH
H
C
CO
•*
iH
CO
tH
$
m
CM
rH
CM
CM
iH
CM
rH
cn
<n
m
cn
OC
iH
o
CO
rH
3
m
rH
o
H
CM
m
m
CM
•»
m
t*t
CM
iH
CO
rH
in
tH
S
s
fO
O
«n
CM
CO
in
ON
CM
•H
00
rH
CO
00
00
in
m
•H
in
CM
CM
<M
m
CO
CO
vO
H
CM
ON
CM
00
O
CM
00
CO
in
iH
CM
sf
CVJ
rH
m
CO
CO
<J-
rH
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
SO
in
CO
00
in
ON
C>1
o
rH
CM
tH
•<f
c^
00
rH
rH
rH
m
rH
o
fH
0)
rH
0)
-s
•H
rH
5
c
u
X!
o
•JC
tH
0)
0)
O
■M
00
><
M
13
g
^
CO
<y
O
C
a
M
•H
;!<5
m
to
s
«
(1)
M
=J
0)
V4
CO
PQ
PQ
CO
Q
W
fa
rn
ON
ON
CO
CO
m
CM
m
ON
cys
CM
in
to
ON
CO
cy\
ON
CO
CM
O
O
ON
VO
<u
X
4J
V4
^
0)
<U
Xi
(U
•H
CO
^
^
4J
A5
4J
t3
X
0)
CJ
rH
3
rH
00
rH
CO
cn
rH
3
O
o
O
(U
o
rH
fr
•O
■u
>4^
1^
VH
CJ
c
CO
0
t3
G
u
It-I
u
00
4J
CO
H
CO
o
tH
3
o
o
0
ffi
^-1
S
JS
fa
03
:s
o
H
« HC
Table 3.
County Summary of
the 1975
Ilassachusetts
Shotgun
Deer
Harvest
by Sex
and the County Rank in Order of Importance from
1970 through
1975.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
County
Hale
Female
Total
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
Barnstable
72
15
87
8
8
8
8
7
8
Berkshire
628
215
043
1
1
1
1
1
1
Bristol
5
5
12
11
12
12
12
12
Dukes*
88
77
165
6
5
3
3
3
7
Essex
15
4
19
10
9
9
9
10
9
Franklin
299
126
425
2
2
2
2
2
2
Hampden
170
54
224
3
3
5
4
5
6
Hampshire
142
33
175
5
6
7
6
8
4
Middlesex
4
4
8
11
12
11
11
9
10
Nantucket
89
74
163
7
7
6
7
6
5
Norfolk
1
1
2
13
13
13
13
13
13
Plymouth
17
12
29
9
10
10
10
11
11
Suffolk
0
14
13
13
13
13
13
Worcester
151
57
208
4
4
4
5
4
3
Total
1,681
672
2,353
Gosnold
10
1,691
28
700
38
2,391
* Gosnold not included.
Table 4. A Summary of the 1975 Deer Harvest Per Sex Per Management Unit
Unit
Males
Females
Total
Male Favms
Berkshire
628
215
843
50
Franklin
299
126
425
37
Worcester
151
57
203
18
Hampshire
142
33
175
9
Hampden
170
54
224
15
Region I
20
9
29
2
Region 11
22
12
34
1
Barnstable
72
15
87
3
Martha's Vineyard
83
77
165
37
Nantucket
89
74
163
27
Gosnold
10
28
38
Totals
1,691
700
2,391
199
* Gosnold not included
O
o
r-t in VO
CM
o
O iH O
rH O
r»- t>-> sr
00
O
CM <r vo
Cv4
m CM
m
O
o
vo CM r^
O
r^
rH CM <r
r^ O
iH CM r»»
rH
o
c^ CO r^
CO
O rH
r>»
O
<s
.H rH •<l-
r-.
CO
sf
fH
vO
tH
in o
(yi
•k
0t
n #1
iH
en
<f
m rH
o
o
O C? CM
o
CO
00 CM
o
o
CM vD VO
<r
O
in C7> in
0^
CO CO
^st
o
o
CO <r o
CO
in
CO v:!"
CO
o
CM CM vO
r-^
C
Csl Csl 0^
<!■
in cr»
f>.
o
o
rH VD
00
CO
<!■
rH
\D
iH
CO o
CTN
»
«A
> 9k
fH
o
CO
<r
m iH
o
O
r^ CM vo
in
C-.
ro
o
o
so O 0^
VO
<!■
r^
o
o
f-i CO
m
CO
<y>
«k
9t
rH
CM
CO
Sj"
rH CO
m
c
CM c> in
CM CM vO
VO
«
«
f>»
rH in 1^ CO
vO »^
CO
CM CO rH
f^
00 in
VO
rH
rH
CO ao
m
O
o
in VO rH
CM
VO
«* CN
VO
o
CO r^ tH
rH
C'
•<J- f-«» o
r^
o o
CM
o
o
m CO CO
CM
CM
tH <f
m
c
CM iH VO
o
C
CM CO CM
OC
CM r^
r^
o
o
rH in
r^
CO
vr
iH
VO
rH
rH
CO c
c^
fH
00
CO
c
o
<r m 00
CM
o
tH
o
o
O r^ C3^
r>.
p>.
f«v
in
o
tH tH vO
c^
CM
c^
9<k
•«
iH
CO
VO
C vO
CM CM
VD
O
O
VO CT\ O
CM CM r^
in
C
c iH in
VO
o o
CM
o
CO vt c^
VO
r^ vo
iH
V2
tH
CM CM
r^ rH
o
o
o
o
m
CO
o
o
o
VO
^ CO
CM
CM 00
t-t
rH rH
VO
rH
CO
in «si-
CM CO
in
o
o
m -3- m
rH CM CO
CM
O rH CO
CO
cy>
CO
r^ CM
<t 00
r«« o
VO iH
O
o
C^ r^ CO
CTv
in
1^ in
CM
O
0^ rH C>
C7>
c^
o
o
cn c r^
r^
{T<
rH <?
VO
o
CM iH <r
00
vO
o
o
rH •>d-
vO
CM
>3-
ON
«t
A
iH
CM
CO
<■
iH O C^>
o
in 00
CM
c^ 00
so 1^
C
O
CO
c
O
VO
o
o
<3N
M
€\
iH
si-
CM
CM
CO
fO
CM
Sj-
m
VO
r-i VD
CO in
CO CO
«^
CvJ
(0
(0
4J
rH
•H
*
(0
4J
1
CO
O
0)
d
H
PLI
o
•H
m
)-l
u
■M
dj
0)
(tJ
•H
rH <U
5
o
•H
E
•3 1^
rH
<U
S
GJ
'O
(X
Pu
u
rH
c
a
rH C3
^
ca
<
-TD
D ?
•J
G
TJ (d
o
1
4J
CO
< &4
fl4
p
•H
rH
<u
g
.^
g
0)
J9
cd
(U
(£4
(0
H
CD
4J
O
H
a
0)
o
4J (1) cd
*-> rH e
PQ S2 fa
CO
4J
a)
C
CO
8
0)
rH
J3
3
0)
rH
eg CO
S s
cd (1)
fa fa
CI
■u
CO
•H
rH
CO
E
4J
0)
O
fa
H
CO
0)
>.
rH 0)
(U
«2 ';;!
.^ eg
C
CO
•H
cu
>
u
iH
^ C!
CO
CD
3 S
6
•.
•T3 CO
(U
CO
<: fa
fa
^
4J
kl
s
CO
•H
C8
u
o
H
(U
CO <^N
(0 CO
M (U
X
(0 <1)
4.) CO
<u o
fa ^
CO U
4J (1)
o cu
d
CO
CO
d
o
CO CO
0) 3
U CO
3 Z
00
•H CO
73 3
d rH
3 O
Ci (H
I *
Table 6. A Summary of the llassachusetts Deer Harvest per Farmer- Landowner
Permit per County for the 1975 Shotgun Season
Number
Harvest
I'lale
Adult
County
Issued
Fawns
Hales
Females
Total
Barnstable
2
Berkshire
94
3
2
15
20
Bristol
1
Dukes
0
1
1
Essex
0
Franklin
145
5
5
19
29
Hampden
43
2
1
4
7
Hampshire
50
1
7
4
12
Middlesex
0
Nantucket
0
Norfolk
1
Plymouth
0
Suffolk
0
Worcester
34
2
2
Totals
370
11
18
42
71
-a
o
CO
s
c
I
P!
CO
(U
O
CU
g
PL4
CO
CQ
0)
iH
CO
c
CO
s
CO
4J
•
M
•K
o
in
w»-
05
Cn
tH
M
0)
M
P.
o
14-1
4-)
CO
CO
(U
u
>
d)
u
13
CO
rH
ffi
O
w
i-4
(U
4J
0)
•H
c
-{
w
a;
4J
n.1
■M
a
CO
CO
CO
z<
0'
^
iH
o
U
CO
<U
CO
r-H
CO
■p
^—1
5
<3)
14-1
^
O
4->
O
M-l
•H
o
4-1
(^
i^ci
u
CO
CO
3
CO
3
<u
3
o
en
o
3
<
CA>
•
0}
rH
ua
to
H
4J
•H
O
•H
e
4J
<u
CO
pu
(^
CO
CO
CO
CO
a>
<u
rH
o
V4
o
• •
d)
p
M
iH
C/3
(1)
4J
5
<U
o
(U -H
>^ Q)
(U Pm
<U
Q CO
CO
(4-1 (U
O rH
O Q)
•H iH
4J 4J
s §
CO s
CO U
(U cu
.H Oh
u
rH ^
4J
< CO
0)
U-i >
O J-i
CO
• ffi
o
CO
U^ 4J
°^
• u
o cu
S PL.
(4-1
o
CU
iH
CO
E
(U
;l^
rH
CO
OJ
4->
iH
O
CO
H
^-.
4J
rH
CU
3
rH
TJ
CO
<
c
o
^
4J
u
U
3
D
PQ
CQ
CU
rH
to
CO
o
H
3
3
C
o
4J
4J
3
CQ
CU
k4
CO
M CO
3 a
>>
4J
§
o
r-
<t
O
<r
VO
o\
r-
in
r-i
rH
r-{
VO
»*
• •
tH
• •
rH
r-\
iH
iH
fH
rH
rH
iH
r^
O
r^
CM
in
r>.
CM
<3-
O
r*»
r^
C?N
m
00
<t
t^
rH
T-^
CM
cr.
en
CVJ
iH
VO
rH
CM
o
in
r^
CM
ro.
On
rH
r-{
CO
CM
rH
y-li
C3^
CO
0 9
• »
• 0
• a
oc
tt*
f •
• •
90
«o
iH
iH
rH
r-{
iH
rH
rH
O
T-{
rH
rH
<r
r^
(£>
rH
vD
O
c
O
(T-.
O
iH
rH
CM
c>a
r^
in
1-^
o
i-<
rH
O 9
C •
« 0
OO
«•
• »
• •
• •
o •
ft •
iH
T-\
rH
iH
rH
fH
O
O
rH
rH
cr\
vO
c->
O
m
o
c;
o
r^
vO
Csj
in
CO
vO
fO
CM
rH
CM
•<3-
CM
• •
« •
0 o
o«
9 •
e e
0 •
0*
• e
• o
rH
iH
iH
r-^
rH
rH
^
rH
O
T-i
rH
r^
in
i-\
cn
rH
r^
O
cn
r^
CM
Cv]
<■
en
CO
VD
r-^
CO
rH
rH
T-A
r-\
rH
T-\
rH
rH
iH
rH
CO
m
r^
rH
CM
CO
CM
r^
o
CN
CTn
o
m
cn
in
rH
rH
oc
J^
rH
rH
St
cn
o
CM
in
00
CM
in
CM
c^
in
o
en
CM
in
vO
o
c^
m
CM
CO
in
cys
CM
CM
en
c^j
CM
en
en
CM
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
en
•vT
CM
CM
CM
eM
VO
CM
en
m
c^>
cr>
in
cr\
CO
CO
as
o
CO
in
vc
in
CM
in
vr?
en
CO
c
CO
CM
CM
CM
O
C^
CM
CO
m
en
CM
in
en
C^
CM
O
O
in
m
CJ^
CO
vO
CT>
en
00
CM
0)
U
u
C
QJ
•H
•H
4J
x:
rH
CO
CO
^
(U
^
C
o
u
CO
l-l
<u
M
o
QQ
fii
cu
•H
x:
CO
p.
Q
CO
c
a
0
CO
o
•H
00
CJ
£15
o
•H
to
CU
rH
XI
CO
4J
CO
en
CO
4J
o
H
T3
C
CO
<M
VO
e ^
CO
PQ
CO
CO T3
- I-I
«0 CO
x: >^
4J <U
u c
CO -H
s >
(U
o
3
4J
c
CO
'Z
en
en
CM
en
CM
en
CTv
CO
o
c
CM
in
in
<r
CM
en
0)
TJ
•H
cu
4J
CO
4J
CO
t3
cu
3
u
(3
o
c
CO
cu
a
u
(U
o
c
CO
.J
I
M
(U
e
CO
an
O
M
C
CO
o
0)
o
S-i
o
n
tT3
M
3
<p
O
a
01
(0
o
<u
o
(0
<1)
CO
s>
u
a
0)
CO m
»^ 0^
»H
O >-t
<U
>. X>
M E
eg a)
3 Q
c«
<Jj CO
00
0)
O (U
S CO
X
O (U
S 00
S
X
S en
fe
X
o <y
S C/i
o
u
b
CD
a)
X
a)
en
u
CO
3
C
cfl
•-5
O
X
0)
CO
CN»
(U
•
r^
iH
c
fe
Csj
d
•-3
0
rH
<N
S
rH
<r) ^N
CM
in
en
U
CM
Q)
N— '
Xi
CTi
Q
<7N iH CO fH
CM
0)
CM
r^
<u
>d-
Q
in
CM
CO
CN
CO
O CM CM
r^ rH iH
CO
CO
lO »a- rH
CM CO
CO
CO
VO
r** es rH
CM
„. vD SI-
CO
CM
CM
<T» Sf
Sf <N)
CM
CO
sr CM CM iH
in
rH r^
CM
C30
cd
o
u
in
o
N— '
H
o
>;J-
C7\
in
X
r«-
(U
iH
CO
^^
sr
CO
u
fH
<y
V—'
Xi
<f
^
o eg CO
CN
a)
>
CM
o
o
sf
s
CM
CO
m
CM
(0
O
03
I3J
>
O
S
rH -a
Cfl
B
CO
CO
O
H
iH O
5 ^ "-"
S Q M
CO (U en CO Q
CJ
d
0)
CO
Cy-
CO 0) 15
eo rH o
o
o
CO O ^ ^
>-" M C 3
O fii H CJ 13 CO
CO
4-)
O
H
CO CO CO
m ^N
CO ,H
CO
•^
rH
>^
V— '
(D
o
J3
si- rH rH
vr
O
CO
4J
OT
O
m
O
CO
CM
\0 /-N
cr.
sr
sr
CM
CM
CM
CO
m
v£>
CO
CM
c
M
CTn
OJ
"s— '
^
B
ij
4J
<r«
D.
CM
(U
CO
CO
CM
SO 4J
CO
3
so 3
CO <
Oi
in
CM
o
CM
CM
3
VD
CO
CM
VO
00
CV4
cu
>
o
(0
M
(U
c
CO
OJ
CO
E
CO
CO
■u
O
H
rH T3
CO (U 0) CO Q
CjO p 0) c
en 0) 5 CJ -H
to
o
o
O C CO O ^ U3 ••J
»-i QJ Ui Wi C 3 O
rH O
to ^^
4-1
O rH
4J CO
o
c
s
iH
CO
E
0)
CO
vO
(U
CO
iH
N-^
CO
CO
s
CO
in
VO
<u
iH /^
CO
CO
3
On
CO
CM
U
\^
o
rH
CO
CM
CM
CO
o
H
X
0)
CO
o
i
(U
«H
CO
B
r^ ><f r>»
CJ\
CM
00
o
m
vo
CO
CO iH 0> C7N
>3" CO 00 sj-
0)
4J
o
a)
CO
CO CO Q 3
o a o
C CO O Jiri
CD V^ M Ci
Pn H CJ D
CM o uo -a-
vO vO CM
CO
00
CM
00
CO
CO
iH
CO
4J
o
o in CO
CM
CO vO CM CO
•H CO fH
CM
O^ <T> O »H
CNJ rH iH
«
Q)
iH
O
•H
o
jC
CO
0)
3
>
CO
u
M
OMQ|it,HOt3C0H
o
i-i
O
CO QJ
M C
CO 0) 3
to rH O
O rH ^1
S Q M Q
Table 9. Five-year sunmary of di
eer mor
tallties
of Massa
chusetts
deer reported by
Natural
Resources offii
cers. 1970 through 1975
Cause
1970 1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
5-yr
Avg.
Total
Motor Vehicles
400 373
321
321
347
362
352
1762
Dogs
204 219
41
36
33
60
106
533
Illegal Kills
25 39
44
23
35
2S
33
166
Crop Damage
14 4
1
2
1
0
4
22
Unknown Causes
38 41
35
21
33
29
34
168
All Other Causes
17 18
11
15
18
32
16
79
Totals
698 694
453
420
469
508
546
2730
Table 10. A comparison of total non-hunting deer mortalities of Massachusetts deer
from 1969 through 1975.
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
No. cf Deer
Percent Change
682
698
2%
-.6%
694 453 420 469 508
-34.7% -7.3% +10.4% +7.68
Table 11. Comparison of actual rjurabers of deer mortalities by sex* and adjusted
data for Massachusetts deer per month, 1975.
Unknovm
Adjusted
Month
Male
8
Female
14
Sex
Total
25
Male
9
Female
January
3
16
February
12
23
1
36
12
24
March
10
16
3
29
11
18
April
13
40
5
58
14
44
May
14
24
2
40
15
25
June
15
29
3
47
16
31
July
11
16
1
28
11
17
August
2
9
1
12
•2
10
September
12
10
1
23
13
10
October
21
38
6
65
23
42
November
53
27
6
86
57
29
December
Total
17
188
40
286
2
34
59
508
17
200
42
308
Adjusted Sex Ratio
200
miles :
308 females
65
males :
100 females
39%
males :
61% females
* These data were reported by Natural Resource officers.
CO
4->
in
ON
to
Pi
to
o
H
ro
o
C>4
O
in
CSl
CNJ
CO
m
vO
CXD
CM
m
o
en
CO
CVJ
a>
CM
CM
in
o
en
in
CO
C
CO
m
CN
o>
in
C\I
CO
CO
NO
m
o>
CO
O
H
m
cx>
vD
CO
CM
CS
0^
en
en
o
CSl
CM
CM
cn
O
u
Xi
u
cy\
vC
cr>
on
0^
CO
CO
o
CM
VO
0^
O
o>
vO
v£>
O
CS
cn
cn
m
00
CM
m
oo
CM
00
m
r^ «d-
r- C
cn
0^
\0
m
•U
C
O
o
>^
Xi
13
0)
CO
CO
CM
CTx
CO
CO
u
o
H
CO
CM
CM
CM
O
<T\
o
CM
cn
vO
in
in
v£)
CO
m
00
CO
vO
CM
in
CM
CM
CN
iH
CM
CM
o\
m
vD
in
cn
CO
cn
o>
CO
4-1
u
o
a
u
cu
a
4-1
c
I
o
p*.
o
p>.
c;^
CO
u
o
H
(d
4J
o
H
cn
c?>
in
vO
in
CN
>3-
CO
CO
CM
cn
O
ON
CS
CM
in
o
in
m
VO
m
00
CO
CS
CM
VO
00
CM
CM
cr>
m
o\
0}
CO
n
XI
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
0)
CS
0)
rH
X^
CO
H
cr>
vO
as
C
CO
Pi
CO
o
H
O
cn
vo
(U
CO
vO
00
m
cn
in
vo
CM
(7N
CM
o
CM
f-\
p>.
m
r^
o
v3-
CTi
in
in
cn
CS
O
m
CS
rH
XI
rt
0)
V4
s
X!
S
4J
0)
CO
•H
rH
•H
c
•H
CO
^
4J
^
4J
^
4->
x:
O
fH
(U
J=
(U
iH
3
iH
CO
a
CO
w
4.)
X
^
TJ
CO
»H
O
o
O
0)
CO
3
C
^
CO
0)
CJ
eu
a
T3
14-)
1,
14-1
o
0)
4J
U
V4
•H
CO
CO
f3
0
-o
M
14-1
M
^
c
CO
<u
^1
CO
V4
CO
CO
•H
O
iH
3
O
3
CO
pq
PQ
CO
w
(X4
W
a
r^d
s
fi^
cn
:2
Q
S
Table 13. Age composition of mainland Massachusetts male -leer checked at
biological stations, 1963 throuF;h 1975.
Age
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
6 mos.
61
67
121
100
77
•39
73
50
1-1/2
193
229
263
211
260
237
255
303
2-1/2
126
133
147
103
144
173
156
151
3-1/2
87
98
97
77
96
90
86
97
4-1/2
35
55
59
43
46
47
35
36
5-1/2
17
21
21
19
14
13
11
9
6-1/2
4
14
7
3
11
7
5
12
7-1/2
0
2
7
6
2
6
4
5
a to 9-
-1/2
0
2
1
1
0
3
0
2
10-1/2
0
1
652
0
723
0
563
0
563
0
650
0
730
0
Totals
528
695
Table !
L4.
Ace coi
mposition
of mainlai
id Massac!
lusetts fei
nale dee
r checke
d at
biological stations from 1963 to 1975.
Age
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
6 mos.
44
76
90
101
90
62
62
71
1-1/2
33
55
54
64
57
48
53
50
2-1/2
28
55
69
69
56
42
51
42
3-1/2
16
36
46
51
51
35
33
33
4-1/2
11
24
29
33
22
25
23
15
5-1/2
3
11
14
20
14
6
8
10
6-1/2
4
0
•3
14
10
5
7
4
7-1/2
3
2
0
11
2
6
6
3
8 to 9-1/2
3
0
0
9
0
2
3
2
10-1/2
1
0
259
0
310
0
372
1
303
0
231
1
247
1
Totals
146
231
Table 15.
Age composition of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts deer check at
biological stations from 1971 through 1975.
• -•
Hales
•
Females
Age
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
6 mos.
39
25
30
27
32
31
30
24
32
22
1-1/2
41
41
25
32
30
11
24
21
21
13
2-1/2
14
15
17
9
6
16
11
17
12
13
3-1/2
8
15
12
19
7
11
15
13
9
13
4-1/2
4
6
7
5
4
4
9
8
5
5
5-1/2
3
1
3
1
3
8
6
2
5
1
6-1/2
0
3
C
0
0
2
1
1
2
3
7-1/2
1
2
0
1
0
2
2
1
0
1
8 to 9-1/2
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
10-1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Totals
111
108
94
94
82
33
99
88
87
71
I
Table 16.
Age compc
•sltion
of Nantucket,
Massachusetts deer
checked at
biological
stations
from 1971 through 1975.
Males
Female
IB
A^e
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975 1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
6 mos.
27
17
22
25
27 14
21
21
20
26
1-1/2
38
19
28
31
28 22
16
17
21
23
2-1/2
13
12
19
15
14 12
12
8
10
7
3-1/2
7
12
11
12
11 13
5
7
1
6
A-1/2
4
0
4
2
4 2
5
9
6
6
5-1/2
0
3
2
1
0 3
0
2
2
1
6-1/2
0
0
1
0
0 0
1
0
1
2
7-1/2
1
0
0
0
0 0
1
1
0
1
8 to 9-
-1/2
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
10-1/2
0
0
0
0
5 0
0
0
0
2
Total
90
63
86
86
89 66
61
65
61
74
tH
U-l
tC
V4
o
■P
a>
o
<u
^8
H
Q
in
in
en
m
en
00
en
00
en
00
en
(D
^
W
O
<u
3
rH
PP
to
0
a
<U
o
^
■M
•P
'xi
3
C
W
03
00
iH
r^
C3^
CNJ
G<
en
^
<Ti
00
r^
rH
00
•sT
m
r^
o
ON
CVJ
en
P>.
o\
iH
a\
»*<.
o
CO
O
so
ro
p
TS
rH
•H
(U
CO
0
d
■U)
^
CO
o
<U
CO
H
Ph
M
cd
M
4J
(U
O
0)
H
Q
O
fH
m
r^
o
vo
vO
CO
o
en
en
CT>
<»•
r^
es
00
m
r>.
•si-
en
CNJ
en
CM
en
en
en
en
ft
A
A
f>
A
A
A
n
«
CSJ
e^4
m
r^
r^
m
in
m
m
CM
rH
en
ON
en
O
rH
O
on
CO
in
rH
CM
CO
o
c^
so
iH
CJ\
en
iH
1-4
CNj
CM
e^j
CM
CM
CM
CM
r«s
en
rH
ro
vo
o
CN
CO
evi
vo
OA
f>.
CM
<1-
ro
r«.
CM
CM
rH
es
<S
CM
rH
CM
CM
3
<
00
r^
in
vO
CO
vo
tH
iH
**
-d-
rH
CM
*vt-
m
vo
O St en CO
en Nt so r^
m vr m ^jf
CO
(U
iH iH
fH n3
< 0
m
o
vo
o>
o>
CO
iH
00
vo
00
CM
CO
m
r^
00
O vo rH O
vO iH Ov O
r<. vo r«v r^
c
o
CO
•M
^
4J
o
P
p
PQ
m
en
iH
in
O
CO
o^
CO
CO
ON
in
vo
CM
CM
in
ON
vo
rH
o>
iH
CM
CM
iH
iH
CM
•H
+J
W
fH
(U
P
rH
T)
C3
<
S
VO
CM
ON
00
vo
vO
(»
m
CM
00
CN
ON
r^
O
in
in
vo
ON
00
O
(M
CO
tH
CM
CM
#v
NO
r-i iH
CO
rH 0)
rH rH
<: CO
r^
CO
•<r
00
ON
m
iH
00
fH
CO
CO
CM
o\
in
in
<N
r^
ON
ON
o
<r
in
en
-1-
•<t
00
vO
(U
rH
CO
H
M
r>.
00
(3N
O
rH
CM
ro
<}■
m
cd
vo
vO
vO
r^
r^
r^
t^
r^
r>.
0)
(Tv
CT\
ON
ON
c^
On
c^
<j\
ON
fH
iH
iH
iH
iH
rH
tH
iH
rH
rH
CO
u
u
<u
CO
M
O
CO
0]
CO
a
0)
tic
4J
p
c
CO
0)
.c
u
o
u
<u
0)
d^
60
CO
a
0) •
o in
(U C7>
IM
O
>% o
M U
CO ^
i ""^
CO NO
CD
0)
CO
H
NO
fH
CO
fH
iH
o
<X3
00
r>.
f^
iH
eg
o
m
o\
«>
«
A
A
U
U
0)
iH
r^
(U
a\
OOiHl
n
1
2
o
^
f^
o
<y\
fH
4J
c
O
u
Pm
o
t^
0)
ON
dOrHi
c
1
CO
CTi
^
VO
o
CT\
iH
<u
O
M
<U
PL,
<7%
VO
o
CJN
60 fHl
CO
cL
^
vO
o
C3N
rH
NO
o>
00
so
<u
o\
60 iHl
C
CO
vA
^
r^
CJ
CTn
iH
CO
fH
C>*
00
SO
m
ON
eg
CM
00
o
so
eg
00
o
o
<3-
CM
eg
m
m
o
in
rH
o>
•
•
r>.
tH
CM
CT)
+
+
a\
en
m
CO
in
m
o
so
ON
so
CO
00
so
m
o
CM
CM
ON
CO
+
00
tH
o
CM
4J
OB
0)
S
u o
I
CO
CJN
•
CM
00
<r
ON
sf
o
1^
m
ON
rH
f>.
CO
rH
eg
O
C3N
iH
CO
in
CO
1^
CT>
o
r^
m
ON
C3N
00
o
O
SO
eg
rH
o
00
C3N
A
A
«%
#1
m
CO
eg
O
<J-
O
eg
rH
xO
St
O
St
ON
h-
r^
M
mt
*>
iH
CM
eg
00
CO
•
CM
St
C3N
ro
so
§
r-' a
iH -H
•H
^ o
:3 W
C
•O -H
T) CO
^
CO 'M
CO iH
CO
•O rH
t) &-
CO
0) 3
0) O
(U o
4J a
*J O.
4J -H
CO o
CO
CO 4J
rH O-
.H 0)
rH CO
s
3 rH
r> rH
U 0)
O 0
rH rH
rH a
CO rt
CO 0)
CO O
O 0
CJ VH
O p.
CM
m
VO
m
in
ON
o
o
f^
r«>»
St
o
eg
ON
On
*
«
A
*
o
M
0)
PU
m
r^
o
<U C3N
SO
60 fH
•
C 1
rH
CO St
tH
-c r^
U CTn
1
rH
c
o
PLI
St
r-
(U
ON
60rHl
C
1
CO
CO
ja
r^
u
CJN
rH
CO
ON
CO
4J
r^
CJ
<U ON
0)
60 rH
o
PJ 1
M
^^
P4
CL> ON
fH
a
CJ
M
(U
PU
eg
r^
(U
<3>
60rm
c
1
s
rH
o
c:n
rH
ON
CO
o
St
CO
o
o
00
o
o
00
o
m
r^
o
St
St
VO
O
\o
CO
r^
so
iH
so
C3N
ON
A
M
#*
»
•H
rH
CO
St
CM
iH
in
so
CO
00
•
•
CM
o
CO
o
CO
o
eg
+
ON
m
en
00
O
o
rH
m
00
m
CO
eg
o
CO
St
CM
O
o
o
CO
o
00
+
CO
eg
O
CO
00
•
o
o
so
m
CO
so
eg
m
m
CO
CO
r>
CM
f>N
ON
CO
ON
0\
M
A
m
so
m
CO
ej
00
•
o
eg
CO
so
CO
en
o
•
eg
NO
o
00
CM
eg
CO
00
o
m
■VJ
,_
CO
o
(1
<u
u
w o
E
t
rH C
f-i -H
T
d q
3 *J
a
CO
•c -H
•O CO
•H
X
CO u
CO rH
a
CO
3
<u
V rj
t3 O.
•o c
rH
<u d
<U o
(U o
g
■M O.
•u a
*J "H
CO O
CO
CO 4J
rH O.
i-{ <u
iH CO
4J
3 .
3 rH
d rH
iH
O 0)
^s
O 3
3
rH rH
»H P.
•3
CO CO
CO 0)
CO O
<!
U 0
CJ «4H
U
o. 1
Table 19.
Summary of the
adult male
deer harvest per
square mile
of deer
rarge
per county in V
lassachusett
:s, 1970
through 1975. (Shotgun season)
Sq. Ml.
County
Deer Range
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Barnstable
267.3
.30
.30
.28
.28
.31
.27
Berkshire
811.8
.45
.43
.47
.53
.85
.74
Bristol
388.8
.01
.003
.003
.003
.01
.01
Essex
302.4
.07
.03
.06
.06
.05
.05
Franklin
621.0
.41
.38
.45
.34
.51
.44
Hampden
468.7
.25
.22
.28
.31
.35
.34
Hampshire
428.8
.26
.15
.23
.23
.27
.34
Middlesix
521.9
.02
.02
.01
.01
.003
.01
Norfolk
274.2
-
-
—
-
-
.004
Plymouth
473.0
.02
.01
.02
.01
.01
.03
Worcester
1,226.0
.16
.08
.10
.10
.11
.12
5,733.9
.20
.16
.19
.19
.27
.25
Dukes
37.4
.90
1.00
1.16
1.00
.84
.70
Nantucket
36.6
2.38
1.74
1.34
1.86
1.69
1.99
Gosnold not included
Table 20.
Summary of the
adult female
deer harvest per
square
mile of di
eer range
per county in Massachusetts
, 1970
through 1975. (Shotgun season)
Sq. Mi.
County
Deer Range
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
Barnstable
267.3
.11
.10
.10
.06
.12
.04
Berkshire
811.8
.17
.24
.13
.13
.27
.20
Bristol
388.8
—
—
.003
.003
.003
0
Essex
302.4
.03
.003
.003
-
.01
.01
Franklin
621.6
.16
.23
.23
.13
.13
.14
Hampden
468.7
.07
.09
.08
.07
.07
.09
Hampshire
428.8
.11
.07
.08
.05
.07
.06
Middlesex
521.9
.01
.01
.01
.002
.002
.01
Norfolk
274.2
.004
-.
-
—
-
.004
Pljrmouth
473.0
.01
.002
-
.004
.004
.02
Worcester
1.226.0
.08
.05
.03
.04
.04
.04
5,783.9
.08
.09
.08
.05
.08
.07
Dukes
87.4
.35
.69
.88
1.00
.67
.63
Nantucket
36.6
1.64
1.50
1.09
1.20
1.20
1.39
Gosnold not included
Table 21.
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 mile of deer range in Massachusetts
for 1975.
Males
Females
Total
Sq. Mi.
of Deer
Range
Harvest
County
Total
Deer
per
Sq. Mi.
Males
per
Sq. Mi.
Females
per
Sq. Mi.
Barnstable
75
16
91
267.3
.34
.28
.06
Berkshire
651
236
887
811.8
1.09
.80
.29
Bristol
5
—
5
388.8
—
.01
—
Essex
16
6
22
302.4
.07
.05
.02
Franklin
312
131
443
621.6
.71
.50
.21
Hampden
176
61
237
468.7
.51
.38
.13
Hampshire
155
37
192
428.3
.45
.36
.09
Middlesex
4
4
8
521.9
.02
.01
.01
Norfolk
1
1
2
274.2
.01
.004
.004
Plymouth
17
12
29
473.0
.06
.04
.03
Worcester
162
64
226
1,226.0
.18
.13
.05
Total
1,574
563
2,142
5,783.9
.37
.27
.10
Dukes *
95
80
175
87.4
2.00
1.08
.92
Nantucket
100
1,769
73
726
178
2,495
36.6
5,907.9
4.86
.42
2.73
.30
2.13
Total
.12
Gosnold not included
Ua
p
5
o
fe
3
3
u
d^
00
(14
3
<
O
O CO
CO m
00 vD iH <y» O
o f^ "<t <!• m
in r**
CM 00
vo CNj »H r^
r«. -^ en
CM
CM
rH
CM
CM
CO
m
sf
OO
m
CO
f-l
CM
o
iH
vo
rH
\o CO
CO CO
in c^ vo cvj r^
vt CO CM -vf vO
o
m
o
vo
CO
vo
CM CO
Cs en rH m vo
O CO •«*
1-1 •*
O vO <}■ O iH r^ <!•
00 \0 CM in tH rH
CO CM iH tH
<y^
00
CO
CO
CM
ON
00r>.C0r-|vOvDtHr-t
CvJCMfOCOrOC^I^crcO
CO
CO
vOOiH<tcOCMr^^
tH O CJN CO -^
ooTHcocovocoinc*>co<}-
mr*. rHinCMrHi-l rH
CO C-i T-^ r-{
^r^ooocoLOcn
iHr-ICMrHCOi-HCM«;r
CO
CO
CO
vo CO fH
m
CO CO r>> CO
vO iH CM
CO
-*<tinoOoor^r-
St iH tH CO 0^ O
CO CM rH
00
CO
CM
in
(U
iH
u
B
u
•H
CO
•tH
0)
•H
CO
tti
(0 ^
(U 43 <U iH
T3 CO iH O
0 0 TS M
o o
4-1
cOOV-iWMOjrt'HOrHa
u
QJ
4J
CO
0)
o
u
o
in
m
o
CO
m
m
m
CT^
CO
o
o
o
VO
CM
L,0
vo
tH
O
O
O
vo
CM
CO
vo
CO
in
CO
CO
o
o
vo
vO
00
CO
vo
CM
Ci^
CNl
o
m
vo
o
CO
o
in
<t
CO
CM
CO
o
CM
CO
00
o
c
o
CM
i
CO
M
O
eu
vo
CM
VO
VO
<y\
in
in
sa-
ve
c^.
vo
o
c
o
vD
CO
c
c
in
in
CO
c
c
vo
c
m
vo
in
en
4-^ .p
rH
O -H
CO
<«
3
0)
•Ul
^
O
O (U
3
H
S d^
Q
c
n)
e
CO
4J
M
O
a
w
en
4-( u
O -H
g
o cu
O
CM
1^
<t
vo
in
c.
vo
CO
CO
CM
VO
in
§
4J
o
■P
d
<CJ
05
•M
M
O
CI.
to
CO
VM 4-1
°^
• u
O (U
VM
O
>-i
<u
^
0
73
■SC
13
CO
u
iH
•H
e
o
(U
H
(i4
en
a)
M
•a
d
Id
1-3
I
M
M
cd
CO
(U
d
iH
U
d
D-
m r^
^s
0)
tH pg
V4
• •
Fk
in
r».
<7\
•
iH m
iH
p^
rH VO
<M
iH
fH
3
T3
<:
cr
IXl
3
3
S<
CO
iH
Pu
CM
b
3
0)
3
C
a
o
o
CM
O
rH
•§
H
ON en vo 1^ in o o
eg CO CM tH !>>. o m
CO
•<r o "N m CO
CN <f (N
cMiHinsriniHo-*
1^ O iH r^ vo sr
fOPOtvicvjcMescsjin
00
iH vO
CO
CO
»3-
CO
iH vO iH CO VO i-> c\I
CO iH r^ CO CO
CM
inoNvrcosooocM
00 00 iH rH VD iH
vO CO iH tH
<s
vO
CSJ
in
CO
CO
cr
0^ VO
in r^ m rsi m
O
<u
rH esJ
rg CO c\! CM CN
St
tu
• •
•
p^
CO
m ON
tH o
>;t O vO CN4 iH
1^ CO CM
CM
m
r^ CM
VO
CO in iH «vr
tH «^ o
CM iH iH
in
ON
vOOcOvOiHOvincO
coctcocmcvjcoco
CO
CO
1^ CM
CM rH
iH 00 Sj- <t
>;J- CO CO
rH
sr
»*
mcocovor^rHooco
r^ p>. iH r>» CO CT\
CO CM rH
CM
CM
ON
CO
CN
CO
O
CO
o
o
CM
m
CM
in
o
o
o
o
CM
iH
CO
c
o
o
o
ON
m
m
VO
CM
00
o
o
VO
o
vO
CO
o
o
VO
o
»H
m
CO
ON
VO
O
O
o
o
-a-
vO
00
o
o
VO
VO
CO
VO
CO
CM
o
m
o
o
o
o
0)
§
rH (U
(U X
^ M
fl
^^ <u
o
(0 H
rH
•H
c
•H CO
^'i5
o
u ^
O
rH
Q)
Xi 0)
•H
Uj CO
4.)
X
^
T3
CD .H
O
E-e
0)
0)
c
O-
a-d
U-l
•H
CD
nj
a
0 TS
M
(0 (U
U
CO
V4
CO
sg
O
PQ PQ
n
W
fl.
3C
55
5^
3 .H
O O
rH 3
P^ CO
VI
<u
4J
CO
o
o
0
CO
0
CO
4J
u
o
Cu
CO
n
O -H
g
O 0)
in
r^
r^
CM
O
o
o
VO
CO
(U
3
Q
CO
0
CD
U
O
cx
CO
CO
°l
O (1)
o
o
CO
VO
CM
CO
o
m
m
00
in
CO
m
<JN
<r
CO
m
o
ON
ST
O
o
a
CO
0
0)
o
3
4J
a
CO
2:
VO
CM
CO
0*
m
4J
M
u
(U *
o
a
^ CO
0 4J
CO
3 -H
CO
==g
VM 4J
O -H
rH 0)
• g
<0 Pk
4J
o <u
O »*-l
Z cu
H O
CO
0)
a
.3
I
0
u
CO
P^
CO
tJ
3
0
01 TJ
4J <
•H
6"^
0)
fU o
•H
CO 4J
(D ca
<U P^
iH
l-l tN
0) u
iH C
4J (U
^&
(U
p: V4
gp.
(0 iJ
4J 0
u <u
o o
(X u
CO o
Ph
u-l
O Q)
J3
M 4J
<U
^ TJ
e d
D 03
IS
4J
0) -H
•^ ^
4J t3
•> Vj
4J <U
^ 0-
t3
t) 4-1
CO
4J a
d >
(U u
0 td
Q) K
60
CJ 4J
c: H
s§
<:
M
a o
(U /^
P *J
n •«
CJ Q)
O- M
C
CO (a2
<U
> M
U Q)
cU (U
•
33 Q m
p>.
M U4
a.
0) o
rH
o
P CO
M
OJ
o
C fH
<4-<
3 H
CO
4-1
(U
o c;
rH
^ n
.^
CO «t
3
r— 1
CJ cr
4J
X CO
rH
4J
3
CU
tJ
«*-! X!
<
O *J
O
>N •>
4J
u u
rj "H
m
(j.
tH
3
CO
CO u
0
0)
CU
< a pm
•
en
«M
Q)
iH
rO
CO
H
>*
o o
C *J
(U
3
0)
V 0)
rH
0) rH
CO
M ccj
ir^
<o
CO
<f
t^
ON
cn
OD
00
r^
rH
h S
iH
<N
m
CM
rH
CM
cn
CO
c^
r^
fO
<U
4J
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4-1 PE4
rH
C
3
0) 4J
Ti
O iH
<
M 3
<U t?
P-i <
^
•
4J (U
x!
tH fH
ft— 4
•d-
CTD
sf
00
in
cn
rH
fH
rH
.H
CO
3 ct
o
rH
»H
o
o
o
O
C
\o
CO
o
'O E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
<: <U
CT
iH
EX4
CO
4J ■ —
•
•H
rH OJ
s
VD
t-t
CNJ
CO
rH
iH
CM
CM
CM
<y>
m
:3 .H
CSJ
r^
»*
CO
cn
rH
O
O
VO
VO
CM
t3 CO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
< S
V
CO
t-t
. u
•H (U
0)
ro
00
O
r^
00
o
m
CC
»;»•
VO
cr>
2 CU
bC
•
•
•
•
•
•
«
•
•
«
•
p
§
r^
iH
iH
OD
C50
vO
00
rH
r-^
vD
t^
•
\o
rH
CM
\D
CM
CM
c?>
VD
00
CO
o
cr «4-i
OS
CM
00
VC
<r
SJ-
CM
c
00
CJv
CO o
4->
rH
rH
m
f~^
CO
r^
CO
in
«*
in
00
CT.
•<f
m
CO
CO
CO M
a
00
S3-
<s
CM
r*.
C
CM
CO
vO
VO
m
4J o
E
CO
vf
CM
rH
CM
iH
rH
CO
o <u
CM
H P
CO
CO
-
in
r>*
CJ-
r>»
O
00
cn
■sJ-
<r
vO
CO
o
en
rH
rH
rH
CM
CM
rH
CO
CM
(S4
4-»
rH
o
CO
t^
r^
CO
C\
vO
CO
CO
CO
ON
3
rH
>*
00
en
CM
cn
m
>*
in
S
iH
Sj-
CO
c
CO
O
j^
lO
cyv
CO
CM
M
<f
r*.
VO
3
tn
«n
rH
rH
cn
CM
Ov
q)
rH
1^4
4J
0^
00
CM
m
cn
CO
CC)
iH
<r
(N
LO
H
VO
r^
vO
in
cn
CO
rH
CM
in
VD
00
3
m
CM
rH
iH
iH
>3-
3
rH
C
CO
CO
<+-< E
4J
O CO
•H
o
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
o
O
■u
E
o
o
O
o
o
O
O
O
o
O
• M
rsi
en
r<-
»*
CO
r**
CM
CM
VO
<T
o o
'V
r-4
K CXPh
CO
GJ
*
*
*
iH
P
o
u
!«
M
U
4J
-Q
U
W2
u
0)
M
M
S
•H
to
•H
•H
c
•H
u
^
4J
x:
rH
QJ
^
CO
c
c
o
CO
P
CO
CO
M
T3
CO
<u
0
O
CO
3
rH
e
-r^
C
a
a
o
•H
•H
0)
4->
(0
M
CO
0
El
>-l
W
w%*
p ^1
i6
U
CO
CD
M
CO
cn
o
0)
CU
s
o
m
«
^
!E
W
s
cn
PJ
25
H
CO
c
o
•H
U
CO
u
CO
t>0
C5
•H
u
CU
o
CU
a
CO
o
•H
60
o
4J
CO
tJ
(U
4J
M
O
&,
CU
u
CO
CD
•H
CO
4J
14-1
s
IH
o
•
o
u
CO
(U
4J
^
•r^
c
rH
4J
0)
o
O
IH
§
M
P
0
(U
o
CJ
OuZ
J3
CU
T)
4J
J3
c
3
■u
CO
g
M
X
^
C
0)
rH
•H
CO
Ph
CO
(U
3
rH
'CJ
T^
T3
§
<U
a
4J
rH
CO
O
'd
4-1
CO
o
(U
•H
r-^
CO
M
(0
CO
CC
O
w
GO
(U
CO
<U
M
<u
T3
^
T3
3
?
3
rH
rH
CJ
CO
U
a
c3
C
•H
1
•H
M
IM
M
M
0)
c
c
iH
o
o
CO
•H
•H
B
CO
60
(U
(U
(U
U4
cxi
P^
%c
•K
■K
•K
•K
*
i
JOB PERFORM/^J^CE REPORT
State
Project No.
Project Title
Project Type:
Period Covered:
U ui iii/WJ/iiii<dsi.u^i LDrhilHY
Massachusetts
U-35-R~18
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 1975 to 31 May 1976
Work Plan III
Objectives:
Job III-l
Objectives:
Sunmary :
Target Date;
Progress:
Census of Gane Species
To determine trends in Massachusetts populations of
mourning dove, bobwhite quail, and woodcock.
Mourning Dove Census
To obtain an index of the spring breeding population of
mourning doves.
Calling doves were counted on three randomized routes
in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Uildlife Service's
annual mourning dove breeding population census. The
total number of calling doves increased 11.5 times from
1974 to 1975 on t^jo comparable routes. Data from one
route was not retained and is unavailable for comparison.
31 May 1979.
On schedule.
Significant Deviations; None
Recommendations: Continue the spring mourning dove census in cooperation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cost:
Remarks :
$73.05 (Project leader man-days i 1/2)
Procedures; In accordance v;ith instructions from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, doves were censused by
roadside coo-count between 22 and 29 May on the three
randomized routes established in 19C7. Division person-
nel conducted two routes and a Fish and Wildlife Service
cooperator conducted a third route.
Findings: Results of the 1975 call count of mourning
doves are compared V7ith previous years' data in Table 1.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
if5146
^
o
u
NO
vO
00
<U
U
O
U
m
■u
0)
CO
s>
JC
o
CO
m
43
><^
0)
iH
to
cd
S
o
u
d
o
T)
CO
U
o
Q
O
<r
o
o
o
r-.
o
o
m
<j\
ON
<^
rH
•H
?
+
5!
n
o
o
CO
r^
?
o
o
<T>
CM
1-i
r-4
+
+
CM
CO
o
00
2
r^
•o
o
r>
o
ON
+
<^^
+
u
r-\
+
^
■H
rH
o
o
r^
r».
?
o
CM
(0
CTi
^
rH
4J
rH
+
+
a
3
O
O
CO
o
CM
u
f^
r<»
c
On
ON
+
«>»
+
m
rH
+
r>.
cr>
r-i
CN
o
o
m
NO
m
o
00
u
0^
CO
m
r«»
o
rH
+
+
+
M
CO
ro
o
en
0)
NO
r>
o
o
a.
ON
+
»0
rH
rH
+
+
r-^
r^
o
r^
VO
CM
o
»
On
1
lO
rH
+
NO
«*
1
<!
-*
NO
rH
"^
1-^
ON
1
52
+
rH
ITi
c.
NO
«
in
r^
rH
■K
C»l
<JN
*
tH
<r
O
CM
•<J
CM
r^
«r»
1-4
cn
O
CM
>;»
CM
r*
rH
iH
ON
rH
CM
CN»
CM
CS
vt
r^
^
rH
ON
rH
tJ
rH
o
r-i
H
r-^
u
r-
r-i
rH
ta
CTv
o
f-\
X
o
rH
CM
c^
> CO
CO
r^
r-\
rH
(U
0^
>
iH
o
n
<3N
NO
(JN
iH
CS
T-i
ri
en
CO
rH
r^
c
CM
NO
rH
r-i
e^
rH
r^
NO
rH
r»
r^
NO
eg
rH
CM
c^
iH
NO
cs
*
<*■
) CM
NO
eg
«
<M
en
I
uo
CM
NO
NO
vO
CM
VO
CM
sr
CO
CM
UO
CO
o
CM
CO
CO
UO
o
rO
ir>
CO
•
rH
O
•
CO
CI
CO
1
u
s
(d
jj
Cd
<t Tj ta
ON
rH o -d
-s
CO
CO
CO
«
(U
4J
4J
d
3
«S
CO (Xj
rH
cd CO
Cd rH
a
U CO
U y-i
cd
o <u
o <:
Oj
H rJ
H ^
^M
0)
■M
Cd
o
o
0)
M
0)
o
c
c.
o
(1)
4J
CJ
•H
O
O
<u
0)
■M
o P^
W-35-R-18:III-l
The total nunber of calling doves on two routes combined
Increased 1150 percent over 1974 counts. Route 8 in-
creased from none to 19 doves and Route CA increased
from two to six doves. Route 10 was conducted but data
v;as not retained and is unavailable for this report.
The weighted mean number of doves heard per comparable
llassachusetts route vras 5.0 in 1974 and 9,9 in 1975 for
an annual increase of 97.5 percent (Ruos 1975). Ruos
also reports that dove breeding population indices in the
Eastern Management Unit increased by 9.9 percent from
1974 to 1975, but are still 3.3 percent below the ten-
year mean. Long-term trends also show a decline, with
regression analyses showing a statistically significant
downward trend in Eastern Unit population indices.
l^SSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES & VJILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved :
Arthur W. Neill, Superintendent
Prepared by:
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
Literature Cited
Ruos, J. L. 1975. 1975 mourning dove breeding population status. U. S,
Fish tUildlife Service, Laurel, Hd., Admin. Rept., 35 pp. raimeo.
1 ( V ^ — / I |t^f ^
STATE
•^ -» IN I W /
(tToVi)
PERFORIIAIJCE REPORT
0 OF ^.wu.j,:;;Li:oT librae;
MASSACHUSETTS
Project No.
Project Title:
Project Type:
Period Covered:
Work Plan III
Objective:
Job III-2
Job Objective:
Suomary:
Target Date:
Progress:
W-35-R"18
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Inventory
1 June 1975 to 31 Hay 1976
Census of Game Species
To determine trends in Massachusetts populations of
mourning doves, bobwhite quail and x^yoodcock.
Spring Quail Census
To determine the dynamic aspects of quail population
densities and distribution.
The 1975 spring quail census showed a statistically sig-
nificant decrease (t .05) from 1973 indices in Plymouth
County, and from the combined 1958-1961 index for Barn-
stable and Plymouth counties. Bristol County experienced
non-significant declines.
31 May 1979.
On schedule.
Significant Deviations: None
Recommendations :
The roadside whistle count has been demonstrated to be
an effective technique for monitoring trends in bobwhite
quail populations (Bennitt 1951; Ripley 1956; Kabat and
Thompson 1963). Hov/ever, several conditions have re-
cently limited the effectiveness of its application in
Massachusetts. Firstly, the number of routes surveyed
per county has varied considerably since the census in-
ception in 1953. Ten or more routes per county v/ere
surveyed in the 1950 's with as few as two to three com-
parable routes being surveyed in some counties between
1964 and 1971. Such scanty coverage cannot provide
adequate sampling of a county and would only reflect ex-
treme fluctuations in quail populations. Secondly, the
routes surveyed have often been different from year to
year, thus hampering comparison between survey years.
Thirdly, outside disturbances have hindered data collec-
tion on some survey routes. Construction and increased
highway traffic have eliminated quail habitat along
census routes, or resulted in excessive noise which pre-
vents hearing quail which are present. Calling activity
is also affected by rain or wind, and if adverse weather
conditions necessitate postponing a count, mar.povrer
limitations may preclude its subsequent rescheduling
under more favorable conditions/
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
//5146
W-35-R-18:III-2
If the spring whistle count is to be continued as an Index
to quail population trends, the following recommendations
should be considered:
1. Increase the number of routes per county to a minimum
of six in Barnstable and Plymouth counties. Bristol County,
r7ith a lesser area and populations, can probably remain at
the present level of four routes.
2. Examine all routes for outside disturbances and re-
locate those which are unacceptable.
3. Once routes have been established, survey the same
routes during each census period.
4. Consider conducting the census every third year in-
stead of biennially.
Cost: $385.29 (Project Leader man-days: 4)
Remarks: Procedures: Roadside whistle counts were conducted during
the first two weeks of July 1975 follov;ing established
procedures and routes (U-25-R). The resultant call indices
were corrected for temperature variations (Bennett 1951;
Ripley 1956) and tabulated and analyzed on a county basis.
Counts for all counties were compared with the previous
year's indices and vjith a four-year (1958-1961) index.
Changes in annual counts were analyzed for statistical
significance with a one-sided t-test and the results re-
ported accordingly by counties.
Findings: The 1975 weighted call indices as compared to
those from 1973 and the four-year average are shown in
Table 1. Computations of the tests of significance and
comparisons of the indices by county and route are sb.own
in Tables 2, 3, and 4.
The 1975 indices were lower than those from 1973 in all
three counties. Changes were statistically significant
(t .05) for Barnstable County as compared to the 1953-1961
index, and for Plymouth County compared both to the four-
year index and to the 1973 call index. Non-significant
declines were recorded in Bristol County.
Prior to 1975, only two statistically significant changes
occurred in quail populations monitored by this census.
Plymouth County suffered a significant (t .01) drop from
I
in
o
u
o
I
CO
in
CO
o
•H
Ci.
o
•H
CO
cr
r
cu
CO
s
o
CO
CO
CO
(J
•H
C
•H
CO
CJ
(U
>
•H
■U
CO
M
03
e
o
o
o
iH
.CI
CO
H
CO
in rH
o
• o
N-' tn
fcOfH
g
CJ
•H
•H
}
CO
in
c/3 m
M
in (U
ro
vO
iH
r^ 13
CO
iH
CO
<3^ C
•
•
e
X
en cu
00
CM
vD
r*. T3
m
in
in
c^. q
•
e
•
o
CO
CD
CO
CO
Cv4
><
tH c
tH
iH
CM
r^ 'O
in
CN4
O
ON C
•
•
•
.H M
•<i-
(N
C^
X
<7^ a
r-t
in
CN
vO TS
CO
cr>
-*
C3A C
•
•
•
»-l M
CO
o
cs
X
r^ 0)
c
VD
CO
VO ^3
<T>
CTN
<JD
0^ C
•
•
•
rH M
iH
O
iH
X
<f <u
in
tH
^
o -o
m
c?>
CO
ON C
•
•
«
rH M
tH
c
tH
tt) VO
60CTN X
CO iH <U
m
tH
<!■
u 1 -d
o
r^
00
(U CO c
•
•
•
> m M
CM
C
rH
<J cr^
0)
>N
^
Xi
■P
CO
iH
+J
c
4J
O
3
3
CO
P
o
O
e
CO
0
u
•H
PN
CO
V<
rH
CQ
PQ
PU
vO
vO
vO
o
<r
CVJ
m
O
O
o
r^
^— \
•
tt
•
o
o
I'd
r^
in
CO
IT)
m
1
St
m
fH
<!■
vt
P
O
CN
<r
C
r<»
S.0/
ff\
A
£^
lA
m
cs
o
Csl
CX)
vO
CO
CO
o
•H
«
o
(T)
in
in
in
»n
ITJ
fVI
(^!
r^
f>»
1
•
•
•
•
o
in
CN
tH
f^
<r
1
1
vD m O ro
rH CM
o ^ o^.
CN CC CN
CN
O
in
in
O
in
11
m
m
II
St
CM
vO
o
CO
CO
CO
in
o
C
c
CO
•
in
in
CO
in
CO
CM
II
CO
in
o
00
lO
in
•
sr
CN
00
r-i
•
sf
•
vO r^ O O
CO
CX3
CM
csl
vD CvJ CN <}•
in
CO
A
VO
CN CO rM CM
ON
CN
CM
o
iH
•«
H
II
CO
IX
II
C)
+J
«
CQ
<
3
o
vO
CO iH CO
o
s
r-\
iH cv) CN
(^
•
o
o
II
I'd
•
in
-a-
*
vD
CO
II
CN
O
CO
CO
CO
in
CO
-t
CN
CM
II
CN
CO
I
in
0^
tan
td
u
I
M
a)
I
»^
O
in
C-.
o
CJ
0)
rH
c\3
CO
pa
CO
0)
o
•H
c»3
a
C
•H
CO
o
a
QJ
14-1
O
CO
•H
CO
JH
rH
4-)
o
o
c;
0)
rH
Cv3
H
CN
ln3
I
Q
O sr 0> rH
r^ o St cc
vD sJ- St
CO
CO
cri
vO
CN
ITS
v£) CN r^ CN
1
CM CTN in
1 1 •
r^ in ȣ) St
CO c c in
CJ iH
CO
0)
o
•H
00
CJ
C St o r--
C^l CO CN iH
n-i iH CN
CO rH
ON
in >a-
sr
CO in
«
00
• •
CN
r^
CM St
CO
St
•
II II
II
to
/— s /^>
CO
II
• •
CO
^ M-l
•
0 •
in
e
ON
•o -o
in
o
St
c
e
0
CO CO
A
CO
CN
S-' s-/
O
in
f-i
iH
CO
--^
tH
in rH
•
II
o c
r-.
II
• •
c
CO t-^
in
iH
CO
4-1
4J 4-»
in
II
IX
r>> ON tn iH
O 00 CO 1^
C^J CM CN CN
CnI
o
e
in
•
cr
in
CN
II
IX
CO
en
*
n
CO
CO
•
m
in
o
0)
3 O
O 13
PQ
<
O
CJ
rH CO
rH
rH
CN CM
oi
O
CO
r«.
•
o
o
CO CO
o
»*
CM
•
CN
CN
CO
•H
sr
iH
iH
H
N
II
CM
CM
O
ro
l-O
M
(O
CM
IT3
I
^*
T-K
tH
sf
(N
rsj
o
vO
<r
ro
CM
».
A
A
r<-
CS
O
iH
fH
fH
o
O
O
n
iH
I
a
IT)
I
fvj iH tH 00
CO rH O
iH rH tH I
O
00 r-* r^ 00
vc <r CO CM
iH rH rH
in
m m fo CM CO
r-- m •<!• ON o
CM |sr
CO
0)
o
C
C3
O
o-
CO
r«.
m
•
CO
r^
•
IT)
CO
CM
II
CM
II
r>.
•
^-N
fH
c
•
•
l4-<
<t
11
•
fO
-d
CO
c
<t
A
o
r*.
CO
m
CO
•
•
>-•
r^
•v^
vc
1^
•
CO
m
ir>
m
n
O
iH
II
•
rH
i-o
CO
U
4J
n
IX
CO
r^ O o O
O O 00 CM
iH CM iH rH
o
so
m
in
rH
II
IX
(1)
3 O
Pi
<3 in in sD
0> rH CO CO
o
o
•
CO
N
IT)
1^
VO
SO
<n
CO
CO
fl
o
o
o
u
en
CO
CO
CO
CO
B
r^
VO
CO
CO
CO
r-H
II
CM
IT)
to
VO
I
00
in
ov
8
(!)
M
\
o
MH
ON
g
o
m
•H
IH
PQ
(0
0)
o
•H
T)
C
CO
o
<D
14-1
T)
U-l
O
0)
•H
(0
rH
to
c
o
o
CO
<U
rH
H
CM
/»^
IT)
I
P
I'd
I
en
(U
o
•H
T3
3 O
in in
CM CM
o
CO
o
vO
o
in
rH
o
II
rH
CO
r-\
«v
1
r*.
0
St
in m
• •
o. in
CM rA
CM
I I
O
CM
m
o
in
o
00
CO
m
m
CM
in
m
VO
CM
m CO 1 1
CO
o
r>. in
o
CO
IT)
CM
VO
CO
n
IX
O
m
o
CO
CM
II
U
sr
iH
CO
n
o
00
0
CO
in
o
(U <u
,Q J3
ttJ «J
rA f-i
O
•H -H
O
c« CO,
•
SJ- 00 > > CM
rH
r^ \0 C3 rt v3-
r«.
r-{
n CO
n
*J u
r3 rJ
IX
T) Tl
O O
s ns
<; i/) in so
C7^ rH CO CO
o
m
in
CM
•
•
o
m
iH
m
CO
VO
«
«b
r*
CO
•*
CM
1
a
S
o
•
•
o
o
r-i
rH r-<
o
CO
CO
m
*
«
•
1^
r^
o
sr
sr
CO
CM
u
n
D
CM
CM
o
I'd
ITJ
CO
CO
CN
<VJ
>~s
cr> sr ** o^
vD
CO
ro
O 00 00
00
a
<>>
CO r^ pg
0k
1
«mX
CM
fO
c
ro
m 00 CO r^
1
St CM fH
o
1 i 1
Q
CM fo r>.
r^ CM -^
00
in
o
D
00
CO
o
•H
c
CO
U
<t iH CO in
CO
C
vD CO m r^
rj
CO
i-o
rH
CO
CO
St
sr
D
C
o
•
in
n
4J
o
CO
CO CO
in sj-
c^ m
• •
II II
IM 14-1
• •
-o -o
CO CO
in iH
c o
*j *J
n
IX
CO
vO
<■
o
CO
CO
r~»
CO
tn
o
CO
CNi
CT^
iH
iH
CM
r-i
\o
in
•
in
in
n
IX
VO
00
CM
C4
00
eg
0)
u •
P o
m <:3 CM CO
vO iH fH
1
o
o
vO
CO
CO
00
CM
CO iH
•
•>
1
II
II
CM
Q
W
CM
i-O
o
I
00
m
0)
>
cd
M
(0
(1)
I
3
O
IM
TJ
CO
m
CTi
§
o
o
Xi
o
iH
(l4
CD
a
o
•H
00
Q)
O
C
0)
»^
0)
14-1
o
en
•H
en
iH
CO
■p
a
o
o
Cvj
fO
I
vO
in
so vD
o o
VO
O
•
• •
•
CM
in
CO O
iH CM
ON
00
CO
A
M A
M
sr
iH CM
CM
sr
VO
CO
n
I
(3
I
m m in in
CM CM r^ r>.
• • • «
r>. St r^ CO
vo CO sf m
I >
r^ St vO CM
m 00 VO r«.
o
•
o
o
ON
R »**
in
O
c
CD
(1)
O
•H
CO
St iH CO in
CO
o
so CO in r<.
CM
CO
TO
rH
CO
cn
II
IX
in
tM
00
U
4J
O
O
CO
CO CO
m •a-
CO m
• •
CM •*
n u
•o -o
CO CO
m «H
o o
U 4J
C
o
c^
m
in
a>
r*«
VO
0^
rH
rH
rH
St
en
iH
rH
iH
CO
CM
r>*
00
m
IX
0)
(1)
iH
4J •
««t;
^
3 O
m < CM CO
CO
O S
\D y-i r-i
H
cd
iH
o
CM
«^
VO
•
««
•n
PO
o
1
H
sf
r«.
u:
•
in
St
•
VO
CO rH
m
00
CM
CM
•
VO
•
o
•k
CO
iH
CO
iH
H
1
1
n
CM
CM
P
i-o
113
cn
CO
W-35-R-18:III-2
1960 to 1961 — a decline attributed to an exceptionally
severe winter from 1960-1961 — and. in the sarae county,
call indices increased significantly (t .05) from 1964~to
1967. No reason was then attributed to this increase.
Literature Cited: Bennitt, R. 1051. Sone aspects of Missouri quail and
quail hunting, 1933-1948. Ho. Cons. Comm. , Tech.
Bull. 2. 51 pp.
Kabat, C. and D.R. Thompson. 1963. Wisconsin quail,
1834-1962. Population dynamics and habitat management,
VJisc. Cons. Dept., Iladison, Tech. Bull. 30, 136 pp.
Ripley, T. H. 1956. Annual whistle count census to
determine relative population densities and distribu-
tion. Ilass. Div. Fish & Game, Westboro. Project
U-25-R-3, Job I-A. Supplement 1, Table D.
1957. The bobwhite in Itassachusetts.
Mass. Div. Fish & Game, Boston, Res. Bull. 15, 20 pp.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AM) WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Arthur W. Keill, Superintendent
Prepared by:
Date
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
«^/^ » ^ (^- -J- ^^' ^ZJ ~ l\. t Of ^JJt — I
PERFOmiANCE REPORT
UUi-
State
Project Title
Project Type
Period Covered:
llassachusetts
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Survevs
Project No. W-35~R"18 \^
1 June 1975 to 31 Ilay 1976
U^^v,
Work Plan IV
Wild Turkey Restoration Study
Plan Objectives: To re-establish the wild turkey in the Conmonvjealth in suf-
ficient numbers to allow for recreational hunting.
Job IV- 1
Job Objectives;
Summary:
Experimental Turkey Stocking
To re-establish the wild turkey in the Commonwealth in suf-
ficient numbers to allox/ for recreational hunting.
Turkeys in the Beartovm State Forest shov^ed increased signs
of dispersal from the release area. Reports v/ere received
from several tovms south and west of Beartown. Reports of
turkeys to the north may include dispersed birds from re-
leases in New York and Vermont. Broods v/ere produced in
at least two locations on and adjacent to Beartown Forest.
Target Date: 31 Hay 1979
Status of Progress: On schedule.
Deviations :
Recommendat ions :
Cost:
Remarks :
None
Continue evaluation of the Beartovm release. Continue
public Information efforts designed to increase reporting
of turkey sightings. Investigate potential release sites
in western llassachusetts as to suitability for future re-
leases of transplanted birds.
$4355.12 (project leader man days: 40-1/2)
Procedures. Turkey abundance was indexed by roadside counts,
track counts, and cooperator reports. Sno^^mobiles were used
during the winter to provide access to the areas and to
transport grain for baiting.
Findings :
Beartown State Forest Area
A total of 37 wild-trapped turkeys (6 adult males, 9 adult
females, 9 immature males, 7 immature females, 6 immature
unknowns) from Allegany State Park, Cattaraugus County,
New York, were released in Beartown State Forest , Great
Barrington, Berkshire County, between March 1972 and
September 1973.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
//5146
V7-35-R-18:IV-l
Few reports were received during the first two years of the
release, but in 1974-75 sightings increased with turkeys
being reported at several locations on Beartown Forest and
in toxras peripheral to it. This trend continued in 1975-76
with reports being received from additional tovms in
southern Berkshire County and, in a few instances, from moie
northern towns.
Broods were reported from tv7o locations in the Beartown
area. Adult turkeys with poults were seen repeatedly in
late July and August in a field east of Three-llile Hill in
Great Barrington. Possibly tvro broods v/ere involved, with
Division personnel and cooperators reporting from one to
five adults and eight to 14 poults depending on the date
and duration of the sighting. Cooperators reported 15-20
birds remaining in this area in early December. Another
brood consisting of an adult and at least four poults was
seen in midsummer by Forest personnel on the fire tower
road in BeartoxTn.
A large flock of turkeys was apparently frequenting the
area betv/een the old C.C.C. camp in Beartown and the Bear-
town Mountain road in Great Barrington and Tyr Ingham. Con-
tract loggers reported seeing about 25 turkeys near the
crossing of East Brook in this area about mid-December, but
this sighting could not be verified. Several other co-
operators reported sightings and tracks of 9-12 turkeys
near the C.C.C. camp in late December and January, and
Division personnel observed tracks of seven turkeys on
three occasions along Beartovm Mountain road. These areas
are close enough so that the same birds could be involved
in both sightings.
Tracks of about 10 turkeys were located in early February
near an overgrovm pasture west of Three-Hile Hill, about
3.7 km (3.3 miles) west of Benedict Pond. Three adults had
been seen in this area a vjeek earlier by cooperators.
For the past two years , Division personnel have been re-
ceiving reports of turkeys along Cannon Hill in Lee and
Tyringham. Scattered droppings and feathers have been
found, confirming' the presence of turkeys, but no track
counts have yet been made. Cooperators reported 12-13
turkeys at a roadside corn crib on Main Road, Tyringham, in
early March. The location of this presumed sighting does
not conform to the expected behavior of wild-strain turkeys.
Another cooperator, however, reliably reported seeing 12-13
turkeys crossing a woods road in Tyringham in late March
about 2.4 km (1.5 miles) east of the above roadside sight-
ing. Vague reports of an unstated number of turkeys had
previously been received from this area.
To the south of Beartovm, Western District personnel re-
ported tracks of two turkeys near Lake Buel in Monterey in
March 1975. Natural Resource officers reported tracks of
seven turkeys at an unstated Monterey location in
February 1976. Reports were again received of turkeys in
VJ-35-R-18:IV-l
Tolland, with two turkeys (one beardod) reportedly seen in
October 1975. Unconfirmed reports of single birds were re-
ceived fron Sandisfield and Sheffield.
Turkeys were also reported from West Stockbridge, northeast
of Beartown, during both fall and spring. T\jo turkeys
(supposedly one torn and one hen) vrere sighted on l^ple Hill
in November, while two sightings of single birds and one of
three birds were reported by cooperators in April. Division
personnel made one unsuccessful search for tracks in llarch.
Unconfirmed reports of turkeys were received from several
tovms north of Beartown. These include Richmond (one bird,
April 1976); Dalton (three birds, September 1975); and
Windsor (five birds, February 1976). Cooperators again re-
ported turkeys off Balance Rock Road in Lanesboro. Three
birds were reported picking insects in a mown field in early
June 1975. These turkeys, and one seen in Hancock in July
1976, may represent stragglers from nearby New York releases.
A single turkey with a yellow patagial streamer was observed
in Williamstovm on two successive dates in Ilarch 1976. A
single yellow-tagged bird was also seen in Adams near the
Cheshire line on 1 14ay 1976 V7ith a dubious sighting (due to
the reported behavior of the turkey) near the Hoosic High
School in Cheshire a week later. These yellow-tagged
turkeys are probably stragglers from a release near Benning-
ton and Pownal in Vermont in January and February 1976.
Statewide Populations
Turkeys on Prescott Peninsula in the Quabbin Reservation
continue to improve in V7ildness. Their numbers, however,
do not approach that attained while artificial feeding was
being conducted. Cooperators reported a hen and nine or
more poults near the antenna site and another with seven or
more poults at lit. Pleasant during the first week in June
1975. Division personnel attempted on three occasions to
cannon-net turkeys on the peninsula. Equipment malfunction
and the v/ariness and failure of the turkeys to appear sty-
mied all attempts. Midwinter population on the peninsula
was probably about 30 turkeys.
A few turkeys continue to be reported from the Montague
area, and a hen was flushed from a nest of 15 eggs in Mt.
Toby Forest in Sunderland on 3 May by foresters marking
timber. The hen returned and was still brooding on 2 June.
No reports were received from the Barre or Douglas State
Forest areas. One turkey was seen on Horse Mountain in
Hatfield and five were reported in Granby near the Holyoke
Range. These reports were not confirmed by Division per-
sonnel.
A single turkey was reported in south Middleboro in
September 1975 by State Police. This was not confirmed, but
if valid, represents the first sighting of ^fyles Standish
Forest turkeys since the summer of 1971.
W-35-R-18:IV-l
Prepared by:
Cooperate rs reported a flock of three adult turkeys and
five poults In Ashby State Forest in November 1975. Since
Massachusetts has released no turkeys anyi-jhere in this area,
these may be wanderers from releases in Nev; Hampshire.
Single birds or pairs v/ere reported from Westfield and
Spencer. Since there are no known populations in these
areas, they may be misidentlfications or escaped domestic
turkeys .
The game-farm ancestry turkeys in October Mountain State
Forest are apparently vanished or nearly so. A single bird
was seen in this area during the current segment. No in-
formation was available as to whether this was a wild-strain
or game-farm turkey. Five adult turkeys and one juvenile
(game-farm ancestry) were reported being hand-fed in the
Town of Mount Washington in October 1975.
Additional Activities; Project personnel met with foresters
from the Division of Forests and Parks regarding the possi-
bility of making wildlife clearings as a byproduct of con-
tract logging operations. Indications were that this would
be a possibility if no major additional effort vzas required.
A few experimental clearings may be made on Beartown State
Forest by Division personnel.
Division photographers produced one half-hour television
special (shovm twice) and one tbree-minute news spot. The
project leader gave three slide talks and spoke on one radio
program regarding the turkey study.
Acknowledgments : I extend my appreciation to personnel of
the Division of Forests and Parks, Division of Law Enforce-
ment, Metropolitan District Commission, and the University
of l>lassachusetts for their cooperation and assistance.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
/ f/v:t> ^-n ^'^' ^
PERFORl'IAI^CE REPORT
State
Project Title
Project Type
Period Covered:
Work Plan VI
Plan Objectives:
Job VI-1
Job Objective
SuEimary:
Target Date
Progress:
Deviations
R Recotnnendations:
u lif L. .^w ^-.Ji utiiiiikT
Massachusetts
Game Population Trend and Harvest SurS7;ey_
Research and Surveys
Project Ho. IJ-35-R-18 -M"'>>
1 June 1975 to 31 May 1976
* * * A * * * * *
Black Bear Study
''•I /-
To define the range of the black bear in Ilassachusetts
and to determine its population characteristics and rate
of harvest by hunting.
Black Bear Population Dynamics
To define the ranpe of the black bear in Massachusetts
and to determine its population characteristics and rate
of harvest by hunting.
Applications for bear huntinj^ permits were received from
483 sportsmen « Three female bear vjere taken during the
open season and two additional bear were illegally shot
during deer week. Three cubs were illegally taken from
the wild and later confiscated by the Division of Lav;
Enforcement and turned over to a zoo. Nev; reports of
41 observations totalling 52 bear were received from five
counties. Hmo reports of problem bears v/ere investigated,
31 May 1979
On schedule
None
1. Continue evaluation of bear harvest through checking
stations and periodic questionnaires.
1. Consider revising the season dovmvjard in 1977 if
several females are again taken in 1976. If necessary,
the season could most effectively be shortened by
eliminatinj^ the one open Saturday in the season.
3. Continue determination of bear range and populations
through recording of sightings.
4. Investigate nuisance complaints as necessary. Pro-
mote public-education programs to lessen man-bear con-
flicts.
5. Issue a news release prior to bear v/eek urging
hunters to spare cubs and, v.'hen identifiable, so\;s.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
//5146
W-35-R-18!VI-l
Cost $474.41 (project leader man days: 5)
Remarks: Procedures. Current bear hunting regulations include
mandatory reporting and tagging of bear. Bear checking
stations were maintained daily during bear x;eek at three
locations: Birch Hill Wildlife llanagement Area, Baldwin-
ville; Bitzer State Fish Hatchery, Ilontague; Western
Wildlife District Headquarters, Pittsfield. When bear
were presented for examination, station personnel affixed
a metal game seal to the bear, removed a premolar tooth,
and recorded the following information: to\7n of kill,
date killed, sex and v/eight of bear and method of kill.
The Information-Education Section issued periodic news
releases asking for reports of bear. Several cooperating
agencies reported sightings.
Findings; Bear hunting permit applications were received
from 483 individuals during the 1975 season (Table 1)
V7ith three individuals succeeding in taking a bear. All
three X7ere reported as taken in Savoy, Berkshire County,
on the last day of the six-day season. Two of the three
were taken v/ith the use of dogs. Tt^jo bears x^rere examined
by station personnel and determined to be females. They
v/eighed 31.7 and 50.4 kg (85 and 150 lbs.) respectively.
The third bear was checked as a pelt only (an illegal
procedure) and reported by the hunter as also a female.
Ti70 additional bears vjere shot illegally during the shot-
gun season for deer. One hunter claimed self-defense
and voluntarily turned himself in; x/hile the second bear
was found dead in the woods and reported to Division per-
sonnel. Both bears were frozen for future examination
by a cooperating university^ The smaller, apparently a
female, X7eighed 60.0 kg (150 Ibo.) ungutted, and was shot
in Colrain, Franklin County. The second, apparently a
male, x/elghed 93.3 kg (265 lbs) ungutted, and v;as shot
in Heath, Franklin County.
Three bears were also lost to the wild due to the illegal
disturbance and taking of cubs from dens. In Chester-
field, Hampshire County, on 21 February, a local resident
claiming to be looking for porcupine dens flushed a sow
from a den containing two approximately four-week-old
cubs (tv7o males). Natural Resource officers investigated
later that day. The sow had not returned by nightfall
and the officers removed the cubs and brought them to
the Springfield Children's Zoo. One cub V7as subsequently
operated on successfully for an obstructed urethra. Both
x^ere left in captivity at the Children's Zoo. In the
second incident, a single cub was confiscated from an
individual viho apparently obtained it from the wild in
northern Berkshire County. It also was turned over to
the Children's Zoo.
W-35-R-lC:VI-l
Table 1. Number of Bear Permit Applications and Number of Bear Taken in
llassachusetts froLi 1970 to 1975.
Year
No. Permits
1970
214
1971
200
1972
423
1973
309
1974
390
1975
483
No. Bear Taken
2
3
Other Mortalities
1 illegal kill; 1 road kill
1 illegal kill
1 road kill; 1 captured bear
1 road kill
2 illegal kills; 3 captured
bear
Table 2. Reports of Black Bear by County for Massachusetts, 1952 to May 1976
County
1952-
-May
1975
June
1975-May
1976
Total
Percent
Berkshire
138
24
162
35.7
Franklin
160
7
167
36.8
Hampden
21
3
24
5.3
Hampshire
72
6
78
17.2
Middlesex
1
0
1
0.2
VJorcester
21
413
1
41
22
454
4.8
100.0
i'l
W-35-R-18:VI-l
New reports of bear received during this segnent included
34 sightings J three hunter kills, tv;o illegal kills and
two reports of captured bear, for a total of 52 bear re-
ported in 26 tOTTns. Reports by county for the period
1952 to Hay 1976 are presented in Table 2.
Three groups of a sov; and tvro cubs V7ere reported — one from
Franklin County and two from Hampshire County.
Two problem situations were investigated. The first, in
June 1975, involved depredation on beehives. The com-
plaint ceased when the bears stopped coming to the hive
area. The second complaint, in Chesterfield, Hampshire
County, in September 1975, concerned damage to field com.
After investigation. Western District personnel installed
a propane exploder in the field. No damage occurred
thereafter.
The project leader gave two slide talks and spoke on one
radio program concerning the bear study. He also attended
the Third Eastern Bear Workshop at Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Acknowledgments ; Personnel of the University of llass-
achusetts and the Division of Law Enforcement assisted by
reporting bear sightings. Officers Edvrin Lavjler and
Thomas Ricardi V7ere particularly cooperative in investi-
gating reports of captured bears. Personnel of the
Springfield Children's Zoo v/illingly accepted and cared
for three confiscated cubs.
*
Job VI-2
Historical Records of the Black Bear in Massachusetts
Job Objective:
Remarks :
Cost:
To determine trends in black bear populations and distri-
bution from preColonial times to the present.
The final report on this job has been completed and \rlll
be submitted separately. Preparations are underway to
publish it as a Division research bulletin.
$1835.18 (project leader man days: 37-1/2)
Prepared by
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and tianagement
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
.^5-^/Oo^-i:iu'j6 yc-/
v^
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State
Project Title
Project Type
Period Covered
sUEhtil^ettg.i . .>......-> gjto.^eGt - tft^r W-35-R-19
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 1976 to 30 May 1977
Work Plan I
Statewide Game Harvest
Work Plan
Objectives:
Job I-l
Objectives:
Summary :
To determine the statewide harvest of selected small
game and furbearer species and to present recommendations,
based upon management practices and regulations, to in-
crease the utilization of certain species.
Statewide Small Game Harvest
To determine the statewide harvest of selected small
game and furbearer species and to determine the time
expenditure by sportsmen.
A sample of 400 small game hunters (consisting of two
subsamples of 200) was surveyed by telephone in order to
determine their harvest and participation in small game
hunting. Additional special questions concerned waterfowl,
squirrel, raccoon, deer, and mourning dove hunting.
Sampled totals were expanded to provide an index, by species
of total hunters, total successful hunters, and total harvest
Due to characteristics of the sampling procedure, estimated
totals may not accurately reflect actual totals, however,
useful trend indices can be developed which will be
valuable in assessing harvests and hunter preferences.
Hunter effort in 1976, as in 1975, was greatest for
pheasant, ruffed grouse, cottontail rabbit, woodcock,
and ducks. Hunter success was greatest for pheasant,
cottontail rabbit, ducks, ruffed grouse, and woodcock.
The rankings were similar to 1975 except for woodcock which
replaced gray squirrel in fifth place. Estimated harvests
were greatest for ducks, cottontail rabbit, pheasant,
raccoon, and gray squirrel. This was similar to 1975
except for pheasant and raccoon, which switched rankings.
The estimated number of Massachusetts deer hunters was
calculated as 69,390- 4.2 percent. Shotgun hunters ranked
first (97.6%), followed by archery (11.7%) and primitive
firearm hunters (7.0%). The estimated number of permit
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent //5146
W-35-R-19:I-l
applicants (6,503) was significantly greater than the
actual total (5,343). The sampled estimate of the deer
harvest (3,664) also significantly exceeded the actual
harvest (2,712).
The majority (80.3%) of the waterfowl hunters approved
of the state duck stamp and preferred a noon Wednesday
opening (53.5%) over the traditional opening day (38.9^).
Almost one-third (31.1%) of squirrel hunters partici-
pated in the early (September) squirrel season. Those
squirrel hunters expressing an opinion disagreed (48.5%
vs. 35.6%) with retaining the ban on rifles for squirrel
hunting. Most hunters (87%) were satisfied with the
zoned season, but were almost equally split in preferring
a September opening over October.
Most raccoon hunters (71.4%) used dogs. A slight majority
( 59.8%) of all survey respondents indicated no interest
in mourning dove hunting.
Target Date:
Progress
Deviations
Recommendations
Remarks
31 May 1979
On Schedule
None
(1) Continue the small game harvest survey in 1977-78.
(2) Continue liaison with cooperators to refine sampling
and analysis of the survey.
Cost: $2,750.09 (project leader man-days 7 1/2)
Procedures; A sample of 400 small game hunters, consist-
ing of two subsamples of 200 each, was used for the 1976-77
telephone survey. This was a refinement from 1975-76
when the sample consisted of 400 hunters (including deer
hunters) .
The sample was drawn from the calendar 1976 license sales
of resident hunting and sporting licenses. Each county
was represented in the sample by a percentage equal to
the percentage of the combined license sales for that
county. For example, if Worcester County had 40 percent
of the licenses sold, then 40 percent of the sample was from
Worcester County. Towns to be sampled in each county were
determined by listing each town in alphabetical order and
numbering sequentially commencing with one. Town numbers
were then extracted from a book of random numbers separately
for each county. Selected pages were read continuously
until the requisite number of town selections had been
obtained. Individual towns could be and were frequently
selected more than once. Twice as many numbers as required
were drawn to allow for negative contacts.
License stub cards were filed by town in several filing
cabinets. There was no standard sequence to the cards
within the town. Individual stubs were selected by draw-
ing a random number and measuring in the requisite number
of inches or millimeters (depending on the thickness of
the pile) . The first legible resident hunting or sport-
ing license at or after that point was the card selected .
The survey was conducted using a statewide WATS line.
Calls were made between 4:30 and 9:00 P.M.
Response data were transferred to IBM cards and totalled
by computer by a cooperator at the University of Massa-
chusetts.
Findings; In the first subsample, 269 hunters were contacted
in order to reach 200 small game hunters. Thirty-two (32)
persons did not hunt and 37 hunted only deer. In the
second subsample, 301 individuals were contacted in order
to yield 200 small game hunters. There were 41 non-hunters
and 60 who hunted only deer.
W-35-R-19:I-l
Responses were initially tabulated separately for each
species. The numbers of hunters seeking and the numbers
of hunters successful by species for the two subsamples
and the expanded estimates are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
The subsamples were drawn from license stubs filed by
calendar year. However, license sales totals for the
year sampled (1976) had not been tabulated on a calendar
year basis. Therefore, the mean combined sales of resi-
dent hunting and sporting licenses for the last two
years (1970 and 1971) for which calendar year totals were
available were used as an approximation of 1976 sales.
This mean license sale figure was used in the expansion
of the data .
Approximately 11.85 percent (32 of 269) of the hunters
in the first subsample bought a license, but did not
hunt. In the second subsample, this percentage was approx-
imately 13.62 and in the combined sample was 12.76. For
each subsample and for the combined sample, the approxi-
mate 1976 hunting and sporting license sales total was
reduced by the respective percentage to obtain an estimate
of the total statewide population of hunters.
For each subsample, the number of hunters reported seek-
ing each species was expressed as a percentage of the
total number of hunters in that sample. This percentage
was then multiplied by the estimated total hunter popula-
tion as derived for that sample to obtain an expanded num-
ber of hunters seeking each species.
A successful hunter was defined as a hunter who took at
least one individual of the spe cies he sought. Hunters
seeking more than one species were regarded as successful
or unsuccessful separately for each species hunted. The
sampled number of successful hunters was then tabulated
by species and expressed as a percentage of the total
sampled number of hunters seeking in each subsample. Then,
for each subsample, the expanded number of hunters seeking
each species was reduced by the respective percentage to
yield an expanded number of successful hunters.
Sampling was conducted so as to select 200 small game
hunters in each subsample. However, if hunters seeking
more than one species were treated separately for each
species, there were 641 "hunters" seeking small game in
the first subsample and 626 in the second subsample.
This difference is not significant (x^ = 0.355, t. 01=6. 635)
There was no significant difference in the number of
hunters seeking individual species, except for gray
squirrel (x^ = A. 968, t. 05=6. 635) and bobcat (no bobcat
hunters in one subsample) .
M-l
O
0)
a
S
cd
n
u
u
o
(4-(
<u
c
3
(U
.^
H
c
CO
s
c
0}
iJ
c
3
3
U-i
CO
0}
0)
u
o
3
CO
o
u
I
00
c
•H
(U
CO
00
■u
c
3
o
u
<u
3
25
c
6
CO
u
u
o
a
CO
o
o
cs
H
V4
CO ^ Ui -M
0) CO (U C
S H PL. 3
3
T3
»4-l
CO
0)
^
CO
M
TJ
0)
CO
0)
c
,D
0)
4J
CO
e
o
c
O.
3
a
3
X
s:
3
»
w
CO
iH 0)
3 -H
c CO e c
« CO CO "H
O 0) CO ^
MO O
pLi :3 o CO
CO
3
<4-l
CO CO (1)
CO M iH
(U (U CM
a 4J g
O C CO
3 3 CO
CO K
c
O -H
2
CO
M
"O
(U
*
<u
4J
oc
-o
c
c
c
3
•H
CO
ffi
,i«S
Cu
(U
X
•
<U
►4
o
CO
4J
c
(U
0)
iH
o
<4-l
cx
u
o
E
<u
CO
(U
CO
CD
U
<U 00 (U
C "H CM
3 ^ e
K 0) CO
<U CO
• CO
2. ^
CO
(U
•H
o
CM
CO
CN
<»
(X)
vO
o
o
o
00
<x>
o
CO
o
o
CM
r-i
in
csi
m
CO
CX3
CM
in
cy>
<3N
cs
CO
(X3
en
in
CT>
CN
00
in
00
in
in
CN
NO
CM
00
m
in
vo
CJN
vO
vC
o
00
in
in
m
CO
CO
00
o
o
CO
in
vO
so
in
00
00
o
o
vO
CO
o
C4
CO
CM
CO
in
CM
vO
a^
CO
CM
>3-
CO
sr
CO
00
cr>
vO
vO
CvJ
00
CTN
VO
CM
CM
CO
CM
O
00
o
CM
CO
O
CO
in
00
in
vO
vO
o
00
CO
VO
vO
CM
VO
CsJ
CO
VO
Csl
iH
iH
sr
St
iH
CO
CM
00
CO
VO
-d-
CM
r^
in
r».
CO
<y\
CJN
00
sr
o
o
CO
in
vO
CM
T-i
in
CM
CO
in
csj
rH
o
v3-
CO
Cvl
CM
00
CO
o
vO
vO
O
CM
m
CM
o
a
o
«
OB
c
o
•H
(0
c
<
a
o
CO
in
O
o
crv
in
ON
tH
CM
00
in
CM
vO
CO
vO
CO
CO
CO
sr
in
o
CM
-3-
vO
o
o
CM
CO
^
,o
(1)
s
0)
rH
CO
0)
M
(U
3
OB
CO
U
O
O
iH
K
U
M
o
•H
•H
O
4-1
^
C5
CO
<U
3
c
o
B
4J
o
cr
c
T3
(0
o
CO
3
C
j:
CO
o
4J
0)
CD
fH
o
13
CO
CO
o
CO
o
«
iH
•4-1
CO
•H
73
CO
^
CO
4-t
5
>^
o
o
CO
U-l
<U
CO
O
C
CJ
o
iJ
o
CO
o
X
X5
4-)
3
x:
3
O
CO
3
o.
o
c
M
CO
o
o
o
Cki
Pui
O*
:s
u
a
o
CJ
CO
o
cxi
tu
PQ
H
i-t
p.
e
CO
09
a
u
G
c
o
(U
6^S
in
00
M
O
(0
0)
•H
O
(U
Ou
CO
M
<U
4J
3
PC
(U
(U
cd
H
C
cd
(U
CO
CO
u
0)
4J
C
p:
iH
3
U-i
CO
CO
<u
o
o
3
CO
M-l
O
M
<U
•i
3
2:
c
E
CO
00 }-i
c o
.i»5
(U
0)
CO
CO
M
CO
o
o
CM
(4-1
o
3 iH
6
(4-1 Cd
O CO
u -o
(U c
•S °
B o
3 (U
Z CO
CM
U3
Cd
H
M
0)
c
(U
4-1
Cd
^
M c
0)
cd
<U 3
S
H
3
T3
<4-l CO
(1)
v^
CO U
TS
0)
CO <U
a
^
(U 4J
cd
B
o c
a
3
O 3
><
z
3 X
w
CO
iH
(1)
3
iH
4-t
»4-l
a M
c
CO
E C
(U
CO
cd -H
o
(U
CO ^
u
o
<u
<u
u
M-l 0)
Ph
3
CO
iH
3
O CO
«4-l
(U
CO
CO iH
CO
u a
(U
(1) E
o
4J td
o
C CO
3
3
CO
K C
•
•H
o
:z
CO
tj
M -K
<u
0) oc
-o
4J C
C
C -H
cd
3 ^
a s <u|
X
• CU
w
O CO
4->
c
cu
<u
fH
o
^ tx
V4
o E
<u
cd
eu
CO
CO
^
(U
(U
MiH
4J
c a
c
•H E
3
,i«5 cd
K
<U CO
•
CO d
O
•H
z
CO
<u
•H
u
(U
a
CO
cr.
00
in
in
CT^
CN
o
CN
00
in
CSI
in
00
CM
O
o
CJN
O
o
CN
CN
m
oo
CO
CO
in
en
in
in
in
in
en
C7^
en
00
cy\
o
CO
C«4
in
CN
so
O
CN
in
-3-
in
in
o
o
CO
m
00
O
«d-
sr
'^
CO
fH
o
CO
-J-
m
00
>3-
in
CN
CN
in
CM
St
-4-
CO
CJN
o
o
00
CN
o
1^
iH
in
o
CN
C3^
CN
CO
CN
m
in
S3-
cr.
00
in
CO
00
m
in
iH
vo
C7N
CN
CO
CN
cr>
<N
o
in
o
in
CO
CM
in
CN
CN
CO
iH
o
CO
CN
o
as
o
00
o
O
in
in
CN
<r
iH
NO
CO
-*
CT>
in
CO
<f
O
00
r^
>3-
in
CO
00
in
cr>
Csl
in
iH
vO
CN
iH
Cvj
CO
o
iH
m
iH
in
CN
o
-J-
in
o
o
c
o
13
<U
CO
Cd
c
o
•H
CO
cd
a
X
o
CO
CO
CN
CM
iH
in
iH
o
O
<t
«*
r^
<T\
CT.
m
CM
r^
sj
r~»
00
CN
CO
in
CM
v£)
o
o
CN
O
vO
0)
CO
3
O
U
o
0)
14-1
«4-l
3
od
4-1
c
Cd
CO
Cd
Pu.
cd
.a
^
cd
(U
iH
0)
pi
M
(U
CO
Cd
>-i
o
iH
K
J-i
o
•H
•H
M
o
Cd
(U
3
(J
a
4-)
o
cr
C
o
Cd
3
c
x:
CO
O
4J
CJ
X)
CO
CO
o
CO
O
cd
iH
ta
cd
^
CO
4-1
5
>%
U
CJ
cd
o
c
o
o
4-)
o
Cd
O
X
U3
4-t
o
ca
B
o.
o
c
M
Cd
o
o
o
3
o
o
o
CO
C5
on
[>M
PQ
H
c
3
O
c
•H
T3
T3
<U
iH
CX
a
td
CO
CO
u
0)
4J
c
3
c
o
M
0)
x:
^^
CN
vO
•
CO
W-35-R-19:I-l
There were 15A hunters in the first subsample and 152
in the second who were successful in taking at least one
unit of game of any small game species. This difference
is not statistically significant. The numbers of success-
ful hunters taking individual species were not statistically
significant for any sampled small game species. Bobcat
hunters could not be tested since no sampled hunters were
successful.
The reported, mean, and expanded bag take for both subsam-
ples is presented in Table 3. The expanded bag take per
species was derived by multiplying the annual mean take
per successful hunter times the expanded number of suc-
cessful hunters.
There was a statistically significant difference (x = 6.310,
t.05 = 3.841) in total reported take between the first
and second subsamples. This difference was reflected in
the takes of ruffed grouse, quail, woodcock, opossum, gray
squirrel and raccoon (all different at the 99% level) and
pheasant, cottontail rabbit, and fox (different at the 95%
level) .
The differences in the opossum and fox take can be ex-
plained by the small sample size. No reason is assigned
for the differences in the taxes of other species.
Expanded hunter numbers and bag take for the Combined
Sample of 400 small game hunters are presented in Table 4.
Furbearer harvest data for the 1976-77 season shows pelt
returns from licensed fur buyers of 8,053 raccoon and
707 fox (red and gray) as compared to an estimated take
(from the telephone survey) of 100,534 raccoon and 2,236
fox. The estimated 1976 Massachusetts waterfowl harvest,
as calculated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from j
wing collection surveys, was 95,870- 3% ducks and 8,561- j
2% Canada geese. This compares to an estimated harvest 1
(from the telephone survey) of 194,314 ducks and 17, 116
Canada geese. Inflated harvest figures probably result-
ing from the sampling of individual sportsmen who take
unusually high numbers of particular species.
The calculated number of waterfowl hunters (ducks and
geese combined, 41,320) is significantly different (99%
level) from both the 1976 sales of Federal waterfowl
stamps in Massachusetts (22,292 less 2.67% to non-hunters)
and the 1976 sales of Massachusetts waterfowl stamps(27,961) .
The sampled numbers of hunters seeking, numbers of succes-
sful hunters, total reported take, and mean take per succes-
sful hunter for the 1975 and 1976 surveys are presented
in Table 5. Statistical comparison for these years is
precluded due to the difference in Sample size between
1975 (338) and 1976 (400).
(U
§
8
a
M
o
p.
CO
so
i
u
cd
OB
a
S
o
o
CM
o
CB
«
I
CO
o
«4-l
cd
EH
60
(S
pq
cd
1
0)
•O <U
C ^
CO CO
D. H
X
a
(U
3
B
^
VM
>-l
CO
CO
CO
0)
cn
H
)-l
CO
■u
0)
<u
c
t>
C
IX
a
3
C
CO
o
U:
o
0)
3
o
s
CO
(U
C/3
(U
4-) (U
H ^
O CO
a H
(U
(U
ta
<u
•T3 <u
in
CO
<*
CO
vO
CO
00
*3-
r«.
C»
O
vO
c ^
r^
r^
m
vO
CO
in
in
m
r^
>3-
00
.H
CO CO
in
so
vO
O
CTi
r>.
vO
i>»
vD
in
vO
CO
&H
A
«^
A
9k
M
M
«h
»
•»
0K
•«
A
X
^o
r^
r^
in
in
vO
CM
cs
VO
iH
cr>
tH
U
^a-
iH
iH
'd-
iH
CT\
CO
Csj
C7\
00
a
<U
tH
B
^
3
CO
iH
CO
u^
M
CO
CO
H
)-i
CO
<u
3
(U
CO
4-1
■u
C
C
Oi
(U
c
CO
5
CO
o
3
u
(U
o
ffi
•H
S
3
en
T3
0)
4J 0)
O CO
a H
(U
U
o
CO
CO
0)
•H
O
0)
CM
CO
in
iH
vO
iH
CSI
"J-
vO
vO
CM
cs
CJN
O
CO
VO
CO
o
CO
o
o
m
vO
est
iH
m
CO
00
00
o
CO
O
00
CM
in
00
fH
CO
00
CO
vO
o
CO
in
o
Csl
VO
VO
o
o
<S
00
o
o
vO
vO
vO
CO
o
o
o
o
00
CM
cs
vO
CO
cs
av
iH
in
«d-
in
o
cs
cs
o
CM
CM
-d-
>d-
CJN
f^
00
tH
a\
00
•<r
in
00
CO
r».
«*
•<r
a\
Nd-
«J-
VO
00
CS
iH
<f
CO
tH
cs
00
C7V
CO
o
o
CO
o
CM
m
CO
00
o
VO
CXv
o
o
p«-
as
vO
CS
OS
00
CM
o
in
o
o
as
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
00
cs
<■
CO
in
cs
iH
«H
o
iH
iH
00
o
CO
cs
r>.
r^ vj
D 00
cs
CS
cr>
CO
in
o
VO
tH
o
>d-
CO
CS
cs
CO
o
CO
00
J3
^
(U
CO
(U
iH
CO
«
(xi
>-l
(U
3
a
CO
u
O
o
iH
w
y*
ki
o
•H
•H
o
u
M
o
CO
(U
3
C
CJ
g
4J
o
cr
c
•o
CO
o
CO
3
c
^
cy3
o
4J
<v
CO
tH
o
•T3
CO
CO
o
CO
o
Cd
»4-l
CO
•H
•o
CO
^
en
iJ
5
>^
o
o
IH
0)
CO
o
C
a
o
4-1
o
CO
o
X
^
3
£
3
o
CO
3
D-
o
c
Vj
cS
o
o
cm
a,
cr
:s
CJ
G
o
u
CO
O
pL,
n
■vj
0)
•o
<u
c
^
CO
CO
a H
X
w
iH
(U
3
M
14-1
u
CO
M
CO
0)
H
<U
CO
■p
o.
(U
C
C
a
3
CO
CJ
ffi
<U
3
s
CO
c
d)
*J
CO
^
^
c
(U
CO
0)
3
s
Ph
K
(U
^-N
■u
(U
QJ
Wi
M
60
O
CO
C
an
CO
(U
oc:
Od
>w^
3
«4-l
CO CO
Vj CD Vj
0) 0) 0)
CO U3 CJ +J
P. 6 0 C
X 3 3 3
W Z CO P2
(U
1-^
0)
3
iH
u^
a
4J
CO
S
00
c
CO
CO
C
<U
(U
CO
•H
CJ
0
,^
)-l
a
«4-l
(1)
<u
3
0
(U
PL^
W
CO
rH
6
3
•H
iw
CO
CO
u
CO
U
<u
0)
(U
<U
rH
^
0
4-t
a
e
a
C
e
3
3
3
CO
25 CO 3: CO
"O
•K
0)
CO
00
T)
M
»-i
c
c
0)
(U
•H
CO
U3
4-1
^
0.
B
c
(U
X
3
3
OJ
U
4J
K
CO
C
(U
«)
iH
0
>4-l
0.
M
0
6
(U
CO
PLI
CO
CO
M
u
<u
0)
0)
iH
^
■u
c
a
e
c
•H
e
3
3
CO
z
K
CO
CO
(U
•H
O
(U
a
CO
CN
0
in
vD
vO
*d-
VO
0
en
CN
>3-
vO
0
r^
r>»
00
VO
tH
tH
CN
00
ON
in
en
en
vO
iH
m
^
tH
cn
>3-
m
en
St
in
CN
00
m
m
m
r^
'J-
tH
en
CM
vO
0*
CN
en
0
CN
in
iH
CJ\
iH
en
CM
p^
0
iH
0
00
CT>
m
0
vO
m
00
in
00
St
en
0
LO
00
r>»
in
a\
m
r-
en
in
p>.
CT>
00
0
CN
CN
<r
m
CN
CJ\
tH
in
en
in
in
tH
iH
<D
in
00
n
cr>
r>»
0
0
0
en
en
iH
CT.
0
0
v£)
iH
cy>
tH
en
0
p^
00
tH
tH
p^
0
iH
tH
CN
tH
rH
1^
tH
en
tH
-d-
tH
cJ
CD
/'-N
/"—s
/-^
^>.
0
/~\
^-\
/"-s
^~\
CN
CN
m
m
X— \
0
<^v
0
-*
m
0
/-s
1
1
CN
1
iH
1
CJ\
1
tH
1
<*
1
en
1
CM
1
CN
1
VO
1
in
1
iH
iH
iH
iH
tH
iH
iH
tH
tH
tH
tH
0
r^
in
fO
<r
in
r^
r>.
0
vO
^
tH
0
cr\
0
iH
vO
00
in
m
tH
r»»
o\
tH
fH
m
iH
CN
o\
VO
tH
en
St
OS
CO
CN
^
CN
0
in
(T.
00
p^
r-^
CM
0
vO
CN
00
v£)
0
vO
tH
CN
0
CN
0
CN
00
00
0
ON
r^
A
00
00
en
CN
en
CN
in
in
^
in
in
0
St
vO
en
VO
tH
iH
CO
iH
CN
CM
fH
CJN
CN
sr
vo
r^
vO
»d-
0
r^
a\
r*
VO
0
CT\
in
••d-
0
CM
00
iH
>3-
VO
00
m
00
0
iH
r^
<f
vO
0
1^
r^
r^
tH
C7\
00
CM
CD
-<J-
in
-*
in
<■
r»
m
VO
m
VO
00
^
vO
vO
St
«*
a\
CN
«d-
CN
tH
in
tH
vO
0
r>»
rH
CN
r*
CN
0
CM
iH
en
VO
en
cr»
CT>
in
\D
p^
m
vO
cr>
cy>
in
tH
CN
CN
m
t^
00
vO
in
VO
CN
en
0
CN
CN
in
0
00
CN
0
00
VO
VO
-*
00
CN
a\
rH
00
CN
vO
CN
0
VO
-3-
vO
tH
vO
CM
00
P^
CN
ro
vO
iH
CN
tH
CN
en
tH
tH
CN
r^
vo
VO
<y\
vO
tH
CN
P-^
tH
>t
CN
0
CM
-3-
in
00
in
<T
m
«d-
sr
0
p^
0
00
CM
in
vD
iH
0
vO
<t
VO
tH
VO
CN
00
r^
CM
0
CJv
m
vO
tH
CN
tH
CN
en
tH
tH
tH
iH
vO
vd-
CN
CN
tH
r^
tH
0
en
in
St
iH
P-.
00
0
m
m
r>.
m
GO
vO
CT>
en
tH
CJN
iH
ro
iH
tH
•H
(U
H
CO
<U
«
3
CO
U
0
0
tH
U
>%
>-i
0
•H
•H
tH
0
4-1
^
0
CO
4J
<u
3
c
c
0
B
4J
•H
0
cr
C
0
13
CO
0
CO
3
c
X>
x:
<U
CO
0
i-t
(U
CO
i-i
0
T3
CO
CO
0
^
CO
U
0
CO
u
14-1
CO
•H
TS
CO
^
CO
u
s
:5
^
>.
0
0
0)
14-1
<u
CO
0
C
a
0
4J
0
CO
0
X
X
JZ
3
x:
3
0
CO
3
a.
0
c
u
CO
0
0
4J
PEi
PL.
cy
:s
C_)
Q
0
0
CO
0
a
Ct,
CO
0
CO
u
<u
u
c
3
x:
in
C
o
0)
CO
CO
c
O
•H
CO
c
CO
a
X
<u
o
CO
3
O
c
•H
<U
tH
O,
a
CO
CO
CO
0)
4.1
c
3
6^
vO
•
CM
.H
•tC
g
I
fd
H
«
M
O
a
0)
at
o
a
M
0)
c
3
14-4
(0
CO
(U
u
u
d
CO
o
CO
u
I
CO
>^
>
M
3
CO
o
o
c
CO
00
•H in
0) cr.
<U iH
C/3
00
u
<u
4J
c
u
o
M-4
CO
M
(U
4J
c
3
U fH
4) 3
6 CO
3 en
o
o
3
CO
•a
0)
S u
CQ (U
0)
<u
Pui
0)
CO
H
C
CO
<U
S
u
4J SO
3 <y>
a: iH
00
oa in
O ON
O iH
3
CO
(U r»
■U) ON
M ^
O
<u ^
c^ cd
H
CO
o
H
in
ON
CO
u
so
ON
C 00
3 C
<U (U
^ CO in
S r^
3 <7N
CO
0)
•H
o
a
CO
o
r^
m
CO
>d-
m
r>.
r^
o
SO
<T
as
O
r-i
so
CX3
in
in
iH
r^
CTN
iH
m
iH
CM
a\
so
rH
en
»a-
CN
C7N
CJN
00
CO
o
o
<t
CX3
in
00
ON
CM
CO
iH
CM
00
ON
vO
O
in
sO «— i
o
CO
«— 1
so
CO
CO
CN
iH
so
sO
so
-*
-sT
ON
CM
3
«4-l
ON
r^
CN
r^
CM
O
tH
CO
iH
CO
<U
U CO
a n
3 <u
CO .u
c
U 3
<U PC
^
in
e
p>«
so
CO
r^
00
ON
iH
3
CJN
r».
m
CO
in
iH
00
5S
r-i
fH
CM
CM
CO
in
so
vO
CO
CO
o
CM
CM
o
00
CM
CM
00
so
-;f
CM
CM
O
m
CO
r^
CO
iH
CO
00
o
so
CO
CJN
in
CO
<r
r^
CO
iH
SO
00
<■
in
-*
SO
CO
00
m
so
iH
in
o
>3-
>3-
r^
CO
iH
CM
fH
tH
iH
XI
Xi
<u
s
<u
.H
CO
0)
>-l
(U
3
00
CO
M
O
o
tH
W
V4
U
o
•H
•H
o
u
^
C5
CO
u
3
C
a
6
4J
o
cr
c
T3
CO
o
CO
3
c
^
CO
o
4J
<U
m
rH
a
TD
09
CO
o
CO
o
Id
«4-l
CO
•H
n3
CO
^
CO
4-1
5
>»
o
o
U-4
<u
CO
o
c
a
o
4-t
o
CO
u
X
,Q
3
x:
3
o
CO
3
a.
o
c
u
.2
o
O
on
cm
CD"
S
CJ
a
o
o
CO
o
(X4
CP
W-35-R-19-I-1
The 13 small game animals sampled in 1976 were ranked
by hunter effort, hunter success, and abundance in the
bag and compared with results of the 1975 survey (Table 6) .
The top five species by hunter effort in the 1976 survey
(Combined Sample) were pheasant, ruffed grouse, cotton-
tail rabbit, woodcock and ducks (ranked in decreasing
order, grouse and rabbit had equal estimated numbers of
hunters seeking) . The remaining eight animals had less
than 10 percent of the hunter effort each. The top six
species remained unchanged in ranking from 1975. Among
the remainder, the greatest changes were for Canada goose
(eighth to sixth place) and snowshoe hare (ninth to
seventh place) .
The top six animals in hunter success in 1976 were pheasant,
cottontail rabbit, ducks, ruffed grouse, woodcock and
gray squirrel, with the remaining seven having less than
10,000 successful hunters each. These rankings were
unchanged from 1975 except for woodcock and gray squirrel
which switched rankings by a margin of 1,834 hunters.
(The greatest changes in the remaining groups were quail
(seventh to tenth ranking) and snowshoe hare (ninth to
seventh) .
The species with the greatest estimated harvest (combined
sample) were ducks, cottontail rabbit, pheasant, raccoon,
gray squirrel, and woodcock. Harvests of remaining species
were estimated at less than 50,000 units each. No species
differed more than one ranking from 1975.
One special question asked if the respondent hunted deer
in Massachusetts in 1976. There were 164 (69.2%) affirm-
ative in the first subsample (237), and 177, (68.1%) in
the second (260) . These percentages were multiplied by
the estimated statewide population of hunters for that
sample in order to derive an estimated number of deer hunt-
ers in the state. The same procedure was followed for the
Combined Sample (497), which had 341 (68.6%) deer hunters
(Table 7).
The estimate from subsample one was 70,726 deer hunters;
from subsample two 68,205; and from the combined sample
69,390-, 2,914 hunters. This is an increase of about
4.06 percent of the 1975 estimate of 66,684.
Another question surveyed hunter par ticipation in the
various types of deer seasons. Respondents were categor-
ized in six seasons and combinations of seasons and ex-
panded for each sample to an estimated number of hunters
for each category of season (Table 8). As expected, the
greatest number of sportsmen hunted the shotgun season
only, followed by the shotgun-archery combination, the
shotgun-primitive combination, equal numbers in the archery
only and "all" seasons, and the least numbers in the
primitive only season.
«
(0
0) ns
> (U
CO C
SC CO
O.
(0
9)
•H
O
(U
Pu
W
CO a^
CO cr>
Xi
5
r-»
0)
0)
0)
OS
Vi
0)
M
0
CO
CO
iH
V4
o
p:
o
•H
•H
u
o
CO
u
s
^
o
<u
o
4-)
c
C
cr
o
o
B
c
CO
o
en
o
73
^
CO
3
u
0)
o
oo
o
o
<U
r-i
en
•o
0}
CO
^
■u
CO
o
>%
T3
<4-l
•H
5
CO
en
a
o
u
(U
CJ
CO
O
(M
CO
o
C
X
o
XI
3
o
J3
^
M
O
3
3
c
CO
o
a.
o
O
o
PL.
o
IS
pa
C
CO
CJ
I^
o
pq
Csl
m
m
vo
00
CT\
CM
cn
CM
en
m
vo
GO
ON
CM
CO
en
u
<i)
4-1
CO C
CO 3
(U S
CJ
O iH
3 3
en «4-i
0)
V4 CO
0) (1)
■w o
ti u
3 3
a: en
o
25
CO
0)
•H
O
(U
a
en
^
vO
a
r^
,2
^
in
c
r-
CO
a\
txi
iH
^
XI
CO
0)
iH
(U
Pi
08
3
<U
u
CO
0)
1— i
O
U
ffi
o
•H
>-i
•H
o
u
CO
o
^
3
0)
o
C
4-1
O
cr
o
c
e
CO
c
T3
O
tn
^
o
CO
3
4J
CO
o
CO
<U
a
(0
o
T3
iH
(0
CO
CO
4.1
^
U-*
T3
>»
^
o
CO
•H
CO
CJ
(U
■Ul
o
«4-t
o
CO
o
o
C
CO
X
o
XI
X
O
3
3
o
u
c
CO
CO
3
O
a
o
Pli
U
O
p:!
S
o
en
P!S
U
CD*
P^
o
PQ
CM
m
m
vo
CO
a\
CN
m
CN
ro
vO
in
<y\
CO
CM
m
/-v
^
00
Xi
(3
en
0)
CO
iH
0)
•H
<u
CO
oi
0)
0)
u
M
•H
3
M
CO
CO
(U
O
O
iH
U
o
s
(U
0)
V4
•H
•H
o
4-t en
o.
ij
o
CO
^
3
CJ3
0)
u
en
C
4-1
O
cr
o
c
e
O CO
CO
•T3
c
o
en
CO
x:
O
3
4J
LM M
CO
(U
o
o
CO
TS
CO
iH
O
CO
CO
(4-1 (U
CO
"4-1
4-)
Ta
^
>>
CO
5
•H
o
en
o
W 4J
<u
t4-(
4-1
o
a
CO
c
o
CO
o
X
o
XI
c
^
3
o
o
3
l-i
CO
c
3
CO
o
o.
o
U 3
Ph
o:
CJ
:2
Q
O
c_>
en
o-
od
U4
O
CQ
<u s
4-1
C M-4
3 O
W
^
vO
iH
CN
CM
m
-*
in
vO
r««
CX3
cy>
o
iH
CM
U
c
r^
.H
iH
i-H
(U
CO
<T>
X
0^
iH
s
3
C
>_^
^
in
iH
CM
CO
^
in
vO
00
CJN
P^
o
fH
CM
CM
C
r^
iH
iH
r-l
i-t
CO
a\
OH
fH
Table 7. The Estimated Number of Deer Hunters in Massachusetts in 1976.
No. Hunters Estimated Range
Sample Size in Sample Percent No. Hunters (95% C.L.)*
(1) 237 164 69.2 70,726 66,482-74,970
(2) 260 177 68.1 68,205 64,249-72,161
(T) 497 341 68.6 69,390 66,476-72,304
(1) = ± 6.0% (2) = ^5.8% (T) = 4.2%
o.
S
CO
CO
•a
0)
c
•H
B
o
(U
a
g
CO
CO
•a
c
o
a
(U
CO
a
CO
CO
4-1
CO
u
•H
<u
CO
4->
M
u
E
(U
4J
•H
s
c
4->
3
3
(0
25
K
W
4J
c
O
<U
Ph
CO
rH
u
M
a
<u
(U
B
U3
4-1
CO
g
c
CO
3
3
S
ac
c
•H
-o
<U
CO
4J
)-i
V4
(fl
(U
<u
g
^
4J
•H
e
c
■U
3
3
CO
Z
PC
w
■U
c
(U
o
PL.
CO
iH
u
u
a
(U
d)
s
^
4J
CO
g
C
CO
3
3
Z
33
•H
•O
<u
CO
■M
V4
u
{rt
(1)
0)
g
43
4-1
•H
e
c
■U
3
3
(0
Z
s
w
4J
c
o
u
(U
(U
CO
iH
u
v^
p.
(U
(U
e
^
4J
CO
E
c
CO
3
3
2:
K
c
•H
<u
a
H
c
o
CO
CO
Q)
CO
o
in
in
in
vO
00
en
so
o
SO
CM
o
O
en
iH
in
vO
C-)
iH
in
CX3
o
CM
00
CX5
00
in
o
o
in
CO
CM
00
CM
o
so
in
CO
iH
O
in
o
cy.
in
o
cr»
tH
CO
in
iH
in
o
CM
iH
1^
CN4
iH
00
CM
o
-*
CO
<t
r^
o
CNI
o
iH
00
iH
i-H
CO
tH
o
o
o
CM
v£>
CO
CM
CO
CM
fH
in
in
-a-
iH
CO
iH
CO
00
CM
«^
M
«\
A
«
rH
m
-*
-^
O
vO
00
CM
iH
iH
r^
o
O
iH
00
SO
vO
iH
o
o
CO
00
CO
CM
(U
>
>»
•H
V4
4J
0)
•H
o
a
p
M
0)
<:
tu
>
1
1
>.
•H
c
c
C
u
U
3
3
3
(0
(U
•H
bO
00
00
iH
^
S
4J
4.)
4-1
CO
CJ
•H
O
o
o
iH
i->
u
1-1
jr
x:
^
.H
o
<
Ph
CO
CO
CO
<
H
c^
00
r^
m
in
CM
00
r^
0^
*
•^
r^
vO
O
vO
•
•
r>>
r^
ox
o
sr
CM
CO
CO
CO
r^
00
vO
vO
r^
CO
CO
<r
vO
•k
A
»»
o
CO
vO
iH
vO
CM
iH
r^
•
•
•
in
in
r>*
iH
<T\
CM
C3N
CO
00
in
CO
00
CM
o
•^
•%
01
in
so
CT.
CJN
iH
VO
•
•
•
r^
a\
CO
in
o
vO
u
a
o
u
<
0)
>
•H
4.*
•H
B
•H
V-i
c
3
bO
4-)
o
CO
W-35-R-19 : I-l
Respondents were then regrouped into three participation
categories: archery, primitive, and shotgun hunters, and
then expanded accordingly for each sample. The combined
total yielded an estimate of 67,725 persons hunting in
the shotgun season; 8,119 in the archery season; and,
4,857 in the primitive firearm season. The calculated
number of archery hunters is significantly different
(x2= 66.38, t.Ol = 6.635) from the 1976 sales of archery
stamps (7,402). This can be par tially explained by:
(1) the sample was drawn from calendar 1976 license sales
but the archery stamp sales were tabulated from fiscal
1976 sales; (2) there is no estimate of how many hunters
bought stamps but were later unable to hunt; (3) there
is no estimate of how many stamps were bought by col-
lectors.
Respondents indicating that they did hunt deer in Mass-
achusetts in 1976 were further asked whether or not they
applied for an antlerless deer permit and if they did
apply, whether or not they were successful. Responses
are listed in Table 9. The Combined Sample estimate
of the number of applicants was 39,894 (37,748 - 42,262
in subsamples) . This exceeds the actual number of appli-
cants (34,000). No reasons are assigned for the difference
The expanded number of successful applicants in the Com-
bined Sample (6,503) was also significantly greater (x^ =
229.38, t.Ol = 6.635) than the actual number of 5,343 ap-
plicants.
Respondents indicating that they hunted deer were also aske
whether or not they were successful in bagging a deer.
There were 12 of 164 (7.32%) affirmative in the first
sample; 6 of 177 (3.39%) in the second, and 18 of 341 (5.28
in the combined sample. These percentages were multiplied
by the estimated total number of deer hunters as calculated
for each sample in order to derive an estimated deer har-
vest for the 1976 season (Table 10) . The estimate from
subsample one was 5,177 deer; from subsample two, 2,312
and from the combined sample, 3,664. This total is signif-
icantly greater (x^= 290.76, t.Ol = 6.635) than the number
of deer (2,712) reported at state checking stations.
Another special question asked duck hunters if they ap-
proved of the state duck stamp. The stamp was generally
favored with 49 of 61 (80.3%) in the first subsample; 54
of 70 (77.1%) in the second, and 103 of 131 (78.6%) in the
combined sample registering approval.
Another waterfowl question asked hunters if they pre-
ferred a noon Wednesday opening with five bonus days, or
a traditional half-hour before sunrise opening with no
bonus. The first subsample responded as follows: Wednesday
(37, 60.7%); traditional (19, 31.1%); no opinion (5, 8.2%).
rt
M
O
M-(
QD
*J
G
cd
o
•H
iH
a.
a
<:
iH
3
U-i
QQ
n
0)
o
u
3
en
T)
c
«
CO
■u
a
(0
o
•H
iH
a
a
<
u
•H
s
u
0)
PL4
M
0)
0)
•
Q
(0
M
09
0)
CO
4J
0)
C
iH
3
^
K
<U
iH
CO
4-1
4J
c
4J
<
0)
CO
«M
3
o
JC
o
CO
cd
>-l
CD
(U
(0
1
s
25
r^
<y>
T3
-*
0)
T3
M^
C
o
«
a
<u
X
iH
w
Ou
s
•o
CO
c
CO
Cfl
TJ
TJ
(U
(U
c
iH
•H
eu J3
6
Q
td
o
to
u
•
ON
4)
iH
^
CO
H
en
U-l
3
4-1
T3
o
(4-1
c
<U
CO
CO
•o
V4
CO
o
c
<u
<u
•H
CO
J3
o
tH
O.
6
o
cx
X
3
3
a
w 2: w <
4J
a
<u
o
V4
CO
4J 4-1
6 CO
M )-i U
(U 4) -H
^ Oh iH
6 CX,
3 U-l CL
25 O <
CM
SO
CO
m
o
tn
o
m
m
VO
c
»*
eg
m
0)
•
•
•
o
o
CM
VO
u
CM
iH
i-l
<u
Pu,
iH CO
U-l 3 '•->
O (4-1 C
CO CO
V4 CO u
o
Q) (U "H
CM
^ a iH
e o o.
3 3 O-
» en <
CO
«W 4J
TJ 0 C
0) (0
cs
00
sr
T3 V4 a
vC
si-
o\
C <U -H
CM
r^
00
to ^ rH
M
M
«
ago.
CM
r*
<JS
X 3 O.
■>*
<n
CO
w a <:
cs
CM
en
m
CO
vO
en
en
CX3
cr>
00
VO
Ov
CO
/-^ v<
4-> OJ
C 4-t
^-s
y-\
y-\
3 C
r^
o
r^
O 3
en
VO
Ov
1 =
CM
CM
-a-
>«•
^-y y^
v-^
^-^ M
/^N
X-N
<U
rH »a-
CM r>.
TJ .H
0) 0)
vO
r^
0) >3-
•H Q
(U iH
0) .H
C CO
CX
.H v-'
iH ^^
•H ^-^
S •
O.
^
CO O
S
^
6
CO Z
CO
01
o
>-•
CO
CO
u
Table 10. The Estimated Deer Harvest in Massachusetts in 1976.
No. Deer
Hunters
in Sample
No. Successful
Hunters
in Sample Percent
Estimated
Number
Deer
Hunters
Estimated
Number
Successful
Hunters
Range *
(95% C.L.)
(1) 164
(2) 177
(T) 341
12
18
7.32 70,726 5,177 4,966 - 5,388
3.39 68,205
5.28 69,390
2,312 2,249 - 2,375
3,664 3,575 - 3,753
(1) = - 4.
(2) = - 2.72%
(T) = - 2.42%
W-35-R-19:I-l
The second group showed a greater difference of opinion
with 33 (47.2%) preferring the noon Wednesday choice,
32 (45.7%) preferring the traditional opening and 5 (7.1%)
having no opinion. For the combined sample, over half
(70, 53.5%) chose the noon Wednesday option with 51 (38.9%)
opting for the traditional opening and 10 (7.6%) having
no opinion.
Squirrel hunters were asked if they hunted in the early
season (13 September to 19 October) in western Massachu-
setts and/or in the remainder of the season (after 20
October). In the first subsample, 10 of 54 (18.5%) hunted
in the early season, 31 (57.4%) in the later season and
10 (18.5%) in both portions, with three hunters (5.6%)
not responding. In the second subsample, four (10.3%)
hunted the early season, 25 (64.1%) the later season, five
(12.8%) both, and five (12.8%) failed to respond. The
combined sample showed that almost one-third (29, 31.1%)
of squirrel hunters took advantage of the recently in-
stituted early season, with 56 (60.2%) hunting only in
the later season, and eight (8.6%) not indicating their
preference.
Raccoon hunters were asked their method of hunting. Thir-
teen of 20 (65%) in the first subsample, 12 of 15 (80%)
in the second, and 25 of 35 (71.4%) in the combined sample
used hunting dogs. The remaining hunters took raccoons
incidentally to other species (8 of 35) , used night lighting
(1 of 35) , or used a combination of methods (1 of 35) .
All small game hunters were asked two questions pertaining
to squirrel hunting. The first question concerned their
opinion of the statement, "The ban on rifles for squirrel
hunting should be continued." In the first subsample, 107
(45.1%) disagreed and in the second subsample, 134 (51.5%)
disagreed. For the combined sample, 14 (2.8%) strongly
disagreed, 227 (45.7%) disagreed, 79 (15.9%) were uncertain
163 (32.8%) agreed and 14 (2.8%) strongly agreed.
Hunters were also asked if they preferred a September or
October date opening date for the squirrel season and
whether or not they were satisfied with the present zoned
season. Results are presented in Table 11. Of those
expressing an opinion, slightly more (158, 31.8%) pre-
ferred an October opening than the September opening (145,
29.2%). Most of the respondents expressing an opinion
were satisfied with the current zoned season (269 of 309,
87%).
A final spe cial question asked all contacts if they would
hunt mourning doves if there was an open season on that
species. The majority stated that they would not with
c
o
O -H
Z C
•H
a
o
4J
o
o
0)
CO
rg
C
o
O -H
Z C
•H
o
4-1
U
o
en
CO
(U
o
CO
0)
-J- o
OS •
iH ON
CO
^5
00 00
in .
CO
^5
CSI
m •
tH CM
00
ON
CO
00 CO
CO
•
^s
4J
es
a
v£> •
(U
r^ ON
CO
CM
C
>«
o
m
O -H
vO •
:2: d
ON O
•H
sr
D.
Nat'
o
6^
•
-3-
4J
CM •
CJ
r^ o
o
CO
5^
ON T-i
vD •
ON
CM
u
o
U-l
0)
4J
0)
CO
o
Q
c
<u
&0
M
C
0)
•H
14-1
c
0)
<u
M
a
Oi
o
■55"
O
o
o
z
o
ON /^N
00 ^s
fH 00
CO
o /-^
00
CO
w
CJN .
CM in
Z
O
O
O
Z
O
iH •
ON in
CO
o
z
CO 00
CM •
00
cn
vD CM
-J- •
in
z
o
o
o
z
ON
C7N O
>3-
o
z
r^ CM
CO
w
CO ON
CM •
4 iH
in
c
o
CJ
(«
IM
CO
00
•H C
5 o
4-» N
CO
W-35-R-19:I-l
164 of 269 (61.0%) in the first subsample, 177 of 301
(58.8%) in the second, and 341 of 570 (59.8%) in the
combined sample indicating no interest in dove hunting.
Acknowledgements: I extend my appreciation to Mr. Joseph Mawson of the
Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management of the .
University of Massachusetts for his continuing cooper-
ation in analyzing the Survey.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureal of Wildlife Research and Aanagement
Approved :
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
Prepared by
James E. Cardoza, Game Biologist
Date
PERFORMANCE REPORT
P^
State
ilassachusetts
Project No.
W-35-R-19
Project Title:
Project Type:
Period Covered:
Work Plan II
Plan Objective:
Job II-l
Job Objective
Summary :
Target Date:
Progress:
Deviations :
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Survey .. _
1 June 1976 to 31 May 1977
Ilassachusetts '['Jhite-Tailed Deer Study
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.
Statewide Deer Harvest
To determine the annual harvest of deer in Massachusetts.
The 1976 statewide deer harvest for all deer seasons was 2,712
deer which is an increase of 175 deer over the 1975 harvest of
2,533 deer. Seventy-tvyo percent of the deer harvest was re-
ported in the four western counties of Berkshire, Franklin,
Hampden and Hampshire, Worcester County contributed 6.4
percent of the statewide harvest and Barnstable contributed
2.7 percent. The islands of Dukes County reported 6.6 per-
cent and Nantucket contributed 7.6 percent of the reported
harvest. Deer management zones one and tv/o contributed 4.0
percent to the overall statewide deer harvest.
31 August 1977
On schedule.
None
Recommendations: Continue this job. See Job II-4 for future recommendations
Cost:
Presentation of
Data:
$65,000
Introduction
In Massachusetts there are four different types of deer hunt-
ing seasons. In 1976 (1) a two-day special hunt for para-
plegic deer hunters was held on 4-5 November; (2) the 18-day
archery season continued from 8 November throuj^h 27 November;
(3) the six-day shotgun deer season, 6 December through
11 December; and (4) the three-day primitive weapon season
from 20 December through 22 December, 'iunting is not al-
lowed on Sundays.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
ifsiue
W-35-R-19:II-l Page 2
Since 1967, NaGsachuaetts has had a statewide antler less
deer hunting permit systen for the shotgun season. All
hunters may legally harvest a deer v/ith antlers three
inches and longer. To harvest a female or a male with
antlers less t?ian three inches, the hunter must have been
issued an antlerless deer hunting permit. All hunters dur-
ing all four deer hunting seasons are required to bring
their deer to an official deer checking station to be re-
corded and tagged within 24 hours of harvesting a deer ,
Antlerless deer hunting permits are issued on a deer manage-
ment unit basis. The nimber of sportsmen's permits per
management unit, the deer shotgun harvest per sex, rank of
importance, and the percent of the total harvest per manage-
ment unit is presented in Table 1.
Archery Season
In 1972, the archery season was expanded from 12 days to an
18-day season. A summary of the statewide archery harvest
below shows an increase from 76 deer in 1972 to 127 in 1976.
Sumnary of the llassachusetts Archery Harvest, 1968-1976:
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 197A 1975 1976
Male 21 27 2A 26 49 51 62 74 94
Female _13 _10 JL2 _10 JJ_ __2i _25 _39 _33
34 37 36 36 76 77 87 113 127
The mainland archers reported 102 deer taken consisting of
78 males and 24 females. The four mainland counties with
the highest archery harvest in order of importance were
Berkshire (50 deer), Franklin (15 deer), Hampden (15 deer),
and Hampshire (15 deer) .
The Nantucket archers reported 16 deer (8 males and 8 fe-
males). Nine deer were reported by Martha's Vineyard bowmen
(8 males and 1 female, see Table 2).
Paraplegic Season
Paraplegic hunters took 1 male and 1 female deer during the
two-day special season on Martha's Vineyard.
Primitive Firearms Season
During the special three-day primitive firearms deer season,
the hunters reported harvesting 49 deer statewide (20 males
and 29 females) . The kill per county in order of importance
is as follows: Franklin, IC; Berkshire, 16; Hampden, 4;
Worcester, 3; Dukes, 3; Ilantucket, 2; and Hampshire, 2 (see
Table 2).
VT-35-R-19:II-l Page 3
Shotgun Season
Durins the six-day shotgun only deer season, hunters reported
harvesting 2,534 deer. Of these deer, 1,812 were males (192
male, favms) anc'. 722 were females (Table 2) . The four top
deer-producinft counties on the mainland were Berkshire (947) ,
Franklin (479), Harapden (271) and Worcester (165) as in-
dicated on Table 1. The reported shotgun deer hair/est of
2,534 represents 93.4 percent of the total deer harvest
statewide.
Deer harvest data shows that 1,464 adult males, 129 fawn
males and 538 females, a total of 2,131 deer, were taken on
the mainland. The llantucket deer hunters reported 193 deer
consisting of 85 adult males, 29 male fawns and 79 females.
On Ilartha's Vineyard, a total of 168 deer i7ere reported
taken (52 adult males, 29 male fawns and 87 females). The
Gosnold Island hunters reported taking 24 males and 13 fe-
males.
A summary of the 1976 Massachusetts shotgun deer harvest by
sax and the county rank of importance from 1971 through 1976
is presented in Table 3. Berkshire and Franklin counties
have remained the top-ranking counties for the past six yeara.
Hampden and Nantucket counties are in the third and fourth
slots. Dukes County ranks fifth follov/ed by Worcester County
in the sixth position. Hampshire and Barnstable fill the
seventh and eighth slots. Plymouth, Essex, Middlesex,
Bristol and Norfolk, in that order, follow.
Total Harvest Figures
Appendix 1 presents a ten-year summary (1967-1976) of the
annual deer harvest by tox<m and county. There wr.s an in-
crease of 179 deer above the 1975 kill of 2,533 deer. All
preshotgun season indices (statev/ide reported deer mortali-
ties and the 1976 archery deer hunter success) indicated that
the 1976 shotgun season harvest should exceed the 1975 kill.
From 1967 through 1971, there was an annual increase (from
20 to 39 percent) in the female deer harvest due to an in-
crease in the number of antlerless permits issued. In 1972,
the number of antlerless permits was reduced to 4,0C0 permits
on the mainland. From 1973 through 1975, the percent of fe-
males in the total harvest has remained at a healthy 30 per-
cent. Tne 1976 percent of females in the harvest is 28.
This should increase the 1977 fawn production.
Percent of Females in the Total Harvest
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
23% 29% 32% 39% 34% 30% 30% 30% 23%
Table 4 presents a summary of the 1976 deer harvest per sex
per management unit. The statewide harvest per sex since
1967 is presented as follox^s:
VN35-R-19 : II-l
Page 4
Kill Statewide for Each Sex, 1968 through 1976
1968
Male 1104
Female 323
Total 1427
1969
1451
595
2046
1970
1629
776
2406
1971
1385
099
2284
1972
1504
787
2291
1973
1477
644
2121
1974
1949
832
2781
1975
1779
754
2533
1976
1927
787
2712
The ratio of male to female deer determined from the state-
wide deer harvest for 1976 was one male to ,41 females.
This ratio has remained constant since 1973. The ratio of
male to female in the deer harvest fluctuated with the num-
ber of antler less permits issued. In 1967 and 1960, 2000
sportsmen's permits were issued and the sex ratio X7as 1 male
to .25 females and 1 male to .29 females respectively. In
1969, the number of permits was increased to 4000 and the
male-to-female ratio was 1 male to .41 females. The number
of antlerless permits was increased to 6000 permits and the
ratio of males to females in the harvest was 1 to .43 in
1970 and 1 to .65 in 1971. A slight decline was noted in
1972 of 1 male to .52 females with the reduction of 2000
permits to the present issuance of 4000 permits per year.
The shotgun, archery, primitive and paraplegic hunter harvest
per sex per county for 1976 is presented in Table 2.
Antlerless Pe?rmit Data
An increase of 1000 antlerless permit applications was re-
corded for the 1976 season with 34,000 applicants compared
to 33,000 in 1975. There were 4000 sportsman permits; 343
farmer-lando\«7ner permits; 400 l^ntucket and 600 Martha's
Vineyard antlerless permits issued in 1976. The 1976
harvest of deer by antlerless permit holders was 992 deer
(Table 5).
In 1976, the 343 farmer -landowner permittees reported har-
vesting 58 deer. Sixteen percent of the 343 permit holder?
reported taking a deer (Tables 5 and 6).
Table 7 presents a summary of the deer harvest par sports-
man permit per deer management unit and the success ratio
of antlerless permit holders for 1976. The permit holders
success ratio remained about the same as for the 1975 shot-
gun season V7ith a ratio of 1 to 5 on the mainland; 1 in 4
on the Vineyard, and 1 in 3 on Nantucket.
There were 400 antlerless permits issued for Nantucket Is-
land. The harvest by permit holders shov7ed that the harvef?**
of male fawns was about the same as the previous year with
29 button bucks taken in 1976 and 26 male fawns reported in
1975. The antlered male harvest by permittees decreased by
5 deer in 1976 with 17 reported and 22 reported in 1975.
U-33-R-19ai-l
Pa,'>e 5
The female harvest by permittees Increased 13 deer vrLth 79
reported in 1976 and 66 reported in 1975. The total harves-:
by pernittees X7as 125 deer in 1976, a slight increase of 11
deer above the 114 deer reported in 1975 (Table 7) .
There were 600 antlerless permits issued for Martha's Vine-
yard. The permittees harvested 135 deer in 1976. This x^a.-.
a decrease of 2 deer less than the 137 deer reported by
permit holders in 1975. There was a slight decrease in the
male fav/ns vTith 2!) button bucks reported in 1976 compared
to the 35 skippers reported in 1975. The 19 antlered males
reported by permit holders in 1976 was A deer less than the
reported 23 antlered bucks in 1975 (Table 5) . There was an
increase of 8 females in the 1976 harvest with 37 reported
compared to the 79 females in 1975.
The 4000 antlerless permit holders on the mainland reported
harvesting 732 deer. There xjas a decrease of 2 male favms
from 127 in 1975 to 125 in 1976. The antlered male harvest
of 69 deer decreased 21 deer in 1976 from 90 deer in 1975.
The female segment increased by 19 from 430 females in 1975
to 499 females in 1976 (Table 5, 6, 7).
Job II-2
Job Objective:
Non-Hunting Deer Ilortality Investigations
To determine the annual non-hunting decimating factors of
the Massachusetts deer herd.
Brief Summary:
From 1 January to 31 December 197f , Natural Resource Officers
reported 442 non-hunting deer mortalities. There were 192
males, 2:21 females and 29 deer V7ith no sex reported result-
ing in an adjusted sex ratio of 46 percent males to 54 per-
cent females. The highest cause of these mortalities was
motor vehicles with 296 deer reported. Dogs caused 58
mortalities and there vzere 43 illegal kills, 29 dead of un-
knovm causes and 33 from other causes.
Target Date:
Progress
Deviation:
31 December 1976.
On schedule.
None
Recommendations :
A quadruplicate carbonless deer mortality report form should
be used to record deer mortalities. The project should con-
tinue as it presently exists.
Cost:
Presentation of
Data:
$14,000
Techniques
Natural Resource Officers report deer mortalities to the
Division of Law Enforcement in Boston. A copy of each re-
port is provided to the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
H~35-R-19:II-2 Page 6
Flndlnp,3
During the period covered by this report, 1 January through
31 December 1976, Natural R.esonrce Officers reported 442
deer mortalities. Of these deer, 192 vjere males, 221 femalu-
and no sex reported on 29 deer. In order of importance, the
number and causes were as follows! 296, motor vehicles;
58, dogs; 48, illegal kills; 29, unknovm kills; 5, drowned;
3, fences; 2, trains; 1, crop damage and other (Table 8).
Tlie peak months were, in descending order: November (87),
October (43), Ilarch (44), December (42), June (40),
February (38), April (29), and September (29), January (23),
August (21), May (21), July (18), (Table 11).
A five-year summary, 1971 through 1976, is presented in
Table 9 and compares 1976 non-hunting mortalities per cause
VTith the previous five-year average. Non-hunting mortali-
ties for 1976 were all below the five-year average.
The 1976 mortalities are 13 percent below the 1975 figures,
442 versus 508 (Table 10) .
The adjusted sex ratio (Table 11) for 1976 non-hunting deer
mortalities is as follows:
Adjusted Sex Ratio
100 Hales : 115 Females
87 Hales : 100 Females
46% Males : 54% Females
The 1975 sex ratio x^ras 39 percent males to 61 percent fe-
males.
Table 12 presents the non-hunting deer mortalities ranked
by county for the period 1970 to 1976. The three most im-
portant counties, in order, are: Berkshire (112), Franklin
(61) , and Nantucket (60) . 'lantucket moved to third place
from fourth. The permanent Natural Resource Officer on
the island seems to account for this increase as in 1974
it V7as in tenth place. Barnstable County was fourth (49),
followed by Worcester (37), Hampden (31), Hampshire (29),
Plymouth (19), Essex (1'^), Middlesex (10), Bristol (7),
Dukes (6), and Norfolk (2).
Job II- 3 Deer Fertility Studies
Job Objective: To determine the reproductive rate per age class of the
Massachusetts deer herd.
Summary: This job was inactive during the period covered by this
report.
Target Date: None
W-35-R-19:II-3
Progress:
Deviations!
Page 7
Inactive
None
Recommendations: If funds are available, the job should be continued-
Cost:
Remarks :
None
Inadequate funds for transportation forced the inactive
status of this job.
********
Job II-4
Job Objective;
Summary :
Target Date:
Progress:
Deviations:
Recommendations
Deer Management Recommendations
To determine the size of the 3Iassachusett3 deer herd and to
recommend management techniques that will provide the deer
hunter with the greatest hunting opportunity commensurate
with herd population levels.
There was an increase of 143 deer harvested state^jide during
the shotgun only season. The slight increase occurred al-
though the hunting conditions were judged to be poor; that
is, rain J ice and lack of snow. The adult male harvest of
1,620 deer was an increase of 123 animals above the 1975
harvest of 1,492 adult males. The 1-1/2 year-old male
harvest decreased from 303 in 1975 to 222 in 1976 at the
mainland biological stations. There was an increase in the
2-1/2 year to 5-1/2 year-old males of 26 deer at these sta-
tions.
The calculated minimal population, based on the percent of
1-1/2 year-old males reported at the biological deer check
stations, was 14,896 deer. This is an increase of 24.4 per-
cent from the 1975 minimal population figure, of 11,975 deer.
The percent frequency ratio of adult females tn adult males
on the mainland x^as .25 \7hile on Ilartha's Vineyard the fre-
quency ratio was .89. On Nantucket, the ratio was .70.
The success ratio of antlerless permit holders for l'^76 on
the mainland was 1:5. On Martha's Vineyard, the success
ratio V7as 1 : 4 and on Nantucket, the ratio v^as 1 : 3 for
successful permit holders.
30 June 1977
On schedule
None
The following numbers of sportsmen's antlerless permits
issued per county and/or region are suggested:
W~35-R-19;II-4 Page 8
Number of Sportsmen
County Antlerless Permits
Barnstable 200
Berkshire 1300
Franklin 700
Hampden 400
Hampshire 300
Worcester 200
Region I* 200
Region II** 200
Tlartha's Vineyard 600
Nantucket 400
Naushon 50
* Region I - Essex, Illddlesex and Norfolk Counties
** Region II - Bristol and Plymouth Counties
The application number of the antlerless permits beginning
with first and last numbers for each county and for each
type of permit should be recorded and filed in the deer
project files. This data vjill facilitate the programming
and the analysis of the deer harvest by permit holders .
Cost: $750
Presentation of A nine-year summary of the sex and age composition of
Data: llassachusetts deer at biological deer check stations on the
mainland and for six years on llartha's Vineyard and Nan-
tucket Island is presented in Table 13. There were 303
1-1/2 year-old males reported on mainland biolo(>ical sta-
tions in 1975. The 1976 harvest of 1-1/2 year-old males
was 222 reported at the biological stations. The sex and
age composition on the mainland and the islands appear to
be in good shape (Tables 13, 14, 15, and 16).
Analysis of deer harvest data of Worcester County shows sex
and age ratios of a healthy deer herd. The expected in-
crease in the herd size has been very slow. Analysis of
the harvest data indicates that forces other than hunting
pressure are the cause of the slow rate of the herd in-
crease. It is felt that year-round killing of deer by dogs
and possibly a serious deer poaching problem could be affect-
ing the Worcester County deer herd. In an effort to combat
these decimating forces, the number of antlerless deer hunt-
ing permits in that zone v/ill be reduced from 700 to 200
permits starting with the 1977 shotgun deer season.
Table 17 presents a summary of the Massachusetts shotgun
deer harvest from 1967 through 1976. The statewide shotgun
harvest was 2,534 deer which is an increase of 143 deer.
There was a small decline of 7 male fawns (192) from the
1975 harvest. The adult female harvest was up by 41 deer
(519) in 1976 compared to the 1975 kill of 470 adult does.
Thirty-six percent of the total deer reported during the
shotgun season were button bucks and does. The 30 percent
figure had remained constant for the three years of 1973
through 1975.
T7-35-R-19:II-4 Pa^^e 9
A summary of percent change In adult harvest and calculated
minimal populations of deer in Ilassachusetts, 1068 through
1976, is presented in Table 18. Tliere v/as an increase of
8.3 percent in the adult male harvest with 1,620 adult bucl's
reported in 1976 and only 1,492 adult males taken in 1975.
Tables 19 and 20 present a sunmary of the adult male and if--
male harvest per square mile of deer range per county in
Ilassachusetts from 1971 through 1976. The statev/ide deer
range per square mile data was recently updated using aerial
photos taken in 1970 (Land Use Changes and the ilassachusetts
Deer Herd, 1976, Phillip J. Sczersenie, Ilassachusetts Co-
operative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Massachusetts). Prior to the updating, the deer
range per square mile was based on aerial photographs taken
in 1950 and 1951.
The number of adult males per county (Tables 19, 20, and 21)
was computed by subtracting the number of male fawns from
the reported male harvest found in Table 2. The adult female
harvest (Tables 19 and 20) was determined by subtracting the
percent of female fawns from the total reported female har-
vest per county. The percent of female favms was computed
from the reported female harvest at the biological stations
(Tables 14, 15 and 16). The adult male and female harvest
per county was determined by dividing the square miles of
deer range per county into the adult harvest (Tables 19 and
20).
The computed harvest of adult males per square mile of deer
range for the mainland in 1976 v/as .25 antlered bucks. Thij
is the same as in 1975. Dukes County dropped from .70 to
.59 adult bucks per square mile while Nantucket increased
from 1.99 to 2.32.
The adult female harvest reported on the mainland remained
unchanged in 1976 with .07 adult does harvested per square
mile of deer range compared to a harvest of .07 adult fe-
males reported in 1975. Dukes County increased with .72 fe-
males reported in 1976 and ,63 adult females reported in
1975. There was an increase of .17 adult does reported
taken on Nantucket Island in 1976 v;ith 1.56 adult females
reported in 1976 and 1.39 adult does taken in 1975 (Table
20).
A summary of the total harvest of deer in Massachusetts (in-
cluding shotgun, archery and muzzle loader harvest) per
county per sex and the harvest of deer per square mile of
deer range in Massachusetts for 1975 is presented in Table
21.
The statewide harvest of deer per square mile of deer range
was .45 in 1976. Of the .45 deer, .32 V7ere males and .13
X7ere females. There was an increase of .03 deer per square
mile from the 1975 harvest of .42 deer per square mile
(Table 21).
W-35~R-19ai
Table 1, Sumraary of the Number of S^ortsnen's Antlerless Permits Issued,
the Deer Harvest per Deer ":Iana<?ement Unit, the Sex of the Harvest,
the Ranking Order of Importance as a Deer Producing Unit, and the
Percent of the Harvest by Unit for 1976
Number
Antlerless
Percentage
Unit
Permits
Male
Female
Total
Rank
of
Total
Berkshire
1,300
702
245
947
1
37
Franklin
700
353
126
479
2
19
Hanpden
400
220
51
271
3
13
Worcester
700
113
47
165
6
6
Hampshire
300
107
28
135
7
5
Martha's Vineyard**
* 600
105
105
210
4
8
Nantucket
400
114
79
193
5
7
Barnstable
200
45
25
70
8
3
P.egion II**
200
24
6
30
10
1
Region I*
200
25
10
35
9
1
5,000
1,312
722
2,534
* Region I includes lliddlesex, Norfolk, Essex and Suffolk Counties.
** Region II includes Bristol and Plymouth Counties.
*** Gosnold's 24 males and 18 females included.
CO
4^
4J
o
0)
O
CO
CO
1^
O
4J
a
d
o
u
.Q
■U
CO
0)
>
M
0)
c
CO
g
0)
•H
0)
>
4J
•H
M
CO
>^
a
o
to
4J
«4-l
O
S
CO
rM
0)
H
o ♦-•
O
6^ H
CO
ca
o
H
CO
E
(-.'
CO
U
•H
>
•H
>4
u
o
<
f*4
D
■p
o
en
fe
S
fe
o
r^
•*
rH
O
O
cr
r«>.
m
r^
CO
tH
o o
sf
m
«V4
•
•
o
vO
•
O
CO
rH
C
iH
m
o
r^
O
rH cr>
SO
rH
•^
lO
in
C7N
CM
CM
CO
ON
rH
>*
CO
On
in
iH
in
>3-
o
iH
en
O
00
vO
iH
CM
m
rH
O
CM
o
in
iH
CO
rH
o
rH
CM
CO
CM
rH
CM
S3-
vO
rs4
C7^
NO
CM
O
CVJ
o
iH
iH
CO
vO
00
CM
m
m
CO
CO
<*
r-i
c
ON
rH
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
iH
C^«
rH
CM
iH
fH
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
r-l
vO
*
CO
iH
CO
rH
»tf
CM
iH
CM
CO
iH
ON
C>4
rH
rH
Si-
CO
!>.
iH
r^
CM
iH
eg
m
<f
iH
c*^
c
CJN
in
rH
CO
iH
rH
O
O
in
1-4
CO
CO
CO
r*
T-t
en
m
CO
CO
CM
CO
tH
O
rH
00
in
<•
o
m
C3N
CM
CM
CO
CO
00
iH
St
CO
c^
CM
m
in
O
C7N
CO
CO
rH
in
rH
CM
UO
CO
rH
iH
ro
rH
CO
CM
m
rH
CM
»3-
in
in
rvj
CD
CNJ
CM
rH
in
iH
CO
CM
vO
C7N
CM
in
sr
CO
rH
m
>*
O
rH
(XT
CO
CO
m
CO
e
CM
CM
c
iH
iH
iH
S3-
rH
r-\
CM
CM
CO
CM
0)
rH
0)
0)
X
<P
M
Xi
V4
c
M
0)
<u
^
O
CO
•H
rH
•H
C
•H
CD
^
^
-p
^
4-1
T3
u
rC
O
*
rH
d)
^
H)
u
rH
3
rH
CO
r-<
QQ
CO
CO
4J
CO
X
.irf
73
CO
f-{
=}
o
O
O
0)
o
T-i
a
^
CO
d)
(U
C
a
CI.
-a
4J
IW
&
l|W
tJ
c
CO
M
»-l
•H
^
CO
CO
s
•T3
(3
^1
iw
M
CC
V>
ro
<D
S-4
;3
CO
u
S3
CO
•H
CO
O
rH
3
o
c
'-
pa
pq
«
Q
w
^
X
K
•t— •
2
n:
Cl4
to
o
H
o
o
rH
CM
o
CM
CM
CM
in
00
CM
0^
m
o
CO
CM
CM
CO
CO
S3-
ON
CM
C7>
CO
in
eg
CM
CM
CM
CO
W-35-R-19:II
Table 3. County Summary of the 1976 Massachusetts Shotgun Deer Harvest by Sex,
and the County Rank in Order of Importance from 1971 through 1976.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
County
:iale
Female
Total
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
Barnstable
45
25
70
8
8
8
8
8
7
Berkshire
702
245
947
1
1
1
1
1
1
Bristol
1
2
3
12
12
11
12
12
12
Dukes*
81
87
168
5
6
5
3
3
3
Essex
13
2
15
11
10
9
9
9
10
Franklin
353
126
479
2
2
2
2
2
2
Hampden
220
51
271
3
3
3
5
A
5
Hampshire
107
28
135
7
5
6
7
6
8
Middlesex
11
6
17
10
11
12
11
11
9
Nantucket
114
79
193
4
7
7
6
7
6
Norfolk
1
2
3
12
13
13
13
13
13
Plymouth
22
5
27
9
9
10
10
10
11
Suffolk
0
0
0
13
14
13
13
13
13
Worcester
118
47
165
6
4
4
4
5
4
Total
1,788
704
2,492
Gosnold
24
1,812
18
722
42
2,534
* Gosnold not included
Table 4. A Summary of the 1976 Deer Shotgun Harvest per Sex per Management Unit
Unit
Males
Females
Total
{■lale Fawns
Berkshire
702
245
947
50
Franklin
353
126
479
33
Worcester
118
t-l
165
15
Hampshire
107
20
135
4
Hampden
220
51
271
18
Region I
25
10
35
5
Region II
24
6
30
6
Barnstable
45
25
70
4
Martha's Vineyard
81
87
168
29
Nantucket
114
79
193
20
Gosnold
24
18
42
5
Totals
1,812
722
2,534
192
CO
0)
m
U
CO
CO
n
C3
<u
u
0)
C
M
O
a
O
43
vO
u
CO
0)
(U
■p
•H
g
CO
0)
>
u
M
<U
(U
p
c
CO
4-1
•H
e
Pa
M
42
0)
rH
43
Cfl
H
4C
01
d
o
•H
■P
CJ
•H
tH
a.
0
o
o
C^
in c^
«v!
CO
ON
o
CT\
CO
o
r^
<T>
C3S
in
O
CTv
c\
r^
in
en cNj
o
o
o
o
vD
CM (JA
en
<r
rH
ro
in
o
r-^
CM
r*.
CvJ
O
iH
CV!
CO
PO
•<j" cr>
m
1^
o
o
iH <r
r^
CO
SI-
»H
SO
iH
en cT\
o
cr>
0»
»»
-•
«
iH
sr
<f
m
.H
O
o
tH in vo
CM
o
in
O
o
vO CN f^
^0
1^
r^
O
CNJ
iH iH <j-
r>.
en
<7N
M
M
tH
m
en
<t
o
o
O CO CNJ
c
c:
<•
c
c
CO -* O
en
m
i>«
c
o
iH vo
c»
en
C^
A
A
iH
c
en
«*
o
o
r«. eM vc
in
c
en
o
c
vo O cr.
vC
<r
!>*
o
o
tH en
in
en
CN
M
•»
tH
CM
en
<?
o
o
in V.O tH
e^j
vo
Cvj
o
o
m en en
cs
es
r«v
c
c
iH m
r^
en
c^
#v
9>t
iH
00
en
«sr
C
C
■>;l- tn CO
CM
o
tH
o
o
O r^ c^
r^
r*.
r>.
in
o
tH tH vC/
c-^
CM
c^.
««
#«
tH
en
vo
<r
c
sj- en CM
C^
r^
c
o
c
CM CO tH
tH
<r
f>>
o
o
tH tH vo
a>
en
C7\
Vt
A
iH
in
en
vC
O
o
o^ r^ en
C\
in
CN
e
o
c^ c r^
r*v
cr>
VD
c
c
f-i -^t
VO
CM
C3-.
•«
#t
rH
en
<r
CO
■p
1
M
<1)
•n
CO
o
rH (U
CO rH
3 CO
3 ? .
tJ CO 0)
< fe t'-t
CO
rH
(U «0
rH P
CO O
a H
O .H
iH CM
O
O
r^ r>. <^
rH CM r^
CO
CO CM
cn «*
O
00
o
o
CM vo vO
CM CM O
rH en
vo
m
o
o
CM c^ in
CM CM vO
vT)
<■ eg vo
rH <r m
o
o
cn r-. tH
CM rH vo
O vC
CM n
vO
c
VD C7V O
cvj CM r^
m <r
c^i cn
m
c
o
>3-
in St in
tH CM CjO
CM
r^ m
iH <r
CM
O
a-.
VO
o
Sf
CM
S3-
00
CD
I
u
0}
o
d
J
M
o
CO
CO
a <u CO
O rH P
+J 0) CO O
P rH S H
3 CO a
« X^ F»4
o
•H
e
p^
■p
o
P
a
CO
o
o
o
CO
a CO CO rH
S 0) CO
>H C (0
T3 CO <U
< li^ ^
o
H
o
CM sr vo
CM
in
CM
cn
o
CM en r-
cn
o
r-i
CO
vo
rH
in
C?
o
cn
vo
rH in r--
CM en rH
in
O
CM
O
r^
VO
C rH in
CO sr c".
O .H
T-^ O CT,
CO
■P
0)
•a
u
CO
d
CO
CO
P
M
CO
c
rH
cu
r-\ CO
CO CO rH
XI (U CO
3 ^ e
ta to <u
< [i< P^
o
H
m
o
m c in
cr>
CO cn CO
o
CM CM C^
St
in <Ts r>.
vo
rH
CO O rH
m
cn
vO Si- C
r**
CO m rH
r-^
cn 00 ON
m
o
Sf r^ vT'
r^
VC O VO
o
CM cn CM
cr.
CM rH m
VD
r-i
rH
cn c c
r^ tH rH
VD
C^
C VO
vO
p^
vo O
y-{
CH
CM cn
r^ r-i r-i
cr.
r-o CM rH
en
sj- CO sr
r^ O rH
VO
o
in 00 o
CM
cTv CO m
vo r^ CO
CO
4J
•H
E
o
(X,
>^rH
13 rH rH
QJ d <J
3 O
CO <->.
CO CO (0
M cn <u
CO rH (U
P M ^0
•H 0)
E rH X
P P P
CU d o
p^ -^ ^
H
cj :m m
P O 1.
O Qi <U
H Q O
Itj
U)
3 CO
(X' "
,,-. ?:
I p "'
! " — »
W-35--R-19:II
Table 6. A Summary of the Massachusetts Deer Harvest per Farmer -Landowner
Permit per County for the 1976 Shotgun Season
Kumber
Male
Adult
County
Issued
Faims
T^Iales
Females
Total
Barnstable
1
0
0
0
0
Berkshire
79
4
5
8
17
Bristol
0
0
0
0
0
Dukes
0
0
0
0
0
Essex
1
0
0
0
0
Franklin
138
3
3
19
25
Hampden
44
1
1
4
6
Hampshire
50
0
1
6
7
Middlesex
0
0
0
0
0
Nantucket
0
0
0
0
0
Norfolk
1
0
1
0
1
Plymouth
0
0
0
0
0
Suffolk
0
0
0
0
0
Worcester
30
1
0
2
3
Totals
343
9
10
39
58
(
0)
o
CO
•H
CD
■P
r-\
cd
u
f^,
iH
4J
CO
CO
^
4J
CJ
• •
•H
o
o
0)
B
3
0)
(U
CO
O
&<
0)
53
0
0)
fit
M ^
0) ^^
a 3
-4
.-J
»^ 03
^
0) Oh
0)
O CO
CO
VM (U
4J
O rH
iH
o
U
3
tH
o <u
TJ
<a
•H rH
<
4J 4J
5-S
c
o
j^
U
o
4-1
3
D
PQ
«
0)
tH
g
>-i
0)
<U
(^
(U
o
4->
•H
n
o
r-4
CO
^4
CC
o
<u
<U
■U
H
tH
pH
O
crt
u
H
S
(U
>v
iH
^
4J
^
CO
4J
rH
G)
<u
3
tH
4-1
>
'd
43
o
u
<
^
l>^
o
IZ
c
0
^
4J
o
u
3
0
P9
PQ
CO ts
IM
4.> (U
O
•H 73
•
es
o
<u ^
^.
a. <
•<f
m
O
rH
CJN
vO
cs
rH
vO
VO
m
0 ;»
(< •
«c
»•
« P
e«
9*
-> i
• •
tH
fH
.H
tH
iH
»H
iH
rH
iH
iH
CO
o
tH
C^
NO
CM
CO
iH
tH
CO
tH
CO
CM
CO
m
r^
iH
sr
tH
O
Cvj
c^
cr:)
CO
rH
»H
tH
tH
iH
rH
tH
tH
tH
CO
rH
tH
O
o
tH
CO
C^
CS
CO
en
rH
CV»
rH
iH
iH
rH
.H
rH
tH
;;
rH
O
in
in
O
O
CM
P>.
VO
c
tH
O
VO
rH
fH
rH
tH
rH
1-1
tH
tH
tH
CO
CM
CO
c
Csj
O
CO
CO
in
CM
CO
tH
iH
iH
tH
iH
iH
tH
^
tH
en
Cv4
C
rH
lO
«*
CvJ
C
rH
CO
CM
in
CNJ
sr
St
eg
C
tH
SI-
VO
cr
VO
rH
CO
rH
o
rH
vO
r^
rH
CO
CM
SO
NX)
o
CO
<1-
rH
SJ-
tH
m
VO
^
m
CM
tH
o
c
o
e
c
O
O
CO
o
o
sr
o
c
CM
o
o
eg
O
O
o
o
#»
rs
rH
si-
m
CO
CM
CO
CM
» •
rH
CO
CO
sr
CN
CM
O
O
VO
CO
m
CM
m
fH
sr
CM
sj-
tH
» •
rH
m
CM
CO
o
<3-
CM
O
O
St
rH
• •
tH
<J0
sj-
CM
in
vO
vc
CO
CO
CM
in
o
CO
CO
o
o
o
m
0)
0)
y*
0)
M
tH
•M
<U
>>
u
C
(U
M
M
M
J3
03 T3
^
-o
4J
•H
•H
4J
•H
c
c«
► J-i
•H
C
j:
rH
CO
^
0)
C
R
4J
c>5 O
U
:5
3
ra
CD
CO
T)
O
O
CO
jG >>
3
S
O
M
rJ
o
a
D-
•H
•H
a
4J 0)
4J
4-1
U
Vj
03
t-l
Q
s
&0
60
u
u d
a
C0
O
>^
o
tj
Tl
(1)
<U
rJ
(fl "H
^
4J
PQ
u^
:3
ffi
M
fiS
cn
PQ
jr: >
H;
v:
0)
;a to
Pt.
u
o <u
Pm
o <u
S CO
Fl4
O
CM
*3- T-i
rH tH
o
o
M
es
(U
v.^
,n
en
0
CM
<U
o
o
<u
<t
Q
vO
CM rH
O »H
CM iH
C-' CO tH
CN
G^ -it a^
CO iH O
CM
CM
o
\o
U
iH
<u
s«/
^
cn
a
o CM r^
iH
>
CM
iH
o
CM
r«.
CM tH O
CO r-J
VO
C\
m
CM
<M
o\
CO
H
U
N—'
Q)
sf
ja
C^ tH
iH
O
tH
C^
4J
CM
o
o
CO
\D tH
fH
iH
rH r-l CM
cn
CO
O
<*
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
o
H
0)
CO
o
tH
0)
iH
«0
CO CM »H <y\
CM
VO
CM
CM CM
CM
(0
M
o
CM
vf
cr\
CM
CM
o a>
2; CO
fu
CM rH
VO CM CM
CM in iH
rH
VO
iH
M
iH
<y
^^
Xi
O
<M
d)
4J
<t
p.
■<f
O
c:.
CO
CO rH rH tH
in CM rH
CM
CM
CO
VO
CM
CO
o
c>
CM
CO
D
CO
0)
60
ta
03
CO
o §
CO
Q)
c
o
iH
O
•H
D4 C
CO
C3
«
O X
4J
<U
u
M C
o
i^
H
<^ D
H
M
c3
PE4
CO
Ps^
X
o
(U
s
CO
CO
•
3
^
C
CO
►->
»
S
CM CM
tH r^
in c3^
tH r^
VO CO
iH m iH
in
c^
vD
VO
4J
v^
CO
3
c:
CO
3
CO
<
CM
CO
O CO
rH CM
CO
0
►-3
CM
CO
CO CO
CM ^"^
c^
CO
CM
CO
c^
O H
o
rH .^
CD
CO
VO
CO
o
H
X
CO
CO
o
c
CM ^
^ c
(1)
a;
VO CO CO m
o^ m <■
CM
CO CO C^J
in o c^
m CO rH
CO
CO
Q)
rH
O
•H
>
u
o
o
U
0)
•T3
S
0)
tti
rH X) CO
CO 0) to CD Q
W c! (U C
CO 0) ? O -H Oi
bO rH O C CO
O rH M (U M
CO
u
o
S O I-) Q t»< H U
g
o
c
CO
•u
o
4-1
XI
D
CO
3
CJ
CO
4J
o
(0
•o
iJ
CD
s
O
H
H
iH
U
iH
o
•
•H
S
00
a
1
0)
E
r-i
CJ
>
rH
•XJ
CT
rt
CO
N-^
a
O
CO
CO
Q
g
4-1
u
w
i
0)
Ci
O
o
rH
o
CO 0)
O
•H
Ci-
c
u
CO
w
to T-i
o
c
CO
O
^
^
4J
o
O r-{
M
<u
M
P
c
r!
O
vr-
Q M
Q
in
H
CJ>
tD
CO
H
0)
rH
CU
CO
to
CO m vO CM
CM CM CM
m
QJ
r-i
^
O
r~i
•H
•H
x:
fcxi
<u
>
iH
TJ
CO
0)
1^
to
•^
5
o
CO <U
iJ
00 f-i
5
o
O rH
u
C? M
Q
T.-hle 9. Five-Year Summary of Deer Mortalities of Massachusettb Deer Reported
by r^atural Resource CfficerG^ 1971 through 1976.
5-Yr.
Previous
Cause
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
AvK,
5-Yr. Tota]
Motor Vehicles
373
321
321
347
362
295
345
1727
Dogs
219
41
36
33
60
58
78
389
Illegal Kills
39
44
23
35
25
43
33
166
Crop Damage
4
1
2
1
0
1
2
8
Unknown Causes
41
35
21
33
29
29
32
159
Ml Other Causes
18
11
15
13
32
10
19
94
694
453
420
469
508
442
509
2544
Table 10. A Comparison of Total Non-Hunting Deer llortalities of Ilassachusetts
Deer fron 1970 throup^h 1976.
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Wo. of Deer
Percent Change
698 694 453 420 469 508 442
-.6% -34.7% -7.3% +11.66% +8.32% -13%
Table 11. Comparison of Actual Numbers of Deer Mortalities by Sex* and Adjusted
Data for Massachusetts Deer per Month, 19 76.
Month
January
February
March
A-pril
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Unknown
Adjusted
Male
Female
Sex
-
Total
28
Male
13
Fe
imale
8
17
3
15
14
19
5
38
17
21
18
20
6
44
20
24
13
14
2
29
13
16
7
13
1
21
10
11
16
23
1
40
19
21
6
11
1
18
8
10
11
8
2
21
10
11
10
18
1
29
13
16
21
21
3
45
21
24
49
33
5
87
39
50
19
23
42
20
22
192
221
29
442
205
237
Adjusted
Sex Ratio
100 males :
: 115
females
87 males .
: 100
females
46% males ;
: 54%
females
These data were reported by Natural Resource Officers.
V.D
O
H
CO
o
CO
Pi
<7.
o
C
CO
cu
o
H
O
CO
o
H
CO
o
H
O
St
eg
(»
O
eg
o
vD
cn
0^ CM
O «^»
00
C^
eg
m
en
so
C^l
O
^
c
CO
iH
O
r^
CM
\o
in
(0
iH
c:r
in
t>.
as
iH rH
CO
<r
CO
m
-cr
CO
CO
o
4J
ir>
c
CM
to
eg
CO
o
CM
H
CO iH
CM e^
0^
CM
in
CO
c
m
CS)
CO
CO
CO
CM
eg
eg
cr\
cys
m
CO
CM
CO
CO
c
CM
CO
CM
O
CM
CO
CM
VD
1^
cr\
vo
\o
o
CM
CO
CO
m
CO
eg
in
CO
CM
CO
<■
o
CO
CO
c^
vO
CO
CM
CM
CM
\o
C\
CM
CO
m
m
o
CO
o
00
VO
CO
t-t
CM
C;
in
m
eg
eg
CM
eg
CM
as
CO
VD
in
en
K
CO
(Tn
C^
OS
m
vD
IT:
ev?
o
Cs
eg
in
vO
m
vD
in
CO
vT
CO
CO
CO
CT*
<u
CO
cc
eg
CO
eg
in
eg
CM
CM
CM
as
iH
(U
0)
X
M
4J
>^
ja
M
a
u
OJ
^
a
<U
4J
CO
•H
H
•H
c
•H
m
^
u
^
u
^
s
■u
^r;
O
iH
(U
<-<
CJ
tH
3
iH
00
CJ
en
"w
•U
><J
^
-a
w
tH
O
O
O
<u
K)
3
o
E
A<5
03
Q)
C
a
a
T)
U-l
^
14-1
o
<U
4J
o
)-i
•H
03
CO
0
(3
-t)
u
U-l
M
^
d
iS
0)
V^
CO
U
CO
co
•H
o
tH
3
o
3
CO
m
OQ
PQ
w
fa
ffi
33
^
^7^
Ph
CO
:z
O
^
'able 13. Age Composition of Mainland 'Tassachusetts Mjle Deer Checked at
_ Biolo?>ical Stations, 1960 through 1976
Age
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
1975
1976
c mos.
1-1/2
2-1/2
3-1/2
4-1/2
5-1/2
6-1/2
7-1/2
8 to 9-1/2
10-1/2
Totals
61
67
121
100
77
69
73
30
61
198
229
263
211
260
237
255
303
222
126
133
147
103
144
173
156
151
159
87
98
97
77
96
90
86
97
107
35
55
59
43
46
47
35
36
43
17
21
21
19
14
10
11
9
10
4
14
7
3
11
7
5
12
2
0
2
7
6
2
6
4
5
2
0
2
1
1
0
3
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
528
652
723
563
563
650
730
695
609
A
Table 14.
Age
Compos
Ition
of Mainland Massachusetts Female Deer
Checked at
Biological
Stations from
196 n
to 1976.
Age
1963
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
6 mos.
44
76
90
101
90
62
62
71
33
1-1/2
33
55
54
64
57
48
53
50
41
2-1/2
28
55
69
69
56
42
51
42
43
3-1/2
16
36
46
51
51
35
33
33
26
4-1/2
11
24
29
33
22
25
23
15
14
5-1/2
3
11
14
2^
14
6
3
10
U
6-1/2
4
0
8
14
10
5
7
A
8
7-1/2
3
2
0
11
2
6
6
3
1
8 to 9-1/2
3
0
0
9
0
2
3
2
4
10-1/2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
Totals
146
259
310
372
303
231
247
231
186
*
;c
Table 15. Age Composition of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts Deer Checked at
Biological Stations from 1971 through 1976.
tlales
Females
Age
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
19 76
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
197t
6 nos.
39
25
30
27
32
24
31
30
24
32
22
32
1-1/2
41
41
25
32
30
26
11
24
21
21
13
IC
2-1/2
14
15
17
9
6
7
16
11
17
12
13
22
3-1/2
8
15
12
19
7
9
11
15
13
9
13
10
4-1/2
4
6
7
5
4
1
4
9
8
5
5
4
5-1/2
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
6
2
5
1
1
6-1/2
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
2
3
C
7-1/2
1
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
8 to
9-1/2
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
10-1/2
0
0
0
0
r\
0
0
0
0
1
0
1 ■
Totals
111
108
94
94
82
60
03
90
80
87
71
79
Table 16. Age Composition of Nantucket, Massachusetts Deer Checked
Biolo!>ical Stations from 1971 throu'-h 1976.
Males
Females
Age
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
6 mos.
27
17
22
25
27
26
14
21
21
20
26
23
1-1/2
30
19
23
31
28
35
22
16
17
21
23
20
2-1/2
13
12
19
15
14
16
12
12
3
10
7
6
3-1/2
7
12
11
12
11
7
13
5
7
1
6
7
4-1/2
4
0
4
2
4
5
2
5
9
6
6
6
5-1/2
0
3
2
1
0
0
3
0
2
2
1
5
6-1/2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
7-1/2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
8 to
9-1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10-1/2
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
Totals
90
63
36
86
a?
89
66
61
65
61
74
67
42
to
3
O
U
4->
VO
CO
>
u
ffi
U
0)
i
60
o
en
CO
4->
u
(U
CO
3
o
03
en
to
CJ
x:
■M
O
>^
U
C/3
0)
iH
<T3
H
«« (0 J-i
in
r^
m
<s
iH
CO
CO
CO
en
o
O iJ Q)
esj
esj
n
•*
in
sr
on
m
CO
en
O 0)
&^ H Q
01
^ CO
o <u
3 rH
pa (0
CO
iH
Q
CO
rv
c <u
CM
fO
O ^4
4J
4-» 'O
3 C
FQ CO
CD
4J t5
O
iH
m
r>N,
O
VO
VO
CO
o
CO
.H -H <U
en
CO
o
-d-
r»
cv
CO
m
r^
<J-
CO e 3
4J M CO
<r
CO
<s
CO
CNJ
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
n
A
«h
A
•>
Ok
9\
«
o«
e»
O <U CD
CM
C^J
ir>
r^
r^
iT)
in
in
in
m
H (^ M
(1)
to G
n
4J 0)
3
< O
C3
E
O CO
4J M
4J O
3 3
CO
rH Q)
iH rH
< cfl
ei
CM
Cv
CJv
**
Cv
CO
SI-
in
r*.
o
cr>
(T*
iH
cr»
r^
o
CO
CN
rH
C^I
CO
C
r^
CO
m
r>.
cr.
r-i
-*
«c
U
r*
C\
T-i
VO
•<f
rH
CO
VO
CV
CO
4J
0
tH
CO
c
CO
CS
<VJ
c
VO
CO
m
0
C3
M
•b
A
M
«>
«
A
»k
fk
at
H
P
rH
rH
C^
CM
CM
CM
CNJ
CM
CM
CM
VO
CO
cr>
CO
VO
o
rg
CO
CM
CO
CM
*3-
CO
r-*
CM
CM
C
CM
CM
<M
tH
CN'
CM
CM
CO
rH
CM
m
rH
vO
m
CO
vO
c
CO
in
CO
VO
in
CO c^
f^ rH
n3- m
m
CO
CM
c
rH
CO
vO
CO
in
VO cj
r^ CO
O
vO
vO
1-i
o
CM
CF\
o
CnJ
r^
r^
r^
CO
in
VO
LO
O
CO
o
CO
CO
c^
CM
CM
CM
m
Cv
vO
r-i
O
CTx
r^^
CM
CM
rH
r-\
CM
rH
^
+J CO
VO
CM
CJ\
CO
vn
VO
O
m
CM
O
^ <u
CO
CM
c^
r>.
o
m
m
o
C?V
CM
3 rH
CO
O
CM
CO
^
CM
CM
VO
•sT
VO
TJ CO
r*
m
M
A
A
f*
•«
m*
m
< S
rH
rH
>-i
r^
rH
rH
f-i
rH
1-^
CO
cr-.
CO
CO
O
CM
CO
cyv
m
CTv
in
CO
in
in
sr
CM
CO
00
cr\
VO
CM
CO
M
r^
CO
(TV
o
i-i
CM
CO
»;f
in
VO
(0
VO
VO
vO
r^
r>.
r^
r-.
r-^
r>>.
r^
CJ
ON
ON
CTv
CJV
ON
ON
C7N
C^
crv
cv
>*
rH
r-\
r-i
rH
t-\
rH
rH
f-\
T-^
f~^
4J
0)
CO
I
CO
Q)
u
ea
e
o
CM
■u
r>.
C
0) c^
(U
tiJiH
a
c: 1
M
rt iH
0)
rC r^
P4
O 0^
fH
4J
d
o
u
iH
r^
<a
CN
MfHl
C
1
CO
c
J=
rv
U
o
tH
c
vD
CO
m
r^
*
•
o
o
.H
CN
+
+
c
CVJ
CO
04
CO
m
CM
CM
o
•
CN4
vO
.-»
CO
iH
r-t
O
CO
CO
r^
1^
fH
Cv4
o
m
C^
A
m
A
A
CO
CM
CO
sr
C^
>s-
r^
in
CN
iH
CO
iH
CM
CT
0)
u
u
o
VO
vO
4J
rv
c
0) CJ\
0)
tOrH
o
C 1
u
CTJ ir»
(U
^ t^
PM
u o>
iH
l-O
c^
in
r^
c
Cv
WDrHl
C
!
«o ■<j-i
,c
r^
u
cr
fH
o
CA
in
vO
<S|
<r
«*
cr.
VO
r^
•H
CO
c
CO
VO
m
CO
r«»
•
•
CO
sr
CM
CO
c
•
CO
O
in
CM
CO
•
CM
CM
o
•
o
iH
I
CO
CM
CM
m
VO
m
C^
o
o
tN.
'd-
o
CM
c\
CO
c
CO
m
in
4J
C
<u
o
u
o
Ph
4->
c
Qi
V
U
Q)
c
r*.
(U
cr
Cr.rHl
C
1
rt
c
jn
vC
O
C^
iH
c.
vC
qj OnI
fe:.H!
c
1
CO
c";
M
VLi
o
c>
iH
cc
o
CM
CM
CO
o
o
C\
o
C^
C"-.
CD
vO
CM
rH
o\
#«
M
CO
m
iH
CO
CM
O
CO
CM
iH
VO
c
vf
0^.
«^
AN
rH
iH
CM
CM
•
CvJ
CO
c
c
cr»
m
CO
vC'
en
CM
oc
iH
CVI
m
c
CO
CO
c
CO
C
0)
O
«
ph d
C
a
o
a
C: rH
C i
CO CO
c\
CO
CO
t^
c
o
CCrHl
C
1
d Csll
^
t^
O CT,!
•HI
CM
C7\
m
r>.
C
»*
VD
O
VO
CO
O
iH
o
0^
in
CO
CM
CO
CM
c:;
•
cr
e
CO
VC
CC
o
Q
CO
O
CC
CO
c
CM
+
CO
c
c
m
CO
m
CM
o
CO
CO
CM
O
CM
m
CO
CO
>3-
CO
VD
m
CO
VC
in
in
CO
CO
c^;
r-~
cr»
CO
CM
CO
CO
0)
t
0)
rH
to
E
3
<
u
rH
n
3
o
n
•H
CO
+j
CO
TJ
rH
(U
0
u
a
(0
o
rH
o.
3
CJ
Gi
rH
rH
CO
CO
o
6
4J o
rH -H
3 -U
-O CO
CO r-i
3
a; o
■»-» &.
P3
3 rH
O CO
CO 3
CO
s
"13
(0
c
o
CO -M
rH CO
3 rH
O 3
rH ex
CO O
4J
rH
CD
c
CO
<L)
4J
■U O
a
^
rH
c
tH -H
•H
3
o
3 *J
c
to
T3
•H
•C CO
•H
X
C3
■U
CO i-{
B
CO
3
CO
(U
ts
rH
tJ O.
TJ C
r^
(U
3
o o
Q) O
a
4J
a
•u cu
4J tH
0
CO
o
CO
CO U
^
a
rH (U
fi CO
4J
3 rH
3 rH
rH
a
(U
O CO
O 3
3
rH
rH
rH S
-H p.
•C
CO
§
to o
CO O
<
o
U iw
u a
Tab.Te 19.
Summary of the
Adult Male
Deer Harvest per
Square Mile of Deer Range
per County in Massachusetts, 1971
through
1976 (Shotgun Season)
Sq. Mi.
County
Deer Range
1971
1972
1973
1974 1975 1976
Barnstable
267.3
.30
.28
.28
.31 .27 .15
-.erkshire
311.8
.43
.47
.53
.85 .74 .80
Bristol
383.8
.003
.003
.003
.01 .01 .002
Essex
302.4
.03
.06
.06
.05 .05 .05
Franklin
621.0
.38
.45
.34
.51 .44 .52
Hampden
468.7
.22
.23
.31
.35 .34 .43
Hampshire
423.8
.15
.23
.23
.27 .34 .24
Middlesex
521.9
.02
.01
.01
.003 .01 .01
Norfolk
274.2
-
-
-
.004 .004
riymouth
743,0
.01
.02
.01
.01 .03 .05
Worcester
1,226.0
.08
.10
.10
.11 .12 .08
Mainland
5,783.9
.16
.19
.19
.27 .25 .25
Dukes*
87.4
1.00
1.16
1.00
.84 .70 ,59
Nantucket
36.6
1.74
1.34
1.86
1.69 1.99 2.32
*Gosnold not included.
Table 20.
Summary of the Adult Female
Deer :
Harvest per
Square Mile of Deer Range
per County in Massachusetts
. 1971
through 1976 (Shotgiin Season) .
Sq. Hi.
County
Deer Range 1971
1972
1973
1974 1975 1976
Barnstable
267.3 .10
.10
.06
.12 .04 .07
B.-irkshire
811.8 .24
.13
.13
.27 .20 .22
Bristol
388.8
.003
.003
.003 0 .003
Essex
302.4 .003
.003
-
.01 .01 .01
Franklin
621.6 .28
.23
.13
.13 .14 .15
Hampden
468.7 .09
.08
.07
.07 .09 .08
Hampshire
423. G .07
.08
.05
.07 .06 .05
Middlesex
521.9 .01
.01
.002
.002 .01 .006
Norfolk
274.2
-
-
.004 .004
i'lymouth
743.0 .002
-
.004
.004 .02 .008
V^orcester
1,226.0 .05
.03
.04
.04 .04 .03
Mainland
5,733.9 .09
.08
.05
.08 .07 .07
Dukes*
87.4 .69
.83
1.00
.67 .63 .72
Ilantucket
36.6 1.50
1.09
1.20
1.20 1.39 1.56
*Gosnold not included
ft
Tcible 21.
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 llile of Deer Range in Massachusetts
for 1976.
Harvest
Total
Sq. Mi.
Deer
Males
Females
of Deer
per
per
per
County
Males
Females
Total
Ran^e
Sq. Mi.
Sq. Mi.
Sq. Mi.
Barnstable
48
26
74
267.3
.28
.17
.09
Berkshire
744
269
1,012
Gil. 8
1.25
.92
.33
Bristol
1
2
3
388.8
.008
.003
.005
Essex
14
2
16
302.4
.05
.04
.01
Franklin
372
140
512
621.6
.82
.60
.22
Hampden
233
58
291
468.7
.62
.50
.12
Haiap shire
119
31
150
428.8
.35
.28
.07
Middlesex
12
6
13
521.9
.03
.02
.01
Norfolk
1
2
3
274.2
.01
.003
.007
Plymouth
22
5
27
473.0
.06
.05
.01
vJorcester
123
51
174
1,226.0
.14
.10
.04
Total
1,689
590
2,279
5,703.9
.39
.29.
.10
Dukes*
90
90
180
87.4
2.06
1.03
1.03
Nantucket
124
87
211
36.6
5.76
3.39
2.37
Total
1,903
767
2,670
5,907.9
.45
.32
.13
*Gosnold not included.
CM
OS
u
ft*
fu
0
<
C7l
(U
t-i
u*
3
o
u
Vi*
fe
<
cr,
vo
U
|i<
3
<
o
o
CO
CM tH
rH CO ^ <r
>4- CO CO
incoco\or«.Hccco
CM
r>. r«^ iH r^ CO <r>
iH
CO CM iH
O CO
CO to
CO so »H O O
o r>. «* sj- lO
vo
in r^
CM CO
vD CM iH
r>. S3- CO
o
O
O
VD
r^
O
ir>
O
C^l CM rH CM C>>J CO CO Sj-
CO «n iH CO O vo iH
CO CM rH
CO
O 00
CO CO
m CN vo CM r^
^ CO CM -a- vo
o
in
vo
CJ^ CO
C-. CO rH CO O rH <•
CC
CM
O
CM CO
cr> CO >;!•
CO
m
o
rH
-cf
o
o
vo
»*
o
iH
CO
vO
CO
Cvj
m
iH r^ >* cv
CO
CM
CJ>
OOr^cOiHvOvOiHiH
CMCMCOCOCOCM-^CO
CO
CO
VD O
sj- CO CM t*v si-
Cv CO sJ-
o
C7\
in
oorHcocovocotncocosr
mr*. rHinCMr-liH rH
CO CM iH rH
VO
VO
CO
CM
O
sr
m
o
o
o
o
m
vo
uo
CO
VD
in
O
O
CM
O
vO
00
U-1
c
o
vo
rs.
00
c^
CO
CO
vD
CM
CO
CM
O
CO
in
si-
c
o
o
>^
4J
0)
C
.H
a
(U M
u
3
,o
Vj
a
»-i OJ
42
(U
O
cd
•H
tH
•H
C
•H CO
^
4-1 rii5
■p
CJ
4J
rC
O
a
OJ
^ Q)
iH
3 -H
CO
CD
CO
4J
X
'O
CO rH
O
O O
0)
rH
(3
^
CO
<u
c
e-
O. T3
IW
It:.
o
CO
M
M
•H
CO
CO
a -Xi
}^
M
4J
rt
(U
U
en
)-i
rt
CO ^
O
rH 3
O
0
OQ
pq
PC
Pd
rx<
w
1— 1 »T*4
z
Ph CO
:2
H
i
4J
>-l
O
a
C/3
CO
^ U
O -H
.1
O 0)
;?5 pL,
cr.
CO
o
o
o
sr
cy\
St
vo
CJO
o
o
sj-
vo
vo
c
vo
O
o
vo
CM
CM
VO
C
(U
0
CO
4J
M
O
o-
4.J
(/I
0)
CO
^
(^ 4J
o
CO
O -H
3
CU
.6
4J
M
0
0
O CU
«0
Q
S A4
s
CO
m
m
CO
c
o
si-
c
0
CO
4J
M
O
a
en
o
vo
CM
CO
m
o
CM
St
vo
in
vo
g
o <u
t: PL,
o
a
•§
S CO
I-' -H
lO t:
*J M
O O
C^
u
0)
o
c
to
. .1
c
R
(in
W
C)
'O
3
•J
■ H
u
Fs<
3
^
0-.
pi^
D
?
u
f^
9
m
T3
CD
Eh
O
"^r^^OrHCOODONOOCD
sttNinrgcSiHfHvOOfH
CO
fo
CO vO
en iH r^ O CO
On <n CM
iH •<*
•*
CO
o
CO
CO
o
CO
o
rH iH CM •<}■
o CM CO in
CM o o
CO C^l iH
CM
CM
CO
o
lO 1^
T-i CM
o> CO vo r^ m C o
CM CO CM rH f* C in
CO
CO
o CM in CO
c^ <r CM
CO
>3-
CM
rH
in
'd-
in
tH
r^
O
iH
r-
VO
VO
CM
r-1
rH VO
vOrHincO«d-f^CCO
COCOCMCMCMCMCMin
rH vO rH
CO r-i
CO VT' t^ CM
r^ CO CO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
m
m C7 "^r f^ vo c
CO CC iH iH vO
VD CO rH
VC CM
VO
CO
CO
On VO
iH CM
in r«» m CM m
CM CO CM CM CM
o
<•
CO
•
■
in c^
tH O
tH
<J- a^ VO CM fH
r*» CO CM
1
•
r^ cvj
\o CO m tH «*
.H rH «;r O
CM rH iH
CM
in
in
c^
m
CM
VO
CM
CO
o
CO
in
CM
m
c^
CM
C
O
o
CO
CO
vO
o
o
vO
O
cri
rH
o
m
o
C^
o
m
o
CO
CM
VC
VO
CM
00
o
VD
O
O
VO
CO
VO
rH
CO
O
o
o
o
Q)
r-^
(U
<U X
V4
Xi
M
C
u o
^
<u
cfl
•H
rH
•H
0
•H CO
^
*J Jbi
4J
4J
^
o
iH
<U
x: <u
rH
0 rH
CO
cn
CO
4J
X
^
T3
CO tH
O
o o
<u
C
A^
CO
(U
a
Cu
ana
«W
g.:ti
o
u
»^
•H
cn
CO
Q
0 T3
M
u
to
0)
M
CO
M
:S
CO -H
O
r-^ 0
o
CO
m
M
U
Ii4
ffi S
^3
(Xi cn
IS
s
cn
o
w
IM
o
O (U
^ CM
CO
o
CO
o
o
VO
VO
CO
CO
0)
3
Q
CI
(U
Q
CO
u
u
o
p.
in
CO
IM 4J
O -H
.1
O 0)
VO
in
o
o
St
CO
o
m
o
c
CO
VO
O
C
VO
VO
VI-
vr
c
o
CO
vO
o
c
CO
c
CO
a
w
M
O
to
CO
O 0)
^5 Oi
O
m
CO
m
o
in
CN
in
oo
in
ro
in
•vl-
CO
in
o *
^ CO
6 *-•
r^ ai
O »W
H O
CO
4J
•H
g
(14
V4
0)
o
I
u
n
e ij^
u o
a;
(I4 0
•H
CD U
00 CO
0) (^
rH
M >,
Q) 0
rH C
4J (U
C 3
< 0-
a>
C i^
0 ^
CO 4J
4J C
M (1)
0 0
CU ^
C/) 0)
0 Q)
u:
M Vi
<U
^ T3
g C
9 cd
K
4J
<U -H
J3 CS
<J D
•^ M
4J 0)
•H Ci.
ti
tJ 4J
W
4j a)
C >
0 u
B R)
n "^
<U 1— »
6C
Cd 4J
ti rH
CO ti
33
>-l
(U Q)
<U ^
Q 4J
M ««
(1) 0)
a to
ti
•
4J (0
0
CO Oi
r>»
0)
CTn
> v<
iH
M 0)
to CJ
U
w 0
0
UH
t.1 u^
(U 0
CO
0)
a
Q CO
rH
a
CO
S3
00s
■u
4J
f-i
0 0)
ti
JC n
'^
en CO
<
ti
(U cr
0
;C CO
4J
u
0)
CQ
MH ^
(U
0 -u
rH
CO
^ "
§
V4 U
CO "H
►4
3 c
: 5=>
4J
rH
cn M
ti
0)
ts
< (X<
•
CM
0)
tH
x>
CO
H
(U
y o
ti 4J
ti
0) rH Cfl
CU <P
*J fa rH
ti ti
t) ^ <
M ti
0) "O
4J 0) -H
^ ^ "-*
ti Cd
J*4 W
•3^ =
< J3 01
CO
cn o
CO
■u
o
H
4J
CO
>
U
CO
W
CO
CO CO
0) fa
(U 4J
fa rH
ti
<3
0]
fa
<u
rH
CO
1 -
ti
<
o
ti
cO CO
B w
CO '
tie
o CU
CI. fa
CO
•
•
00
CM
•
CO
rH
•
c^
rH
•
CO
CO
•
m
CO
•
•
c^
CO
•
0
•
CM
CO
•
0
•
CM
•
IT)
rH
•
CO
0
•
in
0
•
CO
0
•
0
0
•
m
0
0
•
CM
•
VO
m
•
rH
ON
0
•
in
•
0
CO
•
CM
in
•
cn
•
CM
•
00
0
•
CM
0
•
CO
0
•
00
•
CM
CO
«
CM
CM
•
CO
CS3
c:;
r-
CO
0
m
00
<r
VO
o>
CM
0-;
CM
VO
CO
so
CO
CM
VO
CM
00
C3^
C
1-^
rH
vO
CO
00
VO
cn
0
c^
in
0
vO
St
ON
sa-
CM
m
CO
m
VO
r-{
m
CO
0
CO
CM
cn
C^V
St
CO
in
CM
r^
VO
in
CO
sr
00
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CD
c^l
rH
0
tH
rH
cr\
CO
0
CM
CO
r^
St
CO
VO
in
m
<r
0
cn
en
CO
sf
m
pH
m
0
*3-
CO
c^
CM
CM
rH
rH
10
VO
0
CM
CO
CN
CM
CO
0
rH
CO
0
0
CM
S3-
CM
in
CO
0
CM
VO
rH
0
0
eg
0
0
CO
0
0
0
0
sr
0
0
CO
0
0
0
CM
0
CM
c
0
vO
0
0
St
*
*
0)
•K
■X
r-i
(1)
0)
M
*
M
4J
■M
43
u
ti
M
<U
M
M
s
•H
CO
•H
•H
ti
•H
4J
ti
4J
rC
fi
0)
Xi
CO
c
ti
0
CO
t)
CO
CO
■s
•v
CO
<U
0
0
CO
ti
rH
ti
M
a
S*
CJ
•H
•H
(U
4J
CO
U
u
CO
9
B
U
tr
CsO
^
ti
4J
CO
a>
u
CO
a
^
<u
0)
ti
CO
0
PQ
PQ
fa
*— *
:s
Pi
cti
0
z
H
CO
ti
0
•H
4J
CO
4J
cn
eo
C
•H
^
a
0
x.
0
u
<0
d)
'a
rH
CO
a
•H
60
0
rH
0
•H
^
■U
CO
-ti
(U
4J
M
0
a.
(U
M •
CO
CO Q)
gS
CO ti
M-i :3
0
•
<« 0
«
0
(U
M
•H
*J rH
*J
ti 0
c
(U IM
3
0 M
0
u 0
U
<U S
ti.
^
TJ
4->
0 ti
ti
j: CO
0
u
s
X
s
ti <u
rH
ti CO
fa
•H G)
CO rH
•0
ti -ti
c
•ti
CO
•0 •H
(U s
rH
■U
0
CO «
4J
r^ X
CD
ti 0)
•H
0 CO
M
rH CO
m
CO W
0
CO
CQ
(U
0) (U
T)
»-t TS
ti
0) ti
r-i
> rH
0
0
ti
CO C
•H
ti ^
3
M
CO M
M
ItH
c
c
(U 0
0
rH -H
•H
to to
{50
0)
0) ci
oi
fa
•K *
*
*
*
•K
i
I7"35-R~l?:II-4
Table 22 presents the percent frequency ratio of adult fe-
males to adult nales from 1969 through 1976. The mainland
deer herd appears to be in good shape in regard to the har-
vest of adult females to adult males (Table 22). On llarth'.'r
Vineyard., the adult harvest is approaching a one-to-one
frequency and it may be necessary to reduce the number of
antlerless permits if it appears that the overall herd is
being overharvested (79 adult males: 63 adult females; percen--
frequency ratio 1:.39).
There was a slight increase in the Nantucket harvest and yet
the adult male to adult female frequency rate (.70 in 19 75
.67 in 1976) has not changed significantly (Table 22).
Table 23 presents a summary by deer management unit of the
shotgun deer harvest, the number of sportsmen^ s antlerless
permits issued, the harvest per square mile of deer range
for adult male and fenale deer and the percent frequency
ratio of adult fenalj^s to adult males for 1976. All indices
(adult harvest per square mile of deer range, percent fre-
quency adult male to adult female ratios and the male favm
harvest) suggest that the mainland deer herd is is good bi-
olof^ical balance; i.e., no out of proportion harvest of any
sex or age of deer herd. In Dukes County, the adult deer
harvest is almost one adult male to an adult female. The
^Tantucket harvest of adult males to adult females shows that
for every 100 adult males taken 67 adult females are har-
vested. Apparently the Nantucket deer herd can stand the
presGure for another year before it is recommended to reduce
the number of antlerless permits for the island.
1-IASSACHU SETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AMD UILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
Prepared by:
James J. McDonough
Game Biologist
James J. Pot tie
Assistant Game Biologist
Date
* yTD, l/r\ ^A- ->, W -^^ /\.
''I
PERFORIIANCE REPORT
^
State
Massachusetts
Project Number: W-35-R"19
Project Title
Project Type:
Period Covered:
Work Plan III
Plan Objectives:
Job III-l
Job Objective:
Sunnnary:
Target Date
Progress
Deviations :
Reconmendations :
Cost
Remarks :
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 1976 to 31 May 1977
* it -k * -k * -k
Census of Game Species
To determine trends in llassachusetts populations of mourn-
ing dove, bobv7hite quail and woodcock.
Mourning Dove Census
To obtain an index of the spring breeding population of
mourning doves.
Calling doves were counted on three randomized routes in
cooperation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Servicers
annual mourning dove breeding population census. The
total number of calling doves in 1976 decreased 52 percent
from 1975 counts on tv70 comparable routes. Data from one
route were not available for 1975 and could not be com-
pared.
31 May 1979
On schedule
None
Continue the spring mourning dove census in cooperation
V7ith the U. 8. Fish and Wildlife Service.
$73.93 (Project leader man days: 1/2)
Procedures: In accordance with instructions from the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, doves were censused by roadside
coo-counts between 26 and 28 May on the three randomized
routes established in 1967. Division personnel conducted
tv7o routes and a Fish and Wildlife Service cooperator con-
ducted a third route.
Findings : Results of the 1976 call count of mourning
doves are compared with previous years' data in Table 1.
The total number of calling doves on two routes combined
decreased 52 percent from 1975 counts. Route 3 decreased
from 19 to 11 doves heard and Route 8A decreased from six
to one dove heard. Route 10 had five doves heard in 1976
but data from 1975 V7as not available for comparison.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
//5146
*
*
PO
P«
o
o
c
c
rt
rt
(t>
(0
O
i-l
S
a.
O
c
O
o
0)
ft
ft
(D
tO
Cu
a-
M
a
VD
Oi
^
rt
j>
P>
•
0
O
rt
H
(D
rt
(U
»-«•
0
(0
cu
H
H
O
o
rt
rt
(U
0)
H*
M
W
»
/^S
f-*
&
(-•
CO
;>3
?o
o
o
c
c
ft
rt
rt>
rti
w
ON
4>
+
CO
00
>
CO
^ H
?« H
n>
> o
o o
0)
M rt
C rt
0
j-i p
rt P
t-*
fD H*
pd CD
CO
O
M
C
O H*
rt
n>
ft)
CO
CO
oa
o
CO
>
CD
c
rt
4>-
ON
CO
to
00
i.
o
o
I
00
+
+
+
+
M
u>
OJ
*^
J>
VO
tn
NJ
o
o
Ul
C3N
*
M
Ul
o
o
O
o
vO
Q
o
§
rt
o»
ON
+
I
+
+
M
M
VD
J>
o\
O
•"vl
M
• .
M
ON
00
^
O
o
O
ON
n
o
o
N>
+
+
+
+
M
J>
W
p
en
JN
o
H*
■^
rt
t
/-•
N>
v£>
o
o
o
H*
CO
1+
o
<jJ
ON
+
1
+
+
1
H*
H*
M
O
0
CT
H*
Ln
o
■^
•
»-♦
ON
■O
O
o
OD
NJ
u>
ON
o
o
o
+
O
4
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
1
1
r
M
a
«o
Ln
c»
4>
^
N>
>
c*>
to
Ul
On
C-3
o
to
to
CO
u>
NJ
OJ
U>
JO
4>
to
to
to
to
IVJ
to
VO
O
<JN
to
to
00
•
to
to
»
u>
v^
Ln
*
ON
VD
U1
to
Ui
VO
o\
VO
ON
CO
VO
CN
VO
o
VO
VO
N5
vD
U>
VO
ON
a
o
<
CO
CO
o>
o
a
o
I
Br
CO
CO
p
s-
c
CO
n>
rt
rt
CO
c
rt
n»
01
VO
ON
Pt
o
VO
ON
W-35-R- 19:111-1
Prepared by
Tne vjelghted mean number of doves heard per comparable
Massachusetts route was 9.9 in 1975 and 16.8 in 1976
(Dolton 1976). Dove population indices in the Eastern
Unit, however, decreased l.A percent from 1975 and 3.9
percent froin the ten-year mean. Linear regression
analyses indicate a statistically significant downward
trend in Eastern Unit dove populations.
Acknowledgments ; I acknov;ledge the cooperation of Refuge
Manager Linda K. Gintoli of Great Meadows National Wild-
life Refuge, v;ho conducted the survey on Route 8.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
\J \ ^J^-" ^' » » ^/,
^-'i-y^ .>u>» />• (
'PERFOmiATTCE REPORT
y
State
Project Title
Project Type
Period Covered:
Ilassachusetts
Project No,
W-35-R-19
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 1976 to 31 May 1977
Work Plan IV
Wild Turkey Restoration Study
1 <
Work Plan Objective: To re-establish the vrild turkey in the Commonwealth in
sufficient numbers to allow for recreational hunting.
Job IV-1
Job Objective;
Summary :
Experimental Turkey Stocking
To re-establish the wild turkey in the Commoni7ealth in
sufficient numbers to allow for recreational hunting.
Turkeys in the Bearto^m State Forest area continue to
show signs of increased production and dispersal from
the release area. Reports in several new locations seen
reliable but need verification. Continuing reports
from northern Berkshire County probably represent
dispersal from Vermont or New York releases. Reports
in Hampden County probably represent escaped penned
stock.
Target Date: 31 !iay 1979
Status of Progress: On schedule
Deviations:
Recommendations
Cost:
Remarks :
None
1. Continue evaluation of the Beartovm release. In-
stitute spring gobbler call routes or other means to
further assess population trends.
2. Continue public information efforts designed to in-
crease the reporting of turkey sirhtings.
3. Investigate potential release sites in western
Massachusetts as to their suitability for future re-
leases of transplanted birds.
$3253.29 (project leader man-days: 32)
Procedures. Turkey abundance xras indexed by roadside
counts, track counts, and cooperator reports. Snow-
mobiles were used during the winter to provide access
to the areas.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
J?5146
U-35-R-19 : IV-1 Pace 2
Findinpis; Bearto\m State Forest Area
Turkeys continue to disperse from the area of the Bear-
town release site. Reports were received froia several
locations in southern Berkshire County.
Broods were observed in two areas in the southern Berk-
shires. A hen and nine poults vere seen in Richmond in
July, and three adults and three poults v/ere observed
near ilonuraent 'lountain in Stockbridge in midsummer. Due
to the numbers of birds found in the winter, broods were
probably produced in several other locations but reports
were not received until v/inter and the age composition
of the flocks could not be determined.
Bear town Forest and adjacent areas remains the focus of
vjestern Massachusetts turkey populations . About 25
turkeys vrere reported in December near Fountain Pond in
Great Barrington. Division personnel located old tracks
of about seven birds in this area in mid-January and ob-
served about 13-14 one mile south along Three-ilile Hill
in mid-February. It is unknown if these birds represent
parts of the same flock, and if so, what happened to the
remainder of the turkeys.
Tracks of four to five turkeys were found in January near
Agavjam Lake and ilonuraent Mountain in the area where hens
and poults had been seen the previous summer. Tracks of
about five turkeys were found along Konkapot Brook in
Stockbridge, on the west side of Beartown, and about
seven birds v;ere seen by Division personnel off Blue Hill
Road at the southwest end of Beartovm Forest. Two re-
ports of 20-25 turkeys at the South Lee end of Beartown
were received, but vrere not verified.
Cooperators reported 11-12 turkeys near East Brook off
Beartovm ilountain Road in December and Division personnel
located tracks of about this number in the same area in
January. Part of this flock (numbers uncertain due to
intervening brush) were seen later that vreek further
north along East Brook. Distances are close enough that
these may represent some of the birds seen in East Lee
in November and December. Tracks of four toms were
located in the center of Beartovm, near the old CCC camp.
Birds have been found regularly in this same area the
past fev7 years.
Few reports were received from Tyringham this year.
Tracks of one bird were found on the west slope of Long
Mountain and three birds were reported by cooperators
crossing a road near the Otis line. Single birds or
small groups (4-5) V7ere seen several times on the Ilonter'-^
side of Beartovm Forest and, following a report by co-
operators. Western District personnel located tracks of
11-12 turkeys off Route 23 in Monterey. In Otis,
y-35-R-19aV~l ?P.o(i 3
cooperators reported 11, five and three birds in
September, llovember and December 1976. These could not
be located by Division personnel in v.'inter and it is un-
knovm if they represent parts of the sane flock.
Reliable reports of turkeys were received from Alford
(2 birds) in sunmer 1976 and February 1977, Lenox (1 bird;
in September 1976, and West Stockbridge (3 birds) in
Decenber 1976 and February 1977. These could not be
verified during winter checks. Two reports were received
of turkeys in East Mountain State Forest on the Great
Barring ton-Sheffield line, A winter search failed to
locate these birds.
Several reports of up to eight turkeys were received from
the West field, Russell and Blandford areas during spring
1976 to Decenber 1976. Field searches by Division per-
sonnel failed to locate any sign of the turkeys, and in-
vestigation by Western District staff later revealed that
these may have been escaped pen-raised turkeys.
The ingress of turkeys from Vermont and New York popula-
tions appears to be continuing and small flocks may now
be resident. Turkeys were reliably reported in Charle-
mont (up to six birds, one wing-tagged) in September-
October 1976, Colrain (tracks of one bird) in November,
Florida (tracks of one bird) in November, and North Adans
(tracks and sightings of up to five birds) in January
1976 and April 1977.
Statewide Populations
Turkeys remain present on Prescott Peninsula in the
Quabbin Reservation, Their behavior remains moderately
wild, but their numbers show no dramatic increase. Little
time was spent investigating these turkeys during the
current segment. Reports from cooperators indicate that
broods were produced, with most of the turkeys remaining
on the southern half of the Peninsula.
One brood of eight or nine was reported in July and
September 1976 near Gunn Brook on ?It. Toby in Sunderland.
The hen reported in lit. Toby Froest during the past seg-
ment (W-35-R-13) V7as not responsible for the brood since
she remained sitting on infertile (?) eggs from about
3 ilay to early July.
One report was received of three turkeys seen in Barre in
September 1976. IIo reports were received from Douglas,
Hatfield, or the Holyoke Range, v;here Quabbin-s train
turkeys v;ere released in the late 1960 's and early 1970 'o.
At least 15 game-farm ancestry turkeys persist in the
Town of Mt. Washington. They are apparently fed regular-
ly by residents and are very tame in behavior.
W-35-R-19:IV-l
Pag.^. 4
A few reports of turkeys v/ere received from several loc^.-
tions in eastern and south-central Ilassachxisetts. The
reliability of the observers is unknovm and no populatioun
of turkeys are near these areas. If indeed turkeys, thecij
reports nay represent escaped or illegally-released penned
birds.
Additional Activities: The project leader gave two slide talks and spoke on
one radio prograra regarding the turkey study. An article
on turkeys was published in a regional bird magazine.
Acknowledgments :
I extend my appreciation to personnel of the Division of
Forests and Parks, Division of Law Enforcement, Metropoli-
tan District Commission, and the University of llassachu-
setts for their cooperation and assistance.
Prepared by
Submitted by:
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AIID WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Tianagement
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State Massachur-etts
UOFL_, '—J
Project No. U-35-R-19
Project Title: Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Project Type: Research and Survey
Period Covered: 1 June 1976 to 31 May 1977
Work Plan I Statewide Small Game Harvest
Objectives: To deteriaine the statewide harvest of selected small
game and furhearcr species and to present recommendations,
based upon manap;ement practices and regulations, to in-
crease the utilization of certain species.
Job 6 Statewide Otter and Fisher Investigations
Job Objective To obtain data on the harvest, distribution, age composi-
tion and reproductive status of river otter and fisher
populations in Massachusetts.
Summary Mandatory pelt checking stations for otter and fisher
were established in 1976. A total of 110 otter v/ere
taken by 55 trappers in 59 towns, and 23 fisher were
taken by 17 trappers in 17 tot-ms. Tvjo additional fisher
vjere live trapped for a museum. Worcester (33) and Berk-
shire (23) counties provided the most otter and Worcester
(15) yielded the most fisher. Otter v/ere taken primaril:'
in November and December, V7hile most fisher were taken in
February. A total of 74 otter and 10 fisher carcasses
V7ere received from cooperating trappers. Skulls, bacula
and canine teeth are avraiting process. Twenty-three
otter reproductive tracts shovjed a mean of 1.0 corpus
luteum each. Analysis of 23 otter stomachs shovjed game
and pan fishes to comprise 43.7 percent of the total
volume.
Target Date: 31 May 1979.
Progress: On schedule.
Significant Deviations: None
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent //514t
W-35-R-19:I-6
Recommendations :
Cost:
Remarks :
Page 2
1. Continue tagging of otter and fisher pelts and re-
cording the data In 197«3 using the same methods as In
the current segment.
2. Continue the collection of carcasses so as to obtain
materials for aging and reproductive studies.
3. Process carcasses Immediately or as soon as possible
after receipt. Reproductive tracts should be examined
before preservation so that corpora lutea and placental
scars are more readily Identified. Uterine horns should
be flushed to recover free blastocysts.
4. Weight and measurements should be taken on all whole
carcasses.
$1696.24 (project leader man-days, 15-1/4).
Procedures. Revised regulations Instituted In 1976 re-
quired all successful otter and fisher trappers to present
their pelts to an official checking station for tagging
and recording of data. Eight stations (nine for otter)
are maintained throughout the season and for two days
after the close of the season. Pelts are tagged with
locking metal game seals and harvest data are recorded
on mimeographed foms and subsequently tabulated by month
trapped, to\m and county trapped in, type of trap used,
target species, and sex.
Trappers v/ere requested to voluntarily turn in the car-
casses of otter and fisher to a Division installation.
Upon receipt of the carcasses, they were tagged with the
name of the trapper and the date and to^Tn wliere taken,
and stored in a freezer until ready for processing.
Female reproductive tracts were preserved in 10 percent
formalin and later examined for corpora lutea and pla-
cental scars. Ovaries were dissected free and hand
sectioned in approximately 0.5mm sections and examined
under 3x magnification. Uterine horns were cut longi-
tudinally prior to examination.
Skulls and bacula were cleaned by derraestlds.
A canine tooth (right CI) was removed by cutting between
13 - 14 and PMl - Pl'2 with a saber saw, snapping off the
partially severed portion with pliers and splitting bone
fragments away from the tooth using a chisel. Teeth were,
then placed in labeled vials and delivered to the North-
east Research Center for Wildlife Diseases for section-
ing, staining and reading.
Findings: Otters have always been a legal furbearer in
ilassachusetts. Harvest records based on license holder
reports are available from 1923 to 1951 and based on
licensed fur dealer reports from 1952 to 1975. Commenc-
ing in 1976, harvests are based on mandatory pelt check-
ing stations.
W-35-R-19:I-6 Page 3
The 1976-1977 otter trapping season extended for about
17 X7eeks from 1 November 1976 to 1 Uarch 1977. During
this tine, trappers took 110 otter (Table 1) . Division
checking stations processed 108 pelts and the carcasses
of t\'70 additional otter were turned in but the pelts
apparently retained by the trapper. This combined take
(110) V7as seven more than the 1975-1976 harvest (103)
and 39 more than a ten-year (1966-1975) mean harvest
(71). In 1976-1977, there were 65 trappers taking at
least one otter, with a mean harvest of 1 . 7 otter per
trapper (range: 1 to 6).
The first modern fisher season in Massachusetts was in
1972-1973, with an open season from 1 ITovember to 1 March.
Harvest records from 1972 to 1975 were based on licensed
fur dealer reports. Commencing in 1976, the seasonal
fisher take was determined from mandatory pelt checking
stations. In 1976-1977, with the season remaining at
17 weeks, fur trappers took 23 fisher v/ith two more live
trapped. One of the two live trapped subsequently es-
caped. Twenty- tv70 pelts and one live animal were examined
at checking stations and one additional carcass was turned
in by a trapper who apparently retained the pelt. The
second live animal (escaped) was not brought to a check
station. This total seasonal take (25) was 23 more than
in 1975-1976. There V7ere 17 trappers who succeeded in
taking at least one fisher, with a mean of 1.5 fisher
per trapper (range: 1 to 5) .
Table 1. Harvest of Otter and Fisher in Massachusetts, 1066-1976, and 10-Year
(1966-1975) and 25-Year (1951-1975) Means.
Species
1966
1967
196G
1969
1970 1971
1972
Otter
82
41
47
104
76 53
71
Fisher
N 0
Open
Seas
0 n
Mean
0
llean
1973
1974
1975
1976
1951-1975
1966-1975
Otter
66
66
103
110
92
71
Fisher
13
6
2
25*
"
*■
*23 taken by fur trappers
Otters ^7ere taken in 59 tovTns in 10 counties during the
1976-1977 season (Table 2) . The greatest number were
trapped in Worcester County (33), followed by Berkshire
(23) and Franklin and Hampshire (13 each) .
W-35-R-19:I-6
Pagi 4
Table 2. Harvests of Otter and Fisher in llassachusetts, by County, 1976-197"
Season.
County
No. Otter
Percent
No. Fisher
Berkshire
23
20.9
1
Bristol
2
1.8
-
Dukes
2
1.3
-
Essex
8
7.3
1
Franklin
13
11.8
4
Hampshire
13
11.8
-
Hampden
5
4.6
-
Middlesex
6
5.5
4
Norfolk
3
2.7
-
Worcester
33
30.0
15
Unkno\7n
2
1.8
-
Totals
110
100.0
25
Percent
4.0
4.0
16.0
16.0
60.0
100.0
Based on one year's trapper harvest, otters appear well
distributed throughout Massachusetts except in the en-
virons of Boston and in southeastern llassachusetts
(Figure 1) . More information is needed to ascertain
their status in these areas.
Table 3.
Ilonth
November
December
January
February
Unknovm
Totals
Fisher uere taken in 17 towns in five counties during
1976-1977 (Table 2). Examination of one season's harvest
by to\ms (Figure 2) indicates a primary range in northern
Worcester and adjacent Franklin and Middlesex counties
with scattered reports in Essex, Berkshire, and southern
Worcester counties. Fisher are apparently still expand-
ing their range in Massachusetts.
Otters x^ere trapped primarily in the first half of the
season, with 50 (45 percent) taken in November and 40
(36 percent) taken in December (Table 3) . Host fisher,
however, were taken at the end of the season V7ith 12
animals (48 percent) taken in February.
Harvests of Otter and Fisher in llassachusetts, by Month, 1976-1977
Season.
No. Otter
50
40
12
5
3
110
'ercent
No.
Fisher
Percent
45.5
5
20.0
36.4
6
24.0
10.9
1
4.0
4.5
12
48.0
2.7
1
4.0
100.0
25
100.0
Most otter were taken in Conibear traps (73 otter, 63 per
cent), with an additional 29 taken in leghold traps and
eight picked \iv as road kills. Fis'ier were taken primar-
ily in leghold traps (13 fislier, 52 percent), with five
being road kills, four taken in Conibears, two in live
traps and one unknown.
W-35-R-19:I-6 Page 5
Successful trappers were also ashed the target species
for vrhich they had made their sets. The majority (77:
70%) of the otter taken were caught in otter sets with
an additional 14 (12.7%) taken in beaver or otter-beaver
sets (Table 4) . The remaining 19 were taken by mink,
muskrat or raccoon trappers (13) , or were road kills (3) ,
or not stated (3) .
Fisher, hovzever, showed a less distinct target orienta-
tion, VTith eight (32%) taken in fisher sets, six (24%)
in raccoon sets, and five (20%) road kills. The remain-
der were taken by mink, beaver, or fox trappers (4) or
for predator control (1, chicken coop) or were not
stated (1) .
The average price of an otter pelt (n=35) in 1976-1977
was $69.67, for an estimated harvest valuation of
$7696.70. The average fisher price (n=8) was $112.18,
for an average harvest valuation of $2804.50.
Table 4.
Target
Species
for Harvested
Otter and
Fisher in Massachusetts,
1976-1977.
Target
Otter
Percent
Fisher
Percent
Otter
77
70.0
.
~
Fisher
-
-
8
32.0
Beaver
10
9.1
1
4.0
Raccoon
2
1.8
6
24.0
Mink
6
5.5
2
8.0
Muskrat
5
4.6
-
-
Otter-Beaver
4
3.6
-
-
Fox
-
-
1
4.0
Predator
Control
104
^
1
19
4.0
Road kill
3
2.7
5
20.0
Unknown
3
2.7
1
4.0
Totals
110
100.0
25
100.0
A total of 74 otter and 10 fisher carcasses, in varying
degrees of preservation, were received from cooperating
trappers. Thirty-four (34) of the otter were males and
40 v/ere females, for a sex ratio of 86 males: 100 females
(45.9% males). Four of the fisher carcasses were males
and six were females, for a sex ratio of 67 males: 100
females (40% males).
The pelt checking stations, based on trapper response,
listed 53 male otter, 42 female, and 13 unknown. On
comparison v;ith carcasses, four otter were incorrectly
sexed by the trapper (3 females as males, one male as
female). Fisher pelt checking records list 13 males,
seven females and tv/o unknoxm. Only one was sexed in-
correctly by the trapper (a female reported as a male) .
W-35-R-19 : 1-6
Page 6
Acknowledgments :
Sixty-tv7o (G2) skulls, 63 canine teeth and 27 bacuia v/era
obtained from surrendered otter carcasses. Ue also col-
lected eight fisher skulls, nine canine teeth and three
bacuia. Skeletal material is nov7 being cleaned in the
dermestid colony at the University of Hassachusetts.
Teeth are beinp, prepared for aging by cementum annuli
counts at the Northeast Research Center for Wildlife
Diseases.
Several carcasses were received in decomposed or mutilated
condition. Consequently, reproductive tracts were removed
from only 23 otters. Due to a lack of laboratory facili-
ties at the time of collection, these tracts were stored
in formalin for later examination. This preservation
hardened and discolored the tracts and made identification
of placental scars difficult.
Thirteen of 23 otter tracts shovjed one or more corpora
lutea. A total of 23 corpora lutea were found for a mean
of 1.00 corpus luteum per specimen. Discrepancies between
this and results of other investigators (Hamilton and
Eadie, 1964; 1.9 c.l. per otter, Nov. -Dec.) are probably
due to difficulties of identification in preserved speci-
mens.
Twenty-three (23) otter and three fisher stomachs were
also collected. The fisher stomachs were preserved in
formalin and are bein^ held for later analysis. The
otter stomachs vrere analyzed by Andre J. Loranger of the
University of Connecticut. Seven stomachs were empty or
contained only trace amounts of food. Game and pan fish?.s
comprised 43.7 percent of the total volume (Table 6) fol-
lDV7ed by amphibians (41.5%), unidentifiable material (11%),
forage fish (1.6%) and unidentifiable fish remains (2.2%).
Game and pan fishes, plant matter (not quantified volu-
metrically) and unidentified fish occurred most frequent-
ly (40% each), follov/ed by forage fish, amphibians, and
insects.
The Board of Fisheries and Uildlife reduced the fisher
trapping season by half from 1 November to 1 Ilarch to be
1 November to 31 December commencing fall 1977.
I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the trappers
of Hassachusetts; Dennis J. O'Connor, Northeast Research
Center for Wildlife Diseases* Douglas Smith, University
of Hassachusetts', Andre J. Loranger, University of
Connecticut: and Paul Hotz, Division of Law Enforcement.
Literature Cited;
Hamilton, U. J., Jr. and U. R. Eadie. 1964. Reproduction
in the otter, Lutra canadensis. J. Ilamm. 45(2):
242-252.
W-35-R-19
:I-6
Page
7
Table 5.
Corpora Lutea
and Placental
Scar Counts from
23 Massachusetts
Otter,
1976.
Specimen
Date
County
Corpora
Lutea
Placental
Scars*
Number
Taken
Taken In
Right
Left
Right
Left
M123
11/07/76
Worcester
1
.
.
-
ia24
Nov. 1976
Unknovm
-
1
-
-
M127
11/11/76
Worcester
>
1
-
-
Ml 28
11/16/76
Worcester
1
-
-
-
ia29
11/08/76
Berkshire
2
1
-
-
III 34
11/25/76
Worcester
1
1
1?
-
M135
12/12/76
Franklin
1
1?
1
1?
HI 36
11/19/76
Unkno^^n
-
-
-
—
11137
11/15/76
Essex
1
-
-
-
lllUQ
11/21/76
Berkshire
-
-
1?
-
ia4i
Unknown
Unknovm
2
1
-
-
M142
11/21/76
Worcester
-
-
-
-
II144
11/21/76
Berkshire
2
1
i-
-
11146
Nov. 1976
Worcester
-
-
-
-
ia49
12/19/76
Berkshire
-
-
-
-
11157
12/18/76
Berkshire
1
-
-
1?
ia53
12/01/76
Hampshire
2
-
1
-
ia6i
12/22/76
Worcester
-
-
-
-
H163
12/01/76
Worcester
-
-
-
-
11169
11/16/76
Berkshire
-
-
-
-
III 7 9
12/01/76
Dukes
-
-
-
-
ia85
11/26/76
Franklin
-
-
-
2
M187
11/26/76
Franklin
2
-
—
-
* Discoloration of tracts made identification of scars difficult.
Table 6. Late Fall and Early Winter Foods of Otters in Massachusetts*.
Food Item
Game and Pan Fishes
Centrachidae
Ameiurus spp.
Salmo trutta
Forage Fish
Catostomidae
Rhinichthys atratulus
Amphibians
Rana spp.
Insect:3
Number
Percent
Percent Frequency
Specimens
Total Volume
of
Occurrence
10
22.2
13.3
4
11.9
20.0
1
9.6
6.6
15
43.7
39.9
2
0.5
13.3
1
1.1
6.6
3
1.6
19.9
6
41.5
13.3
1
^
6.6
Fisb Remains
2.2
40.0
Unidentified
11.0
Plant Material
40.0
* Based on a sample of the 16 stomachs,
W-35-R-19:I-6 Page 3
Submitted by:
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES Al^D WILDLIFE
Bureau of Uildlife Research and I-Ianagement
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
Prepared by:
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
\Tr>'^. ^^rx-.
• vvy
J ^
1^
I '
f
PERFORIjyJCE REPORT
State:
Ilassachusetts
Project No. W-35-R-19
Project Title;
Project Type:
Period Covered;
Work Plan VI
Plan Objectives;
Job VI-1
Job Objective:
Summary :
Target Date:
Progress:
Deviations:
Recommendations ;
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 1976 to 31 May 1977
*
Black Bear S
tudz 0 Of '"
*» "r**^ jT-'T* I Ri« b* B M
T/
To define the range of the black bear in Massachusetts
and to define its population characteristics and rate
of harvest by hunting.
Black Bear Population Dynamics
To define the range of the black bear in I'lassachusetts
and to define its population characteristics and rate
of harvest by hunting.
Applications for bear hunting permits were received
from 430 sportsmen. Three bear, reported as females,
were taken during the open season and one male v;as
illegally shot during deer week. One road kill was
reported. Hew reports of 13 observations totalling
12 bear were received from ten towns.
31 May 1979
On schedule
None
Continue evaluation of bear harvest through checking
stations.
Based upon the reported sex ratios in the legal
and illegal harvests in 1975 and 1976, female
bears are being subjected to heavier hunting
pressures than males. Should this trend con-
tinue in 1977, the season may need to be adjusted.
It is also possible that some hunters are mis-
taking the sex of their bear, since some weights
seem large for females. IJhere possible bears
should be carefully examined to verify the sex
and reproductive tracts collected from cooperators.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent //5146
W-35-R-19 VI-1
3. Bear sightings are no longer unusual, and un-
solicited reports are seldom received. Some
alternate system of population trend evaluation
should consequently be instituted. One possibility
is to resume surveying permit holders by postal
questionnaire or telephone survey. An alternative
is to survey hunters at deer checking stations and
expand sightings of bear into a population index.
4. Investigate nuisance complaints as necessary.
Promote public-education programs to lessen
man-bear conflicts.
Cost: $310,26 (project leader man-days: 3^5)
Remarks: Procedures; Current bear hunting regulations
include the mandatory reporting and tagging of
harvested bears. Bear checking stations xjere
maintained daily during deer week at three loca-
tions: Birch iiill VJildlife Hanagement Area,
Baldwinville '. Ditzer State Fish Hatchery, Montague;
and Western Wildlife District Headquarters,
Pittsfield. VJhen bear vjere presented for examina-
tion, station personnel affixed a metal game seal
to the bear- removed a premolar tooth, and re-
corded the following information: touTi of kill,
date killed, sex and v/eight of bear, and method
of kill.
The Information-Education section issued periodic
nex7S releases asking for reports of bear. Cooperating
agencies also reported sightings.
Findings ; Bear hunting permit applications were
received from 430 individuals during the 1976
season (Table 1) , vjith three individuals succeeding
in taking a bear. One bear vras taken in Savoy,
Berkshire County, one in ilonroe, Franklin County,
and one in Kax/ley, Franklin County. One bear was
taken on each of the first three days of the season.
Tv70 were taken v/ith the use of dogs.
Two bears, reported as females, were examined by
station personnel. They weighed 57.5 and 62.7 kg
(154 and 16G lbs.) dressed, respectively. The third
bear was checked as a pelt only (an illegal procedure)
and was also reported as a female.
One bear was shot illegally during deer week by a
hunter claiming self-defense. The bear was a male
weighing 57.8 kg, (155 lbs.) ungutted and was shot in
Shelburne, Franklin County, on 10 December. One bear
was killed by an automobile on Route 2 in Shelburne in
early November. The carcass was disposed of before its
sex was determined.
TnhXe 1. Imcber of Bear PernJ-t Applications and xTumber of Bear Taken
in Massachusetts from 1970 to 197G.
Year
No. Permits
1970
214
1971
200
1972
423
1973
309
1974
390
1975
433
1976
430
IJo. Bear Taken
Other Mortalities
2
3
3
1 illegal kill, 1 road kill
1 illegal kill
1 road kill; 1 captured bear
1 road kill
2 illegal kills; 3 captured bear
1 illeeal killj 1 road kill
Findings : cont ' d .
Premolar teeth collected from legal and illegal bear kills
from 1972-1976 uere processed by cooperators at the North-
east Research Center for Wildlife Diseases. A breakdown
of the age structure of this sample is presented in
Table 2. The mean age for all bears (n = 9) V7as 6.9
years J while the mean age of legally taken bears vjas 8.3
years.
New reports of bears received during this segment included
eight sightings s three hunter kills, one illegal kili> and
one road kill for a total of 13 bear reported in 12 towns.
Reports by county for the period 1952 to May 1977 are pre-
sented in Table 3.
No nuisance complaints v/ere received during this segment.
Two bears taken illegally during 1975 were donated as
specimens to the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University. The road kill from 1976 vjas donated to the
Museum of Natural History at the University of Connecticut
Table 2. Age structure of the Massachusetts bear harvest, 1972-1976.
A^e in yeai
rs
No. Bear
Specimen l\o.
Source, date, sex.
1-3/4
1
B415
illegal, 1976, unknovm
I'Z/h
1
B383
legal, 1975, female
3-3/4
1
B389
illegal, 1975, female
4-3/4
1
B412
legal, 1976, female
5-3/4
1
3386
legal, 1975, female
9-3/4
1
3356
legal, 1974, female
10-3/4
1
B140
legal, 1972, female
14-3/4
2
B357
B414
legal, 1974, male
legal, 1976, female
X = 6,
.9
9
all
bear
X = 8.
.3
7
all
le^al
bear
Table 3. Reports of Black Bear by County for Ilassachusetts,
1952 to Ilay 1977.
County
1952-Iiay 1976
June 1976- Hay 1977
Total
Percent
165
35,4
171
36.7
25
5.4
82
17.6
1
0.2
22
4.7
Berkshire
162
Franklin
167
Hampden
24
Hampshire
7G
Middlesex
1
VJorcester
22
3
4
1
4
0
0
454
12
466
100.0
Acknovledpements ; I appreciate the assistance of the
Division of Laxj Enforcement in investigating illegal
kills and reporting sightings. Bear teeth v/ere
processed by Dennis J. O'Connor of the Northeast
Research Center for Vlildlife Diseases.
V7-33-R-19 VI-1
Job VI-2
Historical Records of the Black Bear in Massachusetts.
Job Objective:
Remarks :
Cost:
To determine trends in blacl: bear populations and
distribution from precolonial times to the present.
The final report on this job has been published
(1576) as Research Bulletin 18 "The history and
status of the black bear in Massachusetts and
adjacent New England States'".
$2634.28 (publication $2500, project leader man-days 2h) >
Prepared by
IIASSACI-IUSETTS DIVISIOIl OF FISHERIES AIID WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and llanagement
Approved :
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James 2. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
PERFORiMMCE REPORT
t ^ 1j si b € !
Massachusetts
Project No. W-35~R-20
Project Title:
Project Type:
Period Covered;
Work Plan I
Objectives;
Job 1-2
Job Objective;
Susmaiy:
Target Date:
Progress:
Significant
Deviations :
Recommendations :
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Survey
1 June 197T to 31 May 19T8
Stat
^
n *'
"JP
Game HdrH^1>
-liol LiwilVni^
To determine the statewide harvest of selected small
game and furbearer species and to present recoimnenda-
tions, based on management practices and regulations,
to increase the utilization of certain species.
Statewide Beaver Harvest
To determine the statewide harvest of beavers
by trappers.
A total of l666 beaver was taken by 165 trappers in
120 towns during the 1977-78 season. This is the
second highest take on record, and the record number of
successfiil trappers. This take was significantly
higher than both the 1976-77 take and a five-year
(1973-77) average take. Two of five western counties
showed statistically significant increases; however,
a third county showed no change, and two others showed
statistically significant decreases.
31 May 1979
On schedule.
None
1. Continue tagging of beaver pelts and recording
of data in 1978-79, using the sane methods as in
the current segment.
2. Consider instituting additional means, such as
aerial surveys, of monitoring beaver population
trends .
3. Analyses of harvest trends shows that the
eastern region of the state has dramatically in-
creased its harvests, while the western region has
increased slightly or remained about the same. On
closer examination, the eastern increase has taken
place mostly in Worcester County, and particularly
in previously little-occupied or unoccupied range.
The western region shows decreases in Hampden,
Hampshire, and adjacent southern Berkshire County.
Beaver populations in these areas may have reached
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#51^+6
W-35-R-20 : 1-2
Cost:
Remarks :
Findings :
the saturation point, and harvests for the past few
years may have reached or exceeded maximum yield
levels. V7e may wish to consider differential zoned
seasons in these areas should this slightly decreasing
trend continue.
$63^.22 (project leader mandays: T)
Procedures. Each successful beaver trapper is
required hy regulation to present his pelts to an
official checking station for tagging and recording
of data. Nine stations are maintained for two days
at the close of the season. Trappers may also bring
in pelts during the season. Pelts are tagged with
locking metal game seals and harvest data are re-
corded on mimeographed forms and subsequently tabu-
lated by month trapped, town and county trapped in,
and type of trap used.
The 1977-78 leaver trapping season extended for
15 weeks from 15 November 1977 to 28 February 1978.
During this period, trappers took 1666 beaver, only
eight less than the record take of l67^ in 1972-73.
The 1977-78 harvest was 108 more than the previous
season's harvest of 1558 and U26 more than a ten-
year (1968-1977) average of 12Uo. There were a
record I65 trappers (lUU in 1976-77) taking a mini-
mum of one beaver each. The mean harvest per trapper,
as in 1976-77, was 10.8 beaver (range: 1 to 102).
Beaver colonies located in 120 towns contributed to
the 1977-78 harvest (Figure l). The greatest harvests
were in Berkshire (Ul+0, 26. h%), Worcester (U27, 25.6^),
and Franklin (396, 23.8JS) counties (Table l), followed
by Hampshire (203, 12.2^) and Hampden (95, 5-7^)
counties. Another 100 beaver were taken in four other
counties, with no location being recorded for the
remaining five beaver. Of the five western counties,
the greatest percent changes from 1976-77 were in
VJorcester (+3^*7), Hampshire (-19.8), and Hampden
(-21.5) counties.
Beaver harvests for 1976-77 and 1977-78 for the
five western counties were compared statistically
by Chi square test for goodness of fit (Table 2).
Highly significant increases were recorded for Berk-
shire and Worcester counties, a highly significant
decrease for Hampshire county, a significant decrease
for Hampden county, and no significant change for
Franklin county. The eastern region (those towns
east of the Connecticut River) showed a highly sig-
nificant increase, while the western region showed
no significant change.
OD i_
r^ 0)
1 >
r^ (0
r^ CD
as x>
in
•^
in L
c o
s ^
O
+- -o
0
::^-o
J3 L.
O
•> o
■o (D
Q) i-
CL
Q. C VO
1T3 O vO
•
l_ — VO
—
-1- H
(D
0)
J- U II
L.
(U O —
=J
> — (0
O)
(D +-
. —
Q) O O
U-
OQ Z 1—
llJ
u.
<
q:
UJ
X
CO
u.
u.
o
z
o
>
W-35-R-20: 1-2
Table 1. Beaver harvest by county and region, 1976~TT and 19T7-T8
County
1976-77 Percent 1977-78
Percent
Percent Change
Berkshire
366
Essex
29
Franklin
U07
Hampden
121
Hampshire
253
Middlesex
^9
Norfolk
0
Plymouth
16
Worcester
317
Unknown
0
East region
686
West region
872
Statewide
1558
23.5
hho
1.9
12
26.1
396
7.8
95
16.2
203
3.1
73
2
1.0
13
20. U
427
5
Ul+.O
760
56.0
901
26. i+
0.8
23.8
5.7
12.2
h.k
0.1
0.8
25.6
0.3
U5.6
5^.1
+20.2
-58.6
-2.7
-21.5
-19.8
+U9.O
-18.8
+3i+.7
+10.8
+ 3.3
100.0
1666
100.0
+ 6.9
Table 2.
Analysis of beaver harvest by county and region, 1976-77 and 1977-78
X^ Sig. Pi ff. /Level
County
1976-77
harvest
1977-78
harvest
Berkshire
366
hko
13.32
yes
.01
Franklin
1+07
396
0.30
no
Hampden
121
95
6.35
yes
.05
Hampshire
253
203
11.10
yes
.01
Worcester
317
ii27
33.25
yes
.01
East region
686
760
7.60
yes
.01
West region
872
901
0.95
no
statewide
1558
1666
7.2U
yes
.01
W-35-R-20: 1-2
Ciorrent harvests were also compared with ten-year
(1966-I9TT) county, regional, and state means
(Table 3). Berkshire, Franklin, and Worcester
counties , both regions , and the state showed
highly significant increases, while Hampden
county showed a significant decrease and Hamp-
shire county no significant change.
Harvest breakdovms for 197T-T8 were further com-
pared with the means for the past five seasons '..
(19T3-TT) of identical length (Table h) . Worcester
county showed a highly significant increase, Frank-
lin county a significant increase, Berkshire county
no significant change, and Hampshire and Hampden
counties highly significant decreases. The eastern
region and the statewide total showed highly sig-
nificant increases, while the western region showed
a significant decrease.
Harvests were also compared for several individual
to^ms. The current take for the ik towns with
five-year (19T3-TT) mean harvests of 26 or more
beaver were compared with the past season's
(1976-TT) harvest and with the five-year (1973-77)
mean harvest (Table 5). Six towns showed no sig-
nificant change from 1976-77, five showed highly
significant increases, two highly significant
decreases, and one a significant decrease. When
compared to the five-year mean, six towns showed
no significant change, two a highly significant
increase, one a significant increase, three highly
significant decreases, and two significant decreases
With one exception, the towns showing decreases are
in southern Berkshire and adjacent Hampshire county.
Hampden county, which showed a decrease as a whole,
had no towns in the top lU.
Success continues to be high in the first two weeks
of the season. The November take increased over
1976-77 (858, 55.1/^) to 960 (57.655) (Table 6) with
an additional i^93 (29.6$^) taken in December. The
remainder (213, 12.8/^) were taken in January and
February, or were unknown as to month. The January
take declined slightly from 1976-775 perhaps due
to adverse weather conditions.
W-35-R-20: 1-2
Table 3. Analysis of "beaver harvest "by county, 1977-78 and ten-year mean,
County
Ten-year
mean
1977-78
harvest
X'
Sig. Pi ff. /Level
Berkshire 388
Franklin 279
Hampden 117
Hampshire 196
Worcester 19^
East region U38
West region 8OO
UUo
6.97
yes
.01
396
1^9.06
yes
.01
95
k,lk
yes
.05
203
0.25
no
k2'J
279. 8U
yes
.01
760
236.72
yes
.01
901
12.75
yes
.01-
Statewide
12^0
1666
lJ+6.35
yes
.01
Table k. Analysis of beaver harvest by co\mty, 1977-78 and five-year mean.
County
Five-year
Mean
1977-78
harvest
Sig. Pi ff. /Level
Berkshire
iilil
Franklin
355
Hampden
151
Hampshire
2U9
Worcester
223
East region
527
West region
960
iiUO
0.00
no
396
k.lh
yes
.05
95
20.77
yes
.01
203
8.50
yes
.01
U27
186.62
yes
.01
760
71. U
yes
.01
901
3.86
yes
.05
statewide
1U89
1666
21. OU
yes
.01
§
S!
•H
<N
O
■P
GO
i
t-
0\
H
GO
t-
I
OnI
o
-p
I
vo
H
00
I
-a-
H
•p
to
(U
a;
o
DQ
•H
(0
5
0)
H
EH
Vh
H
ir\
H
irv
H
m
H
H
<M
o
o
O
o
O
o
o
O
•H H
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O 0)
>
. <U
bO ^^
w
CO
CO
CO
CO
u
w
CO
•H
O
OJ
o
o
<u
0)
(L)
(U
o
o
o
<u
0)
o
CO
rt
>»
c
c
>,
>i
>»
>>
a
c:
c
>>
>»
>»
<M
X
CO -P
t-- 01
! (U
t- >
I
(U
>
•H
>j 0
<« H
•H <U
O >
bD
•H
CD
OJ
X
OO 4^
t~ CO
t~ U
Os c3
H ^
VO >
t- u
on
H
CM
o
o
ITS
vo
vo
CM
CM
VO
VO
CM
H
o
o
OO
o
o
vo
H
o
^
CM
CM
-*
H
H
on
o
o
00
OD
o
CVJ
VO
VO
H
GO
CO
ITS
OO
VO
H
O
00
o
OJ
vo
H
OO
0\
CM
O
CM
OO
H
CM
CO
VO
CM
-4-
CO
CO
p.
OO
CO
OJ
o
ca
a;
o
c
o
ca
H
O
CQ
o
C3
O
CO
o
H
O
03
O
CO
0)
vo
CO
vo
OO
CM
.J-
o
CO
OO
OJ
CM
CO
00
H
H
CO
00
CO
o
a
u
■d
o
o
H
§
-d
a
+3
,o
(U
?-»
(U
tlO
H
•H
•s
<2
-p
-d
•H
CO
>H
-d
o
en
x:
s
:d
CO
(U
§
M
-p
•H
+3
CJ
>
Jh
^
jq
■P
0)
H
0)
<u
o
<u
dj
o
(^
m
«
S5
:s
s
W
-d
s
H
^
(i>
0)
o
;-i
•H
CO
0)
<l-l
TJ
-p
^
a
d
CQ
•H
o
<
:3:
S
d
o
-d
d
o
xi
o
d
•H
d
•H
S iS"
-It
vo
CM
CO
H
OS
VO
CM
O
O
0\
H
OO
CO
OO
-:t
H
OO
H
CM
-4-
00
H
o.
O
H
(T)
OO
H
H
Lf\
H
H
O
CM
O
H
CM
GO
l/\
GO
00
-*
O
O
vo
H
ON
o
OO
c:\
-:t
ITS
VO
H
OO
OJ
^
00
CVJ
CM
H
-*
J^
O
-d
cd
W-35-R-20: 1-2
Table 6. Beaver harvest by month, 19T6-T7 and 19T7-T8,
Month
1976-77
No. Beaver Percent
1977-78
No. Beaver
Percent
960
57.6
U93
29.6
103
6.2
78
U.7
32
1.9
November
December
January
February
Not Stated
Totals
858
^♦57
Ikk
71
28_
1558
55.1
29.3
9.2
U.6
1.8
100.0
1666
100.0
W-'j5-R-20: 1-2
Prepared "by:
The use of the Conibear trap remained high,
with IITT beaver (70.6^) being taken in that
style trap. This was a slight decrease from
1976-77, when 73.2 percent were taken in Coni-
bears .
Average pelt prices dropped sharply in 1977-78.
Spring prices only were available, averaging
$lh, 66 per pelt for an estimated harvest valu-
ation of $2l+,i^23.56.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved;
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
PERFORMANCE REPORT
State:
Project Title;
Project Type:
Period Covered:
Work Plan I
Work Plan Objectives;
Massachusetts
Project No. W-35-R-20
Job 1-6
Job Objective:
Summary:
Target Date;
Progress:
Significant
Deviations:
Recommendations :
I
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 1977 to 31 M
Statewide Small Game
POf^S / AMHERST fiRP^
py
To determine the statewide harvest of selected small game
and furbearer species and to present recommendations,
based upon management practices and regulations, to In-
crease the utilization of certain species.
State Otter and Fisher Investigations
To obtain data on the harvest, distribution, age composi-
tion, and reproductive status of river otter and fisher
In Massachusetts.
During 1977-78, a total of 163 otters were taken by 72
trappers In 72 towns for a mean of 2.3 otter per success-
ful trapper. This compares with a take of 110 and a mean
of 1,7 for 65 successful trappers In 1976-77. The fisher
take Increased > despite a two-month reduction In the season,
from 25 In 1976-77 to 37 In 1977-78, with 21 trappers taking
fisher In 26 towns for a mean of 1.8 fisher per successful
trapper. Uorcester (50) and Berkshire (43) Counties pro-
vided the most otter while Worcester (15) yielded the most
fisher. Otter were taken primarily In November and Decem-
ber, and fisher primarily In November. A total of 93 otter
and 12 fisher carcasses were received from cooperating
trappers. The mean age of otter taken In 1977-78 was 2.56
years and for fisher 1.50 years. This compares with a
1976-77 mean age of 1.65 for otter and 2.39 for fisher.
Thirty-eight (38) otter reproductive tracts showed a mean
of 1.05 corpora lutea each.
31 May 1979
On Schedule
None
1. Continue tagging of otter and fisher pelts and re-
cording of data In 1978-79 using the same procedures as
In 1977-78.
2. Reduce the length of the fisher season and allow the
use of the 220 conlbear on land. The 1977-78 harvest
Increased over 1976-77 despite a two-month reduction In
the season. The Impact of this Increase could not be
evaluated due to a paucity of specimen material.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
W-35-R-20 1-6
3. Consider the possibility of changing the opening
date of the otter season to 15 IJovecber, to coincide
with the opening of the beaver season. Consider
zoning the open season geographically so as to limit
the possible take in southeastern Massachusetts ,
v/here otters are apparently scarce. A preliminary
harvest level objective of 100 + 30 otters has been
established. Until more information is available,
future harvests should be regulated so as to com-
pare V7ith this objective.
4. Provide for the nandatory turn- in of fisher carcasses.
The lack of cooperation in this regard hindered
effective evaluation of the 1977-78 fisher season.
Continue the voluntary turn-in of otter carcasses.
5. Continue to develop expertise in tooth sectioning and
aging .
Cost: $2,323.09 (project leader man-days: 23).
Remarks: Procedures. Revised regulations instituted in 1976
required all successful otter and fisher trappers to
present their pelts to an official checking station
for tagging and recording of data. Nine stations
were maintained throughout the season and for two days at
the close of the season. Pelts were tagged with locking
metal game seals and harvest data recorded on mimeo-
graphed forms and subsequently tabulalated by month
trapped, tovm and county trapped in, type of trap used,
target species, and sex.
Trappers were requested to voluntarily turn in the
carcasses of otter and fisher to a Division installation.
Upon receipt of the carcasses, they were tagged with the
name of the trapper and the date and tovm where taken and
stored in a freezer until ready for processing.
Female reproductive tracts were removed, labeled, and
frozen for later exanination of corpora lutea. Ovaries
were dissected free and hand sectioned in approximately
0.5 mm sections and examined under 3X magnification.
Skulls and bacula were cleaned by dermestids and by
boiling.
All skinned^ but otherwise complete, carcasses V7ere
v/eighed to the nearest 25 gms and the total length and
tail length measured to the nearest millimeter.
A canine tooth (right CI) vjas removed by cutting between
right 13 and left 13 and between right PMl - P1I2 with a
saber sav;, snapping off the partially severed portion with
pliers and splitting bone fragments away from the tooth
using a chisel. Teeth were then sectioned, stained, and
read using procedures recommended by the Northeast Re-
search Center for Wildlife Diseases.
W-35-R-20 1-6
Findings; The 1977-78 otter trapping season extended
for about 17 v;eeks from 1 November 1977 to 28 February
1973. During this time, trappers took 163 otter (Table 1)
This take v/as 53 more than in 1976-77 and 89 more than
a ten-year (1967-1976) mean harvest (74). In 1977-78,
there vrere 72 trappers taking at least one otter, with a
mean harvest of 2.3 otter per trapper (range; 1 to 8) .
This compares to 65 successful trappers in 1976-77,
with a mean harvest of 1.7 otter.
The 1977-78 fisher season (1 November to 31 December) was
reduced by two months from the 1976-77 season (1 November
to 1 llarch) . During this revised season, a total of
37 fisher were reported taken by Massachusetts trappers.
This is an increase of 12 over 1976-77 (23 plus two
live-trapped) and is the highest fisher take on record
since the take of this species was legalized in 1972-73.
There were 21 trappers who succeeded in taking at least
one fisher, with a mean of 1.8 fisher per trapper (range:
1 to 6) . In 1976-77, there v/ere 17 successful trappers
with a mean take of 1.5 fisher.
Otters were taken in 72 towns in 10 counties during the
1977-78 season (Table 2). The greatest number were
trapped in Worcester County (50) , follovred by Berkshire
(43), Hampshire (24), and Franklin (18). The six
remaining counties had less than 10 otter taken each.
The distribution of the harvest, by town, is shovm in
Figure 1.
Fishers were reported trapped in 26 towns in six counties
during 1977-78 (Table 2). The greatest number taken
were in Worcester County (15) . Distribution of the
take, by town, is shown in Figure 2.
As in previous seasons otter were trapped primarily
in the first half of the season, with 95 (58.3 per
cent) taken in November and 42 (25.3 percent) taken
in November and 42 (25.8 percent) taken in December.
(Table 3) . The 1977-78 fisher season was reduced to
two months, with the majority of the animals (23)
reported taken in November.
73
(3
I
o
u
CO
I
a
0)
I
VO
ON
(0
«J
U
0)
n
J
o
01
a
09
s
•H
»4
00
a
CO (U
•H B
so
{0 o\
U
0) I
O
O
CO
>
u
(0 to
(U
n]
H
O
CO
n
CM
so
iH
C I
S ON
ON
CO
m
o
ON
a
o
<t
CO
o
CO
rH
<U
CO
o
C rH
CO i
<U CNJ
0^
CO
vO
0^
p.
o
o
ON
CO
0)
•H
tJ
u
u
(U
CO
•H
vD
CJ^
vO
(30
CO
SO
P>.
CO
CM
CO
o
CM
CO
0)
M
•H
M
0)
O
(U
^
(U
u
(0
a
4J
•H
CO
O
►4
00
c
(U
u
w>
CO
rH
a.
o
CO
-a
c
CO
s
B
o
M
CO
4J
CO
r>.
OS
rH
I
SO
I
(0
4J
M
O
a
M
CO
M
0)
&
§
U
s
m
ON
I
!>.
CN
to
M
CO
14
WO
s
CO
4J
CO
Csl
■K
c
.--1
I
U) •
=J CO
-c r^
U 1
(D r--
in r-
1/1 cr>
(0 —
i>"
•K
C l/l
— XJ
L_
I- o
Q) U
-t- Q)
•+- l-
O
l_
vf- Q)
O a.
a.
c ro
O »-
— +-
•
+-
—
=J c
-Q O
0)
1-
I- T3
Z3
-H <U
U)
CO 1/1
• ^—
— (D
Ll_
Q ja
UJ
Li-
<
CO
UJ
or
LjJ
X
CO
Lj_
g
>
G
U
U
<u
u
Qi
• m
00 o "^
r>- r=: P««
G\
iH -P
C
QJ
U
U
0)
CO
CO
o
CO
iH
cvj
I I
o
o
o
m
CN
en
00
in
o ■!-»
eN4
CM
•
o
l>»
in
o
en
vO
1^
•
a
•
•
o
•
•<r
m
o
•^
o
o
^
CO
CO
o
o
CO
CO
Cv4
<y>
O
in
m
ro
o
(U
o
u
CM
u
en
o
O
o
O
•
o
o
o
O -H
S Cm
m
in
CM
4J
ti
o>
(U
•
a
o
r>.
u
es
1
Cl.
o
r^
cr\
fH
<u
•
4J
o
■M
en
s
o
C>4
c-^
CO
CO
<D
CO
in
CM
00
o
CO
o
o
CM
CM
CO
en
en
in
>.3
CO
CO
CO
CM
O
u
M
•H
xi
w
0)
O
•M
(0
•H
M
pq
(0
(U
CO
CO
iH
x:
^
CO
C
a
CO
S
>-i
cfl
[S4
ffl
(U
-J
Q
cu
CO
rH
o
IM
o
u
(U
CO
(U
o
rH O
o
o
c
Jit!
Ci
CO
o
H
CD
01
ZJ •
-C 00
u r-
(0 1
01 r-
u) r~-
ro CT»
2: —
c •>
— in
■o
i_ L_
0) o
-C U
1/1 Q)
— L.
>4-
1_
v4- (U
O Q.
Q.
C (0
O L.
— -H
•
-(-
(N
ZJ C
-Q O
0)
I-
l_ -o
3
-♦- 0)
O)
CO t/1
• «^
— 03
Ll_
Q -Q
Ll
-I
o
LJ
X
Ll
O
o
en
>
a
o
u
d
CO
00
r«.
I
r^
I
o
c
§
(0
4J
4J
0)
CO
u
CO
(0
00
s
M
a>
Xi
CO
to
I
c
CM
r>.
0)
•
•
u
CN4
cr>
M
VO
CM
(U
a.
u
O CO
(X4
VO
I
Q>
O
(M
O
(0
iJ
CO
>
u
to
PS
I
VD
C3>
G
(U
CJ
>-i
(U
a,
M
o
I
I
en
I
en
H
C
(U
o
u
(1)
a
. us
O CO
in -H
4J
c
0)
o
(U
ex
c
00
o
o
CO
CM
m
CO
CO
CD
vn
CO
in
vO
CO
CM
O
O
uo
CNJ
o>
UO
CM
CO
O
O
CN
CM
O
00
o
o
o
iO
o
CM
in
CM
in
CO
«
o
in
CM
o
O
o
m
o
cs
m
CO
u
V^
f>%
<u
<u
^>^
Vi
c!
Xi
^
u
CO
3
B
0
CO
3
0
(U
<U
3
M
C!
>
o
C
^
^
o
dJ
CO
0)
C
3
Q
r>
►<
»
00
fH
CO
O
H
W-35-R-20 1-6
The use of Conibear traps increased In 1977-78, with 123
otter (75.5 percent) taken in that style trap in 1977-78,
as compared to 73 (63 percent) in 1976-77. An additional
37 (22.7%) were taken in leg-hold traps, one road kill
was reported, and the method of take was not reported
for two animals. Fisher were reported as being taken
primarily in leg-hold traps, with 26 (70,3 percent) taken
in that manner in 1977-78, as opposed to 13 (52 percent)
in 1976-77. An additional seven fisher were reported
taken in Conibear traps, two were live-trapped, and two
road kills were reported.
Successful trappers were asked the target species for
which they had made their sets. The majority (126, 77.3
percent) of the otters were taken in otter sets, with an
additional 20 (12.9 percent) taken in beaver sets (Table 4).
The remaining 17 animals were taken in miscellaneous sets
or v;ere not reported as to target.
Fisher continued to show a less specific target orientation,
with 17 (45.9 percent) of the harvest taken by fisher
trappers, with the remaining 20 taken in a diversity of sets
(Table 4).
The average price of an otter pelt in 1977-78 was $51.76,
for an estimated harvest valuation of $8,436.88. The
average price of a fisher pelt in 1977-78 was $76.65, for
a total estimated valuation of $2,836.05. Average prices
in 1976-77 were $69.67 for otter and $112.18 for fisher.
A total of 93 otter and 12 fisher carcasses, in varying
degrees of preservation and completeness, were received
from cooperating trappers. The amount of fisher material
was considered to be insufficient for proper evaluation
of the harvest. Consequently, mandatory turn-in of
carcasses is recommended.
I
o
I
m
I
08
a
o
09
«
CO
GO
I
r^
r*
a\
I
f>.
I
so
n
0)
OB
9
J3
a
cd
(0
09
u
a
43
CO
•H
c
cd
M
0)
iJ
■u
O
tJ
0)
■Ui
CO
0)
£
cfl
O
(0
(U
•H
a
(U
a
CO
CO
CO
H
St
tH
CO
H
CO
I
cy»
i
u
C
c^
r^
00
C3^
r^
iH
r-^
m
r^
O
(U
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
o
1
m
Cvj
o
CO
CM
CO
CM
m
CM
o
M
1
<t
tH
rH
o
iH
u
<u
^
• CO
1
rs
fH
St
f^
H
m
tH
St
CM
iH
r«.
O "H
S fa
1
rH
CO
CO
4J
c
CO
CT\
r^
on
vO
CM
o
<U
•
1
0
1
•
•
1
1
•
•
•
o
r^
1
<N
1
CO
•<r
1
1
o
tH
o
(U
p.
r>.
H
o
rH
u
0)
• 4iJ
VO
1
O
1
vO
CO
1
1
o
iH
CM
CO
O *J
5 O
CM
iH
1
CM
1
i
1
tH
vO
rH
■P
ti
o
O
O
O
o
O
O
o
<u
1
•
•
•
•
1
1
•
•
•
•
u
1
C>4
sr
■<t
c»
1
1
•<1-
o
St
o
cn
CM
CM
O
iH
V4
(U
-c
1
00
iH
vO
CM
1
1
iH
cr»
m
iH
m
• CO
O "H
1
1
1
tH
CM
S fa
U
0)
O
•
1
•
CO
«
in
•
•
1
•
•
o
•
a
o
1
CT.
fH
m
sf
CO
1
CM
CM
o
M
r^
o
Q)
r-i
(X
u
(U
• 4J
O 4J
p>«
1
o
CM
VO
m
Sf
1
st
CO
cn
o
S O
t^
1
iH
1
H
S
1
o
rH
H
iH
iH
CO
C
4J
8
^
V
g
U 0)
M
P
O
CO
4i
u
CO
(U tH
U
(U
0)
O
t^
(0
5
iH
60 O
Q)
Xi
>
a
M
^
•S
•d
g
CO
M (U
U
CO
CO
o
a
CO
X
0)
cO
^
4J
CO O.
*J
•H
lU
to
•H
:3
o
M
o
0
o
H CO
O
fa
pq
oi
a
fa
Oi
;^
3
H
W-35-R-20 1-6
Broken down by sex, the otter carcasses consisted of
47 males, 47 females, and one for which sex was not
recorded, for a ratio of 100 males: 100 females. Six
of the fisher carcasses were males and six females,
for a sex ratio of 100 males: 100 females.
The pelt checking stations, based on trapper response,
listed 88 male otter, 60 female, and 15 not sexed.
Of those which could be compared with carcasses,
eight were incorrectly sexed by the trappers - seven
females sexed as males and one male sexed as a female.
For fisher, the pelt checking stations listed 22 males,
13 females, and two not sexed. All (8) of those which
could be compared with carcasses were sexed correctly by
the trappers.
A total of 86 skulls, 91 canine teeth, and 39 bacula
were obtained from surrendered otter carcasses. We
also collected eight fisher skulls, eight canine teeth,
and five bacula. Skulls and bacula from 1976-77 and
1977-78 are being cleaned as time is available.
Canine teeth from 1976-77 were processed by personnel
of the Northeast Research Center for Wildlife Diseases,
with the assistance of Division personnel. In 1977-78,
teeth were processed primarily by Division personnel.
Initial results in 1977-78 v/ere inconclusive due to
staining problems. Consequently, a large portion of
the sample was washed and restained and some teeth
were resectioned. The mean age (n=66) for otter taken
in the 1976-77 season was 1.65 and for the 1977-78 season
(n=79) was 2.56. A breakdown of the otter age structure
from 1976-78 is presented in Table 5. The mean age (n=9)
of fisher taken in 1976-77 season was 2.39 while in 1977-78
the mean age (n=8) was 1.50. A breakdown of the 1976-78
fisher age structure is presented on Table 6.
Forty-two (42) otter and six fisher stomachs were collected
and preserved in formalin for later analysis by cooperators,
Female reproductive tracts (ovaries and uteri) were
collected from 41 otters and five fishers. Three otter
and three fisher tracts v;ere later found to be unusable
due to decomposition or mutilation. Corpora lutea were
found in 20 of 30 otter tracts and one of two fisher tracts
(Table 7). For otter, a total of 40 corpora lutea v;ere
found for a mean of 2.0 c.l. per specimen with corpora
lutea (n=20) and 1.05 c.l. per all specimens (n=38) . The
ovaries in at least 11 animals showing no corpora lutea
were minute and undeveloped, and probably represent otters
which had not yet reached sexual maturity. The one fisher
showing corpora lutea was taken in Middlesex County in
December 1977 and showed one corpus luteum in each ovary.
c
O
M
<U
Oh
ON
CO
cn
o
o
4-1
o
H
CM
CO
ON
VD
CO
<N
m
cs
CN
as
I
o
C>4
I
I
in
en
i
13
CO
I
-a
c
CO
I
4J
(0
0)
>
(0
M
0)
4J
o
CO
CD
9
•g
(0
CO
CO
I
*4-l
o
U
d
4->
H
c
o
w
w
CO
I
r^
r^
o
(0
ca
CO
I
vD
0)
(0
u
M
*
rH
4J
O
H
0)
rH
(U
CX\
00
m
m
CM
CM
CM
vO
CO
CO
o
m
m
cn
1
1
.H
rH
CO
in
00
00
CO
a\
•
•
•
•
•
1
•
r>.
sr
00
m
m
CM
-<f
iH
rH
m
O
m
si-
<r
1
CM
en
H
iH
in
1
-*
tH
CM
CM
1
1
m
on
St
St
O
O
m
c^
rM
CM
CM
in
o
in
iH
m
CM
in
«
m
m
m
m
CO
cr»
iH
<d
CO
Pi
3
CO
CM
CO
iH
CO
4-)
O
03
rH
CO
s
•H
p:
CO
T3
(U
X
0)
(0
CO
0)
TJ
3
iH
O
d
a
y
u
(U
P4
«
en
O
o
c
•X
o
iH
w
d
CO
■M
0)
O
C/3
H
00
r>.
1
rv
r>.
0)
o\
rH
rH
cd
00
S
r^
(U
1
fe
r^
r*
a\
I
I
CO
0)
<D
n
01
m
o
CO
(0
(0
so
I
o
CM
I
I
m
m
t
M-l
O
0)
M
4J
U
9
M
U
CO
(U
60
<
vO
(U
iH
,Q
CO
H
O
(0
cd
<u
w
r^
r^
I
VO
<u
CIJ
u
CO
u
o
H
(0
§
(>4
0)
04
m
CO
00
CM
CM
CO
VO
o
o
o
vO
CO
CTi
m
<N
0)
UO
in
XI
to
CO
W
iH
CO
4J
LP)
in
m
in
m
•
•
•
•
•
C!
o
CM
CO
si-
VO
0^
P
H
CO
W-35R-20 1-6
Table 7. Corpora lutea Counts from 33 Massachusetts Otter, 1977-73 Season
Specimen
Date
County
Corpora
Lutea
Number
Taken
Taken
RiRht
Left
213
11-5-77
Worcester
2
0
217
Nov. 77
Unknown
0
0
221
Nov. 77
Unknown
0
2
223
11-16-77
Berkshire
0
0
226
11-17-77
Berkshire
1
2
227
Nov. 77
Unknown
2
1
228
11-20-77
Berkshire
0
2
231
Nov. 77
Unknown
0
0
232
Nov. 77
Unknown
1
1
233
11-26-77
Worcester
0
2
234
11-24-77
Worcester
0
0
235
1977-78 Season
Unknown
0
3
239
12-31-77
Middlesex
2
0
241
11-27-77
VJorcester
Hissing
0
244
11-18-77
Worcester
1
1
252
Nov. 77
Worcester
1
0
253
12-27-77
Worcester
0
0
254
12-27-77
Worcester
0
0
255
12-19-77
VJorcester
2
1
259
12-19-77
Hampshire
0
0
260
12-14-77
Berkshire
0
0
262
11-4-77
Franklin
0
2
263
11-12-77
Franklin
Missing
0
267
1977-73 Season
Unknown
1
1
269
11-25-77
Dukes
0
1
273
11-28-77
Hampshire
0
0
277
12-1-77
Berkshire
0
1
278
Jan. 70
Berkshire
0
0
279
11-9-77
Franklin
0
2
281
1-1-78
Hampshire
1
1
282
12-25-77
Hampshire
0
0
283
12-25-77
Hampshire
0
0
290
11-17-77
Hampshire
1
1
302
11-11-77
Worcester
0
0
304
11-27-77
Berkshire
0
0
307
2-12-78
Berkshire
0
0
309
11-18-77
Essex
0
1
315
1-22-78
Berkshire
0
0
n = 38
n = 20,
X = 1.05
unusable = 3
41
r,
W-35-R-20 1-6
Prepared by
Acknowledgements ; We acknowledge the assistance and
cooperation of: the trappers of Massachusetts;
Dennis J. O'Connor, Northeast Research Center for
Wildlife Diseases; Douglas Smith, University of
Massachusetts; Howard Thomas, Northeastern University;
Andre J. Loranger, University of Connecticut; and
Manuel Correllus, Division of Forests and Parks.
IdASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved :
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Michael J. Brazauskas
Conservation Helper
Thomas J. Early
Conservation Helper
Date
I
state
Project Title:
Project Type
Period Covered
Work Plan II
Plan Objective:
Job II-l
Job Objective:
Simmary:
Target Date:
Progress:
Deviations:
Recommendations :
Cost:
Presentation of Data:
PERFORT'IANCE REPORT
94 m ".
Ivlassachusetts
t 0
I LfSRAPV
Project No.
W-35-R-20
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Survey
1 June 1977 to 31 May 1978
Massachusetts VMte-Tailed Deer Study
o( r,--
To determine through the collection and analysis of perti-
nent deer harvest data, the sex and age structure of the
herd and to develop management and harvest procedures
based on project findings.
Statewide Deer Harvest
To determine the annual harvest of deer in Ivlassachusetts.
The 1977 statev/ide deer harvest for all deer seasons was
3,107 deer which is an increase of 395 deer over the 1976
harvest of 2,712 deer. Seventy percent of the deer
harvest was reported in the four western counties of
Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden and Hampshire. Worcester
County contributed 9.5 percent of the state harvest and
Barnstable County contributed 4-. 3 percent. The islands
of Dukes County reported 6.2 percent and Nantucket con-
tributed 6.2 percent of the reported harvest. Deer man-
agement zones one and two contributed 3.4 percent to the
overall statewide harvest.
31 August 1978
On schedule.
None
Continue this job. See Job II-4 for future recommendations
$65,000
Introduction
In Massachusetts, there are four different types of deer
hunting seasons. In 1976, (l) a two-day special hunt for
paraplegic deer hunters was held on 7-8 November; (2) the
18-day archery season continued from 7 November through
26 November; (3) the six-day shotgun deer season, 5 Decem-
ber through 10 December; and (4) the three-day primitive
weapons season from 19 December through 21 December.
Hunting is not allowed on Sundays.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5146
W-35-R-20;II-l
Since 1967, Massachusetts has had a statewide antlerless
deer hunting permit system for the shotgun season. All
hunters may legally harvest a deer with antlers three inches
and longer. To harvest a female or a male with antlers less
than three inches, the hunter must have been issued an
antlerless deer hunting permit. All hunters during all four
deer hunting seasons are required to bring their deer to an
official deer checking station to be recorded and tagged
within 24 hours of harvesting a deer.
Antlerless deer hunting permits are issued on a deer manage-
ment unit basis. The number of sportsmen's permits per man-
agement unit; the deer shotgun harvest per sex, rank of im-
portance, and the percent of the total harvest per management
unit is presented in Table 1.
Archery Season
In 1972, the archery season was expanded from 12 days to an
18-day season. A summ.ary of the statewide archery harvest
below shows an increase from 76 deer in 1972 to 1/42 in 1977.
Summary of the Massachusetts Archery Harvest, 1969-1977
• 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 197^ 1976 1977
Male 27 24 26 49 51 62 74 94 103
Female J£ JiiJ:0_27_26_25_39J2 -ii
37 36 36 76 77 87 113 127 142
The mainland archers reported 132 deer taken consisting of
94 males and 38 females. The four mainland counties with
the highest archery harvest in order of importance were
Berkshire (33 deer), Franklin (32 deer), Hampden (21 deer),
and Hampshire (18 deer).
The Nantucket archers reported 8 deer (7 males and 1 female).
T?;o male deer were reported by Martha's Vineyard bowmen
(see Table 2).
Paraplegic Season
Paraplegic hunters were unsuccessful during the two-day
special season on Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
Primitive Firearms Season
During the special three-day primitive firearms deer season,
the hunters reported harvesting 130 deer statewide (65 males
and 65 females). The kill per county in order of importance
is as follows: Franklin, 49; Berkshire, 30; Worcester, 25,'
and Hampshire, 12. Others were Hampden, 6; Nantucket, 2;
and 1 each in Barnstable, Dukes and Plymouth (see Table 2).
W-35-R-20:II-l
Shotgun Season
During the six-day shotgun only deer season, hunters reported
harvesting 2; 835 deer. Of these deer, 2,051 were males (181
male fa\7ns) and 784 v;ere females (Table 2). The four ton
deer --producing counties on the mainland were Berkshire (972),
Franklin (525), Hampden (256), and Worcester (255) as in-
dicated on Table 1. The reported shotgun deer harvest of
2,835 represents 91.4 percent of the total deer harvest
statewide (Table 1 and 2).
Deer harvest data shows that 1,744 adult males, 116 favm
males and 600 females, a total of 2,460 deer, were taken on
the mainland. The Nantucket deer hunters reported 133 deer
consisting of 64 adult males, 28 male fawns and 91 females.
On Martha's Vineyard, a total of 144 deer were reported
taken (49 adult males, 28 male fawns and 67 females). The
Gosnold Island hunters reported taking 22 males and 26 fe-
males (Tables 1 and 2).
A summary of the 1977 Massachusetts shotgun deer harvest by
sex and the county rank of importance from 1972 through 1977
is presented in Table 3- Berkshire and Franklin Counties
have remained the top ranking counties for the past six years .
Hampden and Worcester Counties are in the third and fourth
slots. Hampshire County ranks fifth followed by Nantucket
County in the sixth position. Dukes and Barnstable fill the
seventh and eighth slots. Essex, Plymouth, ^.liddlesex,
Norfolk and Bristol, in that order, follow.
Total Harvest Figures
Appendix 1 presents a ten-year summary (1968-1977) of the
annual deer harvest by town and county. There was an in-
crease of 395 deer above the 1976 kill of 2,712 deer.
From 1967 through 1971, there v/as an annual increase (from
20 to 39 percent ) in the female deer harvest due to an in-
crease in the number of antler less permits issued. In 1972,
the n^jmber of antlerless permits was reduced to 4,000 per-
mits on the mainland. From 1973 through 1975, the percent
of females in the total harvest has remained at a healthy
30 percent.
Percent of Females in the Total Harvest
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
23^ 295^ 32% 39% 3A% 30f. 30^ 30^5 28% 29^
Table 4 presents a summary of the 1977 deer harvest per sex
per management unit. The statewide harvest per sex since
1969 is presented as follows:
W-35-R-20, II-l
Kill Statewide for Each Sex, 1969 through 1977
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Male 1451 1629 13B5 1504 1477 1949 1779 1927 2219
Female 595 776 899 787 644 832 754 785 SSS
Totals 2046 2406 2284 2291 2121 2781 2533 2712 3107
The ratio of male to female deer determined from the state-
wide deer harvest for 1977 was one male to .40 females.
This ratio has remained constant since 1973. The ratio of
male to female in the deer harvest fluctuated with the number
of antlerless permits issued. In 1967 and 1968, 2000 sports-
men's pennits were issued and the sex ratio was 1 male to .25
females and 1 male to .29 females respectively. In 1969,
the number of permits was increased to 4000 and the male-to-
female ratio was 1 male to .41 females. The number of
antlerless permits was increased to 6000 permits and the
ratio of males to females in the harvest was 1 to .43 in
1970 and 1 to .65 in 1971. A slight decline was noted in
1972 of 1 male to .52 females with the reduction of 2000
permits to the present issuance of 4000 permits per year.
The shotgun, archery, primitive and paraplegic hunter harvest
per sex per county for 1977 is presented in Table 2.
Antlerless Permit Data
The number of applications for antlerless permits remained
unchanged at 34,000 for the 1977 season. There were 3500
sportsman permits; 343 farmer-lando^mer permits; 400 Nan-
tucket and 600 I.Iartha's Vineyard antlerless permits issued
in 1977. The 1977 harvest of deer by antlerless permit
holders was 1018 deer (Table 5).
In 1977, the 343 farmer- landowner permittees reported har-
vesting 58 deer. Sixteen percent of the 343 permit holders
reported taking a deer (Tables 5 and 6).
Table 7 presents a summary of the deer harvest per sports-
man permit per deer management unit and the success ratio
of antlerless permit holders for 1977. The permit holders'
success ratio for the 1977 shotgun season was 1 to 4 on the
mainland; 1 in 5 on the Vineyard, and 1 in 3 on Nantucket.
There were 400 antlerless permits issued for Nantucket Is-
land. The harvest by permit holders showed that the harvest
of male fawns was about the same as the previous year with
28 button bucks taken in 1977 and 29 male fawns reported in
1976. The antlered male harvest by permittees decreased by
11 deer in 1977 with 6 reported and 17 reported in 1976.
The female harvest by permittees increased 12 deer with 91
reported in 1977 and 79 reported in 1976. The total harvest
by permittees was 125 deer in 1977 and 125 deer were reported
in 1976 (Table 7).
W-35-R-20:II-2
There were 600 antlerless permits issued for ^jlartha's Vine-
yard. The permittees harvested 116 deer in 1977. This was
a decrease of 19 deer less than the 135 deer reported by
permit holders in 1976. There was a slight decrease in the
male fawns with 28 button bucks reported in 1977 compared
to the 29 skippers reported in 1976. The 21 antlered males
reported by permit holders in 1977 was a 2-deer increase
above the reported 19 antlered bucks in 1976 (Table 5).
There was a decrease of 20 females in the 1977 harvest with
67 reported compared to the 87 females in 1976.
The 3500 antlerless permit holders on the mainland reported
harvesting 825 deer. There was a decrease of 6 male fawns
from 125 in 1976 to 119 in 1977. The antlered male harvest
of 80 deer increased 29 deer in 1977 from 69 deer in 1976.
The female segment increased by 127 from 499 females in 1976
to 626 females in 1977 (Tables 5, 6, 7).
Job II-2
Job Objective;
Non-Hunting Deer Mortality Investigations
To determine the annual non-hunting decimating factors of
the Massachusetts deer herd.
Brief Summary:
From 1 January to 31 December 1977, Natural Resource Officers
reported 511 non-hunting deer mortalities. Of these mortal-
ities, 208 were males, 267 females and no sex reported for
36 deer. The adjusted sex ratio is 44 percent males and 56
percent females . The highest cause of these mortalities was
motor vehicles with 341 deer reported. Dogs caused 73
deaths and there were 57 illegal kills, 28 unknown causes
and 12 from other causes.
Target Date:
31 December 1977.
Progress:
Deviations :
On schedule
None
Recommendations :
Cost:
A quadruplicate carbonless deer mortality report form should
be developed and used to record deer mortalities. The
possibility of having additional law enforcement officers
(local and state police) report deer mortalities should be
investigated. The project should continue as it exists.
$14,000
Presentation of Data:
Techniques
Natural Resource Officers report deer mortalities to the
Division of Law Enforcement in Boston. A copy of each report
is forwarded to the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.
W-35-R-20:II-2
Findings
During the period covered by this report, 1 January through
31 December 1977, Natural Resource Officers reported 511 non-
hunting deer mortalities. Of these deer, 208 were males,
267 females and no sex reported for 36 deer. In order of
importance, the number and causes were as follows: 341^
motor vehicles; 73, dogs; 57, illegal kills; 28, unknown
causes; 8, crop damage and other causes; 6, drowning; and
2, fences (Table 8). The peak months were, in descending
order: November (95), October (69), December (63), February
(52), May (42), September (36), March (34), April (31),
June (30), August (28), January (20) and July (11). See
Table 11.
A five-year summary, 1972 through 1977, is presented in
Table 9 and compares 1977 non-hunting mortalities by cause
with the previous five-year average. There was a slight in-
crease in reported mortalities due to motor vehicles, dogs
and illegal kills while crop damage, unknown causes and all
other causes remained about average.
The 1977 non-hunting deer mortalities are 16 percent above
the 1976 figures of 511 versus 442 (Table 10).
The adjusted sex ratio (Table 11) for the 1977 non-hunting
deer mortalities is as follows:
Adjusted Sex Ratio
100 males : 128 females
80 males : 100 females
44^ males : 56^ females
The 1976 adjusted sex ratio was 46 percent males to 54 per-
cent females.
Table 12 presents the non-hunting mortalities ranked by
county for 1971 through 1977. The three most important
counties, in order, are: Berkshire (154), Nantucket (69)
and Worcester (54). The succeeding counties were:
Franklin (50), Hampshire (46), Barnstable (42), Hampden (33),
Essex (29), Middlesex (12), Plymouth (ll), Norfolk (4)
Bristol (3), Dukes and unknown (2) and Suffolk (O).
* * *
Job II-3
Job Objective:
Summary:
Deer Fertility Study
To determine the reproductive rate per age class of the
ffessachusetts deer herd.
This job was inactive during the period covered by this re-
port.
Target Date:
Progress:
None
Inactive
W-35-R-20:II-/4
Deviations:
None
Reconmendations : If funds are available, the job should be continued. Periodic
monitoring to analyze if the rates have changed are critical to
proper evaluation of the overall population structure.
Cost:
None
Remarks :
Inadequate funds for transportation forced the inactive status
of this job.
Job II-4
Job Objective;
Summary:
Target Date:
Progress:
Deviations:
Deer Llanagement Recommendations
To determine the size of the Massachusetts deer herd and to
recommend management techniques that will provide the deer hunter
with the greatest hunting opportunity commensurate with herd
population levels.
There was an increase of 301 deer harvested statewide during the
shotgun only season. The adult male harvest of 1,870 deer was
an increase of 250 animals above the 1976 harvest of 1,620 adult
males. The 1-1/2 year-old male harvest increased from 222 in
1976 to 287 in 1977 at the mainland biological stations. There
was a slight increase in the 2-1/2 year to 5-1/2 year-old males
of 29 deer at these stations.
The calculated minimal population, based on the percent of 1-1/2
year-old males reported at the biological deer check stations was
14,053 deer. This is a decrease of 5.66 percent from the 1976
minimal population figure of 14,896 deer.
The percent frequency ratio of adult females to adult males on
the mainland was .26 v/hile on J.Iartha's Vineyard the frequency
ratio was 1.13. On Nantucket, the ratio was .98.
The success ratio of antlerless permit holders for 1977 on the
mainland was 1:4. On I.fertha's Vineyard, the success ratio
was 1 : 5 and on Nantucket, the ratio was 1 : 3 for successful
permit holders.
30 June 1977.
On schedule.
None
Recommendations ,
The following numbers of sportsmen's antlerless permits issued
per deer management unit are suggested:
Barnstable
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
Worcester
200
1800
900
400
300
200
W-35-R-20:II
Region I^
200
Region 11^*
200
Martha's Vineyard
400
Nantucket
300
Naushon
50
* Region I - Essex, Middlesex and Norfolk Counties
** Region II - Bristol and Plymouth Counties
The application number of the antlerless permits beginning with
first and last numbers for each county and for each tjrpe of
permit should be recorded and filed in the deer project files.
This data will facilitate the programming and the analysis of
the deer harvest by permit holders.
Cost: $750
Presentation of A nine-year summary of the sex and age composition of Ilassachu-
Data: setts deer at biological deer check stations on the mainland and
for six years on I-iartha's Vineyard and Nantucket Island is pre-
sented in Table 13. There were 222 1-1/2 year-old males re-
ported on mainland biological stations in 1976. The 1977 harvest
of 1-1/2 year-old males was 287 reported at the biological sta-
tions. The sex and age composition on the mainland and the is-
lands appear to be in good shape (Tables 13, lA, 15, and 16).
Table 17 presents a summary of the Massachusetts shotgun deer
harvest from 1968 through 1977. The statewide shotgun harvest
was 2835 deer which is an increase of 301 deer. There was a
small decline of 11 male fawns (181) from the 1976 harvest. The
adult female harvest was up by 39 deer (558) in 1977 compared to
the 1976 kill of 519 adult does. Thirty-four percent of the
total deer reported during the shotgun season were button bucks
and does.
A summary of percent change in adult harvest and calculated
minimal populations of deer in Jfessachusetts, 1969 through 1977,
is presented in Table 18. There was an increase of 15.4 percent
in the adult male harvest with 1870 adult bucks reported in 1977
and only 1620 adult males taken in 1976.
Tables 19 and 20 present a summary of the adult male and female
harvest per square mile of deer range per county in Massachusetts
from 1972 through 1977. The statewide deer range per square mile
data was recently updated using aerial photos taken in 1970
(Land Use Changes and the Massachusetts Deer Herd, 1976, Phillip
J. Sczerzenie, Ivlassachusetts Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, I.iassachusetts ) . Prior to
the updating, the deer range per square mile was based on aerial
photographs taken in 1950 and 1951.
The number of adult males per county (Tables 19, 20, and 21) was
computed by subtracting the number of male fawns from the re-
ported male harvest found in Table 2. The adult female harvest
(Tables 19 and 20) was determined by subtracting the percent
of female fawns from the total reported female harvest per
county. The percent of female fawns was computed from the re-
ported female harvest at the biological stations (Tables 14, 15
W-35-R-20:II-4
and 16). The adult male and female harvest per county was
determined by dividing the square miles of deer range per county
into the adult harvest (Tables 19 and 20).
The computed harvest of adult males per square mile of deer
range for the mainland in 1977 was .30 antlered bucks. This
is more than in 1976 (.25). Dukes County increased from .59 to
.71 adult bucks per square mile while Nantucket decreased from
2.32 to 1.75.
The adult female harvest reported on the mainland increased
from .07 in 1976 to .08 adult does in 1977 harvested per square
mile of deer range. Dukes County increased with .72 females re-
ported in 1976 and .80 adult females reported in 1977. There was
an increase of .17 adult does reported taken on Nantucket Island
in 1976 with 1.56 adult females reported in 1976 and 1.72 adult
does taken in 1977 (Table 20).
A summary of the total harvest of deer in Kfessachusetts (in-
cluding shotgun, archery and muzzle loader harvest) per county
per sex and the harvest of deer per square mile of deer range
in K'lassachusetts for 1977 is presented in Table 21.
The statewide harvest of deer per square mile of deer range was
.52 in 1977. Of the .52 deer, .37 were males and .15 were fe-
males. There was an increase of .07 deer per square mile from
the 1976 harvest of .4-5 deer per square mile (Table 21).
Table 22 presents the percent frequency ratio of adult females
to adult males from 1970 through 1977. The mainland deer herd
appears to be in good shape in regard to the harvest of adult
females to adult males (Table 22). On I.lartha's Vineyard, the
adult harvest is 1.00:1.13 percent frequency (males to females).
There was a slight decrease in the Nantucket harvest. The adult
male to adult female frequency rate was .67 in 1976 and changed
to .98 in 1977 (Table 22). If this trend continues, the number
of antlerless permits should be reduced.
Table 23 presents a summary by deer management unit of the shot-
gun deer harvest, the number of sportsmen's antlerless permits
issued, the harvest per square mile of deer range for adult
male and female deer and the percent frequency ratio of adult
females to adult males for 1977. All indices (adult harvest per
square mile of deer range, percent frequency adult male to adult
female ratios and the male fawn harvest ) suggest that the main-
land deer herd is in good biological balance; i.e., no out of
proportion harvest of any sex or age of deer herd. In Dukes
County, the adult deer harvest is one adult male to an adult
female. The Nantucket harvest of adult males to adult females
shoves that for every 100 adult males taken, 98 adult females
are harvested.
Acknowledgment: For the past three years, Itr. Roger Smith of the Blue Hills Re-
gional Vocational High School, Canton, Massachusetts has gra-
ciously programmed and assisted in the computer analysis of the
deer harvest data. Although the development of the deer harvest
computer programs are not yet complete, the output to date has
helped significantly in the analysis of the deer harvest data.
V/e thank him.
W-35-R-20:II
Table 1. Summary of the Number of Sportsmen's Antlerless Permits Issued, the
Shotgun Deer Harvest per Deer Management Unit, the Sex of the Harvest;
the Ranking Order of Importance as a Deer Producing Unit, and the
Percent of the Harvest by Unit for 1977.
Unit
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Worcester
Hampshire
J-feirtha's Vineyard**^^
Nantucket
Barnstable
Region 11^*
Region I*
Number
Antlerless
Percent
Permits
Male
Female
Total
Rank
of
Total
1,300
720
252
972
1
34
700
399
126
525
2
19
400
188
63
256
3
9
200
223
32
255
4
9
300
171
61
232
5
8
600
99
93
192
6
7
400
92
91
183
7
6
200
8B
37
125
8
4
200
20
10
30
10
2
200
49
11
60
9
2
4,500 2,051 784 2,835
* Region I includes J.Iiddlesex, Norfolk, Essex and Suffolk Counties.
** Region II includes Bristol and Plymouth Counties.
*^^ Gosnold's 22 males and 26 females included.
0
o
O
o
>>
rQ
-P
CO
>
(U
-p
o
•H
t5D
Q)
r-{
P.
CO
?^
cd
CO
o
Ph
cti
(1^
>
•H
P
•H
E
p
o
CO
0 CO
^ p
p p
0)
Cm CO
o :3
>i o
fn CO
CO CO
a CO
2«
CO
H
Cm CO
O P
O
^ Eh
CO
iH
CO
P
O
H
CO
S
CO
<D
•H
CD
>
•H
P
•H
a
♦H
a.
flH
CQ
tlH
CQ
CQ
EH
^
Ix.
S
p
o
Ct.
-vj-
H
O
tX)
C\i
vD
CD
iH
>i
X3
p
CO
(Zj
P
p
CQ
o
o
E
c>
0^
O
H
o
to
tfN
to
tf^
to
cv
o
^
rvi
rH
CNi
C\i
CN2
to
to
o
CNi
CO
CQ
u
•H
CO
Q)
CQ
(D
CM
VfN
O
O
O
C\J
ir\
o
p
CO
•H
u
CQ
o
•nj- rs oj r^ to o
to* d so d d o
CV2
r^
o
rH
vO
to
C\J
CNi
o
O
tH
g^
?^
O
to
to
CNJ
NT
o
*
*
O
o
rH
r^
o
C^
*
^
O
o
O
*
rH
CN2
o
o
rH
C\J
ir\
H
C\2
CVJ
CM
*
CO
O
CNi
CV
X
0)
CO
CO
w
C\J
c*>
CNJ
to
rH
o
rH
to
\D
C\2
rH
CNj
r^
to
CO
CM
CV2
o
to
o
to
to
o
CNJ
lA
CM
to
CNJ O O O O H O
\D CNi O CNJ O rH O
r*^ lA o o o o o
rN ^- o c\i o H o
\D O H O O O
t> O rH O
•H
cd
I
u
•H
CO
Ph
X
d)
CO
0)
rH
P
M
o
p
§
<-\
O
Cm
O
p
o
cu,
M
rH
O
Cm
Cm
CO
lA
c>
lp>
r^
CM
CNJ
vD
<J^
U
o
p
CO
o
O
o
c^
rv2
to
O
CNi
CV
CNJ
CM
o
o
o
to
CM
c^
CNJ
fH
vO
iH
to
CM
o
r-{
O
s
O
rH
CNJ
CM
CM
CM
CN
CM
O
CM
to
rH
to
CM
O
VCN
VfN
CM
to
to
CM
rH
00
r^
ON
o
to
O
CM
CM
c-
!>
CM
c>
VO
to
rH
to
ITN
rH
o
0^
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
c
CO
o
o
u
ir\
c«-N
CM
ir\
c^
CM
u
O
O P
o o
2: o
o
o
CM
o
rH
C^,
to
to
iH
CM
CM
o
ir\
CNJ
-4-
O
to
tfN
to
CM
to
IfN
o
CM
I'J
P
O
M
CO
p
o
p
o
•H
0)
H
PU
CO
$H
CO
Ch
CO
<D
ID
;3
rH
O
CO
0)
'■a
O
G
p
o
rH
O
C
CQ
o
o
W-35-R-20:II
Table 3. County Summary of the 1977 Massachusetts Shotgun Deer Harvest by Sex
and the County Rank in Order of Importance from 1972 through 1977.
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
Rank
County
Male
Female
Total
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
Barnstable
88
37
125
8
8
8
8
8
8
Berkshire
720
252
972
1
1
1
1
1
1
Bristol
5
2
7
13
12
12
11
12
12
Dukes*
77
67
UA
7
5
6
5
3
3
Essex
24
8
32
9
11
10
9
9
9
Franklin
399
126
525
2
2
2
2
2
2
Hampden
188
68
256
3
3
3
3
5
4
Hampshire
171
61
232
5
7
5
6
7
6
Mddlesex
17
3
20
11
10
11
12
11
11
Nantucket
92
91
183
6
4
7
7
6
7
Norfolk
8
0
8
12
12
13
13
13
13
Plymouth
15
8
23
10.
9
9
10
10
10
Suffolk
0
0
0
14
13
14
13
13
13
Worcester
223
32
255
4
6
4
4
4
5
Subtotal
2029
758
2787
Gosnold
22
26
48
Total
2051
784
2835**
* Gosnold not included
**Includes five (5) No Town Reported records
Tsble 4. A Summary of the 1977 Deer Shotgun Harvest per Sex per Management Unit
Unit
Lfeles
Females
Total
Male Fawns
Berkshire
720
252
972
46
Franklin
399
126
525
29
V/orcester
223
32
255
10
Hampshire
171
61
232
6
Hampden
188
68
256
11
Region I
49
11
60
4
Region II
20
10
30
1
Barnstable
88
37
125
9
Ifertha ' s Vineyard
77
67
144
28
Nantucket
92
91
183
28
Gosnold
22
26
48
9
Totals
2051
784
2835
181
Cm
O
0)
t-l
IS
o
o
o
o
o
O t>
tX) r-i
O
ttO
t>
I>
\D \0 vD «5
O
\D to rH
ifN
O
iH to IS
sO
IS tX) sD
IV
o
iH ■S^^£)
o
CM G^\c\i
o
CM rvi vO
r-i
O^ iH tX)
l>-
CN
vr
r-H
vO
iH
CO O O
O
O
O
O
o ir\ 0^ c\2
\0 C\2 c^ c^
H -sflS
IS O O
VTN
O
c^ o IS
ir\
C^ CM O
rH C\i IS
cv
O
rH rvi to
CN
>t O ir\
H
vO
T-i
c^ O O
O
8
O
O
C\i
iH »f\ v£)
vO C\i C^
rH H Nr
r-» O O rH
(M rH ^£S
8
IS IS -^tko
rH C\i IS rH
iH
vD
CV -sf vD
CNj r^ C^
C\J
en
rH
ITN OJ C^
\0 rH to
•TN O O
>^
*s ♦^ e\
»r\ rH rH
O
O
(D to CM
O
to
to o c\j
-^i-
O
O
to v^ o
(^
UN
en -si-
C^
O
O
rH vD
00
cn
O
•».
•\
rH
o
^
r^
r\i vD \0
>d-
O
ITN O^ IfN
o
to cn cn
C\2 CM vD
rH
O
cv r\2 o -4-
ir\ O C^
iH
vD
rH
C^ O r^
O
O
vfNvD iH
rvi
\D
■>t O CVi vO
O
CnCS rH
rH
O
>tiS vO
IS
vO O vO
CVi
O
iTv en <n
C\i
cv
rH -^d- lA
o
C\J rH \D
O
o
CM e^ CV CO
Oi rH ITN
IS
Q
o
rH vTv
IS
en
-t
rH
vD
rH
H
cn o o
0^
**
•N
•\ #^ •^
rH
to
en
•sf
IS H rH
O
o
^ ir\ to
CM
O
O O vDJv^
O
vO 0^ o
m
o
O H VTN
o
O O vO
H
O
o
O C^ C>
IS
IS
CM CM ^
O
CM CM D-
CM
S
en >t o^
vD
IS vO O
IS
ir\
o
rH H vD
O
CM
^
rH
rH
CM Cvi C^
a^
•s
•s
•\ •> »>
rH
IS
en
vO
IS rH rH
O
o
^ cncNj
O
IS
VTN O -<f
O
O
ir\ ^ iTv
■Sf
o
O H to O^
C^ cn; rH
o
o
o
(\i to rH
rH
^
CM <^
ITN
O
rH CM to
csi
en cn
Nf to -sf
IS
o
o
x-\ rA -^
O
CO^
^
rH
IS O rH
0^
♦v
•\
r* -^ •*
rH
ITS
vD
vD rH rH
cn
(0
rH C
S rt rH
■P H +?
rH tU cd O
x3 cd a>
< S Cx.
(0
o
i
u
ed
a>
m
.c^ CD rH
Ix, 0) cd
+3 rH -P
rH <U Cd O
^ rH s e-"
TS Cd <D
< S c^
<D
rH
s
CO
;^ Cd rH
fe (1) cd
-P HP
rH <U Cd O
:=! rH a H
xJ Cd 0)
«a: S C^
•P
I
0)
c
•H
>
Cd
xi
p
Cd
0)
w
ix< 0) cd
P HP
rH <U cd O
d H S H
T3 cd 0)
< S fc.
^ rH rH
vr\
in rH rH
0
0
IS CM vO
ITS
c>
0 0 IS ko
0
c\i o^ ir\
*
sf:
IS
rH «^ IS
m
vD ^ 0
0^
0
0
\D 0 C>
0
vf
rH en vr\
0
CNi CM \D
rH
C^
CM en rH
IS
to ir\ rH
IS
0
0
iH C^
ir\
cn
>t
H
vi)
rH
rH
en to c^
0^
•v
•\
•\
H
CM
NT
ir\
cn
cd
p
O CD a
H Q Q
CD
<D
H
CO
_: o
0) CO
C cd
o
f-r CO
CD
<D "J
;^ rH
be o
•H C
* ■*.
W-35-R-20:II
Table 6. A Summary of ?fessachusetts Deer Harvest per Farmer- Landowner
Permit per County for the 1977 Shotgun Season
Number
Rfeile
Adult
County
Issued
Fawns
Males
Females
Total
Barnstable
1
0
0
0
0
Berkshire
91
2
5
12
19
Bristol
0
0
0
0
0
Dukes
0
0
0
0
0
Essex
1
0
0
1
0
Franklin
170
2
5
17
24
Hampden
33
1
1
5
7
Hampshire
59
1
2
K
7
I^Eddlesex
0
0
0
0
0
Nantucket
0
0
0
0
0
Norfolk
0
0
0
0
0
Plymouth
0
0
0
0
0
Suffolk
0
0
0
0
0
Worcester
K2
0
3
7
10
Totals
397
6
18
46
68
Cl>
+3
•H
B
•P
n
CtJ
0)
CA
ft
-P
•H
0)
PL,
CO
CO
0)
H
Ph
Q)
rH
CO
s
t>-
CO
!>■
-p
O
^
rH
o
p
i U
C/J
o
Cm
?H
<D
CO
P
< f-i
Q)
+3
t3
O
iH
Q)
O
>
K
u
<^
P
K
•H
C3
;h
3
a
0
0)
a.
«
CO
CO
CO
p
(D
p
rH
a
^
c/:
a)
d
iH
x3
P
5
o:
CO
Cm
^
o
f=-
O
Cm
•H
0
P
CO
t
! CO
B
CO
E
Q)
1 O
c/:
i5
<
!>
»
a
)
r-
1
,c
1
a
J
E-
4
pH
03
fH
-P
<D
O
0)
E-i
O
J-t p
(U -H
ph a
(D a.
a
«M
O
CO
CO
-P -P
CD
pH
cd
B
0)
fc
r-\
cd
0)
P
r-i
o
^
H
S
P
rH
0)
rl
rH
n
crt
< S
p
o
,i*l
p
O
^
S
in
73
d) p>
-P -H
CO a
0) fi
> 0)
U Oh
cd
W CO
CO
^1 <v
<D r-i
<D U
Q (D
rH
Cm -P
°5
<u
rH
Cd
S
Q)
fo
r-
Ct
<U
P
r^
O
H
^
-P
r-
rH
-13
cd
<tJ
^
P
O
ri*l
P
O
P
:::«
E
CQ
Cm
O
O
2:
CO
•p
T3
•H
<1>
3
P
H
CQ
O
CO
Ph
M
p
p
S p
<y "H
uo P
cd t3
P
vO
lf\
■vT
CNi
O
vD
>
O
«0
C\i
CO
m
<\i
ITN
C^
vO
CO
rH
rH
Nf
(\2
C^
rH
CO
ir\
vO
CO
ITN
v£)
CO
O
c\i
ir\
vD
vD
C\J
CO
CO
C*\
O
C\]
CO
O
O
O
CO
• •
rH
• •
rH
• •
r-i
• •
rH
w 0
H
rH
• •
• •
O
o
o
O
8
r-H
CV
O
3
rH
r-\
H
rH
H
r-\
H
H
• •
C\i
• •
C
CNi
• •
s
• •
O
• •
O
• •
• •
• •
O
o
ITS
D-
(^
Ni-
o
C\i
ir\
vO
rv
rH
\D
m
c\j
O
ITS
CO
CM
o
rH
1>
CV
C\J
(>J
O
O
rH
O
CO
O
o
O
O
o
O
O
o
o
o
O
O
o
O
O
o
o
r^
t>
C\J
r^
-<f
fNi
CM
CM
o
o
ir\
vD
O^
CM
C\i
CvJ
CM
CO
CM
O
O
C^
CM
■vf
CM
■<r
o
vO
00
CM
O
O
<D
<v
Fh
(U
M
rH
u
a
<D
u
M
M
^
•H
P
•H
p
Cd
xi
rH
CO
^
o
P
P
P
CO
•s
0)
CO
-p
O
O
CO
M
o
Pi
ft
•H
•H
-*
H
u
cd
u
M^
ho
UO
0)
U
O
CO
c3
(U
0
Cd
CQ
ClH
5
s
K
Pi
«
CQ
p
CO TJ
<u
- Ph
>1
CO Cd
o
Xi >s
p
P O
p
u p
p
cd "H
cd
S >
2;
o
CM
O
rH
sD
vO
CM
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
O
O
O
^3
<D
03
-P
Q)
•g
^
O
bD
P
•H
Cd
fe
p
CO
*
C7^
U
CD
•i
O
0)
Q
I
>>
CO
CO
a
o
•H
Cm
Cm
O
0)
O
O
CO
0)
at
2:
O
+J
u
o
Pi
<u
ct;
CO
0)
•H
-P
•H
r-i
a
-P
(U
0)
Q
CO
-p
-p
CO
o
ct)
CO
CO
Cm
O
Ctj
CO
<
to
(U
H
,o
CO
O 0)
Z CO
H-3
a
xj
o <u
2 CO
fc
O CD
2: CO
Cx,
s
O <D
S CO
o
•
12
•
CO
o <u
s CO
PlH
&
CO
CO
CO
rH rH
C\2 CM
rH
C\i
CO
C>
CNJ
rH UN rH
to rH
CM
CM
cv
CNJ
O
C^
rH
iH
r^ vr\
vO c*^
c<^
cv
o
r^
CM
O H rH
CM
C^vO C^
CM CM vO
rH rH
CM
CM
rH
(^\ rH
CM 0^
NT O
iH CM
«fN
<v
rH
O
•H
-a
>
u
o
^
H T3
CO CJ CO CO
bo c 0) c;
CO 0) 5 O 'H
txOH O C CO
O O H Jh 0) ^(
S O M (5 Cr. H
a;
•§
-p
o
o
vO
^
O
CD
H
•i
CD
O
-P
CM
ft
NT
<D
C^
CO
4^
CO
I
;3
CM
c>
U
o
CD
CM
^
s
C^ C^ rH
0
rH rH
o
O
<D
r^
Q
O ^ -Nt tH
lA c^
c^
CO
CM
rH
H
vO
CO,
CO
/■"^
u
c>
(D
c^
,Q
rH
e
^ rH to
s_x
(U
CM
>
CM
o
-<r
s
O fN
vr\
to c^
CM
ir\ rH c^
CM
CM
H r^
VTN
CM
O H iH
iTv
CM
CM
CM
C^
C^
CM
O
iTv
to
CM
CM
to
CM
rH
O
CM
CM
O
CM
0)
00
<D
S S
O
rH 73
CO CD §
bOH O
CO 0 CO CO Q & +^
CD C O O
o 'H ci, p; -p
C CO O ^ joi
OOrHfH(D^H^C:3
SQMQCxhHOSCO
CO
o
CD
CO
:i
CO
o
CO
o
CD
CO
<D
<D
ft,
0)
H
CO
CO
:3
CO
O
CM O to CO
CM
CO
■sf
CD
■nT
H
I>^-^
CO
rH
£> CM
c^
Q
CD
rH
cf^
[iH
a^
o
ir\
<D
iH
rH ifN
rH
H
CO
•^
i>=i
if\
•— ^
C'>
IfN
CO
r^
U
-vt^-'
O
e^
^
O
s
vO
O
T)
c^
d
rH C^ t> CM
-vj- C^ ITN
ITS kf\ ir\
CM
c^ C^ -vi- H
C^ >t CM
C^ C> CO
■nJ- rH CM
03
iH
O
X^
{^
CD
>
"cd CD
^
be g
to o g
O
-P
bOrH o
M&
u\
vD
0^
vC
CM
to
o
CM
<D
to
g
CO
«ll
CO
CD
c 6
rH
O
•H Oh q
CO
c
CO O ^
-P
0
u ^^
O
CiH
Eh O to
H
W-35-R-20:II
Table 9. Five-
Year Suiwi
ary of Deer Mortalities of Massachusetts Deer
Reported by
Natural Resource Officers, 1972 through 1977
5-Yr.
Previous
Cause
1972
1973
1974
1975 1976 1977
Avg. t
?-Yr. Total
Motor Vehicles
321
321
347
362 296 341
330
1650
Dogs
41
36
33
60 58 73
46
228
Illegal Kills
44
23
35
25 48 53
35
175
Crop Damage
1
2
1
0 10
1
5
Uriimown Causes
35
21
33
29 29 28
29
147
All Other Cause
s 11
15
18
32 10 16
17
86
^53
418
469
508 442 511
458
2292
Table 10. A Comparison (
Df Total
Non-Hunting Deer ^^rtalitie
s of Massachusetts
Deer
from 1971 through 1977
1971
1972
1973 1974 1975
1976
1977
No. of Deer
694
453
420 469 508
442
511
Percent Change
M
-34.7f.
-7.3?
I +11.66^ +8.32f.
-13f.
1-15. 615?
Table 11. Comp
arison of
Actual Numbers
! of Deer Mortalities 1
by Sex* and Adjusted
Data
for Mass
achusetts
Deer
per Month, 1977
Unknown
Adjusted
Month ]
l!ale
5
Female
14
Sex Total
Male
5
Female
January-
1 20
15
February
14
36
2 52
15
37
Ifeirch
13
19
2 34
14
20
April
10
18
3 31
11
20
May
19
21
2 42
20
22
June
14
14
2 30
15
15
July
2
9
11
2
10
August
7
16
5 28
9
19
September
13
21
2 36
14
22
October
30
34
5 69
32
37
November
50
37
8 95
54
41
December
31
2B
4 63
33
30
208
wr
36 511
224
287
Adjusted Sex Ratio
100 Males : 128 Females
80 Males : 100 Females
44^ riales : 5652 Females
vO
C\i
to
IfN
C\2
•>t
C^
o
o
<r\
vD
-^t
»A
C\J
Vf\
c^
'^i-
o
CNJ
o
C<A
CO,
CV
iH
H
O
iTv
C\J
C\i
P
O
0^
Cvi
O
tX)
o
C\i
vC
vD
r^
0^
O
C\i
CM
to
o
^
>f\
vO
c^
O
-P
C^rHOl>-r\i\DU>t0rH0N<Mir\O-«t
rH rH rH >H
O
O
•a
CO
0)
-v^C^^r\N^tOtOOC^iCMrHOO»^tO
»fNO rvjir\rsiC*NrH rH <^ •>!■
cv
<r\
to
sO
CNi
CM
O
rH
iTN
rH
CV
rH
to
O
CM
C^
O
■sf
CM
v£>
CM
r^
CO
Q
CM
O
vD
ro,
ir\
u>
nO
0
sD
0
C^
to
to
o
0
rH
CM
t>
CM
CM
to
;^
(^
iH
-4-
0>
vD
O
fH
ro^
O
2:
CO
+J
+3
a;
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
0)
CM
rH
CM
O
C^
•^
vO
-P
O
o
(M
CM
sD
0
nO
ITN
to
C-
O^
CM
\0
^
C^
CM
Q)
vD
O
in
CM
rH
0
rO
fH
CO
•H
rH
■p
;G
0
CO
CO
-P
X
g
'S
CO
•H
0
CO
<s
<S
M
CO
c^
O
5
H
CO
fH
vO
m
0)
TO
X
ir\
0)
•H
CO
to
O
rH
to
0)
CO
Q)
rH
vO
(^
rH
O
Cm
O
2
to
CM
to
\0
o
ex,
■s^
H
rH
O
Cm
■g
CO
ITN
C^
CM
CM
<y<
i>
CM
CM
u
-p
0)
<u
-p
-icj
CO
0
<u
CO
:3
0
g;
■p
h
,5*
c
£
S
3
W-35-R-20:II
Table 13. Age Composition of I'.Iainland Massachusetts Male Deer Checked at
Biological Stations, 1969 through 1977
Age
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
6 mos.
67
121
100
77
69
73
80
61
53
1-1/2
229
263
211
260
237
255
303
222
287
2-1/2
133
U7
103
144
173
156
151
159
183
3-1/2
98
97
77
96
90
86
97
107
104
4-1/2
55
59
43
46
47
35
36
43
49
5-1/2
21
21
19
14
18
11
9
10
12
6-1/2
14
7
3
11
7
5
12
2
12
7-1/2
2
7
6
2
6
4
5
2
1
8 to 9-1/2
2
1
1
0
3
0
2
3
2
10-1/2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals
652 723 563 563 650 730 695 609
703
Table 14:
Age
Composition of I
Finland Ivlassachusetts
Female
Deer
Checked
at
Biological Stations
from 1969 through 1977
Age
1969
197C
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
6 mos.
76
90
101
90
62
62
71
38
63
1-1/2
55
54
64
57
48
53
50
41
45
2-1/2
55
69
69
56
42
51
42
43
39
3-1/2
36
46
51
51
35
33
33
26
42
4-1/2
24
29
33
22
25
23
15
14
13
5-1/2
11
14
20
14
6
8
10
11
10
6-1/2
0
8
U
10
5
7
4
8
4
7-1/2
2
0
11
2
6
6
3
1
2
8 to 9-1/2
0
0
9
0
2
3
2
4
1
10-1/2
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
Totals
259
310 372
303
231 247
231
186
219
W-35-R-20
:II
Table 15.
Age
Composition
of JMrtha's
Vineyard, Ivfessachusetts
Deer Checked
at
Biological
Stations from 1972 through 1977
I^.fales
Females
Age
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
6 mos.
25
30
27
32
24
24
30
24
32
22
32
15
1-1/2
41
25
32
30
26
24
24
21
21
13
10
19
2-1/2
15
17
9
6
7
14
11
17
12
13
22
10
3-1/2
15
12
19
7
9
4
15
13
9
13
10
9
4-1/2
6
7
5
4
1
1
9
8
5
5
4
2
5-1/2
1
3
1
3
1
0
6
2
5
1
1
5
6-1/2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
3
0
0
7-1/2
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
8 to
9-1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
10-1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Totals
108
94
94
S2
68
67
99
SB
87
71
79
60
Table 16.
Age Compos
it ion
of
Nantucket
, Massachusetts Deer Checked at
, Biological
Stations from 1972
through 1977
l^/Iales
Females
Age
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
6 mos.
17
22
25
27
26
26
21
21
20
26
23
26
1-1/2
19
28
31
28
35
35
16
17
21
23
20
32
2-1/2
12
19
15
14
16
15
12
8
10
7
6
9
3-1/2
12
11
12
11
7
5
5
7
1
6
7
9
4-1/2
0
4
2
4
5
4
5
9
6
6
6
5
5-1/2
3
2
1
0
0
3
0
2
2
1
5
1
6-1/2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
7-1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
8 to
9-1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10-1/2
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
Totals
63 86 86 89 89 S$
61
65 61
74
67 85
iH
Cm
cd
U
O
+J
0)
O
(U
•6^
EH
Q
IN
ITN
c\i
rH
C*>
to
CO
tXi
vO
^i-
CV
r^
>J-
ir\
Nf
C*N
(^
c^
r^
(^
CO
CO
M
<u
o
rH
0
Cd
CQ
e
(U
e; fci
o
+^
•p
-o
,H
§
r^ E^
o
C\J
O
O
■>t
O
Nf
tf\
CO
>t
«n
C^
8
O
r-»
\0
c>
rH
(>
D-
CO
O
o
CO
-p
•X3
rH
•g
S
■P
^
CO
O
<u
CO
E-t
o^
M
rH
if\
D-
O
\D
vD
CO
O
c^
J>
r^
O
NT
!>-
C\i
CO
vr\
[>
■sf
O
C^
C\J
C^
CM
C^
r^
r^
0^
<^
CO
(Ni
»n
l>
r>-
«Oi
lA
IfN
if>
if\
-sj-
IP
CO
vD
O
rH
-P
CQ
CD
CO
K
a
-p
I
CO
+^
-p
Q)
to
s.
o
ca
CO
CO
s
-p
cd U
O Q)
Eh Q
CO
cu
fl iH
i Cd
fc
CO
-p
0
■3
Cd
-o
Q
<;
0)
fS4
CO
0)
0)
c
o
CO
■p
.^
+3
o
s
5
c^
O
l>
CO
Vf\
1>
O
H
•sf
ITS
O
rH
vO
■>t
pH
C^
vO
(7^
C^
r^
<*>
o
(^
CNJ
CM
O
vO
C^
ITS
CO
r-i
cv
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
r^
rH
(y\
\0
O
CM
CO
CM
C^
\D
0^
r>
CM
•>!■
(^
D-
CM
CM
O
CM
r~i
CM
CM
CM
H
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
vD
m
vO
0^
O
:J
c*>
CO
o
CO
-"J-
->!■
c^
vO
l>
rH
ir\
ir\
vO
»f\
•sT
IfN
Nf
»f\
tf\
O
vD
C>
O
o
vD
iH
Q
CV
•vt
rH
CO
sD
CO
vO
rH
O
C3
C\)
CO
r^
ITS
C^
CO
ts
vO
t>
I>
rs
i>
if\
O
C^
o
(r\
C^
G^
CM
CM
CM
ir\
o
vO
iH
0^
O^
iH
CM
CM
l~i
rH
CM
rH
rH
CO
-P CO
rH 0)
0 rH
TJ Cd
CM
O
CO
8
vO
CO
\r\
OJ
O
O
CM
o
l>
in
»f\
vO
C^
CM
r-
O
C\i
r^
rH
CM
CM
vD
■>t
vD
CO
rH
pH
iH
rH
r-i
r-i
rH
rH
rH
rH
CO
rH
c»>
■S^
CO
G^
ir\
rH
^
r-i
CM
rH
CO
CM
o
m
irv
CV
l>
O
rH
«r\
o
•>t
»r\
(^
;:ij
■>!■
CO
sO
CO
O
rH
r-\
rH
r-i
r-i
r-i
H
r-i
CM
o
rH
•s
Eh
J^
CO
o
O
Ei
CM
C^
-st
»r\
O
r>
cd
vD
vD
r>-
:>
I>
I>
C>-
C--
c^
Q)
O
O
o
o
a^
0^
O
O
o
o
>-•
r-{
r-i
H
rH
r-i
r-i
rH
rH
rH
rH
CO
-p
■p
<u
03
s
o
a
CO
CO
0)
o
Q
o
00
§
•H
•p
0)
I
s
■p
CNJ
-p
£>-
fl
<U O
(U
bfliH
o
H '
?H
d iH
0)
,c c-
a,
O O
rH
D-
O-
O
o
o
O
to
C\i
to
o
o
c^
en
to
•
O
o
vO
»f\
c^
vD
VTN
lA
C^
C^
C\J
£>
0^
cn
cn
o
OJ
vD
H
r^
H
O
to
to
t>-
rH
cv
O
»r^
O
O
O
CO
c^
J>
I>-
to
l>
IfN
c-
to
o
t>
o
o
•^
*^
•*
iH
iH
-N?
•>3-
rH
CNi
txOH
to
to'
rH
I
o
§
H
en
IN
5^
en
cn
•
•
<
•
to
CM
CM
CM
■si-
cv
+
+
+
+
CM
m
vD
vr\
O
O
O
l>
Nf
o
rvj
O
en
-p
0)
o
0)
S
(D
o
tlOrHl
G
1
cd
o
^ t>l
O
0^
Hi
en
CM
CM
<n
c^
CM
CM
«r»
-P !>•
o
o
o
o
c; CD c^
vD
•s^
en
o
0) tiOH
«
•
•
•
^^ § -V
rH
en
o
to
iH
o
H
o
<U X5 i>
a. o o
1
1
1
1
o
to
■^t
O
•<f
t>
ip\
c^
rH
en
rH
CM
O
en
kr\
if\
u>
l>
o
:<f
\0
O
sD
i>-
\D
H
vC
o
•v
•>
H
rH
en
■nI-
to
CM
to
q
s6
CM
to
6
o
CM
CM
en
to
CM
+3
0)
o
cm
^
l>
a> o
a-r
0) en
Xi l>
O O
H
IfN
en
to
•
•
CM
en
o
o
en
O
CM
+
c^
O
i>
»rN
0^
c>
to
O
O
vO
CM
rH
O
to
O
•s
•*
•\
•s
rH
»H
en
^
H
to
O
O
rH
m
ir\
to
kr\
en
i>
CM
o
to
->i-
O
•v
•\
•*
•\
rH
rH
en
en
H
to
rH
•§
-p
H
CO
C
a
<u
-p
+^
o
E
>
rH
a
^
•H
1-
u
;3
o
-P
q
0}
X}
•H
Td
Cd
•H
^
a
-P
Cd
rH
cd
t
e
q;
X)
X)
■T3
c
H
<u
Hi
(D
o
OJ
o
cd
-p
ft
+^
ft
+3
•H
e
ed
o
cd
Cd
+^
rH
(X
rH
ei)
H
Cd
-p
:J
p
rH
^
H
iH
o
o
o
Cd
o
::)
:=>
rH
rH
r-i
e
rH
ft
X)
Cd
a
Cd
o
Cd
O
<
o
E
o
Cm
o
ft
+3
r:
Cd
Xi
-p
na •H
cd -P
Xi
■3
cd
+J
ft
Q
cd
o
-p
■3
ft
rH
o
0)
::i
rH
r-^
X3
cd
Cd
<
o
s
+J o
n cd
Cd,^
X) ft
(U Q
+^ ft
Cd
rH (U
o cd
d Q
cd eu
O «M
cd
e
•H
S
<V
-P
cd
■3
O P
H ft
cd O
O ft
o
•H
p>
cd
W-35-R-20:II
Table 19. Summary of the Adult Lfele Deer Harvest per Square Mile of Deer Range
per County in Jjlassachusetts, 1972 through 1977 (shotgun season)
Sq. Ivli.
County
Deer Range
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Barnstable
267.3
.28
.2S
.31
.27
.15
.29
Berkshire
811.8
.47
.53
.85
.74
.80
.83
Bristol
3SS.S
.003
.003
.01
.01
.002
.01
Essex
302.4
.06
.06
.05
.05
.05
.08
Franklin
621.0
.45
.34
.51
.44
.52
.59
Hampden
468.7
.28
.31
.35
.34
.43
.38
Hampshire
428.8
.23
.23
.27
.34
.24
.38
Ivliddlesex
521.9
.01
.01
.003
.01
.01
.03
Norfolk
274.2
-
-
-
.004
.004
.03
Plymouth
743.0
.02
.01
.01
.03
.05
.03
Worcester
1,226.0
.10
.10
.11
.12
.08
.17
5,783.9
.19
.19
.27
.25
.25
.30
Pukes*
87.4
1.16
1.00
.84
.70
.59
.71
Nantucket
36.6
1.34
1.86
1.69
1.99
2.32
1.75
*Gosnold not included.
Table 20.
Summary of the
Adult Female
Deer Harvest per
Square
?.Iile of Dee:
? Range
per County in Massachusetts
, 1972 through 1977 (shotgun season)
Sq. m.
County
Deer Range
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Barnstable
267.3
.10
.06
.12
.04
.07
.10
Berkshire
811.8
.13
.13
.27
.20
.22
.22
Bristol
388.8
.003
.003
.003
.00
.003
.003
Essex
302.4
.003
.00
.01
.01
.01
.03
Franklin
621.6
.23
.13
.13
.14
.15
.14
Hampden
468.7
.08
.07
.07
.09
.08
.10
Hampshire
428.8
.08
.05
.07
.06
.05
.10
Mddlesex
521.9
.01
.002
.002
.01
.006
.003
Norfolk
274.2
.00
.00
.00
.004
.004
.00
Plymouth
743.0
.00
.004
.004
.02
.008
.01
Worcester
1,226.0
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.02
Mainland
5,783.9
.08
.05
.08
:o7
.07
.08
Dukes*
87.4
.88
1.00
.67
.63
.72
.80
Nantucket
36.6
1.09
1.20
1.20
1.39
1.56
1.72
*Gosnold not included.
W-35-R-20:II
Table 21.
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 Mile of Deer Range in Massachusetts
for 1977.
County
Males
Females
Total
Sq. Mi.
of Deer
Range
Males
per
Sq. Fii.
Females
Per
Sq. M.
Total
Deer
Per
Sq. Mi.
Barnstable
9K
40
134
267.3
.35
.14
.50
Berkshire
758
277
1035
811.8
.94
.34
1.28
Bristol
5
2
7
388.8
.01
.01
.02
Essex
28
9
37
302.4
.09
. .03
.12
Franklin
4-46
160
606
621.6
.72
.26
.97
Hampden
204
79
283
468.7
.44
.17
.60
Hampshire
190
72
262
428.8
.44
.17
.61
Middlesex
18
3
21
521.9
.03
.006
.04
Norfolk
8
0
8
274.2
.00
.03
.03
Plymouth
17
8
25
473.0
.04
.02
.05
Worcester
246
50
296
1226.0
.20
.04
.24
Total
2040
730
2770
5783.9
.35
.12
.48
Dukes*
80
67
147
87.4
.92
.77
1.68
Nantucket
101
92
193
36.6
2.76
2.51
5.27
Totals
2197
862
3059
5907.9
.37
.15
.52
^Gosnold not included (22 males, 26 females)
-p
CO
o
0
o*
CD
U
■P
0)
o
CD
CV
CM
0)
rH
•§
^5. (1)
rH CO
<i5 fo
rH (U
;3 rH
"&^ CD
<D
Adult
I>C\]tHrHrHtO->t-<i-
CM rH >t C^ C*>
r-i rH
-p
rH <D
ir>c^c^\DI>rHtior^
r- C^ rH C^ C^ 0^
§^
0)
rH
0
-P r-\
H CO
^ s
rq CD
+3
rH O
^ '-^
X) CO
<! S
-p
o
o
O \D
ITS D^ ifN oj ir»
O
r-i CM
CM C^ CM CM CM
•sf
»A O Nj- a^ vO CM
cH O £> C^ CM
D«- -<r vO r^ ir\ rH -vt
C^ CM r-\ r-i -^ O
-<t CM H H
r^r^c^O»r\CMC^c>^
O C^ to vD rH O O
r^ u^ O O >!" -<f »fN
Adult
Femal(
»r> l> rH \D CM rH l>
CM tX) D- -<f C^
r-\ rH
+3
rH CD
:3 rH
cMCM^^cMCMc*^<^v^
to U^ rH C^ O nO rH
C^ CM rH
\D to iTN O vD CM D-
C^ C^ -sj- C»> CM ^\D
O CXD C> to rH to vO
<M c^ c^ c*> -si-
OvO-<fOrHC^^CJ^
to vD CM U>. rH rH
(^ CM rH iH
CM
vf\
IfN
O
o
o
CM
^
to
-si-
NT
r-i
\0
o
to
o
H -sf
to
to
to
CM
(U
CM
rH
o
o
o
»^
is
8
3
to
CM
O
•sT
9\
§
O
CM
O
CM
r-i (1)
O X
U
fi ^
C
U <D Xi
<D
CO 'H rH
•H
C
•H CO rici -P ,ii
4:; Q) rH ^ H
-P
-p x; o
r-\
CD
CO
to CO -p
<D C
T^
CO rH 0 0 0
0)
rH
H Jh -H
ft
ft-O Cm a Cm
q T3 fn >^Cm
0
CO
CO CO
^i
+J
CO <D fn
CO P-i
TO
Ct 'H 0 rH :3
K S 2: (^ CO
0
0
CQ pa CQ
W fr.
K
H
vD
O
O
O
<U
S
CO
■p
o
ft
CO
CO
<*-t -p
O 'H
O CD
o
0
0
to
0
c^
0
ir\
0
ITN
0
vD
to
c^
C
0
3
CO
-P
Jh
0
ft
■p
CO
(1)
CO
r!«1
«M +^
0
CO
0 'H
;:s
<D
s
-p
O <D
Nf
to
O
o
Nl-
CM
to
o
o
o
0
to
Nf
O
O
Nf
O
vO
to
o
o
NT
NT
CM
c^
o
CM
-si-
§
0)
s
CO
■p
o
ft
CO
CO
ft-t -p
O -H
O d)
Cm
O
U
0)
S CO
+^
rH nH
CO d
-P F-.
O <D
CO
-p
•H
P-
U
<D
O
nd
c
s
I
(h
0)
g
CO
CO
Q)
t3
rH
O
Vi CD
o
-P rH
^
cd
^
S
t3
(1)
<i3
fe
-P
r-{
<u
J^
iH
"5
.^
<!
^
•
tj5.
(D
U
[i.
(1)
•P
rH
-5
§
T3
CD
<
fc
+J
■3
rH
TJ
CO
<1 ^
•
■feS.
0)
^H
(JL,
-P tH
H cti
<D
^J
rH
x)
cn
<«J
s
o*
^^
CD
u
tt,
a>
-p
rH
^
Td
(1)
<
fc.
-p
t—
rH
^
+3
O
o
r^cMc\ic^r\jcvc\irHO->^
rH
rH
•
•
vOOHC^OtOC^CNiOvO
rH
rvi
ITN
t>[> CVtsr^vDrH ,H
vD C^ rH rH
rH
CM
rH
-<fJ>OrHtOtOO^OOtO
>a-C\iU^CMCV2rHiH\DOrH
en
CVi
•
•
iH °
tJOvOrH r<^rHl>Or^rH-Ni-
rH O O C^Cvi
rH
to
tX)
en
rH iHCvl '>^CCVC^>fNrHC\J
■sr U> iH <M O O CNi
o
rH
rHCV CNJC^CvlrHr>Oir\
rH
CM
rH *
iHC^ -SfOCvJlTNC^rHtO
iH \0 O ■>t C\i
rH
tH
O
en
CVrHlTN-stvArHvO'stHvO
D- O iH 1> vD -sf iH
vD (M iH rH
0^
en
rH
\DrHvr%r^-vtfntX)0 c^
o
en
• ••••••• •
•
rHsDHr'NvDC^CNirH CNi
r^ rH t> c^ r^
C\2
rH
tXD 00 rH rH sD rH
vO C^ rH rH
en
en
iH
C\J
rH
OQ CQ CQ W
CO
rH
crt
-p
o
H
O
o
en
o
o
o
o
o
CM
o
o
o
en
rH
rH
o
CM
to
O
vO
CM
to
O
en
o
o
vO
o
o
vD
o
o
O
e
CO
■p
o
CO
Cm
O
O
•H
(X.
to
o
o
to
o
o
o
rH
O
O
•sr
O
O
o
-P
C
O
to
o
O
^-
ITS
to
O
u
CD
-p
r-i •H
CO e
-p C
O (D
H Oh
CO
-p
•H
Oh
O
CO
0)
H
O
s
A-p
(D
&
a
s
ziS
>>
o
a o
(U +3
13 a>
Cr 0) rH
0) rH eg
Jh g :?
(^
C^
^
c-
vD
rH
CNJ
vO
C»N
to
o
fc e
0^
CNi
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
H
O
C*N
rH
o
c^
0) P
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"■"I
rH
<U -P TJ
g'3-*
O TJ
ou <jj
\ •
p <y 'H
to
to
•H --^ J5
O
CNJ
NT
o
O
CNJ
8
o
O
CNJ
o
^ s
iH
CNJ
iH
iH
iH
O
o
to
r>
o
TJ E •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
<^ 0) CT"
rH
fe w
O
cn
<>
to
to
t>
-<f
CNJ
H
ifN
CNJ
CNJ
to
lA
(r\
c^
H
O
O
C^
I>
C^
§5^
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
tH
•
CO
• u
CN
CO
nD
t>
to
O
ir\
to
•sf
vO
c>
Ej 0) (1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
C^
iH
tH
to
to
vD
to
rH
C^
vO
r-
vO
rH
Cvj
vO
CNJ
CNJ
S
vO
to
C^
o
cr«M «
CNJ
<o
\0
>t
■>t
CNJ
CO
0^
cH
iH
ITN
CO o
■p
rH m
«fS
CNJ
»fN
vD
CNJ
lA
O
O
CNJ
r^
«rs
CO U d)
OJ
C^
CNJ
«fN
C*N
IfN
vO
C»N
o
CO
C^
p (U >
iH
C>
ifN
CNJ
CVJ
CNJ
H
rH
CO
O O Ph
CNJ
H Q CO
w
*
CO
iH
f*N
vD
O
to
C>
CNJ
C*N
cn
CO
vO
^
rH
!>•
C*N
CNJ
tH
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
<U CO
CNJ
rH tL,
J^
pt. p
"3
vD
O
O
CO
C*N
r^
O
t>
O
C^
CO
C\i
I>
O
^
■sj-
CNJ
C^
vO
•TN
3
H
UN
i
C^
vO
O^
iH
vO
O
vr
f-i
c-
CO
rH
>*
CNJ
H
rH
C*N
CNJ
CO
a
rH
Cl<
(U
tH
S ■•-'
0^
Nj-
o
t>
ITS
C^
«>
C>
CNJ
Nl-
O
rH
t>
o-
l>-
I>
vD
r-^
-4-
iH
vD
vD
I>
0
vD
C*N
tH
rH
CNJ
CO
3
iH
c
. of
rtsma
rmlts
8
8
O
o
O
O
O
g
o
o
O
O
g
8
O
O
CNJ
rN
r>
-vt
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
nO
>J-
u>
oca;
iH
■>t
S ft Pk
CO
0)
*
*
*
rH
0)
^
Fh
*
»H
3tC
p
p
^
Jh
C
<U
M
tH
3«e
<y
•d
CO
•H
•H
a
•H
P
*
M
P
^
rH
(U
J3
CO
c
c
3tC
o
CO
»
CO
CO
^
TJ
CO
(V
o
o
03
13
rH
g
44
^
p.
Q<
o
•H
♦H
(y
p
a
^1
3
s
a
>H
bfl
bO
;*
2:
p
<s
^
u
fe
ffi
g
&
<S
s
o
03
c;
o
•H
•P
CO
•p
03
S"
♦H
A«
O
0)
XI
o
^1
<u
0)
73
rH
(0
O
•H
tiO
o
iH
o
•H
^
■P
(d
T3
<u
t:
a
0)
^1
a
03
CD
•H
CO
-P
«M
§
<M
o
•
O
o
CO
0)
P
^
•H
-P
(1>
o
o
s
(h
fH
o
g.
a
o
XI
(U
T3
p>
x:
-p
§
g
s
rH
•H
CO
tx,
CO
c;
:3
tH
TJ
t3
{:;
TJ
TJ
CO
O
5^
P
rH
CO
o
rH
•\
p
:3
«
CO
o
<u
•H
rH
CO
O
CO
.2
03
0)
CO
<U •
^
0)
73 t3
a?
'2
rS rH
^
Zi
rH O
nH
o C
CO
o
c
•H
•^5
CO
M
(m
IH
M 03
<D
c
rH
o
o =J
rt
H
•H rH
Q
W)
GO O
<D
^^^
*
>«(
* *
4c
* *
W-35-R-20:II-5
Job I I- 5
Job Objective:
Summary:
Vfliite-Talled Deer Wintering Sites in i'.Iassachusetts
To determine the location of the deer wintering in Massachusetts.
Project personnel interviewed Natural Resource Officers, Division
personnel and others in an effort to locate deer wintering sites.
Specific locations marked on a map are of far more value than a
general description. A grid system adaptable for a computer
program was developed for specific deer wintering sites. Project
personnel investigated deer v/intering sites in New York and
Connecticut.
The investigations conducted to date are of a preliminary nature
to determine methods and techniques to be used to determine the
objective.
Target Date:
1 July 1979.
Progress:
On schedule.
Recommendations :
Continue this job.
Cost:
$8,000
Job II-6
Job Objective:
Summary:
Progress:
Deviations :N
\Vhite-Tailed Deer Wintering Sites in Massachusetts
Evaluate deer wintering sites in Massachusetts.
This job was inactive during the period covered by this report
Inactive .
None.
Recommendations: Continue this job.
Cost : None .
Remarks :
None.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
Prepared by
James J. McDonough
Game Biologist
James J. Pottie
Assistant Game Biologist
Date
^^^^^^^^' t::A0Z. 6; IV- 5S'/<l-^/TLL-i,
PERFORIIAIICE REPORT
State:
Project Title:
Project Type:
Period Covered
Massachusetts
Project rTumber: W-35-R-20
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 1977 to 31 lla
^^f^ffc *'"'
f^ f^
■r"^ f ir>w -
* * * -A A ;% A ********** *
Work Plan III
Plan Objectives:
Job III-l.
Job Objective:
Summary :
Target Date
Progress:
Deviations:
Recommendations :
Cost:
Remarks :
Census of Game Species
To determine trends in Ilassachusetts populations of
mourning dove, bobv;hite quail, and woodcock.
Ilouming Dove Census
To obtain an index of the spring breeding population
of mourning doves.
Calling doves vzere counted on three randomized routes
in cooperation with the U, S. Fish and Wildlife Services
annual mourning dove breeding population census. The
total number of calling doves increased 35 percent from
1976 to 1977.
31 May 1979
On schedule
None
Continue the spring mourning dove census in cooperation
with the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
$76.82 (Project leader man-days: 1/2)
Procedures:
In accordance with instructions
from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, doves
were censused by roadside coo-count between 2A and 28
Kay on the three randomized routes established in
1967. Division personnel conducted two routes and
a Fish and VJildlife Service cooperator conducted a
third route.
Findings: Results of the 1977 call count of
mourning doves are compared with previous year's
data in Table 1.
The total number of calling doves on three routes
combined increased 35 percent over 1976 counts.
Route b increased from 11 to 13 doves heard, route &A
increased from one to seven doves, and route 10
decreased from five to three doves.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Ilolland, State Purchasing Agent //5146
*
«•
p^
Jfl
o
o
c
c
rt
ft
(D
(D
O
►i
O
fO
3
H*
a
O
c
o
n
w
rt
rt
o
rt)
c-
Ci4
<C J
M
4>
(u
P
o
rt
t-<
(D
rt
&>
H«
0
fD
eu
H
O
rt
(u
M
to
I
CO
+
N3
4-
+
to
+
+
+
to
CO
I
ro
o
+
O
g
CO
1
!
1
M
Ui
W
KJ\
O
-J
c>
o
O
^
+
+
+
M
Ui
c^
M
vo
o
o
CO
C^
o
o
CO
+
-f
+
M
to
<y\
Ui
O
o
o
Ui
(y>
o
o
+
o
to
+
O
►Tj
U1
M
•^
ft)
o
o
00
O
o
+
+
3
to
a*
+
M
rt
o
o
OJ
•o
o
+
o
VO
+
to
M
O
Un
Ul
+
VO
o
O
o
00
to
c
3
rt
CO
+
(-'
1 +
1
ro
+
vo
to
Ul
«jj
-J
Hh
Ui
o
o
+
CO
+
M
VO
I
lO
to
>>l
to
Ui
O
4>
Ln
o
O
+
1
>-«
t
M
u»
VO
1
+
to
1
0^
+
H*
JS
O
M
O
O
O
00
ON
H
ro
o
M
o
rt
O
C-)
0
Q>
^
>
M
M
i'r
(0
N3
00
«
O
LO
«
to
to
CN
o
to
CT\
to
•
•
CO
C7V
to
•
o
ON
lo
•
to
Ln
M
*
^
^J
•
to
LO
OJ
to
to
C/1
UJ
N>
ro
to
(TV
to
VO
CO
§
c
H
VO
CN
VD
c-
VO
ON
o
VO
o
VO
VO
to
M
VO
CO
VO
VO
VO
Ov
VO
»0
o
<
M
H
cr
M
(!)
o
<
fD
CO
D*
ft)
ta
CL.
o
o
o
g
C3
O*
H«
fD
m
en
(a
C
CO
fD
CO
o
c
(f
fD
CO
VO
ON
rt
O
VO
W-35-R-20 III-l
The weighted mean number of doves heard per
conparable Massachusetts route was 16. G in 1976
and 19.0 in 1977 (Dolton 1977). Dove populations
in the Eastern llanagenent Unit increased 9.4 percent
over 1976 and 7.4 percent over a ten-year mean.
Linear regression analyses indicates a non-signi-
ficant decrease in Eastern Unit dove populations.
Acknowledgements : I acknowledge the cooperation
of Refuge Manager Linda K. Gintoli of Great Meadows
National Uildlife Refuge, v;ho conducted the survey
on Route 8.
References Cited: Bolton, D. D. 1977. Iloumlng dove breeding population
status. U. S. Fish & Uildlife Service, Laurel,
Md., Admin, rept., 36 pp
I'lASSACKUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
Bureau of Uildlife Research and Ilanagement
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
Prepared by
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
l/v^
'^
f JJJL- ^
ly
FERFORliAl^CE REPORT
STATE
Project No.
Project Title:
Project Type;
Period Covered;
Work Plan III
Objectives:
Job III-2
Objective:
SuEnnary :
U-35-R-20 ^ ^^ -
Target Date:
Progress:
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Inventory
1 June 1977 to 31 Hay 1978
Census of Game Species
To deterciine trends in Hassachusetts populations of
Eourning doves, bobwhite quail, and woodcock.
Spring Quail Census
To determine the dynanic aspects of quail population
densities and distribution.
The 1977 spring quail census for Barnstable j Bristol,
and Plymouth Counties showed no significant change
as compared to either 1975 indices or a four-year mean
index.
31 Hay 1979
On schedule
Sifxnificant Deviations: Hone
Pvecommendations :
Continue the spring quail census in 1978 using
at least five routes per county. These routes
should be comparable to those surveyed in 1977.
Norton et al (1961) indicated that v/histling-
cock indices may be poor indicators of fall
population size or hunter success. They
suggested that refinement was necessary to in-
crease the reliability and usefulness of whistle
counts.
Pvobel et al (1969) studied factors affecting
the calling rate of bobwhites. Results of
these studies indicated that male quail popu-
lation, day of year, time of day, wind velocity,
temperature, and relative humidity were the
most group evaluation factors influencing quail
whistling. Th^ suggest that by reducing the
variation in the above envirorjnental and time
factors, quail call indices can be useful as a
manaj;^^ement aid as an index to spring breeding
populations.
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent #5146
W-35-R-20: iII-2
3. In Hassachusetts, the variable of male quail popu-
lation is partially controlled by using the same route?
(with identical beginning and ending points and inter-
mediate stops) each count year. Counts are conducted
as nearly as possible within the same two-week time
period and as nearly as possible V7ithin the same
early-morning time period each day of the count. Tem-
perature variations are reduced by applying correction
factors which vjeight call indices according to the
effectr of temperature outside a standard (62-68°)
range. IJind and humidity variables are partially
controlled by conducting whistle counts only under
certain limited conditions of v/ind velocity and pre-
cipitation.
In the future, whistle counts in Hassachusetts should
continue to be conducted under as nearly identical
conditions as possible. Adjustment of calling rates
for environmental variable may be refined Cas suggested
by Rebel et al (1969)1] by establishing regional per-
manent stations to which to relate counts from call-
index routes.
4. Another condition affecting quail index counts in
MassachusetwS is the amounts of background noise.
Three of the 16 routes surveyed in 1977 had to be
re-run at least once due to the excessive noise which
obscured quail whistles. One new route v/as deemed
unusable due to traffic noise. Future counts should
be conducted 5, insofar as possible » on days v/hen back-
ground noises are lightest. Consistently noisy routes
may have to be dropped or relocated.
5. Collection of quail wings (Rosene 1969: 45-53) would
enable the Division to estimate the age composition
of the population. Specimens would have to be collected
throughout quail range and would have to emphasize
privately-oxmed land, since management areas are stocked
so samples for these areas would not necessarily re-
flect changes in v;ild populations.
Cost: $742.46 (project leader man-days 2-1/2)
Remarks: Procedures: Roadside whistle counts were conducted during
the first three weeks of July 1977 following established
procedures and routes (U-25-R) . The resultant call in-
dices were corrected for temperature variations (Bennitt
1951. Ripley 1956) and tabulated and analysed on a county
basis. Counts for all counties were compared with the
previous year's indices and v;ith a four-year (1969, 1971,
1973, 1975) index. Changes in annual counts were analyzed
for statistical significance with a one-sided t-test and
the results reported accordingly by counties.
W-35-R-20J I I I- 2
Findings: The 1977 weighted call indices as compared to
those from 1975 and the four-year average are
shown in Table 1. Computations of the tests
of significance and comparisons of the indices
by county and route are shown in Tables 2, 3,
and 4.
A total of 16 routes were conducted in 1977,
of which six were in Plynouth county, five
in Bristol county, and five in Barnstable county.
Routes comparable with 1975 included four in
Plymouth, four in Bristol, and three in Barn-
stable.
The 1977 indices were higher than those from
1975 in Barnstable and Plymouth counties and
lovjer than 1975 in Bristol county. None of
these changes were statistically significant
at the 95 percent level. The 1977 indices
were lower than the four-year index in all
three counties. These changes also were not
statistically significant.
Considerably habitat loss has occurred in
southeastern Massachusetts in the past few
decades (Table 5) . The amount of agricultural
and open land has decreased in four of the five
counties open to quail hunting (llacConnell
1975) . The apparent increase in open land in
Hantucket is misleading, since "heath'' was
classified as forest in 1951, but open land
in 1971. Though this reclassification masks
the degree of change, agricultural and open
land probably did decline on iJantucket from
1951 to 1971. This habitat loss, coupled with
an unmeasured but increasing trend in posted land,
has probably resulted in a decrease in the
number of quail available to the hunter. Analysu'j
of fluctuations in quail populations are therefcie
necessary in order to relate exploitation of
this resource to other environmental stresses.
^
w
w
M
M
CO
1
O
rt
CO
c
o
ft
rt
M
5J
cr
cr
O
(D
to
H*
O
M
•
•
•
(jJ
v^
Ln
*^
M
U1
o
►
CO
CO
o
o
O
K)
o
UJ
•
•
•
Ln
K>
to
■f>
•
•
•
O
to
to
Ln
to
Ln
Ln
to
LO
CD
O
•
•
•
CO
fo
to
«
o
o
I-*
O
^
•
•
m
4>>
^J
o
VO
to
CN
z r:: s
o o o
n
o
c
3
H-"
>
vT)
<
Ln
(D
CO
f-t
J
0)
CN~Q
M
(D
M
M M
3 O
CI. CN
P V£>
CU ON
3 vo
rt) ^
a. -vj
3 vo
ex. ^J
(D Ln
M M >
vo O <
Ln O 11
I eg
3 o
Q. ^
rt) ^
ft
o
V.O
Ln
VO
M CO
vO H-
O 3
I H-
Ln H«
O
S
3
rt)
H
Cu
cr
Q
o
o
c
3
o
o
B
n
<
O
C3
3
Pu
O
n>
CD
CO
CD
o
3*
C
CO
rt)
rt
rt
CO
'C
0)
O
C
O
3
CO
VO
Ln
00
I
OS
VO
U)
Pu
f5,
w
II
o.
u
NJ
„N>
(-»
n
o
*»
*»
ro
*s
•
ro
ir
KjJ
*_ ^J
»-•
U)
o
O
cu
'vj
LO
*
•
o>
CO
U)
to M H'
CO C-> <T>
> W
N)
XI
-J
ro
ro
u>
w
o>
o
I-*
c»
•
(jj
NJ
•
■vj
03
ro
rt
rt
C/5
»
D.
o
tn
H
II
/■^
H«
•N^
to 00
O
^
Ot
4>
l#
a.
•
U>
• 00
LO
ON
o
CO
M
l-h
•
•
to
II
II
M
N3
•
00
•
N5
Ul
O
(-'
•
M
C5N
00
o
o
M to »-»
to H* to
to CO to
lO
H O H-
^J CO ^
« e •
ON O CN
^J -«J ~vj
I
3
1
4>
CO
II
ON
CO
to
CO
M
to
•
a
•
•
to
CO
to
CO
to
CO
o
5«
H
O
Cj
c
C
rt
M
n>
ro
to
o
3
n
M
>
VO
to JN N)
vo
3
CO
o
U> CO to
CN
03
o
o
o CN cn
•o
M
o
1
^
•
^
CD
o
Cn
O
H-
o
(a
»->
M
3
c-
O
O
cn
o
G.
H-
l-h
Hi
ro
XI
CO
ro
II
M
3
en
M M CO
VO
n
(-•
00
h-* to ^
>>J
ro
VO
■^
•v4 CO ^J
-vl
CO
en
•
H*
C3N
3
^J
o
cu
|c
Li
3
O
ro
cn
n
3
cn
rt
£U
D'
ro
o
o
c
3
pi
3
O
c
M
I
N
ro
pj
H
3
ro
3
to
to
CD
u>
CO
Mr
CO
H«
to
•
tSJ
to
O
O
CO
tsj
to
' ON
fO
•
CO
V
Of>
to
to
CN
II
CN
•-4
ro H* H«
^ ^
CO CO 0^
S O
> Cfl
o c
• rt
ro
XI
1
CO
CO
CO
to CO to
«o *- o
cn
o
o
n
o
Cn
ro
cc
•
I!
to
•
to
o
CN
-o
•
CI
cn
C3
4>
•
C7N
^1
CN
o
o
CO
II
cn
ON
•o
Cnl*— H- CO
CO >— to -C"
•^ ^ CO ^
3
O
ro
cn
ro
CN
*>
>sJ
00
•
CO
Ui
N9
^ CO to
to V43 "vj
1 1
to
ON ON
CO
CO
C3
3
to
cn
to
to
O
1
V
«
\«
V
n
ON
ro
4>
to
O
o
CO
cn
to
Cn
•
•
•
•
to
cn
o
U)
cn
CD
CO
to
H
P)
o*
I—
ro
to
P3
t-"
CO
CO
o
1^
t-h
i-h
ro
ro
3
o
ro
00
3
o
3
a
o
ro
CO
cu
•-I
3
cn
rt
P>
o*
ro
o
o
c
3
ft
cn
P>
3
Qu
VS
OJ
'^'5,
CO
o-l
a
o
NJ
ro
fl
H
II
K>
Ul
•
»
w
OJ
cn
o
LO
Ui
ex
4> NJ
O
•
•
^
LJ
O
VO
M
n
CO
N3
*»
W
*•
Ln
•
U>
\o
*^
r>
O
OJ M
?=i
H
Ln Ln vo
s o
0>
>
0 c
C
• rt
M
fD
(D
Cr> Ln O
O ON M
rt
rt
en
•
a
O
II
Ul
NJ
Ln
II
/-\
VJD
vO
N3
•
•
O
UJ
^>«»
c-
^4
u>
•
00
Ml
*-
c
U
•
II
N>
o
ro
b
11
o
4>
VO
M
ts>
to
\o
O
•
o
■«J
II
o
o
CO c^ ^
4> ^ M
** N> O
Ul U) Ui
Ui N) O
o • •
U3 ON CTN
U> ««J "^J
?
fl
V
o
VO
o o o
o cr> -c*
M *>>J O
• • •
^ to O
H-' U) Ui
VO
I
l-«
-J
o
M
O
w
to
^1
U>
o
0
rt
t-*
hi
w
CO
O
!-n
cu
l-h
rt>
»i
ro
o
ro
en
ts>
o
o
o
o
o
U)
w
fcl
a
to
n
II
j>
to
OJ
•
to
O
c^
(u^l
X
1
0
(jJ W M
C* Ln Ln VO
>
o
o
c
rt
ro
VO
o
VO
•
O
o
4S
U3
to
VO *^ Ui ^J
to U) to Cn
VO
O
^1
0
to
■P-
•o
•^
to
to
o
CU
•
•
V
Itt
•
CN
tn
to
M
btt
03
O
*J
M
•
to
'^-^
•
H-
"Vj
0
II
u
tn
XI
n
to
to
tn
3
a
O
ro
CO
to
CO
VO
o
CC (T\ "^
** J> H*
VO
to
•
to
tn
to
O
•
VO
M
to
ro
r
CD
0)
o
Ml
ro
ro
3
O
ro
CO
o
g.
O
D
CD
I*
a
ON
CO
to
to
*^ H*
to
O
4>-
lo
I M
to I to ON
(-* to ro o
• • • •
tn tn tn tn
o
M
O
O
g
so
UI
0)
3
CU
VO
VI
?
U>
lO
to
CO
tn
O
o
to
h-» tn
4>» O VI
ON tn CTN
to O CN O
to to to to
Ln tn tn tn
to
w
CO
a
S3
to
D
R
n
to
N>
•
^
N3
o
w
V
o
** OJ
to
CO
VO
o
o
LO to 0\<J1
> >
s. o
o c
• rt
fl>
CO
O
n
o
Ml
n
-J
00
^ t^ t-* i-»
u) Ln ^j lo
00 ^ UJ ISJ
o
0
4N
00
to JO
Ui 4>- C^ to
"»J 00 to 00
O
CO
H
cr
o
>
o
cn
0)
o
»-h
*«•
to
/-\
U>
IjJ
M
U)
•
•
W
M
o
CO
CI.
O
o
Ui
•
•»J
H^
U
•
•
Ol
v-/
o
o
n
ro
VO ON I-* *N
lo
ON
00 ^«J
00 M
0
to
1
to
VD ^ V/i
/'-N
H*
w
!• WW
o
to
to to ^ O
1
H
NO
»-• CO -P* -O
o.
U}
o
ON VD ^ H*
>^
to
^,
C/J
O'i
H» »-
al
o
Lo to ON tn
to
to
n
> >
n
u
ON
ON
•
CO u>
O
Kjr
o
VO
(jj
H*
•
•
X 1
VO
-^
H*
4N
B
CO
U
U
M
b
tai
M
M
vyi
o
to
o^ Vyi OJ ON
«*
«
*-
Ui OJ »-• Ui
£i O
o c
• rt
O
•
VO
ON
VO
s
cn
p
ft
rt
Cu
fi
•
O
o
R
0
CD
cn
OJ
ON
•.»^
►*
>K
ON
•*J
9
CO
•
•
H*
ON
■vj
\3
O
a
to
Cn
u>
»
•
**
M
H>
o
M
•
No'
R
•
VO
W
CO
£3
n
H*
CL
•
n
H.
to
cn
O
•
cn
u>
(0
OJ
<j
ON
(D
cn
CJ
•
o>
to
XI
R
00
cn
Cn
VO
cn
to NJ
cn *" ON to
"*J CO to Orj
03
o
Cu
CO
H
til
O*
(D
4.-
(0
(0
O
rt)
M
0
O
(D
CO
00 VO CO M
N) cn !-• «^
f
o
c
o
rt
I
I
M I »
M to CO U>
*» ^ ON O
• • • •
»0 to -sJ -vi
cn cn cn cn
|a|
I
ON
CO
3
1
O
VO
o
cn
CO
to
CO V£>
Cn ^
O cn
D
O
ON
cn
Vyi cn
ON ON
CO
I
g.
H-
O
o
c
ft
n
o
§
VO
cn
(0
9
a
VO
to
T j
Table 5. Changes in agricultural and open land in five counties of
Massachusetts, 1951 - 1971.
County
Acres 1951
Acres 1971
Percent Change
Barnstable
42,257
22,754
-46.2
Bristol
73,701
56,134
-23.8
Dukes
14, £92
9,991
-32.9
Nantucket
8,102
12,730
+57.1
Plymouth
72,151
49,910
-30.8
W-35-R-20: III-2
Literature Cited: Bennitt, R. 1951. Some aspects of Missouri quail and
quail hunting, 1938-1948. llo. Cons. Coom. ,
Tech. Bull. 2, 51 pp
llacConnells IT. P. 1975. Renote sensing 20 years of
change in l-Iassachusetts, 1951/52 - 1971/ 72.
Ilass. Agric. Expt. Sta., Amherst, 79 pp
i'Torton, H. W. , T. G. Scott, W. R. Eanson and U. D. Klinstra
1961. TJhistling-cock indices and bobwhite popula-
tions in autunn. J. Wildl. Manage. 25(4): 398-403
Ripley, T. H. 1956. Annual whistle count census to determine
relative population densities and distribution,
llass. Div. Fish & Game, Uestboro. Project U-25-R-3,
Job I-A, Supplement 1, Table D.
Robel, R. J., D. J. Dick and G. F. Krause 1969.
Regression coefficients used to adjust bobwhite
quail whistle count data.
Rosene, U. 1969. The bobwhite quail: its life and
management. Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, 11. J.,
418 pp
MSSACHUSETTS DIVISIOIT OF FISrIERIES AiTD WILDLIFE
Bureau of VJildlife Research and iianagement
Approved :
Richard Croninj, Superintendent
Prepared by:
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
Date
^4 \ -^ -^ a_( ' \ *-' v^^ 1 _^ I, V ^ty / x fy{^
/_J-"
K^
State:
Project Title:
Project Type:
Period Covered;
PERFOj[y^iMpE i^EPORT
Massachusetts
Project Ko. W-3^-R-20
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 19TT to 31 May 1978
Work Plan IV
Work Plan Objective;
Job IV-1
Job Objective;
Summary :
Target Date:
Status of Progress:
Deviations :
Recommendations :
Wild Turkey Restoration Study
To re-establish the wild turkey in the Commonwealth
in sufficient numbers to allow for recreational
hunting.
Experimental Turkey Stocking
To re-establish the wild turkey in the Commonweeilth
in sufficient numbers to allow for recreational
hunting.
Turkey populations in the southern Berkshires remain
concentrated aroimd the Beartown State Forest area,
but dispersal continues to occur at a good rate,
except to the east. Turkeys continue to be re-
ported in northern Berkshire and Fremklin counties,
probably as a resiilt of influx from neighboring states.
31 May 1979
On schedule.
None.
1. Continue evaluation of the status and dispersal of
the turkeys in western Massachusetts. Institute standard-
ized spring gobbler routes as an index to breeding status.
Quantify site characteristics (slope, exposure, vegeta-
tion, wet areas) at the location of turkey/turkey track
reports to assist in predicting and evaluating potential
distribution.
Cost:
2. Investigate potential release sites in central and
west central Massachusetts. Consider a trap-and-trans-
plant release to one of these sites in 1978-79.
3. Request legislation amending or revising Section
75 of Chapter 131, which established a closed season on
tiirkeys . Regulatory control should be returned to the
Fisheries and Wildlife Board as a first step in per-
mitting an open season on turkeys .
$1,8^9.16 (project leader man days: l6)
Publication approved by Alfred C. Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#51^+6
W-35-R-20
Remarks: Procedures: Turkey abimdance was indexed by
roadside counts, track counts, and cooperator
reports. Snowmobiles were used during the winter
to provide access to the areas.
Findings : Turkeys continue to disperse from the
area of the Beartown release sites , with birds
reported from several towns in southern Berkshire
county. Dispersal is slowest to the east and
northeast, possibly as a reflection of increased
elevation and poorer winter habitat. Towns (statewide)
in which turkeys were reported during 1977-78 are
plotted in Figure 1.
A brood with several poults was observed on the east
side of Three- Mile Hill in summer 1977 and a hen with
two poults was seen nearby off Monument Valley Road
in Great Barrington in August 1977. Cooperators re-
ported a hen and 15 poults near the Mt. Wilcox Fire
Tower in Beartown Forest in early July 1977. Another
report from the same area later that month placed
the number of poults at ten.
Winter searches again disclosed a concentration of
turkeys along the southwest slope of Three-Mile Hill
in Great Barrington between Fountain Pond and Blue
Hill Road. Division personnel observed 21 turkeys
and counted tracks of four more in this area in late
February. Cooperators related an unverified observa-
tion of ill birds seen there in early March and another
second-hand report claimed a record of 50 turkeys
crossing Monument Valley Road, Just east of Three-
Mile Hill, in mid-March.
Tracks of about four turkeys were again located near
Konkapot Brook in Stockbridge, adjacent to Beartown
Forest , and two birds were reported near Monument
Valley Regional School in mid-February. Four turkeys
were seen by Division personnel in early February in
the beaver flowages near the old CCC Camp in Beartown.
One of these birds, a young hen, was captured by hand
and died soon afterwards. The bird was very emaciated
and was found to have the tips of its wing, base of
the tail, and area of the vent heavily fouled with bur-
dock seed heads. Upon back-tracking, we located a
large patch of burdock 0.2 km north, with the area in
and around the patch heavily tracked up by turkeys .
Forest personnel observed two to four adult turkeys
and about 12 poults on Beartown Road in Monterey in
August 1977. Two foxes, with kits nearby, reportedly
darted out and took 2-3 poiilts. Tracks of about seven
turkeys, probably some of the same as seen in August,
were found further north on Beartown Road, near East
Brook, in February 1978. Two turkeys were also seen
during deer week 1977 off Fairview Road in Monterey.
"O
CD
+-
L.
o
Cl
0)
I-
0)
l_
0)
s
CO
>-
0
ji:
L.
a
+-
"O
.
00
5
ON
^
—
U
—
>•
^
(0
5
S
E
1
•
C)
r-^
—
L.
r^
•»-
ON
0
—
1.
to
Z3
c
<D
CJ
$
C
—
O
3
<
(/>
UJ
q:
UJ
X
<^
u.
u.
o
z
o
>
o
W-35-R-20
An unstated number of turkeys were seen by
cooperators during deer week 1977 near Breakneck
Road in Tyringham, and tracks of two birds were
found in late March on the slope southwest of
Kayes Swamp. One torn was killed by an automobile
in February on Main road in Tyringham and the re-
mains of another torn (killed by car? killed by dog?)
were found in brush just off George Cannon Road.
To the south of Beartown, five turkeys were reported
near Three-Mile Pond in Sheffield in September 1977
and six near Brewer Hill Road in New Marlboro in
December. Twenty birds were reported near New Marlboro
Road in that town twice between deer week 1977 and
January 1978, and a single bird was seen near Tiiou-
sand Acre Swamp, New Marlboro, in December 1977.
Reports to the east of the Beartown area have been
few, perhaps reflecting higher elevations and more
stringent winter conditions . Single birds were
seen in Becket (September 1977) and twice in Washington
(July-August 1977). A single bird reported several,
times in Westfield in 1977-78 may represent an escaped
or illegally released bird (see W-35-R-19 performance
report). Reports of single birds or small groups in
Htmtington, Goshen, Westhampton, and Williamsburg are
well outside the known current occupied range and the
presence of turkeys in these towns, and their source,
needs to be ascertained.
To the west, reliable reports were received of 17-27
tiirkeys seen in AD.ford between late November and early
December 1977, and of 21 turkeys observed on Harvey
Mountain in West Stockbridge in November 1977. One
or two birds were also seen at several locations in
Lee, Lenox, Stockbridge, Lanesboro, Cheshire sind
Hancock during 1977-78.
T\irkeys continue to be reported from northern Berkshire
and Franklin counties , probably resulting from an in-
flux of birds from Vermont releases . Seven birds were
seen on the slopes of Mt. Greylock in New Ashford in
April 1978, and four to eight birds were seen at
different locations in Williamstown four timas between
September 1977 and April 1978. Twenty birds were re-
ported near Burlingame Road in Adams in January 1978,
though' field checks by Division personnel later that
month failed to verify it. Seven turkeys were re-
ported by a cooperator in Bernardston in October 1977
and six in Charlemont in April 1978. In Colrain, 10-
12 birds were reported off Rt. 112 in fall 1977, three
in late November, and 1U-I7 in February 1978. Single
birds or tracks were also reported from Northfield in
early 1978.
W-35-R-20
A fev reports further east may derive from range
expansion from releases in New Hampshire. A single
torn was seen feeding in a maniired field in Royal-
ston, Worcester County, in May 1978 and a single hen
was flushed from a roadside in Townsend, Middlesex
County, in September 19TT.
Turkeys continue to persist on Prescott Peninsula
in the Quabbin Reservation, with most of the sightings
concentrated on the lower half of the peninsula. Re-
ports from Division personnel and cooperators indi-
cate that broods were produced. Division personnel
observed 23 turkeys between Mt. Pleasant and Prescott
Brook road in October 19TT. This was probably a major-
ity of the population in that area.
Cooperators reported gobbling near Wachusett. Meadows
in Princeton in August 1977. There were no other
reports from the Barre area, nor from Douglas State
Forest .
Additional Activities:
The project leader gave one slide talk on the turkey
project.
Acknowledgements
I extend my appreciation to personnel of the Division
of Forests and Parks, Division of Law Enforcement,
Metropolitan District Connnission, and the University
of Massachusetts for their cooperation and assistance.
Prepared by;
Date;
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AIJD WILDLIFE
Bureau of Wildlife Research and Management
Approved :
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
t
U-f \ ^•O^ ''U • U-v .^j\j
/
PERFORllAUCE REPORT
State
Project Title:
Project Type:
Period Covered:
Work Plan VI
Work Plan Objectives
Job VI-1
Job Objective:
Summary :
Massachusetts
Project No.
W-35-R-20
Target Date:
Progress:
Deviations:
Reconmientations
Cost:
Game Population Trend and Harvest Survey
Research and Surveys
1 June 19TT to 31 May 19T8
Black Bear Study
To determine the range of the black bear in Massa-
chusetts and to define its population characteristics
and rate of harvest by hunting.
Black Bear Population Dynamics
To determine the range of the black bear in Massa-
chusetts and to define its population characteristics
and rate of harvest by hunting.
Applications for bear hunting permits were received
from UUl sportsmen. ITo bear were taken during the
open season. One road kill was reported. New reports
of 33 observations totalling 50 bear were received
from l8 towns.
31 May 1979
On Schedule
None
1. Continue evaluation of the bear harvest through
checking stations.
2. Surveys have been useful in the past as a means
of broadly determining occupied range, and, to a
lesser degree, population trends. Additional tech-
niques should now be employed, however, to more
closely monitor bear numbers. One potentially use-
ful index involves the use of scent station routes.
3. Continue collecting and aging teeth from harvested
and road-killed bear. If possible, also obtain female
reproductive tracts .
\. Investigate nuisance complaints as necessary.
$92U.65 (Project Leader man-days: 13)
Publication approved by Alfred C . Holland, State Purchasing Agent
#5lU6
W-35-R-20: VI-1
Remarks :
Procedures: Current bear hunting regulations in-
clude the mandatory reporting and tagging of har-
vested bears . Bear checking stations were maintained
daily during deer week at three locations: Birch Hill
Wildlife Management Area, Baldwinville : Bitzer State
Fish Hatchery, Montague; and Western Wildlife District
Headquarters, Pittsfield. Station personnel were
requested to affix a metal game seal to legally har-
vested bear, to remove a premolar tooth, and to record
the following information: town of kill, date killed,
sex and weight of bear, and method of kill.
The Infonnation and Education Section issued periodic
nevrs releases asking for reports of bear. Cooperating
agencies and individuals also reported sightings.
Findings ; Bear hunting permit applications were
received from i|i^l individuals during the 19TT hunting
season (Table l). No legal or illegal kills were
recorded. This lack of success was attributed to
lessened effort on the part of experienced hunters
and to probable early denning by the bears . Reports
from other New England states indicate that bears
did den early in those areas .
One male bear, weighing 73.5 kg. (l62 lbs.) was
killed by an automobile on 31 October 1977 on Route 2
in Charlemont, Franklin County.
Thirty- three (33) new reports totalling 50 bears were
received during this segment. These included 29
sightings, three reports of track or sign and one
road kill. Observations were made in l8 towns and
five counties. The increase in reports over 1976-77
can be partly attributed to additional effort on the
part of cooperators. The report from Douglas, Wor-
cester County, is the most southeasterly report re-
ceived since collation of sightings was begun in 1970.
Reports by county for the period 1952 to May 1978 are
presented in Table 2.
Family groups were reported in July and August 1977
from three locations , including a sow and three cubs
in Florida, and a sow and two cubs in both Savoy and
Hawley. Groups of bears not specifically described
as families were reported from Peru and Williamsburg.
Three nuisance bear complaints were received, in-
cluding one each concerning beehives, standing corn,
and goats. All reports were from Franklin County.
The goat predation was not verified.
The 1977 road kill was donated as a specimen to the
Museum at Northeastern University.
W-35-R-20: VI-1
Table 1. Number of Bear Permit Applications and Number of Bear Taken in
Massachusetts from 1970 to 19TT.
Year
No. Permits
1970
214
1971
200
1972
k23
1973
309
197^+
390
1975
U83
1976
i+30
1977
lilil
No. Bear Taken
2
3
3
Other Mortalities
1 illegal killi 1 road kill
1 illegal kill
1 road kill; 1 captured bear
1 road kill
2 illegal kills ; 3 captured bear
1 illegal kill; 1 road kill
1 road kill
Table 2, Reports of Black Bear by County for Massachusetts, 1932 to May 1978
County 2 .. 1932 - May 1976 1976-77 June 1977 - May 1978 Total Percent
Berkshire l62 3 22 I87 37.5
Franklin 167 k 6 177 35'. 5
Hampden 2k 1 1 26 5.2
Hampshire 78 U 3 85 17.0
Middlesex
Worcester
II
22
0
0
0
1
23
0.2
U.6
I+5U
12
33
i+99
100.0
W-35-R-20: VI-1
Additional Activities:
The project leader attended the Fourth Eastern Black
Bear Workshop in Greenville, Maine, and served as a
committee neinber for working papers on "Factors
Important for Determining Bear Season" and "Census
Techniques and Population Indices". Tvo radio and
one television interview on hears in I'lassachusetts were
presented. A fact sheet on bear was prepared for the
State Legislature in connection with a bill proposing
a closed season on bears in the Commonwealth. This
bill was reported out of committee unfavorably; however,
a resolution was passed authorizing the Division to
conduct further studies on bear.
Acknowledgements
I appreciate the assistance of the Division of Law
Enforcement in reporting sightings. Mr. Charles
Quinlan of Williamstown also deserves credit for
his interest and detailed reports.
Prepared by-
Date
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AI'ID WILDLIFE
Bureau of V^ildlife Research and Management
Approved:
Richard Cronin, Superintendent
James E. Cardoza
Game Biologist
^'^\d--^<^
ACME
BnnvoiNmNT, r.n inc.
Auii ziS 1984
10l-..->wiukIDG£ STREET
CHARLtlSTOWN, 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