Deer and elk management analysis guide, 1992-94
Read Online
Share

Deer and elk management analysis guide, 1992-94

  • 939 Want to read
  • ·
  • 32 Currently reading

Published by Colorado Division of Wildlife in [Fort Collins] .
Written in English

Subjects:

Places:

  • Colorado.

Subjects:

  • Mule deer -- Colorado.,
  • White-tailed deer -- Colorado.,
  • Red deer -- Colorado.,
  • Wildlife management -- Colorado.

Book details:

Edition Notes

Statementby David J. Freddy ... [et al.] ; edited by Nancy Wild McEwen.
SeriesDivision report / Colorado Division of Wildlife,, no. 17, Division report (Colorado. Division of Wildlife) ;, no. 17.
ContributionsFreddy, David J., McEwen, Nancy W.
Classifications
LC ClassificationsQL737.U55 D3945 1993
The Physical Object
Pagination77 p. :
Number of Pages77
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL1049332M
LC Control Number93622281

Download Deer and elk management analysis guide, 1992-94

PDF EPUB FB2 MOBI RTF

  Deer do not pull seedlings as frequently as elk and their damage rarely occurs above 6 feet. Damage Management Methods Planting seedlings immediately after a site is disturbed (e.g., by harvesting the trees) before ungulates become accustomed to foraging in that area—economical but not always feasible; ineffective where surrounding areas. Deer and elk management analysis guide, – Colorado Division of Wildlife Division Report ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Deer and elk. We have no long-term strategic plan for elk. We do have a "Deer and Elk Management Analysis Guide" that details the period from STATEWIDE POPULATION TREND/ESTIMATE: The population trend has been declining for the past years. Presently, the goal is to maintain a poshunt population of appmJrimately , elk.   Foraging niche overlap among Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), Rocky Mountain mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus), and cattle (Bos taurus) was studied for 2 years on 37 ha of nonforested foothill and mountain habitat in northwestern istological analysis was used to quantify botanical composition of ungulate diets from monthly fecal collections.

  Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 29 () Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam Assessing cumulative impacts to elk and mule deer in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho T.A. O'Neil* and G.W. Witmer** Energy and Environmental Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Portland, OR (U.S.A. ABSTRACT O'Neil, T.A. and Witmer, G.W.,   With 25 years of professional deer management experience, the author shows how to manage deer to their best potential. Whilst much deer management can result in a harassed and pressured deer population, this invaluable guide demonstrates how a more gentle approach has the benefit of an unstressed, visible and truly manageable population of s:   Deer & Turkey Management Beyond Food Plots – Your Guide To Forest Management, Oaks, Fruits, Minerals, Predators & More by Karl Kammermeyer & Reggie Jackson: As mentioned earlier, food plots are a topic of great interest and because of that, there are many resources devoted to them. That said, there is much more to habitat management than food. Montana elk unit Leaders. Policy & Regulation. Community Banking. Search Query Submit Search. Log In. Subscribe. Montana elk unit montana elk unit MT. Please contact [email protected].

  Mike Eastman's book is pretty fantastic and entertaining very interesting from a historical standpoint. Dwight Schuh's book, Hunting Open Country Mule Deer is my favorite mule deer book. He's a tremendous writer and I've read this book 5 times. I need to read it again soon. He wrote an elk book called Bugling For Elk that is just kinda ok. deer, bluebirds, cottontails and frogs, a good management choice is to offer a mix of cover types. Smaller landholdings may not be large enough to provide a diversity of cover. Find out what habitat is missing in your area that will attract the wildlife species you are interested in having on your property. least eaten by elk during winter at 12 percent of the diet, Table 1—Mean percent plant content in feces found within the 18 and 13 sampling sites for mule deer and elk, respectively, on the Mount Haggin Wildlife Management Area, (T = species cover Deer Elk Grasses Wheatgrasses Agropyron spp. In a study done by Kenneth L. Hamlin et al. of the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2)) accuracy rates of cementum annuli were % for elk through % for mule deer through and % for white-tailed deer through 9 years old.