Deer Pellet Survey Eldora Nature Preserve A Comparison of Two Years

By: Theresa Quelch

Page 2 of 13

Abstract
When looking into allowing hunting on the Eldora Nature Preserve, the Nature Conservancy needed to find some way to measure the effectiveness of such a hunt on the white tailed deer population. While searching for an answer to that question, The Nature Conservancy came across a study that could calculate the deer density by looking at deer pellets. This method called the Fecal Pellet Index (FPI) has been used many times in various wildlife preserves and nature parks around the world and seems to be adequate in its population estimation. The Nature Conservancy decided to try to follow the study and first obtained a baseline of deer populations during 2010. Once this was done they opened the preserve to hunting by a few select individuals and kept a log of the number of deer taken. Two years later in 2012, the deer pellet survey was done again and the results of the two studies were compared. This was done to see if there was any evidence that the hunt was successful on controlling deer populations, which would hopefully prove to be just as successful for controlling habitat destruction by the white tailed deer.

Introduction
When you think of a wildlife preserve or nature park in the north eastern parts of the United States, you most likely imagine that there will be white tailed deer hidden somewhere among the trees and shrubs. Indeed the white tailed deer is one of the most numerous animals in the north east (Miller, 1989), possibly only second to the grey squirrel. White tailed deer have come to be one of the most easily recognized animals by people no matter if they live in a city or in the country. That being said, these animals have managed to both pull at peoples heart strings as well as to induce a sense of sportsmanship, the combination of which could start a debate in almost any social circle (Sue Canale, Wildlife Biologist, Lecture Notes from Wildlife Management 2011). In truth, the white tailed deer is indeed a valuable animal in the habitats where it calls home. In fact it has even been considered a keystone species because of its invaluable impact on all the other species it the same habitat (Sue Canale). Without the presence of the white tailed deer most carnivores that inhabit those habitats would starve to death and become

Page 3 of 13

extinct. Likewise, the white tailed deer easily controls the growth of forest plants by browsing on them to obtain nutrition (Sue Canale). Unfortunately, as with any habitat in which people have invaded, there has been a breakdown of the natural system of the habitat in which the white tailed deer calls home. With the introduction of people and the building of neighborhoods, there is an increase in palatable and nutritious vegetation and a decrease of predators (Sue Canale). This situation has allowed the population of white tailed deer to explode and grow exponentially (Sue Canale). This imbalance, along with limited wild lands, has turned the white tailed deer into a detriment to those remaining wild tracks of land. This is because the white tailed deer has a habit of destroying preserved land by over browsing when their populations become too large in number (Sue Canale). When this happens wildlife managers must find some way to control those ever increasing numbers, before they completely destroy their own natural habitats and in the end themselves. This has not been an easy task for wildlife managers, because of the general disagreement on the best methods to reduce population numbers. Presently hunting remains the best practice available for population control (Sue Canale); however it is not always well received by the public. Taking public concerns into consideration, it is still up to the wildlife managers to find the best method of white tailed deer population control. To do this wildlife managers need to be able to compare the results of various population control methods. When looking at managing the population of deer in a given area, it is good to be able to determine if what you are doing is working or not. The best way to do this is to take a total count of the population before and then after management. However when speaking of populations of white tailed deer, it is difficult to imagine being able to capture and count every single deer in the specified population. Therefore the best thing to do is to find a way to sample the population and come up with a model to calculate the amount of deer that are in the specified area (Zar, 2009). After that has been done, wildlife managers can take a sample before and then after management and compare the results to see if the management actions have worked. The Nature Conservancy, which is an environmental group that seeks to protect wildlife and preserve natural habitats, has noticed that their local preserves are suffering from white tailed deer over population. Knowing that this issue could cause major problems and destruction of the habitat, they had decided to allow hunting on their preserves to help control the population. Hunters interested in the preserve hunting were required to attend a course and follow specific instructions (See Appendix). The scientists of the Nature Conservancy also decided to monitor the effects of the hunt by following the Fecal Pellet Index study of David Forsyth.

Page 4 of 13

Methods
For this deer pellet survey we followed David Forsyths study: Protocol for estimating changes in the relative abundance of deer in New Zealand forests using the Fecal Pellet Index (Forsyth,2005), with minor variation. Some of the things we did differently were to cut the total transect to 100 m instead of 150 m. This change was made because of the limited range of the study area at the Eldora Nature Preserve. In 2010, thirty transect starting points were randomly assigned along the three trails of the Eldora Nature Preserve. These starting points were marked both with a piece of pink tape that had clearly written transect numbers on it and with the use of a GPS system. In that same year the transect starting points were used to follow a 100 m transect line north of the starting point. Sample areas were taken at intervals of 5 m along the transect line, using a system of two stakes tied to a 5 m line which was marked on both sides exactly 1 m from the stake. The area that the deer pellets were searched for was only in a 1 m radius around the point at which the stake was located. The number of piles and the number of pellets per pile were counted and recorded for each 1 m area located every 5 m along a 100 m northern transect line from the path, at the randomly selected starting points. If an obstacle of significant size was reached, then the protocol said to turn the transect 90 degrees, so that if you were heading north you would be heading east when an obstacle was reached. Once that had been done the data was briefly analyzed using Excel to calculate the Fecal Pellet Index (FPI) (Forsyth, 2005). The process was repeated at the same transect starting points in 2012. Once both studies were done the results were analyzed and compared using Excel and an Excel add on called bootstrapping. This method followed the method in David Forsyths study (Forsyth, 2005). Comparing the results using statistical analysis of the means, it was easy to see that there was a difference in deer density between the two years. From this information we will be able to draw conclusions on whether the hunt was successful in reducing the deer population. This study will also allow the Nature conservancy to decide if they need another hunt, or if the population is sufficiently below the carrying capacity for the Eldora Preserve.

Page 5 of 13

Map

Page 6 of 13

Results
Transect results for 2010 study:

Transect
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Pellet Total
31 0 0 11 0 0 No data No data 63 106 0 0 3 0 34

Transect
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Pellet Total
0 0 2 196 9 298 No data 43 0 0 0 0 57 0 0

Bootstrapping
Mean Variance

Results
Lower Confidence Limit Upper Confidence Limit

31.61

168.48

3.48

79.63

From the data above, it is easy to see that the mean FPI for the 2010 study was 31.6 with a 95% confidence interval of 9.9-60.3. This means that there is a greater than 5% chance due to random sampling error alone that the FPI for 2010 is true. Therefore I have failed to reject that 31.6 is the FPI for 2010.

Page 7 of 13

Transect results for 2012 study:

Transect
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Pellet Total
0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 63 76 0 2

Transect
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Pellet Total
0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 40 87

Bootstrapping
Mean Variance

Results
Lower Confidence Limit Upper Confidence Limit

15.50

30.17

5.73

26.87

From the above data, it is easy to see that the mean FPI for the 2012 study was 15.5 with a 95% confidence interval of 5.7-26.9. This means that there is a greater than 5% chance due to random sampling error alone that the FPI for 2012 is true. Therefore I have failed to reject that 15.5 is the FPI for 2012.

Page 8 of 13

Comparison Results for 2010 and 2012:

Comparison of results for two years

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Transect points 2010 2012

From the above table, it can be seen that there was a big difference on the location of the deer pellets from one year to the next.

Total pellets counted

Transect
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Density Change
-3.47 0 4.66 -2.48 0 0 N/A N/A -4.16 -0.74 0 4.16 2.96 0 -2.46

Transect
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Density Change
0 0 -1.10 -5.28 -2.30 -4.09 N/A -3.78 0 0 3.71 0 -4.06 3.71 4.46

Page 9 of 13

Comparison Bootstrapping
Mean Variance

Results
Lower Confidence Limit -1.28 0.28 -72.28 Upper Confidence Limit 0.64 1.90 89.55

r Lambda= er % change =(er-1)*100

-0.34 0.71 -28.73

0.24

1.27 27.13

The negative sign tells us that there was a decrease in the FPI while a positive number tells there was an increase in the FPI. From the data above, we can see that there is a mean FPI difference from the 2010 study to the 2012 study is -0.34. The confidence interval is -1.28 to 0.64. This means that there is a greater than 5% chance due to random sampling error alone that the mean difference in FPI for the two years is true. Therefore, I fail to reject that -0.34 is the FPI difference between the two years.

Discussion
Looking over the results we can see that there is indeed a change in the overall total of deer pellets found as well as where the pellets were found. The difficulty is in that there was very little statistically significant difference in the rates and percentages of change. The fact that the confidence interval was so large and contained both results for an increase and a decrease in the FPI made analysis difficult. . There is a good possibility that the data itself could have had some minor problems. One such problem was that according to Forsyth, it would be ideal to have the same observers for all years of study (Forsyth, 2005). He goes on to explain that there are variations among observers and that could be a confounding factor that could be easily eliminated. Forsyth also suggests that anyone doing the survey should undergo some sort of training to help minimize some of that variation among observers. Other studies debate the correlation of the FPI to the total number of deer in the population (Fuller, 1991) Another possible confounding factor to the study could be time of year and weather variation. It has been well noted that 2012 has been an interesting year with a warm winter and little to no rain. What if any effects this could have on white tailed deer activity is unknown;

Page 10 of 13

however it could play a part in the variation we have seen in pellet locations. A warmer winter could also have affected the normal eating habits of the white tailed deer in the area. No snow and cold has allowed for fields to have some vegetation, and this could be cutting back the number of deer and the frequency of the deer to be in the more forested areas, such as the Eldora Nature Preserve. Finally, possibly the most important area for confounding factors is the ruminate digestion system in and of itself. There was some research that states that it can take up to 1520 hours for the initial digestion of the first stomach of a ruminate ( Ingalls, Tesar, carpenter, 1994). It could be that the sample area is where the deer spend more of their digestion time and little of the defecation happens there. More research into white tailed deer digestion and behavior is needed. This being said I would conclude that more studies are needed in the future to better monitor the situation. Doing more studies will help to better understand the effects of hunting on the white tailed deer population.

References
Forsyth, David.2005. Protocol for estimating changes in the relative abundance of deer in New Zealand forests using the Fecal Pellet Index (FPI). Department of Conservation Fuller, Todd.1991.Do pellet counts index white tailed deer numbers and population change? Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3):393-396
Ingalls JR, Thomas JW, Tesar MG, Carpenter DL. 1994 Relations between ad libitum intake of several forage species and gut fill. Journal of Animal Science. 25(2):283-289

Miller, F.L. 1989.White Tailed Deer. Retrieved 4/12/2012 from Hinterland Whos who.
http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/DOE/3%20-%20Hinterland%20Who's%20Who%20-%20Whitetailed%20Deer.htm

Zar,Jarrold.2009. Biostatistical Analysis. Peasron Publishing, in Illinois

Page 11 of 13

Appendix
Deer Hunting Report for The Nature Conservancys New Jersey Delaware Bayshores Program, hunting season 2011-2012

This data represents the totals for our 2011-2012 Deer hunting program. There were six preserves, Eldora, Indian Trail Swamp, Lizard Tail Swamp, Lummis Ponds, Gandys Beach and Willow Grove Lake. The program consisted of open hunts where there was no limit of hunters and permitted hunts where only one hunter per 20 acres was allowed. Gandys beach data was lost due to someone stealing the sign in box and all data sheets. Summary of DBP hunting program:
The Nature Conservancy Delaware Bayshores Program allows hunting on select preserves in order to maintain or restore the integrity of sensitive species and biological communities. At many of our sites, deer populations have grown beyond the ability of the natural communities to support them. By controlling deer populations, a carefully managed hunting program serves as a tool to reduce the damage that deer can cause, allowing natural communities to support a broader range of diversity.

General hunting program guidelines

Interested hunters had to attend a hunter orientation to be eligible to hunt on TNC lands. Open, No Limit = All interested hunters attending an orientation meeting were issued a permit Limited Hunt = A limited number of permits were issued (based roughly on size of preserve/parcel). o Selected hunters were notified and issued a permit prior to the start of the hunting season. TNC Preserve Location Type of Hunt Zone Permit Type Eldora Nature Preserve Gandy's Beach Preserve
New for 2011!

Cape May County

Bow, Firearm

34 30 34 34

Open, No Limit Limit by Acre Open, No Limit Limit by Acre

Cumberland Bow, Firearm County Cape May County Cape May County Bow, Firearm Bow, Firearm

Indian Trail Swamp Preserve Lizard Tail Swamp Preserve Lummis Ponds Preserve & Lummis II New for 2011! Willow Grove Lake Preserve New for 2011!

Cumberland Bow, Firearm County Gloucester, Bow, Firearm Cumberland County

30/43 Limit by Acre 28 Open, No Limit

Page 12 of 13

Hunters were required to: Sign in and out of preserve each time they access the property Record any wildlife observations and harvest data Use only designated parking areas and access points The following activities were not permitted by hunters on TNC preserves: Use of ATVs Permanent blinds, stands or structures Use of screw steps in trees Killing of animals other than specifically described in the hunting agreement (ex. coyotes) Trapping or snaring

Hunters also had to follow state hunting rules and regulations regarding permits, bag limits, safety buffers, etc. In addition, site specific restrictions on baiting for or driving of deer Measures of Success In order to evaluate the effectiveness of hunting on each TNC preserve, the following examples of measures of success will be used: 1. Threat Abatement: At each preserve where hunting is primarily for the purpose of threat abatement, the following measure of effectiveness will be conducted Ratio of does to bucks harvested should be greater than 1:1 overall harvest data for the preserve Note: at some preserves, the prescribed ratio may be higher to be determined by State of New Jersey Deer Management Zones. This ratio will be determined from reported harvest data. Privilege to hunt to following year will be partly based on each hunter achieving this doe to buck ratio. Deer pellet index surveys At each preserve, transects will be established based on the protocol outlined in (need ref. to New Zealand paper). These surveys will be conducted by trained staff and/or volunteers and the data updated annually. Success will be achieved when the index declines over three consecutive years.

2. Cultural/traditional At each preserve two measures will be evaluated for success: Level of interest as measured by number of applications submitted A lack of cultural interest or need would be indicated by decreasing levels of hunter applications Hunter comments Hunters and the hunting community will be encouraged to give us their feedback and suggestions at every interaction. A decrease in the number of negative feedback will determine the overall acceptance of this program.

Page 13 of 13

Deer Hunting data 2011-2012

Preserves hunted Acres hunted Individual hunters Hunting clubs Hunting trips Hours hunted Deer Harvested Bucks harvested Does Harvested Doe to buck ratio Deer seen

Total 6

Total 2800

Total 86

Total 1

Total 439

Total 1165.2

Total 54

Total 11

Total 43

3.9 to 1

Total 757

Total of hunter volunteer work hours completed, There are three pending work parties, total hours will be added after completion of all work days. Conclusion: Threat abatement: Our goal was to have at least a 1:1 doe to buck ratio, with a 3.9 :1 ratio we far exceeded our expectations. The deer pellet surveys will be examined after the completion of a few more years of data collection, this will show if the hunting program is having an effect on our deer populations.
Cultural/traditional:

More data from next year will be needed to quantify these numbers. After fielding many phone calls and emails for new hunters wanting to be involved in this program I believe we will exceed our goals for measuring success.