1 / 13

Harvest and Survival Rates of Gobblers in NY, OH, and PA

Investigating harvest, survival, and reporting rates of juvenile and adult turkeys in NY, OH, and PA. Band recovery design for estimating loss rates. Preliminary rates show variation by age, state, and year. Manuscript 'in press' with JWM.

wchristie
Download Presentation

Harvest and Survival Rates of Gobblers in NY, OH, and PA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Harvest and SurvivalRates of Gobblers in NY, OH, and PA Duane R. Diefenbach U.S. Geological Survey Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit Pennsylvania State University Mary Jo Casalena – Pennsylvania Game Commission Robert Boyd– Pennsylvania Game Commission Mike Reynolds – Ohio Division of Wildlife Michael Schiavone – New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation Bryan Swift - New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation

  2. Objectives • For both juveniles and adults • Spring harvest rate (H) • Annual survival (S) • Reporting rate (r) • Landscape factors related to harvest and survival • Loss rate of butt-end bands

  3. Study Design • Band recovery design • Reward bands used to ensure 100% reporting by hunters to estimate harvest rate (H) • Nonreward bands increase sample size and allow estimation of reporting rate (r)

  4. Study Design • Birds trapped in winter and banded as widely distributed as possible across study area • 150 reward bands per state per year • 150+ nonreward bands/state/yr • Birds banded over four years 2006-09

  5. 2008 2006 and 2007 Banding Locations Circles represent 20-mile buffer areas surrounding each capture location

  6. Study Design • Estimating Band Loss Rates • 4 types of butt-end bands • Aluminum • Aluminum – anodized • Aluminum – enameled • Stainless steel

  7. Study Design • Rivet bands assumed to have no loss

  8. Three Years of Banding (1 to go!)

  9. PreliminaryHarvest and Survival Rates • Vary by age, state, and year • Harvest Rates • Adults – 27-53%, avg 38% • Juveniles – 10-23%, avg 18% • Annual Survival Rates • Adults – 20-35%, avg 28% • Juveniles – 66-90%, avg 70%

  10. PreliminaryReporting Rates • Do not vary by year or state • Adults – 87.2% • Juveniles – 77.2%

  11. Butt-end Band Loss • Manuscript is ‘in press’ with JWM • Based on 887 turkeys recovered 31-570 days after banding • Stainless (SS) bands better than aluminum (Al) • Adults have greater loss rates • Overall band loss of both Al and SS unacceptable

  12. Butt-end Band Retention Rates

  13. Status of Project • Ohio has withdrawn from study • NY and PA trapping winter 2009 for final year of study • Data collection concludes July 2009 • Final report due Dec 2009

More Related