White-Tailed Deer Management on Private Lands in Arkansas Picture Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Washington D. C. Library, Washington, District of Columbia. Submitted to: Wildlife Management Division Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Submitted by: Bret A. Collier and David G. Krementz USGS Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Biological Sciences University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 October 2003
124
Embed
White-Tailed Deer Management on Private Lands in Arkansas Camp Report.pdfwhite-tailed deer management on private lands. This study provides the AGFC with an evaluation of hunt camp
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
White-Tailed Deer Management on Private Lands in Arkansas
Picture Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Washington D. C. Library, Washington, District of Columbia.
Submitted to: Wildlife Management Division
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
Submitted by: Bret A. Collier and David G. Krementz
USGS Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Biological Sciences
University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701
October 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current goal of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission’s (AGFC) deer program is
to “maintain a healthy deer herd with a balanced sex and age structure at a level that is consistent
with long-term habitat capability and to maintain deer populations and parameters at levels that
are consistent with public satisfaction and acceptance.” To achieve this goal, the AGFC must
apply harvest management strategies that develop and sustain white-tailed deer populations,
while maximizing hunter satisfaction. Too, the AGFC must manage the deer herd at biological
and socially acceptable levels.
In the United States, about 82% of sportsmen hunt on private lands (U.S. Department of
Interior 2001) while in the southeastern United States, about 90% of the forested land is under
private ownership (Powell et al. 1994). Lack of available public lands for wildlife related
recreation and increased hunter interest in managing white-tailed deer (Woods et al. 1996) has
increased hunter involvement in hunting organizations on private lands. In Arkansas, about 95%
of annual legal harvest occurs on private lands (D. Harris, AGFC, personal communication).
Since ~90% of Arkansas is privately owned (Smith et al. 1998), the AGFC only controls the site-
specific harvest management regulations on <1% of the total state land. Because white-tailed
deer harvests on private lands are usually more intensively managed than those on public lands
(Carpenter 2000), comprehensive white-tailed deer management requires knowledge of deer
management practices in use on private lands.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
1. Provide a baseline to enable the AGFC to track and evaluate hunt camps participating
in the Arkansas Deer Camp Program (DCP).
2
2. Provide an assessment of harvest and habitat management practices in use by hunt
camps registered in the Arkansas DCP.
3. Determine DCP participant’s level of interest in AGFC management assistance
programs and deer management information.
4. Identify and evaluate differences in implementation of harvest and habitat
management practices by Deer Camp Program participants.
5. Identify possible program actions for the AGFC to assist hunt camps on private lands
with white-tailed deer management.
METHODS In September 2000, we mailed a questionnaire to hunt camp contacts for each white-
tailed deer hunt camp registered in the Arkansas DCP (n=3,189). A second mailing was sent to
all non-respondents 4 weeks later. A follow-up evaluating non-response bias was not conducted.
The response rate adjusted for non-deliverable surveys was 38% (1,184 responding hunt camps).
Camp contacts were asked to provide information on: 1) their classification (land owner,
land manager, camp manager), 2) location and acreage of hunt camp, 3) property type of hunt
Across Arkansas, except for AGFC seminars, all forms of delivery method of deer
management information were rated about the same (high) based on median scores (Table 54).
In each DMU, respondents were usually less interested in AGFC seminars (M=3) than other
categories, but there was little difference among other categories (Tables 55 - 58).
Goals and Future Management Options
The current goal of the AGFC deer program is to “maintain a healthy deer herd with a
balanced sex and age structure at a level that is consistent with long-term habitat capability and
to maintain deer populations and parameters at levels that are consistent with public satisfaction
and acceptance.” We asked respondents whether they felt that the AGFC was doing a good job
of managing the white-tailed deer herd to meet this objective. Eighty percent of respondents felt
that the AGFC was doing a good job of managing the statewide deer herd to meet these goals
(Table 59).
Hunt Camp State Management Options Summary
43
Across Arkansas, 35% of hunt camps felt that expanding educational efforts for hunters
and hunt camps on deer management assistance for private lands was the most important
management option for the AGFC, while 30% felt that increased antlerless hunting opportunities
was the most important management option (Table 60). Few hunt camps ranked reduction in
buck season length (15%), buck bag limit (12%), or hunting permit quotas for bucks (7%) as the
most important future management option. Expanding educational efforts on deer management
assistance for private lands had the highest median rank (M=2) across Arkansas (Table 60). In
each DMU, expanding educational efforts for hunters and hunt camps on deer management
assistance for private lands had the highest median rank (M=2) followed by increased deer
research and increased public information on proper deer management techniques (M=3) (Tables
61-64). Respondents typically gave lower ranks for future management option that regulated or
restricted harvest of antlered white-tailed deer (M≥6 in each DMU, Tables 61-64).
Hunt Camp Wildlife Related Recreation and Public Hunting
Forty percent of hunt camps offered wildlife observation and had on average 10
individuals involved, while 34% of respondents had fishing on their camps with an average of 9
individuals involved (Table 65). Most hunt camps (82%) allowed guests of hunt camp members
to harvest antlerless deer on camp properties (Table 66).
Hunt Camp Problems and Concerns Summary
Thirty-two percent of hunt camps felt that illegal hunting (poaching) and trespassing were
the greatest problems on their hunt camp property (Table 67). Hunt camps commonly stated that
unauthorized hunting of deer (30%) and non-members hunting near camp boundaries (30%)
were the greatest problems on their hunt camp. Few hunt camps ranked hunter safety (7%)
among the greatest problems on hunt camp properties. In each DMU, hunt camp problems were
44
illegal hunting (M=3), followed by trespassing (M=2 or 3), and unauthorized hunting (M=3)
(Tables 68-71, respectively). In each DMU, there was little concern of respondents for hunter
safety (M=7), and unauthorized hunting of other wildlife (M=5) (Tables 68-71).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and the
Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, under University of Arkansas
Institutional Review Board Protocol # 02174. We thank A. Marston for her administrative
assistance. We thank G. R. Woods and D. C. Guynn for providing example survey instruments.
We thank R. A. James, F. L. Loncarich, M. Cartwright, and D. Urbston for providing valuable
assistance and comments on survey design. We thank N. Myatt for assistance in figure creation.
We thank J. E. Dunn and G. Petris for assistance with statistical analysis and interpretation.
Model selection and interpretation was greatly facilitated by a SAS macro written by W. L.
Thompson. None of this could have been possible without the hunt camps involvement in this
study and assistance from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission staff.
.
45
LITERATURE CITED
Agresti, A. 1996. Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New
York.
Akaike, H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle.
Pages 267-281 in B. N. Petroc and F. Csaki, editors. Second international Symposium on
Information Theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.
Allison, P. D. 1999. Logistic regression using the SAS system: A practical guide. SAS Institute,
Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
Anderson, D. R., K. P. Burnham, and W. L Thompson. 2000. Null hypothesis testing:
problems, prevalence, and a alternative. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:912-918.
Buckland, S. T., K. P. Burnham, and N. H. Augustin. 1997. Model selection: an integral part of
inference. Biometrics 53: 603-618.
Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: a
practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.
Carpenter, L. H. 2000. Harvest management goals. Pages 192-213 in S. Demarais and P. R.
Krausman, editors. Ecology and management of large mammals in North America.
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hurvich, C. M., and C. L. Tsai. 1989. Regression and times series model selection in small
samples. Biometrika 76: 297-307.
Messmer, T. A., C. E. Dixon, W. Shields, S. C. Barras, and S. A. Schroeder. 1998. Cooperative
wildlife management units: achieving hunter, landowner, and wildlife management
agency objectives. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:325-332.
46
Mood, A. M., F. A. Graybill, and D. C. Boes. 1974. Introduction to the theory of statistics. 3rd
Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc, Boston, Massachusetts.
Moore, D. S., and G. P. McCabe. 1993. Introduction into the practice of statistics. 2nd Edition.
W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, New York.
Powell, D. S., J. L. Faulkner, D. R. Darr, Z. Zhu, and D. W. MacCleery. 1994. Forest resources
of the United States, 1992. General Technical Report RM-234, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Royall, R. 1997. Statistical evidence: a likelihood paradigm. Chapman and Hall, New York,
New York.
SAS Institute, Inc. 2000. SAS language reference dictionary. Version 8. SAS Institute, Inc.,
Cary, North Carolina.
Smith, K. G., R. S. Dzur, D. G. Catanzaro, M. E. Gardner, and W. F. Limp. 1998. The Arkansas
GAP Analysis Project: Final Report. Center for Advance Spatial Technologies,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
United States Department of the Interior. 2001. National survey of hunting, fishing, and
wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census Bureau Washington, D.C., USA.
Woods, G. R., D. C. Guynn, W. E. Hammitt, and M. E. Patterson. 1996. Determinants of
participant satisfaction with quality deer management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:318-
324.
47
Statewide Regulations Buck Bag Limit, Antler Restrictions
Regional (DMU) Regulations Doe Bag Limit, Season Length
Zone (DMZ) Regulations Season Length
Permit/Quota on WMAs, NWRs Private Land Regulations
Mandatory Doe / Restricted Buck Inter Zone Regulations
Figure 1. Hierarchical structure of deer harvest regulation in Arkansas. Regulations at large
scales are typically broad (e.g. bag limits and season lengths) and more restrictive at smaller
scales (e.g. permit hunts on wildlife management areas).
48
Figure 2. Delineation of Arkansas Deer Management Units (DMUs) used in this study.
49
Table 1. Form, notation, and description of candidate models used to estimate log-odds between response categories for hunt camp
contact survey question on white-tailed deer harvest management strategies in excess of state regulations in Arkansas.
Model Form Model Notation Model Description
)QDM(ˆ)DMU(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 3210i
i β+β+β+β=
−
QDM DMU, Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership status1,
deer management unit2, and QDM3 strategy
)DMU(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 210i
i β+β+β=
−
DMU Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership status and
deer management unit
)QDM(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 210i
i β+β+β=
−
QDM Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership status and
QDM strategy
)QDM(ˆ)DMU(ˆˆp1
pln 210i
i β+β+β=
−
QDM Region,Π Log-odds differ by deer management unit and
QDM strategy
)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 10i
i β+β=
−
ProptypeΠ Log-odds differ by property ownership status
)DMU(ˆˆp1
pln 10i
i β+β=
−
DMUΠ Log-odds differ by deer management unit
)QDM(ˆˆp1
pln 10i
i β+β=
−
QDM Π Log-odds differ by QDM strategy
1 Property Ownership Categories: Private Owned by Camp Members, Privately Owned Leased Land, and Industry Land. 2 Deer Management Unit Categories: Ozarks, Ouachitas, Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAV), and Gulf Coastal Plain (GCP). 3 QDM Strategy Categories: Under QDM or Not Under QDM.
50
Table 2. Form, notation, and description of candidate models used to estimate log-odds between response categories for hunt camp
contact question on white-tailed deer habitat management practices used by hunt camps in Arkansas.
Model Form Model Notation Model Description
Acre)(ˆ)QDM(ˆ)DMU(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 43210
i
i β+β+β+β+β=
−
Acre QDM, DMU, Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status1, deer management unit2, QDM3
strategy and hunt camp size4
Acre)(ˆ)DMU(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 3210i
i β+β+β+β=
−
Acre DMU, Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status, deer management unit, and hunt
camp size
QDM)(ˆ)DMU(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 3210
i
i β+β+β+β=
−
QDM DMU, Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status, deer management unit, and
QDM strategy
)Acre(ˆ)DMU(ˆˆp1
pln 210
i
i β+β+β=
−
Acre DMU,Π Log-odds differ by deer management
unit and hunt camp size
)Acre(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 210
i
i β+β+β=
−
Acre Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status and hunt camp size
DMU)(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 210
i
i β+β+β=
−
DMU Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status and Deer Management Unit
)DMU(ˆˆp1
pln 10
i
i β+β=
−
DMUΠ Log-odds differ by deer management
unit
51
)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 10
i
i β+β=
−
Proptype Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status
1 Property Ownership Categories: Private Owned by Camp Members, Privately Owned Leased Land, and Industry Land. 2 Deer Management Unit Categories: Ozarks, Ouachitas, Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAV), and Gulf Coastal Plain (GCP). 3 QDM Strategy Categories: Under QDM or Not Under QDM. 4 Hunt Camp Size Categories: < 1000ac, 1000 – 3000ac, > 3000ac.
52
Table 3. Form, notation, and description of candidate models used to estimate log-odds between response categories for hunt camp
contact survey question on Arkansas Game and Fish Commission management assistance program interest in Arkansas.
Model Form Model Notation Model Description
)Biologist(ˆ)Contact(ˆ
)QDM(ˆ)DMU(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln
54
3210i
i
β+β
+β+β+β+β=
−
Biologist Contact, QDM, DMU, Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status1, deer management unit2, QDM3
strategy, contact type4, and biologist
contact5
)Contact(ˆ)DMU(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 3210
i
i β+β+β+β=
−
Contact DMU, Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status, deer management unit, and
contact type
)DMU(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 210
i
i β+β+β=
−
DMU Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status and deer management unit
)Contact(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 210i
i β+β+β=
−
Contact Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status and contact type
)Contact(ˆ)DMU(ˆˆp1
pln 210
i
i β+β+β=
−
Contact DMU,Π Log-odds differ by deer management
unit and contact type
53
)QDM(ˆ)DMU(ˆˆp1
pln 210
i
i β+β+β=
−
QDM DMU,Π Log-odds differ by deer management
unit and QDM strategy
)QDM(ˆ)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 210
i
i β+β+β=
−
QDM Proptype,Π Log-odds differ by property ownership
status and QDM strategy
)Proptype(ˆˆp1
pln 10i
i β+β=
−
ProptypeΠ Log-odds differ by property ownership
status
)DMU(ˆˆp1
pln 10
i
i β+β=
−
DMUΠ Log-odds differ by deer management
unit
)Biologist(ˆˆp1
pln 10i
i β+β=
−
BiologistΠ Log-odds differ by biologist contact
)QDM(ˆˆp1
pln 10i
i β+β=
−
QDMΠ Log-odds differ by QDM strategy
1 Property Ownership Categories: Private Owned by Camp Members, Privately Owned Leased Land, and Industry Land. 2 Deer Management Unit Categories: Ozarks, Ouachitas, Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAV), and Gulf Coastal Plain (GCP). 3 QDM Strategy Categories: Under QDM or Not Under QDM. 4 Contact Type Categories: Landowner, Land manager, Camp manager. 5 Biologist Contact Categories: Work with Biologist or Do Not Work with Biologist
54
Table 4. County level frequency, total acreage, and mean acreage (SE) of responding hunt
camps in Arkansas.
County No. Responding Camps Total Acres Mean Acreage (SE)
Arkansas 21 28,143 1,340 (242)
Ashley 63 91,477 1,452 (115)
Baxter 6 5,994 999 (146)
Benton 1 1,400 1,400 (---)
Boone 4 7,800 1,950 (523)
Bradley 48 97,960 2,040 (237)
Calhoun 41 70,884 1,728 (200)
Carroll 3 2,673 891 (207)
Chicot 13 35,355 2,719 (541)
Clark 62 88,372 1,425 (145)
Clay 0 0 0
Cleburne 11 13,222 1,202 (288)
Cleveland 44 62,532 1,421 (177)
Columbia 32 42,139 1,316 (161)
Conway 14 13,880 991 (235)
Craighead 0 0 0
Crawford 1 563 563 (---)
Crittenden 2 12,200 6,100 (5,900)
Cross 1 700 700 (---)
Dallas 52 89,746 1,725 (204)
Desha 23 45,786 1,990 (346)
Drew 47 65,884 1,401 (161)
Faulkner 6 6,336 1,056 (232)
Franklin 1 410 410 (---)
Fulton 29 30,325 1,045 (135)
Garland 6 12,635 2,105 (818)
Grant 26 60,142 2,313 (425)
Greene 0 0 0
55
Hempstead 27 29,093 1,077 (154)
Hot Springs 10 21,711 2,171 (386)
Howard 12 61,781 5,148 (2,870)
Independence 15 19,861 1,324 (293)
Izard 35 40,211 1,148 (173)
Jackson 2 6,400 3,200 (2,800)
Jefferson 8 11,869 1,483 (273)
Johnson 5 4,589 917 (231)
Lafayette 15 19,623 1,308 (289)
Lawrence 11 12,163 1105 (256)
Lee 1 10,000 10,000 (---)
Lincoln 26 22,425 862 (154)
Little River 9 13,972 1,552 (490)
Logan 6 4,770 795 (164)
Lonoke 4 2,425 606 (165)
Madison 9 7,456 828 (200)
Marion 6 6,044 1007 (222)
Miller 4 3,617 904 (338)
Mississippi 1 1,200 1,200 (---)
Monroe 7 8,586 1,226 (230)
Montgomery 2 1,000 500 (200)
Nevada 34 51,084 1,502 (199)
Newton 1 1,540 1,540 (---)
Ouachita 44 67,572 1,535 (164)
Perry 4 16,876 4,219 (1,434)
Phillips 5 16,212 3,242 (1,377)
Pike 9 14,182 1,575 (352)
Poinsett 1 1,386 1,386 (---)
Polk 5 16,747 3,349 (1,707)
Pope 4 1,179 294 (24)
Prairie 16 20,375 1,273 (460)
56
Pulaski 2 9,500 4,750 (1,250)
Randolph 15 12,713 847 (161)
St. Francis 3 6,610 2,203 (1,412)
Saline 19 46,705 2,458 (484)
Scott 0 0 0
Searcy 6 7,832 1,305 (304)
Sebastian 0 0 0
Sevier 2 1,848 924 (474)
Sharp 34 28,589 840 (273)
Stone 11 10,080 916 (173)
Union 61 128,814 2,111 (245)
Van Buren 16 27,129 1,695 (541)
Washington 13 11,966 920 (245)
White 28 28,887 1,031 (101)
Woodruff 16 24,211 1,513 (380)
Yell 8 22,396 2,799 (1,901)
Total 1,129 1,769,787
57
Table 5. Number respondents, total acreage, and mean acreage (SE) of responding hunt camps by
Table 6. Number respondents, total number of members, and mean number of hunt camps
members by Deer Management Unit (DMU) in Arkansas.
DMU No. Responding
Camps
Total No.
Members
Mean No. Members
(SE)
Ozarks 223 2,886 13 (0.88)
Ouachitas 72 1,642 23 (3.15)
Mississippi Alluvial Plain 144 2,222 15 (1.20)
Gulf Coastal Plain 659 11,399 17 (0.40)
58
Table 7. Property ownership status for responding hunt camps by Deer Management Unit
(DMU) and statewide in Arkansas.
Deer Management Unit
Property Type
Ozarks
Ouachitas
Mississippi
Plain
Gulf Coastal
Plain
Statewide
Privately Owned
(Member)
157
(67%)
26
(35%)
99
(63%)
114
(16%)
400
(34%)
Privately Owned
(Leased)
57
(24%)
8
(11%)
34
(22%)
120
(17%)
226
(19%)
Industry Land
(Leased)
13
(5%)
36
(49%)
23
(15%)
448
(66%)
530
(45%)
Public Land 8
(3%)
3
(4%)
0
(0%)
2
(1%)
13
(1%)
Table 8. Property ownership status of responding deer camps under a Quality Deer Management
(QDM) program in Arkansas.
Under QDM
Privately
Owned
(Member)
Privately
Owned
(Leased)
Industry Land
(Leased)
Public Land
Statewide
Yes
161
(40%)
80
(35%)
224
(42%)
0
(0%)
465
(40%)
No 239
(60%)
146
(65%)
306
(58%)
13
(100%)
704
(60%)
59
Table 9. Responding deer camps under a Quality Deer Management (QDM) program by Deer
Management Unit (DMU) in Arkansas.
Under QDM
Ozarks
Ouachitas
Mississippi
Alluvial Plain
Gulf Coastal
Plain
Statewide
Yes
77
(33%)
27
(39%)
79
(51%)
273
(40%)
456
(40%)
No 158
(67%)
45
(61%)
77
(49%)
413
(60%)
639
(60%)
Table 10. Management objectives of responding hunt camps under a Quality Deer Management
(QDM) program in Arkansas.
Maintain
Present
Density
Increase
Deer
Density
Improve Antler
Development/Physical
Condition
Trophy Deer
Management
No
Response
Under
QDM
34
(7%)
33
(7%)
286
(61%)
88
(19%)
24
(5%)
60
Table 11. Management objective of responding hunt camps under a Quality Deer Management
(QDM) program by property ownership status in Arkansas.
Property Type
Maintain
Present
Density
Increase
Deer
Density
Improve Antler
Development/Physical
Condition
Trophy Deer
Management
Total
Under
QDM
Privately Owned
(Member)
8
(5%)
16
(11%)
78
(52%)
48
(32%)
150
(34%)
Privately Owned
(Leased)
9
(12%)
3
(4%)
51
(68%)
12
(16%)
75
(17%)
Industry Land
(Leased)
17
(8%)
14
(6%)
156
(73%)
27
(13%)
214
(49%)
Table 12. Frequency and level of hunter pressure controlled by
responding hunt camps in Arkansas.
Control Pressure
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Never
No
Response
Control
Pressure
627
(53%)
298
(25%)
80
(7%)
151
(13%)
28
(2%)
61
Table 13. Frequency of hunt camps controlling hunter pressure that are
under a Quality Deer Management (QDM) program in Arkansas.
Control Pressure
Always Usually Sometimes Never
Under QDM
290
(63%)
107
(23%)
20
(4%)
44
(10%)
62
Table 14. Response frequencies of harvest management strategies in excess of minimum state regulations in use by hunt camps in Arkansas. Rank levels are
from 1 (practice most used) to 7 (practice least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Restrictive Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least Used
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Mandatory Doe Harvest
191
(47%)
53
(13%)
46
(11%)
32
(8%)
28
(7%)
14
(4%)
42
(10%)
2.66 (0.10)
2
Doe Harvest before Buck Harvest 49
(18%)
22
(8%)
25
(9%)
27
(10%)
44
(16%)
44
(16%)
65
(23%)
4.40 (0.13) 5
Four-Point Rule or Greater 205
(51%)
34
(8%)
33
(8%)
24
(6%)
22
(5%)
30
(8%)
57
(1%)
2.86 (0.11) 1
Minimum Inside Spread 88
(28%)
31
(10%)
20
(6%)
36
(12%)
37
(12%)
32
(10%)
70
(22%)
3.89 (0.13) 4
Restricted Buck Harvest 156
(43%)
47
(13%)
49
(13%)
32
(9%)
22
(6%)
14
(4%)
46
(12%)
2.84 (0.11) 2
Restricted Antlerless Harvest 317
(60%)
64
(12%)
52
(10%)
35
(7%)
16
(3%)
14
(3%)
28
(5%)
2.09 (0.08) 1
63
Table 15. Response frequencies of harvest management strategies in excess of minimum state regulations in use by hunt camps in the Ozarks DMU. Rank levels
are from 1 (practice most used) to 7 (practice least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Restrictive Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least Used
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Mandatory Doe Harvest
32
(43%)
10
(13%)
7
(9%)
8
(11%)
4
(5%)
5
(7%)
9
(12%)
2.91 (0.25)
2
Doe Harvest before Buck Harvest 7
(13%)
5
(9%)
4
(7%)
4
(7%)
14
(26%)
8
(15%)
12
(22%)
4.57 (0.28) 5
Four-point Rule or Greater 43
(52%)
8
(10%)
7
(9%)
6
(6%)
4
(5%)
5
(6%)
9
(11%)
2.64 (0.24) 1
Minimum Inside Spread 11
(20%)
5
(9%)
5
(9%)
7
(13%)
9
(17%)
8
(15%)
9
(17%)
4.07 (0.29) 4
Restricted Buck Harvest 32
(44%)
10
(14%)
11
(15%)
9
(12%)
2
(3%)
4
(5%)
5
(7%)
2.60 (0.22) 2
Restricted Antlerless Harvest 65
(61%)
12
(11%)
10
(9%)
10
(9%)
5
(5%)
3
(3%)
2
(2%)
2.02 (0.15) 1
64
Table 16. Response frequencies of harvest management strategies in excess of minimum state regulations in use by hunt camps in the Ouachitas DMU. Rank
levels are from 1 (practice most used) to 7 (practice least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Restrictive Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least Used
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Mandatory Doe Harvest
10
(42%)
2
(8%)
3
(13%)
3
(13%)
2
(8%)
0
(0%)
4
(17%)
2.04 (0.46)
2
Doe Harvest before Buck Harvest 4
(22%)
0
(0%)
1
(6%)
2
(11%)
4
(22%)
2
(11%)
5
(28%)
4.56 (0.54) 5
Four-point Rule or Greater 6
(26%)
4
(17%)
1
(4%)
2
(9%)
1
(4%)
1
(4%)
8
(35%)
4.00 (0.54) 4
Minimum Inside Spread 3
(14%)
3
(14%)
3
(14%)
1
(5%)
2
(9%)
3
(14%)
7
(32%)
4.50 (0.49) 5
Restricted Buck Harvest 8
(35%)
3
(13%)
3
(13%)
1
(4%)
1
(4%)
1
(4%)
6
(26%)
3.48 (0.53) 3
Restricted Antlerless Harvest 15
(54%)
2
(7%)
0
(0%)
3
(11%)
2
(7%)
2
(7%)
4
(14%)
2.89 (0.45) 1
65
Table 17. Response frequencies of harvest management strategies in excess of minimum state regulations in use by hunt camps in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain
DMU. Rank levels are from 1 (practice most used) to 7 (practice least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Restrictive Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least Used
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Mandatory Doe Harvest
32
(51%)
6
(10%)
6
(10%)
5
(8%)
6
(10%)
2
(3%)
6
(10%)
2.63 (0.26)
1
Doe Harvest before Buck Harvest 8
(21%)
3
(8%)
5
(13%)
0
(0%)
2
(5%)
11
(29%)
9
(24%)
4.42 (0.39) 6
Four-point Rule or Greater 49
(59%)
8
(10%)
9
(11%)
4
(5%)
4
(5%)
4
(5%)
5
(6%)
2.25 (0.21) 1
Minimum Inside Spread 26
(47%)
6
(11%)
2
(4%)
7
(13%)
5
(9%)
2
(4%)
7
(13%)
2.87 (0.30) 2
Restricted Buck Harvest 29
(44%)
11
(17%)
14
(21%)
3
(5%)
1
(2%)
1
(2%)
7
(11%)
2.50 (0.24) 2
Restricted Antlerless Harvest 42
(58%)
9
(13%)
6
(8%)
10
(14%)
3
(4%)
0
(0%)
2
(3%)
2.04 (0.18) 1
66
Table 18. Response frequencies of harvest management strategies in excess of minimum state regulations in use by hunt camps in the Gulf Coastal Plain DMU.
Rank levels are from 1 (practice most used) to 7 (practice least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Restrictive Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least Used
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Mandatory Doe Harvest
113
(49%)
31
(13%)
30
(13%)
15
(6%)
15
(6%)
7
(3%)
22
(9%)
2.56 (0.13)
2
Doe Harvest before Buck Harvest 28
(18%)
14
(9%)
15
(10%)
19
(12%)
22
(14%)
23
(15%)
35
(22%)
4.29 (0.17) 5
Four-point Rule or Greater 105
(51%)
13
(6%)
14
(7%)
12
(6%)
12
(6%)
18
(9%)
33
(16%)
2.99 (0.17) 1
Minimum Inside Spread 45
(26%)
17
(10%)
10
(6%)
19
(11%)
21
(12%)
16
(9%)
44
(26%)
4.03 (0.18) 4
Restricted Buck Harvest 84
(44%)
23
(12%)
19
(10%)
19
(10%)
14
(7%)
7
(4%)
27
(14%)
2.92 (0.16) 2
Restricted Antlerless Harvest 185
(61%)
40
(13%)
32
(11%)
12
(4%)
6
(2%)
8
(3%)
19
(6%)
2.05 (0.10) 1
67
Table 19. Response frequencies of habitat management practices in use by hunt camps in Arkansas. Rank levels are from 1 (practice most used) to 9 (practice
least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Habitat Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Least Used
9
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Summer Food Plots
284
(42%)
76
(11%)
66
(10%)
83
(12%)
62
(9%)
17
(3%)
18
(3%)
15
(2%)
59
(9%)
3.17 (0.10)
2
Winter Food Plots 673
(70%)
146
(15%)
60
(6%)
30
(3%)
23
(2%)
6
(1%)
6
(1%)
2
(0.5%)
20
(2%)
1.71 (0.05) 1
Fertilization of Vegetation 153
(28%)
39
(7%)
67
(12%)
66
(12%)
73
(13%)
43
(8%)
23
(4%)
11
(2%)
68
(13%)
4.01 (0.12) 4
Supplemental Feeding 605
(60%)
154
(15%)
101
(10%)
54
(5%)
43
(4%)
10
(1%)
16
(2%)
2
(0.5%)
23
(2%)
2.03 (0.05) 1
Supplemental Minerals 504
(50%)
115
(12%)
158
(16%)
108
(11%)
63
(6%)
23
(2%)
9
(1%)
5
(1%)
15
(2%)
2.33 (0.06) 1
Prescribed Burning 36
(11%)
6
(2%)
13
(4%)
8
(2%)
18
(5%)
36
(11%)
53
(16%)
35
(11%)
125
(38%)
6.67 (0.15) 7
Timber Management 142
(30%)
23
(5%)
30
(6%)
31
(7%)
43
(9%)
47
(10%)
49
(11%)
20
(4%)
81
(17%)
4.57 (0.14) 5
Set-Aside Programs 66
(19%)
1
(0.5%)
14
(4%)
14
(4%)
20
(6%)
31
(9%)
24
(7%)
60
(17%)
126
(35%)
6.27 (0.16) 8
68
Table 20. Response frequencies of habitat management practices in use by hunt camps in the Ozarks DMU. Rank levels are from 1 (practice most used) to 9
(practice least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Habitat Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Least Used
9
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Summer Food Plots
78
18
(12%)
15
(10%)
15
(10%)
8
(5%)
5
(3%)
2
(1%)
2
(1%)
9
(6%)
2.63 (0.19)
1
Winter Food Plots 132
(70%)
34
(18%)
9
(5%)
5
(3%)
3
(2%)
0
(0%)
2
(1%)
0
(0%)
3
(2%)
1.61 (0.10) 1
Fertilization of Vegetation 38
(31%)
10
(8%)
15
(12%)
14
(11%)
12
(10%)
11
(9%)
8
(7%)
3
(2%)
12
(10%)
3.84 (0.24) 3
Supplemental Feeding 115
(59%)
21
(11%)
22
(11%)
17
(9%)
10
(5%)
5
(3%)
2
(1%)
1
(1%)
3
(2%)
2.14 (0.13) 1
Supplemental Minerals 100
(50%)
19
(10%)
30
(15%)
20
(10%)
17
(9%)
7
(4%)
4
(2%)
1
(1%)
2
(1%)
2.44 (0.13) 1.5
Prescribed Burning 14
(17%)
2
(2%)
6
(7%)
3
(4%)
10
(12%)
10
(12%)
10
(12%)
2
(2%)
26
(31%)
5.75 (0.32) 6
Timber Management 25
(24%)
6
(6%)
3
(3%)
9
(9%)
19
(18%)
4
(4%)
14
(13%)
6
(6%)
18
(17%)
4.89 (0.29) 5
Set-Aside Programs 15
(20%)
0
(0%)
4
(5%)
3
(4%)
1
(1%)
4
(5%)
8
(11%)
15
(20%)
24
(32%)
6.21 (0.36) 8
(51%)
69
Table 21. Response frequencies of habitat management practices in use by hunt camps in the Ouachitas DMU. Rank levels are from 1 (practice most used) to 9
(practice least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Habitat Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Least Used
9
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Summer Food Plots
14
(33%)
4
(9%)
4
(9%)
6
(14%)
7
(16%)
1
(2%)
2
(5%)
0
(0%)
5
(12%)
3.67 (0.40)
3
Winter Food Plots 45
(69%)
8
(12%)
5
(8%)
2
(3%)
3
(5%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(2%)
1.75 (0.19) 1
Fertilization of Vegetation 10
(28%)
4
(11%)
3
(8%)
5
(14%)
4
(14%)
2
(6%)
2
(6%)
2
(6%)
3
(8%)
3.92 (0.44) 4
Supplemental Feeding 27
(45%)
15
(25%)
7
(12%)
2
(3%)
4
(7%)
1
(2%)
3
(5%)
0
(0%)
1
(2%)
2.36 (0.24) 2
Supplemental Minerals 25
(38%)
9
(14%)
14
(22%)
9
(14%)
5
(8%)
2
(3%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(2%)
2.57 (0.21) 2
Prescribed Burning 3
(13%)
2
(9%)
2
(9%)
1
(4%)
0
(0%)
1
(4%)
2
(9%)
4
(17%)
8
(35%)
6.13 (0.66) 8
Timber Management 4
(13%)
1
(3%)
4
(13%)
4
(13%)
3
(9%)
8
(25%)
4
(13%)
1
(3%)
3
(9%)
5.00 (0.42) 5
Set-Aside Programs 8
(28%)
0
(0%)
2
(7%)
1
(3%)
2
(7%)
5
(17%)
3
(10%)
2
(7%)
6
(21%)
5.14 (0.57) 6
70
Table 22. Response frequencies of habitat management practices in use by hunt camps in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain DMU. Rank levels are from 1 (practice
most used) to 9 (practice least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Habitat Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Least Used
9
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Summer Food Plots
46
(46%)
12
(12%)
7
(7%)
11
(11%)
9
(9%)
2
(2%)
3
(3%)
2
(2%)
8
(8%)
3.01 (0.26)
2
Winter Food Plots 110
(77%)
21
(15%)
4
(3%)
4
(3%)
1
(1%)
1
(1%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(1%)
1.46 (0.10) 1
Fertilization of Vegetation 18
(27%)
2
(3%)
5
(7%)
7
(10%)
9
(13%)
8
(12%)
3
(4%)
3
(4%)
12
(18%)
4.64 (0.36) 5
Supplemental Feeding 53
(46%)
20
(17%)
17
(15%)
9
(8%)
7
(6%)
1
(1%)
2
(2%)
0
(0%)
7
(6%)
2.57 (0.20) 2
Supplemental Minerals 69
(52%)
9
(7%)
25
(19%)
12
(9%)
11
(8%)
2
(2%)
3
(2%)
0
(0%)
1
(1%)
2.33 (0.15) 1
Prescribed Burning 2
(5%)
1
(2%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
2
(5%)
4
(9%)
7
(16%)
8
(18%)
19
(43%)
7.39 (0.33) 8
Timber Management 36
(43%)
7
(8%)
5
(6%)
8
(10%)
5
(6%)
8
(10%)
6
(7%)
3
(4%)
5
(6%)
3.39 (0.29) 2
Set-Aside Programs 18
(30%)
0
(0%)
4
(7%)
6
(10%)
7
(12%)
3
(5%)
3
(5%)
4
(7%)
15
(25%)
4.92 (0.41) 5
71
Table 23. Response frequencies of habitat management practices in use by deer hunt camps in the Gulf Coastal Plain DMU. Rank levels are from 1 (practice most
used) to 9 (practice least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Habitat Management Practices
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Least Used
9
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Summer Food Plots
135
(37%)
39
(11%)
39
(11%)
50
(14%)
35
(10%)
9
(2%)
11
(3%)
11
(3%)
36
(10%)
3.42 (0.14)
3
Winter Food Plots 367
(68%)
78
(14%)
41
(8%)
16
(3%)
16
(3%)
4
(1%)
4
(1%)
2
(1%)
14
(3%)
1.82 (0.07) 1
Fertilization of Vegetation 82
(28%)
21
(7%)
40
(13%)
38
(13%)
43
(14%)
21
(7%)
9
(3%)
3
(1%)
40
(13%)
3.99 (0.16) 4
Supplemental Feeding 398
(66%)
92
(15%)
49
(8%)
24
(4%)
20
(3%)
3
(1%)
7
(1%)
1
(0.5%)
12
(2%)
1.83 (0.07) 1
Supplemental Minerals 297
(52%)
74
(13%)
86
(15%)
60
(10%)
28
(5%)
11
(2%)
2
(0.5%)
4
(1%)
10
(2%)
2.25 (0.07) 1
Prescribed Burning 16
(10%)
1
(1%)
4
(2%)
4
(2%)
6
(4%)
18
(11%)
29
(17%)
20
(12%)
68
(41%)
6.98 (0.19) 8
Timber Management 73
(31%)
8
(3%)
17
(7%)
10
(4%)
15
(6%)
25
(11%)
23
(10%)
9
(4%)
54
(23%)
4.80 (0.21) 5
Set-Aside Programs 22
(12%)
0
(0%)
3
(2%)
4
(2%)
10
(6%)
17
(10%)
9
(5%)
35
(20%)
70
(44%)
7.00 (0.20) 8
72
Table 24. Number of respondents (n) and mean (SE) number of years habitat management practices have been in use on hunt camp
Table 25. Response frequencies of management for other wildlife performed by hunt camps in Arkansas. Rank levels are from 1 (managed for the most) to 12
(managed for the least).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics Other wildlife
Managed Most
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Managed Least
12
Mean Rank
(SE)
M Waterfowl
87
(30%)
25
(9%)
14
(5%)
11
(4%)
5
(2%)
9
(3%)
10
(3%)
6
(2%)
13
(5%)
8
(3%)
4
(1%)
96
(33%)
6.30 (0.28)
6
Turkey
587 49 (80%) (7%)
17 (2%)
9 (1%)
12 (2%)
15 (2%)
2 (0.5%)
4 (1%)
4 (1%)
4 (1%)
1 (0.5%)
32 (4%)
1.96 (0.10) 1
Quail 91 69 (25%) (19%)
47 (13%)
30 (8%)
19 (5%)
9 (2%)
10 (3%)
10 (3%)
3 (1%)
8 (2%)
0 (0%)
67 (18%)
4.68 (0.21) 3
Bear 15 9 (8%) (5%)
5 (3%)
1 (1%)
5 (3%)
8 (4%)
6 (3%)
10 (5%)
8 (4%)
15 (8%)
9 (5%)
103 (53%)
9.29 (0.27) 12
Elk 6(4%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
3 (2%)
2 (1%)
12 (7%)
6 (4%)
17 (10%)
118 (70%)
10.85 (0.19) 12
Squirrel 141 77 (33%) (18%)
48 (11%)
32 (7%)
29 (7%)
14 (3%)
10 (2%)
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
7 (2%)
0 (0%)
68 (16%)
4.13 (0.19) 2
Dove 45 22 (16%) (8%)
30 (11%)
24 (9%)
26 (9%)
24 (9%)
12 (4%)
7 (3%)
3 (1%)
10 (4%)
0 (0%)
75 (27%)
6.17 (0.25) 5
Rabbit 59 13 (19%) (4%)
32 (10%)
46 (15%)
30 (10%)
20 (6%)
11 (4%)
9 (3%)
5 (2%)
5 (2%)
0 (0%)
80 (26%)
5.93 (0.23) 5
Feral Hogs 42 (19%)
8 (4%)
12 (5%)
6 (3%)
2 (1%)
6 (3%)
7 (3%)
9 (4%)
13 (6%)
12 (5%)
4 (2%)
102 (46%)
8.02 (0.30) 10
Furbearers 19(9%)
4 (2%)
10 (5%)
8 (4%)
17 (8%)
22 (10%)
12 (6%)
11 (5%)
7 (3%)
6 (3%)
2 (1%)
98 (45%)
8.33 (0.27) 9
Non-Game Species 13 (8%)
2 (1%)
9 (6%)
4 (3%)
4 (3%)
4 (3%)
9 (6%)
10 (6%)
9 (6%)
6 (4%)
10 (6%)
75 (48%)
9.02 (0.31) 11
74
Table 26. Response frequencies of management for other wildlife performed by deer camps in the Ozarks DMU. Rank levels are from 1 (managed for the most) to
12 (managed for the least).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics Other wildlife
Managed Most
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Managed Least
12
Mean Rank
(SE)
M Waterfowl
5
(11%)
3
(7%)
4
(9%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
2
(4%)
3
(7%)
2
(4%)
6
(13%)
2
(4%)
1
(2%)
17
(37%)
7.93 (0.61)
9
Turkey
161 5 (91%) (3%)
1 (1%)
2 (1%)
1 (1%)
3 (2%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
1.31 (0.09) 1
Quail 30 32 (30%) (32%)
12 (12%)
9 (9%)
3 (3%)
1 (1%)
3 (3%)
2 (2%)
0 (0%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
7 (7%)
3.18 (0.30) 2
Bear 7 8 (13%) (15%)
4 (8%)
1 (2%)
2 (4%)
4 (8%)
2 (4%)
3 (6%)
3 (6%)
1 (2%)
1 (2%)
16 (31%)
6.75 (0.61) 6
Elk 3(8%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
4 (11%)
2 (5%)
4 (11%)
20 (54%)
9.84 (0.57) 12
Squirrel 24 16 (27%) (18%)
13 (15%)
10 (11%)
11 (12%)
3 (3%)
3 (3%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
8 (9%)
3.74 (0.33) 3
Dove 12 3 (18%) (4%)
8 (12%)
10 (15%)
5 (7%)
12 (18%)
4 (6%)
2 (3%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
9 (13%)
5.22 (0.42) 5
Rabbit 12 3 (18%) (5%)
9 (14%)
9 (14%)
8 (12%)
6 (9%)
2 (3%)
4 (6%)
2 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
11 (17%)
5.35 (0.45) 4
Feral Hogs 0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (9%)
3 (9%)
6 (17%)
2 (6%)
20 (57%)
10.74 (0.33) 12
Furbearers 2(4%)
1 (2%)
3 (7%)
2 (4%)
8 (18%)
4 (9%)
2 (4%)
2 (4%)
3 (7%)
1 (2%)
0 (0%)
17 (38%)
7.91 (0.55) 8
Non-Game Species 3 (9%)
0 (0%)
4 (12%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
2 (6%)
4 (12%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
5 (15%)
12 (35%)
8.47 (0.67) 10.5
75
Table 27. Response frequencies of management for other wildlife performed by hunt camps in the Ouachitas DMU. Rank levels are from 1 (managed for the most)
to 12 (managed for the least).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics Other wildlife
Managed Most
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Managed Least
12
Mean Rank
(SE)
M Waterfowl
6
(24%)
1
(4%)
0
(0%)
1
(4%)
0
(0%)
2
(8%)
3
(12%)
1
(4%)
2
(8%)
1
(4%)
0
(0%)
8
(32%)
7.08 (0.88)
7
Turkey
45 3 (82%) (5%)
2 (4%)
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
2 (4%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
0 (0%)
1 (2%)
1.75 (0.29) 1
Quail 8 6 (26%) (19%)
4 (13%)
2 (6%)
3 (10%)
2 (6%)
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
2 (6%)
0 (0%)
3 (10%)
4.22 (0.65) 3
Bear 1 1 (5%) (5%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (14%)
2 (9%)
1 (5%)
2 (9%)
1 (5%)
2 (9%)
1 (5%)
8 (36%)
8.59 (0.75) 9
Elk 1(6%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (12%)
1 (6%)
0 (0%)
1 (6%)
2 (12%)
10 (59%)
10.29 (0.73) 12
Squirrel 6 6 (21%) (21%)
3 (11%)
3 (11%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
6 (21%)
4.96 (0.80) 3
Dove 5 4 (19%) (15%)
2 (8%)
1 (4%)
2 (8%)
2 (8%)
3 (12%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
5 (19%)
5.53 (0.79) 5
Rabbit 1 0 (4%) (0%)
3 (13%)
3 (13%)
4 (17%)
4 (17%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
6 (26%)
6.74 (0.76) 6
Feral Hogs 1 (6%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (11%)
0 (0%)
2 (11%)
2 (11%)
2 (11%)
9 (50%)
10.17 (0.67) 11
Furbearers 1(4%)
2 (9%)
0 (0%)
3 (13%)
0 (0%)
4 (17%)
4 (17%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
8 (35%)
7.52 (0.78) 7
Non-Game Species 4 (31%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (23%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
4 (31%)
6.92 (1.26) 7
76
Table 28. Response frequencies of management for other wildlife performed by hunt camps in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain DMU. Rank levels are from 1
(managed for the most) to 12 (managed for the least).
Rank Levels SummaryStatistics
Other wildlife
Managed Most
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Managed Least
12
Mean Rank
(SE)
M Waterfowl
43
(58%)
9
(12%)
2
(3%)
4
(5%)
1
(1%)
3
(4%)
1
(1%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(3%)
0
(0%)
9
(12%)
3.26 (0.44)
1
Turkey
70(69%)
13 (13%)
5 (5%)
3 (3%)
1 (1%)
4 (4%)
0 (0%)
2 (2%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (3%)
2.09 (0.24) 1
Quail 12(20%)
13 (21%)
9 (15%)
3 (5%)
5 (8%)
1 (2%)
3 (5%)
2 (3%)
0 (0%)
24 (7%)
0 (0%)
9 (15%)
4.80 (0.50) 3
Bear 4(14%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
3 (11%)
17 (61%)
9.61 (0.77) 12
Elk 0(0%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
21 (92%)
11.57 (0.39) 12
Squirrel 20(29%)
2 (15%)
9 (13%)
8 (12%)
6 (9%)
2 (3%)
2 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (3%)
0 (0%)
9 (13%)
4.16 (0.45) 3
Dove 13(22%)
7 (12%)
10 (17%)
6 (10%)
5 (9%)
3 (5%)
2 (3%)
1 (2%)
0 (0%)
3 (5%)
0 (0%)
8 (14%)
4.68 (0.49) 3
Rabbit 12(23%)
2 (4%)
6 (12%)
9 (17%)
6 (12%)
4 (8%)
1 (2%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (6%)
0 (0%)
9 (17%)
5.17 (0.54) 4
Feral Hogs 3 (10%)
2 (7%)
3 (10%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
18 (60%)
8.83 (0.80) 12
Furbearers 4(13%)
0 (0%)
2 (6%)
1 (3%)
2 (6%)
3 (9%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
4 (13%)
0 (0%)
14 (44%)
8.31 (0.73) 10
Non-Game 2(8%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
2 (8%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
2 (8%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
13 (54%)
8.83 (0.85) 12
77
Table 29. Response frequencies of management for other wildlife performed by hunt camps in the Gulf Coastal Plain DMU. Rank levels are from 1 (managed for
the most) to 12 (managed for the least).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics Other wildlife
Managed Most
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Managed Least
12
Mean Rank
(SE)
M Waterfowl
28
(21%)
12
(10%)
7
(5%)
5
(4%)
3
(2%)
2
(1%)
3
(2%)
3
(2%)
5
(4%)
3
(2%)
3
(2%)
60
(45%)
7.41 (041)
9
Turkey
295 (77%)
27 (7%)
8 (2%)
4 (1%)
8 (2%)
6 (2%)
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
3 (1%)
3 (1%)
0 (0%)
25 (7%)
2.19 (0.15) 1
Quail 35(22%)
15 (10%)
22 (14%)
16 (10%)
8 (5%)
3 (2%)
4 (3%)
5 (3%)
3 (2%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
45 (29%)
5.71 (0.35) 4
Bear 3(3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
4 (5%)
4 (5%)
10 (12%)
4 (5%)
59 (69%)
10.88 (0.25) 12
Elk 2(2%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
8 (9%)
3 (3%)
9 (10%)
64 (73%)
11.16 (0.22) 12
Squirrel 84(37%)
43 (19%)
22 (10%)
10 (4%)
10 (4%)
8 (4%)
4 (2%)
0 (0%)
1 (0.5%)
4 (2%)
0 (0%)
42 (18%)
4.19 (0.27) 2
Dove 14(12%)
5 (4%)
9 (8%)
5 (4%)
14 (12%)
7 (6%)
3 (3%)
3 (3%)
2 (2%)
4 (3%)
0 (0%)
51 (44%)
7.67 (0.40) 8
Rabbit 29(19%)
8 (5%)
11 (7%)
22 (14%)
11 (7%)
6 (4%)
7 (5%)
5 (3%)
3 (2%)
1 (1%)
0 (0%)
51 (33%)
6.46 (0.35) 5
Feral Hogs 36 (27%)
6 (4%)
8 (6%)
6 (5%)
2 (1%)
4 (3%)
5 (4%)
4 (3%)
7 (5%)
3 (2%)
0 (0%)
53 (40%)
6.91 (0.41) 7
Furbearers 11(10%)
1 (1%)
5 (5%)
2 (2%)
7 (6%)
11 (10%)
4 (4%)
8 (7%)
3 (3%)
1 (1%)
2 (0%)
55 (50%)
8.62 (0.38) 11
Non-Game 4(5%)
1 (1%)
3 (4%)
1 (1%)
2 (3%)
4 (5%)
4 (5%)
4 (5%)
4 (5%)
4 (5%)
5 (6%)
43 (54%)
9.62 (0.38) 12
3
78
Table 30. Response frequencies of management practices for other wildlife in use by hunt camps in Arkansas. Rank levels are from 1
(technique most used) to 6 (technique least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Technique
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
Least Used
6
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Flooding fields for waterfowl
66
(30%)
6
(3%)
9
(4%)
8
(4%)
16
(7%)
117
(53%)
4.14 (0.15)
6
Nest platforms or boxes for waterfowl 36
(16%)
24
(11%)
16
(7%)
23
(10%)
11
(5%
113
(51%)
4.29 (0.13) 6
Feeders or nest boxes for songbirds 61
(24%)
22
(9%)
37
(15%)
16
(6%)
15
(6%)
103
(41%)
3.83 (0.13) 4
Mowing or grassland management 350
(66%)
82
(15%)
42
(8%)
16
(3%)
1
(0.5%)
43
(8%)
1.81 (0.06) 1
Timber Management 208
(51%)
77
(19%)
37
(9%)
11
(3%)
5
(1%)
67
(17%)
2.33 (0.09) 1
79
Table 31. Response frequencies of management practices for other wildlife in use by deer camps in the Ozarks DMU. Rank levels are
from 1 (technique most used) to 6 (technique least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Technique
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
Least Used
6
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Flooding fields for waterfowl
3
(9%)
0
(0%)
2
(6%)
1
(3%)
3
(9%)
26
(74%)
5.26 (0.26)
6
Nest platforms or boxes for waterfowl 2
(5%)
7
(16%)
5
(11%)
7
(16%)
3
(7%)
20
(45%)
4.41 (0.26) 5
Feeders or nest boxes for songbirds 20
(33%)
7
(12%)
11
(18%)
4
(7%)
2
(3%)
16
(27%)
3.15 (0.26) 3
Mowing or grassland management 104
(76%)
18
(13%)
6
(4%)
2
(1%)
0
(0%)
6
(4%)
1.48 (0.10) 1
Timber Management 37
(42%)
28
(31%)
10
(11%)
2
(2%)
1
(1%)
11
(12%)
2.27 (0.17) 2
80
Table 32. Response frequencies of management practices for other wildlife in use by deer camps in the Ouachitas DMU. Rank levels
are from 1 (technique most used) to 6 (technique least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Technique
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
Least Used
6
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Flooding fields for waterfowl
5
(26%)
2
(11%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
3
(16%)
9
(47%)
4.11 (0.52)
5
Nest platforms or boxes for waterfowl 5
(25%)
2
(10%)
0
(0%)
3
(15%)
1
(5%)
9
(45%)
4.00 (0.49) 4
Feeders or nest boxes for songbirds 6
(27%)
0
(0%)
5
(23%)
2
(9%)
1
(5%)
8
(36%)
3.73 (0.44) 3
Mowing or grassland management 22
(63%)
4
(11%)
3
(9%)
1
(3%)
0
(0%)
5
(14%)
2.09 (0.30) 1
Timber Management 19
(56%)
7
(21%)
4
(12%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
4
(12%)
2.03 (0.28) 1
81
Table 33. Response frequencies of management practices for other wildlife in use by deer camps in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain
DMU. Rank levels are from 1 (technique most used) to 6 (technique least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Technique
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
Least Used
6
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Flooding fields for waterfowl
38
(63%)
3
(5%)
1
(2%)
6
(10%)
0
(0%)
12
(20%)
2.38 (0.26)
1
Nest platforms or boxes for waterfowl 16
(34%)
7
(15%)
6
(13%)
0
(0%)
4
(9%)
14
(30%)
3.23 (0.31) 3
Feeders or nest boxes for songbirds 3
(8%)
4
(10%)
5
(13%)
4
(10%)
7
(18%)
17
(42%)
4.48 (0.27 5
Mowing or grassland management 45
(52%)
26
(30%)
10
(11%)
4
(5%)
0
(0%)
2
(2%)
1.78 (0.11) 1
Timber Management 49
(58%)
13
(15%)
11
(13%)
4
(5%)
1
(1%)
6
(7%)
1.96 (0.16) 1
82
Table 34. Response frequencies of management practices for other wildlife in use by deer camps in the Gulf Coastal Plain DMU. Rank
levels are from 1 (technique most used) to 6 (technique least used).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Technique
Most Used
1
2
3
4
5
Least Used
6
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Flooding fields for waterfowl
13
(13%)
1
(1%)
6
(6%)
1
(1%)
10
(10%)
68
(69%)
5.00 (0.18)
6
Nest platforms or boxes for waterfowl 11
(11%)
6
(6%)
5
(5%)
13
(13%)
3
(3%)
65
(63%)
4.81 (0.18) 6
Feeders or nest boxes for songbirds 26
(22%)
10
(9%)
16
(13%)
6
(5%)
3
(3%)
58
(49%)
4.04 (0.19) 5
Mowing or grassland management 165
(64%)
34
(13%)
21
(8%)
8
(3%)
1
(0.5%)
28
(11%)
1.94 (0.10) 1
Timber Management 98
(53%)
28
(15%)
9
(5%)
4
(2%)
3
(2%)
43
(23%)
2.54 (0.15) 1
83
84
Table 35. Opinions (number respondents (n) and %) of responding hunt camps on changes in
white-tailed deer population and harvest structure since camp began using harvest and habitat
management practices for white-tailed deer in Arkansas.
Opinions on Deer Herd Yes No
Increase in Total Number of Deer on Camp Property
500 (42%)
684 (58%)
Increase in Number >2.5 years olds Harvested 673 (57%) 511 (43%)
Increase in number >4.5 years old Harvested 268 (23%) 916 (77%)
Increase in Antler Size, Spread, Total Points of Harvested Deer 538 (45%) 646 (55%)
Improvements in Health/Weight of Harvested Deer 559 (47%) 625 (53%)
More Equal Ratio of Bucks to Does 420 (35%) 764 (65%)
Table 36. Responding hunt camps that currently collect biological information on white-tailed
deer harvested by hunt camp members in Arkansas.
Biological information Response Frequency
Yes
327 (28%)
No 857 (72%)
85
DMU
Table 37. Responding hunt camps that currently collect biological information on white-tailed deer
harvested by club members across deer management units (DMUs) in Arkansas.
Table 38. Responding hunt camps that currently collect biological information on white-tailed
deer harvested by club members across property types in Arkansas.
Property Type
Biological Records Privately Owned Private Leased Industry Land Public Land
Yes
87 (27%)
41 (13%)
194 (60%)
1 (0.5%)
No 313 (37%) 185 (22%) 336 (40%) 12 (1%)
86
Table 39. Responding hunt camps that currently work with an Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission (AGFC) biologist in establishing harvest and habitat management guidelines for
white-tailed deer in Arkansas.
Work Biologist Response Frequency
Yes
223 (19%)
No 961 (81%)
Table 40. Responding hunt camps that currently work with an Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission (AGFC) biologist in establishing harvest and habitat guidelines for white-tailed
deer across property types in Arkansas.
Property Type
Work Biologist Privately Owned Private Leased Industry Land Public Land
Yes
84 (38%)
46 (19%)
89 (40%)
1 (0.5%)
No 316 (33%) 180 (19%) 441 (46%) 12 (1%)
87
Table 41. Responding hunt camps that currently work with an Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission (AGFC) biologist in establishing harvest and habitat guidelines for white-tailed deer
across deer management units (DMUs) in Arkansas.
DMU
Work Biologist Ozarks Ouachitas Mississippi Alluvial Plain Gulf Coastal Plain
Yes
51 (24%)
10 (5%)
40 (18%)
116 (53%)
No 184 (20%) 64 (7%) 116 (12%) 570 (61%)
Table 42. Number of responding hunt camps currently working with an Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission (AGFC) biologist that collect biological information off white-tailed deer
harvested by hunt camp members in Arkansas.
Biological records
Work Biologist Yes No
Yes
133 (60%)
90 (40%)
No 194 (20%) 767 (80%)
88
Table 43. Number of respondents that have sought advice on white-tailed deer harvest or habitat
management from Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) biologists or outside biologists
in Arkansas.
Sought Assistance Response Frequency
Yes
354 (30%)
No 830 (70%)
Table 44. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on type of AGFC provided management assistance programs that would
most benefit/interest their hunt camps across Arkansas. Rank levels from 1 (most beneficial) to 7 (least beneficial).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Assistance Type
Most
Benefit
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least
Benefit
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Public Information Programs
155
(29%)
28
(5%)
29
(5%)
32
(6%)
87
(16%)
106
(20%)
95
(18%)
4.06 (0.10)
5
Hunter Education Programs 103
(22%)
26
(6%)
40
(8%)
26
(6%)
100
(21%)
110
(23%)
68
(14%)
4.26 (0.10) 5
Wildlife Management Assistance Programs 341
(49%)
99
(14%)
91
(13%)
103
(15%)
24
(3%)
9
(1%)
28
(4%)
2.29 (0.06) 2
Wildlife Biologist Recommendations 430
(56%)
132
(17%)
92
(12%)
46
(6%)
25
(3%)
10
(1%)
30
(4%)
2.02 (0.06) 1
Population Estimation 329
(47%)
109
(15%)
94
(13%)
82
(12%)
35
(5%)
21
(3%)
36
(5%)
2.42 (0.07) 2
Habitat Development Assistance Programs 294
(43%)
93
(14%)
112
(16%)
88
(13%)
34
(5%)
18
(3%)
41
(6%)
2.55 (0.07) 2
Non-game Management Assistance 28
(7%)
6
(1%)
7
(2%)
20
(5%)
56
(14%)
27
(7%)
266
(65%)
5.96 (0.09) 7
89
Table 45. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on type of AGFC provided management assistance programs that would
most benefit/interest their hunt camps in the Ozarks DMU. Rank levels from 1 (most beneficial) to 7 (least beneficial).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
2 3
Benefit
7
36 6
Management Assistance Type
Most
Benefit
1
4
5
6
Least
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Public Information Programs
(32%)
3
(3%)
(5%)
3
(3%)
21
(19%)
18
(16%)
25
(22%)
4.11 (0.23)
5
Hunter Education Programs 17
(18%)
3
(3%)
3
(3%)
6
(22%)
5
71 2 1
16
(6%)
21 30
(32%)
15
(16%)
4.69 (0.21)
Wildlife Management Assistance Programs
(50%)
26
(18%)
17
(12%)
23
(16%) (1%) (1%)
2
(1%)
2.08 (0.11) 1.5
Wildlife Biologist Recommendations 86
(56%)
30
(20%)
21
(14%)
10
(7%)
2
(1%)
0
(0%)
4
(3%)
1.88 (0.11) 1
Population Estimation 48
(37%) (12%)
24
(18%)
26
(20%)
8
(6%)
4
(3%)
4
(3%)
2.68 (0.14) 3
Habitat Development Assistance Programs 69
(49%)
19
(14%)
21
(15%)
21
(15%)
5
(4%)
2
(1%)
3
(2%)
2.23 (0.13) 2
Non-game Management Assistance 6
(7%)
0
(0%)
1
(1%)
2
(2%)
17
(20%)
6
(7%)
51
(61%)
5.96 (0.19) 7
90
Table 46. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on type of AGFC provided management assistance programs that would
most benefit their hunt camps in the Ouachitas DMU. Rank levels from 1 (most beneficial) to 7 (least beneficial).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Assistance Type
Most
Benefit
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least
Benefit
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Public Information Programs
9
(30%)
2
(7%)
2
(7%)
3
(10%)
4
(13%)
6
(20%)
4
(13%)
3.83 (0.42)
4
Hunter Education Programs 13
(41%)
2
(6%)
2
(6%)
3
(9%)
3
(9%)
4
(13%)
5
(16%)
3.41 (0.43) 3
Wildlife Management Assistance Programs 18
(49%)
6
(16%)
4
(11%)
2
(5%)
3
(8%)
1
(3%)
3
(8%)
2.49 (0.32) 2
Wildlife Biologist Recommendations 25
(52%)
8
(17%)
8
(17%)
2
(4%)
1
(2%)
1
(2%)
3
(6%)
2.19 (0.25) 1
Population Estimation 19
(48%)
3
(8%)
8
(20%)
2
(5%)
5
(13%)
1
(3%)
2
(5%)
2.55 (0.29) 2
Habitat Development Assistance Programs 17
(43%)
7
(18%)
(76%)
2
(5%)
5
(13%)
2
(5%)
4
(10%)
3
(7%)
2.80 (0.33) 2
Non-game Management Assistance 2
(8%)
1
(4%)
2
(8%)
0
(0%)
1
(4%)
0
(0%)
19 5.92 (0.42) 7
91
Table 47. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on type of AGFC provided management assistance programs that would
most benefit/interest their hunt camps in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1 (most beneficial) to 7 (least
beneficial).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Assistance Type
Most
Benefit
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least
Benefit
7
Mean Rank (SE)
(11%)
M
Public Information Programs
22
(31%)
1
(1%)
4
(6%)
8
8
(11%)
16
(23%)
11
(16%)
4.01 (0.28)
4.5
Hunter Education Programs 13
(23%)
3
(5%)
9
(16%)
1
(2%)
17
(30%)
4
(7%)
9
(16%)
3.96 (0.29) 5
Wildlife Management Assistance Programs 39
(42%)
13
(14%)
18 5
(21%)
12
(13%) (20%)
4
(4%)
1
(1%) (5%)
2.54 (0.18) 2
Wildlife Biologist Recommendations 53
(52%)
21 11
(11%)
4
(4%)
8
(8%)
2
(2%)
3
(3%)
2.13 (0.16) 1
Population Estimation 36
(40%)
16
(18%)
11
(12%)
10
(11%)
6
(7%)
6
(7%)
4
(4%)
2.64 (0.20) 2
Habitat Development Assistance Programs 39
(43%)
11
(12%)
18
(20%)
9
(10%)
3
(3%)
4
(4%)
7
(8%)
2.63 (0.20) 2
Non-game Management Assistance 4
(8%)
2
(4%)
0
(0%)
1
(2%)
5
(10%)
3
(6%)
36
(71%)
6.02 (2.63) 7
92
Table 48. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on type of AGFC provided management assistance programs that would
most benefit/interest their hunt camps in the Gulf Coastal Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1 (most beneficial) to 7 (least beneficial).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Assistance Type
Most
Benefit
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least
Benefit
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Public Information Programs
84
(28%)
21
(7%)
15
(5%)
17
(6%)
53
(17%)
64
(21%)
51
(17%)
4.08 (0.13)
5
Hunter Education Programs 58
(21%)
17
(6%)
24
(9%)
16
(6%)
57
(21%)
70
(25%)
36
(13%)
4.26 (0.13) 5
Wildlife Management Assistance Programs 202
(50%)
53
(13%)
56
(14%)
57
(14%)
13
(3%)
5
(1%)
17
(4%)
2.28 (0.08) 1
Wildlife Biologist Recommendations 253
(58%)
67
(15%)
49
(11%)
29
(7%)
14
(3%)
7
(2%)
19
(4%)
2.04 (0.08) 1
Population Estimation 217
(51%)
71
(17%)
45
(11%)
43
(10%)
14
(3%)
10
(2%)
25
(6%)
2.28 (0.09) 1
Habitat Development Assistance Programs 162
(42%)
54
(14%)
66
(17%)
51
(13%)
23
(6%)
7
(2%)
27
(7%)
2.61 (0.09) 2
Non-game Management Assistance 15
(6%)
3
(1%)
3
(1%)
13
(5%)
32
(13%)
18
(8%)
156
(65%)
6.01 (0.11) 7
93
Table 49. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on types of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) provided information that would most assist respondents in managing white-tailed deer across Arkansas. Rank levels from 1 (not interested) to 5 (extremely interested). Rank Levels Summary Statistics Information Type
Not Interested
1
2
3
4
Extremely Interested
5
Mean Rank (SE)
M Hunting Techniques
325
(34%)
143
(15%)
231
(25%)
140
(15%)
104
(11%) 2.53 (0.04)
3
Aging Techniques 111 (11%)
96
102 (11%)
259 (27%)
289 (30%)
335
206 (21%)
3.39 (0.04) 4
Harvest Management (10%)
68 (7%)
206 (21%)
209 (34%)
274
276 (28%)
3.64 (0.04) 4
Deer Behavior 144 (15%)
79 (8%) (22%) (28%)
264 (27%)
3.45 (0.04) 4
Food Plots 79 (7%)
37 (3%)
157 (15%)
315 (30%)
477 (45%)
4.01 (0.04) 4
Forest Management 267 (30%)
118 (13%)
107
154 (17%)
174 (19%)
180 (20%)
2.87 (0.05) 3
Prescribed Burning 408 (46%) (12%)
137 (15%)
113 (13%)
122 (14%)
2.36 (0.05) 2
Deer Genetics 123 (13%)
92 (10%)
210 (22%)
256 (27%)
268 (28%)
3.48 (0.04) 4
Wildlife Plants 95 (10%)
70 (7%)
194 (20%)
296 (30%)
324 (33%)
3.70 (0.04) 4
Quality Deer Management Techniques 134 (15%)
85 (10%)
190 (21%)
237 (27%)
240 (27%)
3.41 (0.05) 4
Supplemental Feeding 86 (8%)
39 (4%)
174 (17%)
349 (33%)
406 (39%)
3.90 (0.04) 4
94
Table 50. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on types of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) provided information that would most assist respondents in managing white-tailed deer in the Ozarks DMU. Rank levels from 1 (not interested) to 5 (extremely interested). Rank Levels Summary Statistics Information Type
Not Interested
1
2
3
4
Extremely Interested
5
Mean Rank (SE)
M Hunting Techniques
58
(32%)
27
(15%)
49
(27%)
21
(11%)
28
(15%)
3.64 (0.11)
3
Aging Techniques 19 (10%)
20 (11%)
54 (29%)
51 (27%)
44 (23%)
3.43 (0.09) 4
Harvest Management 14 (7%)
13 (7%)
37 (20%)
62 (33%)
63 (33%)
3.78 (0.09) 4
Deer Behavior 30 (16%)
15 (8%)
39 (21%)
50 (27%)
50 (27%)
3.41 (0.10) 4
Food Plots 16 (8%)
7 (3%)
26 (13%)
49 (24%)
106 (52%)
4.09 (0.09) 5
Forest Management 26 (14%)
17 (9%)
39 (21%)
41 (22%)
60 (33%)
3.50 (0.10) 4
Prescribed Burning 49 (26%)
16 (9%)
14
36 (19%)
34 (18%)
51 (27%)
3.12 (0.11) 3
Deer Genetics 18 (10%) (8%)
41 (22%)
48 (26%)
63 (34%)
3.67 (0.09) 4
Wildlife Plants 17 (9%)
12 (6%)
33 (17%)
53 (28%)
75 (39%)
3.83 (0.09) 4
Quality Deer Management Techniques 20 (11%)
16 (9%)
41 (23%)
40 (22%)
61 (34%)
3.60 (0.10) 4
Supplemental Feeding 18 (9%)
12 (6%)
32 (16%)
62 (30%)
81 (40%)
3.86 (0.09) 4
95
Table 51. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on types of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) provided information that would most assist respondents in managing white-tailed deer in the Ouachitas DMU. Rank levels from 1 (not interested) to 5 (extremely interested).
Information Type
Not Interested
1
2
3
4
Extremely Interested
5
Mean Rank (SE)
M Hunting Techniques
19
(32%)
18
(31%)
3
(5%)
13
(22%) 6
(10%)
2
Aging Techniques 5 (8%)
11 (17%)
14 (22%)
23 (37%)
10 4 (16%)
3.35 (0.15)
Harvest Management 6 (10%)
11 (17%)
14 (22%)
23 (37%)
9 (14%)
3.29 (0.15) 4
Deer Behavior 6 (9%)
6 (9%)
11 (17%)
21 (33%)
20 (31%)
3.67 (0.16) 4
Food Plots 2 (3%)
1 (2%)
12 (18%)
25 (38%)
26 (39%)
4.10 (0.12) 4
Forest Management 13 (22%)
7 (12%)
15 (26%)
16 (28%)
7 (12%)
2.95 (0.18) 3
Prescribed Burning 28 (45%)
8 (13%)
11 (18%)
8 (13%)
7 (11%)
2.32 (0.18) 2
Deer Genetics 10 (16%)
12 (20%)
14 (23%)
13 (21%)
12 (20%)
3.08 (0.18) 3
Wildlife Plants 10 (16%)
3 (5%)
11 (18%)
25 (41%)
12 (20%)
3.43 (0.17) 4
Quality Deer Management Techniques 15 (26%)
7 (12%)
11 (20%)
15 (26%)
10 (17%)
2.97 (0.19) 3
Supplemental Feeding 4 (6%)
6 (9%)
12 (17%)
22 (31%)
26 (37%)
3.86 (0.14) 4
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
2.47 (0.18)
96
Table 52. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on types of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) provided information that would most assist respondents in managing white-tailed deer in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1 (not interested) to 5 (extremely interested). Rank Levels Summary Statistics Information Type
Not Interested
1
2
3
4
Extremely Interested
5
Mean Rank (SE)
M Hunting Techniques
52
(40%)
21
(16%)
35
(27%)
16
(12%)
5
(4%)
2.23 (0.11)
2
Aging Techniques 17 (13%)
11 (8%)
37 (28%)
39 (29%)
30 (22%)
3.40 (0.11) 4
Harvest Management 17 (13%)
4 (3%)
30 (22%)
37 (28%)
46 (34%)
3.68 (0.11) 4
Deer Behavior 22 (16%)
11 (8%)
36 (26%)
40 (29%)
28 (20%)
3.30 (0.11) 3
Food Plots 16 (11%)
5 (4%)
17 (12%)
46 (32%)
58 (41%)
3.88 (0.11) 4
Forest Management 36 (28%)
14 (11%)
22 (17%)
26 (20%)
29 (23%)
2.98 (0.14) 3
Prescribed Burning 64 (51%)
14 (11%)
15 (12%)
16 (13%)
16 (13%)
2.25 (0.13) 1
Deer Genetics 22 (17%)
12 (9%)
20 (15%)
41 (32%)
35 (27%)
3.42 (0.12) 4
Wildlife Plants 15 (11%)
10 (7%)
30 (22%)
36 (27%)
44 (33%)
3.62 (0.11) 4
Quality Deer Management Techniques 22 (18%)
8 (7%)
21 (17%)
32 (26%)
38 (31%)
3.46 (0.13) 4
Supplemental Feeding 19 (13%)
3 (2%)
25 (18%)
40 (28%)
55 (39%)
3.77 (0.11) 4
97
Table 53. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps on types of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) provided information that would most assist respondents in managing white-tailed deer in the Gulf Coastal Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1 (not interested) to 5 (extremely interested). Rank Levels Summary Statistics Information Type
Not Interested
1
2
3
4
Extremely Interested
5
Mean Rank (SE)
M Hunting Techniques
185
(34%)
77
(14%)
136
(25%)
86
(16%)
62
(11%)
2.57 (0.06)
3
Aging Techniques 68 (12%)
59 (11%)
145 (26%)
169 (30%)
114 (21%)
3.36 (0.05) 4
Harvest Management 56 (10%)
39 (7%)
119 (21%)
203 (36%)
151 (27%)
3.62 (0.05) 4
Deer Behavior 83 (15%)
45 (8%)
117 (21%)
155 (28%)
160 (29%)
3.47 (0.06) 4
Food Plots 43 (7%)
22 (4%)
97 (16%)
186 (30%)
275 (44%)
4.01 (0.05) 4
Forest Management 187 (37%)
76 (15%)
74 (15%)
86 (17%)
77 (15%)
2.58 (0.07) 2
Prescribed Burning 257 (52%)
67 (14%)
71 (14%)
52 (11%)
44 (10%)
2.10 (0.06) 1
Deer Genetics 68 (12%)
52 (10%)
128 (23%)
148 (27%)
149 (27%)
3.47 (0.06) 4
Wildlife Plants 50 (9%)
41 (7%)
115 (20%)
173 (31%)
186 (33%)
3.72 (0.05) 4
Quality Deer Management Techniques 75 (15%)
50 (10%)
110 (22%)
144 (28%)
128 (25%)
3.39 (0.06) 4
Supplemental Feeding 44 (7%)
16 (3%)
95 (16%)
219 (36%)
234 (38%)
3.96 (0.05) 4
98
99
Table 54. Response frequencies on value of delivery method of white-tailed deer management information to responding hunt camps
across Arkansas. Rank levels from 1 (not valuable) to 5 (extremely valuable).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Delivery Method
Not
Valuable
1
2
3
4
Extremely
Valuable
5
Mean Rank (SE)
M
AGFC Seminar
212
(22%)
197
(20%)
302
(31%)
189
(19%)
74
(8%)
2.71 (0.04)
3
Biologist Contact 104
(10%)
87
(9%)
202
(20%)
280
(28%)
344
(34%)
3.66 (0.04) 4
Book or Magazine 74
(7%)
99
(10%)
309
(30%)
340
(33%)
217
(21%)
3.51 (0.04) 4
Video 86
(9%)
82
(8%)
268
(27%)
326
(32%)
243
(24%)
3.56 (0.04) 4
Research Publications 81
(8%)
72
(7%)
273
(26%)
339
(33%)
270
(26%)
3.62 (0.04) 4
100
Table 55. Response frequencies on value of delivery method of white-tailed deer management information to responding hunt camps
in the Ozarks DMU. Rank levels from 1 (not valuable) to 5 (extremely valuable).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Delivery Method
Not
Valuable
1
2
3
4
Extremely
Valuable
5
Mean Rank (SE)
M
AGFC Seminar
39
(21%)
30
(16%)
61
(33%)
32
(17%)
25
(13%)
2.86 (0.10)
3
Biologist Contact 15
(8%)
13
(7%)
38
(19%)
55
(28%)
75
(38%)
3.83 (0.09) 4
Book or Magazine 12
(6%)
21
(10%)
49
(24%)
70
(34%)
55
(27%)
3.65 (0.08) 4
Video 12
(6%)
16
(8%)
48
(25%)
59
(31%)
58
(30%)
3.70 (0.08) 4
Research Publications 14
(7%)
10
(5%)
55
(28%)
47
(24%)
72
(36%)
3.77 (0.09) 4
101
Table 56. Response frequencies on value of delivery method of white-tailed deer management information to responding hunt camps
in the Ouachitas DMU. Rank levels from 1 (not valuable) to 5 (extremely valuable).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Delivery Method
Not
Valuable
1
2
3
4
Extremely
Valuable
5
Mean Rank (SE)
M
AGFC Seminar
16
(24%)
11
(16%)
21
(31%)
15
(22%)
4
(6%)
2.70 (0.15)
3
Biologist Contact 9
(13%)
5
(7%)
14
(21%)
24
(35%)
16
(24%)
3.49 (0.16) 4
Book or Magazine 6
(9%)
9
(13%)
21
(30%)
20
(29%)
14
(20%)
3.38 (0.14) 3
Video 18 7 10
(11%) (15%)
20
(30%) (27%)
11
(17%)
3.24 (0.15) 3
Research Publications 9
(13%)
6
(9%)
16
(24%)
26
(38%)
11
(16%)
3.35 (0.15) 4
102
Table 57. Response frequencies on value of delivery method of white-tailed deer management information to responding hunt camps
in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1 (not valuable) to 5 (extremely valuable).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Delivery Method
Not
Valuable
1
2
3
4
Extremely
Valuable
5
Mean Rank (SE)
M
AGFC Seminar
32
(24%)
28
(21%)
43
(32%)
25
(19%)
6
(4%)
2.59 (0.10)
3
Biologist Contact 15
(11%)
11
(8%)
28
(20%)
39
(28%)
45
(33%)
3.64 (0.11) 4
Book or Magazine 11
(8%)
9
(7%)
47
(34%)
46
(34%)
24
(18%)
3.46 (0.09) 4
Video
(19%)
12
(29%)
16 10
(12%) (7%)
41
(30%)
45
(32%)
27 3.41 (0.10) 4
Research Publications
(9%)
6
(4%)
40 44
(32%)
36
(26%)
3.62 (0.10) 4
103
Table 58. Response frequencies on value of delivery method of white-tailed deer management information to responding hunt camps
in the Gulf Coastal Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1 (not valuable) to 5 (extremely valuable).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Delivery Method
Not
2
M
120 2.69 (0.05)
Valuable
1
3
4
Extremely
Valuable
5
Mean Rank (SE)
AGFC Seminar
(21%)
120
(21%)
166
(30%)
116
(21%)
37
(7%)
3
Biologist Contact 62
(11%)
53
(9%)
117
(20%)
157
(27%)
196
(34%)
3.64 (0.05)
(24%)
4
Book or Magazine 43
(7%)
57
(10%)
183
(31%)
193
(32%)
121
(20%)
3.49 (0.05) 4
Video 49
(8%)
44
(8%)
152
(26%)
190
(33%)
145
(25%)
3.58 (0.05) 4
Research Publications 43
(7%)
46
(8%)
155
(26%)
212
(35%)
146 3.62 (0.05) 4
104
Table 59. Number of responding hunt camps that feel that the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission (AGFC) is doing a good job managing the Arkansas white-tailed deer herd to meet
AGFC white-tailed deer program goals?
Meeting Goals Response Frequency
Yes
944 (80%)
No 240 (20%)
Table 60. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps opinions on future management options available to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC)
for white-tailed deer management across Arkansas. Rank levels from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Options
Most
Important
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Least
Important
8
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Increasing Antlerless Hunting Opportunities
280
(30%)
67
(7%)
63
(7%)
133
(14%)
96
(10%)
45
(5%)
37
(4%)
207
(22%)
4.09 (0.09)
4
Antler Restrictions (other than 3 point rule) 248
(27%)
92
(10%)
58
(6%)
105
(11%)
132
(14%)
57
(6%)
49
(5%)
174
(19%)
4.11 (0.09) 4
Expanding Education Efforts on Deer Management
Assistance for Private Lands
343
(35%)
176
(18%)
141
(15%)
109
(11%)
55
(6%)
50
(5%)
36
(4%)
62
(6%)
2.96 (0.07) 2
Increasing Deer Research and Survey Work to Solve Deer
Management Problems
233
(24%)
185
(19%)
178
(18%)
138
60
(14%)
92
(10%)
54
(6%)
33
(3%)
53
(5%)
3.23 (0.06) 3
Increasing Public Information and Education on Deer
Management Techniques
261
(27%)
148
(15%)
172
(17%)
159
(16%)
111
(11%)
37
(4%)
37
(4%) (6%)
3.27 (0.07) 3
Reducing Antlered Buck Bag Limit from 2 Deer/Hunter to
1 Deer/Hunter
108
(12%)
46
(5%)
30
(3%)
42
(5%)
41
(5%)
127
(14%)
146
(16%)
357
(40%)
5.91 (0.08) 7
Reducing Number of Days Antlered Bucks Can Be
Harvested With Modern Gun
135
(15%)
42
(5%)
47
(5%)
59
(6%)
72
(8%)
135
(15%)
176
(19%)
255
(28%)
5.47 (0.08) 6
Implementing Hunting Permit Quotas for Antlered Bucks 56
(7%)
16
(2%)
28
(3%)
53
(6%)
75
(9%)
109
(13%)
101
(12%)
419
(49%)
6.39 (0.07) 7
105
Table 61. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps opinions on future management options available to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC)
for white-tailed deer management in the Ozarks DMU. Rank levels from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Options
Most
Important
1
2
Important
8 Mean Rank (SE)
47 11
(6%)
13 23 19 9 46
3
4
5
6
7
Least
M
Increasing Antlerless Hunting Opportunities
(27%)
(7%)
(13%)
(11%)
(5%)
9
(5%)
(26%)
4.41 (0.20)
4
Antler Restrictions (other than 3 point rule) 57
(32%)
20
(11%)
16
(9%)
21
(12%)
19
(11%)
14
(8%)
8
(4%)
24
(13%)
3.66 (0.19) 3
Expanding Education Efforts on Deer Management
Assistance for Private Lands
61
(32%) (9%)
12
37
26
44
(23%)
27
(14%)
17 13
(7%) (6%)
5
(3%)
9
(5%)
2.88 (0.15) 2
Increasing Deer Research and Survey Work to Solve Deer
Management Problems (21%)
31
(17%)
43
(24%)
27
(15%)
20
(11%)
8
(4%)
4
(2%)
9
(5%)
3.26 (0.14) 3
Increasing Public Information and Education on Deer
Management Techniques
47
(25%)
30
(16%)
28
(15%)
33
(18%) (14%)
10
(5%)
6
(3%)
7
(4%)
3.27 (0.14) 3
Reducing Antlered Buck Bag Limit from 2 Deer/Hunter to
1 Deer/Hunter
27
(15%)
9
(5%)
9
(5%)
6
(3%)
7
(7%)
31
(17%)
34
(19%)
56
(56%)
5.60 (0.19) 7
Reducing Number of Days Antlered Bucks Can Be
Harvested With Modern Gun
40
(22%)
8
(4%)
8
(4%)
10
(5%)
18
(10%)
21
(11%)
39
(21%)
41
(22%)
5.06 (0.20) 6
Implementing Hunting Permit Quotas for Antlered Bucks 9
(5%)
4
(2%)
5
(3%)
11
(7%)
14
(8%)
26
(16%)
18
(11%)
78
(47%)
6.38 (0.16) 7
106
Table 62. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps opinions on future management options available to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC)
for white-tailed deer management in the Ouachitas DMU. Rank levels from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Options
Most
Important
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Least
Important
8
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Increasing Antlerless Hunting Opportunities
18
(30%)
5
(8%)
4
(7%)
6
(10%)
7
(12%)
6
(10%)
2
(3%)
12
(20%)
4.08 (0.35)
4
Antler Restrictions (other than 3 point rule) 6
(10%)
11
(18%)
4
(7%)
8
(13%)
7
(12%)
3
(5%)
5
(8%)
16
(27%)
4.80 (0.33) 5
Expanding Education Efforts on Deer Management
Assistance for Private Lands
27
(41%)
11
(17%)
9
(14%)
6
(9%)
4
(6%)
1
(2%)
4
(6%)
4
(6%)
2.82 (0.27) 2
Increasing Deer Research and Survey Work to Solve Deer
Management Problems
17
(26%)
11
(17%)
11
(17%)
11
(17%)
8
(12%)
3
6
(54%)
3
(5%)
2
(3%)
3
(5%)
3.21 (0.24) 3
Increasing Public Information and Education on Deer
Management Techniques
19
(29%)
9
(14%)
12
(18%)
8
(12%)
8
(12%)
5
(8%)
2
(3%)
3
(5%)
3.22 (0.25)
Reducing Antlered Buck Bag Limit from 2 Deer/Hunter to
1 Deer/Hunter
7
(12%)
3
(5%)
1
(2%)
4
(7%)
1
(2%)
9
(15%)
11
(18%)
24
(40%)
6.00 (0.32) 7
Reducing Number of Days Antlered Bucks Can Be
Harvested With Modern Gun
4
(7%)
2
(3%)
5
(8%)
6
(10%)
5
(8%)
15
(25%)
7
(12%)
16
(27%)
5.65 (0.28)
Implementing Hunting Permit Quotas for Antlered Bucks 3
(5%)
3
(5%)
1
(2%)
4
(7%)
5
(9%)
4
(7%)
6
(11%)
31 6.43 (0.29) 8
107
Table 63. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps opinions on future management options available to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC)
for white-tailed deer management in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Options
Most
Important
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 M
(8%)
Least
Important
Mean Rank (SE)
Increasing Antlerless Hunting Opportunities
23
(18%)
10
8
(6%)
31
(24%)
17
(13%)
7
(6%)
2
(2%)
29
(23%)
4.44 (0.22)
4
Antler Restrictions (other than 3 point rule) 40
(31%)
12
(9%)
9
(7%)
18
(14%)
21
(16%)
4
(3%)
7
(5%)
17
(13%)
3.73 (0.22) 4
Expanding Education Efforts on Deer Management
Assistance for Private Lands
50
(37%)
28
(21%)
23
(17%)
13
(10%)
5
(4%)
8
(6%)
3
(2%)
6
(4%)
2.71 (0.17) 2
Increasing Deer Research and Survey Work to Solve Deer
Management Problems
28
(21%)
33
(24%)
25
(18%)
18
(13%)
15
(11%)
11
(8%)
4
(3%)
2
(1%)
3.13 (0.15) 3
Increasing Public Information and Education on Deer
Management Techniques
36
(26%)
25
(18%)
25
(18%)
17
(12%)
16
(12%)
7
(5%)
7
(5%)
5
(4%)
3.19 (0.17) 3
Reducing Antlered Buck Bag Limit from 2 Deer/Hunter to
1 Deer/Hunter
11
(9%)
2
(2%)
6
(5%)
8
(7%)
9
(7%)
21
(17%)
17
(14%)
48
(39%)
6.06 (0.20) 7
Reducing Number of Days Antlered Bucks Can Be
Harvested With Modern Gun
14
(11%)
6
(5%)
4
(3%)
9
(7%)
16
(13%)
12
(9%)
31
(24%)
36
(28%)
5.71 (0.21) 7
Implementing Hunting Permit Quotas for Antlered Bucks 11
(9%)
2
(2%)
4
(3%)
8
(7%)
16
(13%)
20
(17%)
9
(8%)
49
(41%)
6.00 (0.21) 6
108
Table 64. Response frequencies of responding hunt camps opinions on future management options available to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC)
for white-tailed deer management in the Gulf Coastal Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Management Options
Most
Important
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Least
Important
8
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Increasing Antlerless Hunting Opportunities
182
(34%)
40
(7%)
36
(7%)
69
(13%)
50
(9%)
23
(4%)
24
(4%)
114
(21%)
3.93 (0.12)
4
Antler Restrictions (other than 3 point rule) 140
(27%)
48
(9%)
27
(5%)
53
(10%)
82
(16%)
36
(7%)
26
(5%)
112
(21%)
4.26 (0.12) 4
Expanding Education Efforts on Deer Management
Assistance for Private Lands
199
(36%)
87
(16%)
81
(15%)
69
(12%)
30
(5%)
28
(5%)
22
(4%)
41
(7%)
3.04 (0.09) 2
Increasing Deer Research and Survey Work to Solve Deer
Management Problems
143
(26%)
108
(19%)
95
(17%)
79
(14%)
43
(8%)
29
(5%)
23
(4%)
38 3.25 (0.09)
78 15
(4%)
3.30 (0.09)
Reducing Antlered Buck Bag Limit from 2 Deer/Hunter to
1 Deer/Hunter
31
(3%)
23
(12%)
218 5.94 (0.11)
5.51 (0.11)
250
(7%)
3
Increasing Public Information and Education on Deer
Management Techniques
154
(27%) (14%)
102
(18%)
98
(17%)
58
(10%) (3%)
21 43
(8%)
3
62
(12%) (6%)
14 24
(5%) (4%)
61 80
(16%) (43%)
7
Reducing Number of Days Antlered Bucks Can Be
Harvested With Modern Gun
75
(14%)
26
(5%)
29
(6%)
32
(6%)
31
(6%)
83
(16%)
95
(18%)
154
(29%)
6
Implementing Hunting Permit Quotas for Antlered Bucks 31
(6%)
7
(1%)
17
(3%)
30
(6%)
40
(8%)
55
(11%)
63
(13%) (51%)
6.46 (0.09) 8
109
110
Table 65. Number of responding hunt camps (%) that offer wildlife related recreational
opportunities for members and the number of members (mode (sample size)) involved across
Arkansas.
Response Frequency No. Members Involved
Wildlife Related Opportunities Yes Mode and sample size (n)
Fishing
404 (34%)
6: n=311
Swimming 109 (9%) 5: n=76
Hiking 294 (25%) 5: n=213
Wildlife Observation 472 (40%) 6: n=341
Bird Watching 255 (22%) 2: n=168
Table 66. Number of responding hunt camps that allow guests of camp members to harvest
antlerless deer on hunt camp property by DMU and statewide in Arkansas.
Guest
Hunting
Ozarks
Ouachitas
Mississippi Alluvial
Plain
Gulf Coastal
Plain
Statewide
Yes
183 (78%)
49 (66%)
130 (83%)
586 (85%)
974 (82%)
No 52 (22%) 25 (34%) 26 (17%) 100 (15%) 210 (18%)
Table 67. Response frequencies of problems occurring on responding hunt camps property across Arkansas. Rank levels from 1 (greatest problem) to 7
(least problem).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Camp Problems
Greatest
Problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least
Problem
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Unauthorized Hunting of Deer
285
(30%)
142
(15%)
116
(12%)
126
(13%)
101
(11%)
61
(6%)
126
(13%)
3.32 (0.07)
3
Unauthorized Hunting of Other Wildlife 148
(16%)
65
(7%)
114
(13%)
118
(13%)
158
(17%)
117
(13%)
187
(21%)
4.29 (0.07) 5
Illegal Hunting (Poaching) 314
(32%)
171
(18%)
129
(13%)
109
(11%)
69
(7%)
44
(5%)
132
(14%)
3.11 (0.07) 2
Dog Hunting Forcing Deer off Camp
Property
191
(21%)
60
(7%)
80
(9%)
62
(7%)
81
(9%)
134
(15%)
291
(32%)
4.50 (0.08) 5
Non-Member Hunting Near Camp Boundary 293
(30%)
131
(13%)
112
(11%)
95
(10%)
100
(10%)
99
(10%)
145
(15%)
4.47 (0.07) 3
Trespassing 316 160
(32%)
140
(14%) (16%)
135
(14%)
85
(9%)
62
(6%)
99
(10%)
3.12 (0.06) 3
Safety of Members While Hunting 59
(7%)
18
(2%)
20
(2%)
28
(3%)
56
(7%)
109
(13%)
566
(66%)
6.03 (0.06) 7
111
Table 68. Response frequencies of problems occurring on responding hunt camps property in the Ozarks DMU. Rank levels from 1 (greatest problem) to 7
(least problem).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Camp Problems
Problem
1
2
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Unauthorized Hunting of Deer
31 12
(6%)
21 59
(30%)
(16%)
21
(11%)
28
(14%)
23
(12%)
(11%)
3.23 (0.15)
3
Unauthorized Hunting of Other Wildlife 27
(15%) (13%)
23
12
(7%)
21
(12%)
23 35
(19%) (13%)
40
(22%)
4.41 (0.15) 5
Illegal Hunting (Poaching) 54
(28%)
42
(22%)
24
(13%)
23
(12%)
13
(7%)
9
(5%)
27
(14%)
3.18 (0.15) 2
Dog Hunting Forcing Deer off Camp
Property
52
(28%)
15
(8%)
16
(9%)
10
(5%)
22
(13%)
22
(13%)
49
(26%)
4.06 (0.18) 4
Non-Member Hunting Near Camp Boundary 57
(30%)
24
(13%)
26
(14%)
21
(11%)
16
(8%)
22
(12%)
24
(13%)
3.41 (0.16) 3
Trespassing 61 37
(31%)
28
(14%) (19%)
25
(13%)
15
(8%)
15
(8%)
19
(10%)
3.13 (0.14) 3
Safety of Members While Hunting 13
(8%)
4
(2%)
3
(2%)
8
(5%)
12
(7%)
19
(11%)
109
(65%)
5.95 (0.14) 7
Greatest
3
4
5
6
Least
Problem
7
112
Table 69. Response frequencies of problems occurring on responding hunt camps property in the Ouachitas DMU. Rank levels from 1 (greatest problem)
to 7 (least problem).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Camp Problems
Greatest
Problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least
Problem
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Unauthorized Hunting of Deer
23
(37%)
6
(10%)
7
(11%)
7
(11%)
10
(16%)
5
(8%)
5
(8%)
3.16 (0.26)
3
Unauthorized Hunting of Other Wildlife 11
(19%)
4
(7%)
2
(3%)
10
(17%)
15
(25%)
8
(14%)
9
(15%)
4.25 (0.27) 5
Illegal Hunting (Poaching) 23
(35%)
11
(17%)
11
(17%)
6
(9%)
5
(8%)
5
(8%)
4
(6%)
2.85 (0.24) 2
Dog Hunting Forcing Deer off Camp Property 19
(31%)
5
(8%)
8
(13%)
6
(10%)
4
(6%)
6
(10%)
14
(23%)
3.73 (0.30) 3
Non-Member Hunting Near Camp Boundary 11
(17%)
8
(13%)
7
(11%)
9
(14%)
8
(3%)
12
(19%)
8
(13%)
4.00 (0.26) 4
Trespassing 24 13
(36%)
12
(18%) (19%)
8
(12%)
3
(4%)
4
(4%)
4
(6%)
2.69 (0.22) 2
Safety of Members While Hunting 5
(8%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
2
(3%)
3
(5%)
8
(13%)
41
(68%)
6.08 (0.23) 7
113
Table 70. Response frequencies of problems occurring on responding hunt camps property in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1
(greatest problem) to 7 (least problem).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Camp Problems
Greatest
Problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least
Problem
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Unauthorized Hunting of Deer
34
(27%)
21
(17%)
19
(15%)
15
(12%)
12
(10%)
8
(6%)
17
(13%)
3.33 (0.19)
3
Unauthorized Hunting of Other Wildlife 10
(8%)
13
(10%)
18
(15%)
20
(16%)
21
(17%)
20
(16%)
22
(18%)
4.43 (0.17) 5
Illegal Hunting (Poaching) 50
(37%)
26
(19%)
22
(16%)
13
(9%)
12
(9%)
4
(3%)
10
(7%)
2.73 (0.16) 2
Dog Hunting Forcing Deer off Camp Property 8
(7%)
6
(5%)
14
(12%)
13
(11%)
11
(9%)
27
(23%)
41
(34%)
5.15 (0.18) 6
Non-Member Hunting Near Camp Boundary 43
(32%)
23
(17%)
18
(13%)
11
(8%)
12
(9%)
11
(8%)
16
(12%)
3.17 (0.18) 3
Trespassing 47
(34%)
25
(18%)
21
(15%)
23
(17%)
8
(6%)
9
(6%)
6
(4%)
2.79 (0.15) 2
Safety of Members While Hunting 7
(6%)
1
(1%)
5
(4%)
5
(4%)
8
(7%)
15
(13%)
77
(65%)
6.04 (0.16) 7
114
Table 71. Response frequencies of problems occurring on responding hunt camps property in the Gulf Coastal Plain DMU. Rank levels from 1 (greatest
problem) to 7 (least problem).
Rank Levels Summary Statistics
Camp Problems
Greatest
Problem
1
2
3
4
5
6
Least
Problem
7
Mean Rank (SE)
M
Unauthorized Hunting of Deer
160
(29%)
81
(15%)
61
(11%)
72
(13%)
55
(10%)
35
(6%)
82
(15%)
3.39 (0.09)
3
Unauthorized Hunting of Other Wildlife 91
(18%)
33
(6%)
68
(13%)
61
(12%)
83
(16%)
65
(13%)
115
(22%)
4.29 (0.09) 5
Illegal Hunting (Poaching) 177
(32%)
86
(16%)
70
(13%)
62
(11%)
38
(7%)
24
(4%)
90
(16%)
3.24 (0.09) 3
Dog Hunting Forcing Deer off Camp Property 109
(21%)
32
(6%)
40
(8%)
32
(6%)
42
(8%)
75
(15%)
178
(35%)
4.58 (0.11) 5
Non-Member Hunting Near Camp Boundary 175
(31%)
70
(13%)
59
(11%)
52
(9%)
61
(11%)
50
(9%)
91
(16%)
3.48 (0.10) 3
Trespassing 171
(31%)
69
(12%)
86
(15%)
74
(13%)
56
(10%)
35
(6%)
69
(12%)
3.28 (0.09) 3
Safety of Members While Hunting 32
(7%)
12
(2%)
11
(2%)
13
(3%)
32
(7%)
66
(14%)
321
(66%)
6.05 (0.08) 7
115
116
Appendix 1
117
In order to categorize the data more effectively, please indicate which of the following most
closely applies to you.
(___) Land Owner – person who owns the land that the hunt club is located on.
(___) Land Manager – person who owns the land and is responsible for the management of the
club and wildlife management practices used on the land.
(___) Club Manager – person who does not own the land but is responsible for the management
of the club and wildlife management practices used on the land.
Arkansas Deer Club Contact Questionnaire
Club Information
Club Name______________________________________________________________
1) What is your AGFC hunt club identification number? #_____________
2) Where is the property that you manage (or hunt) located?
Deer Zone-__________ County-_______________
3) How many acres is your hunt club?
Acres-__________
4) Which type of property is a majority of the hunt club located on?
(___) – Privately owned land (club member owned)
(___) – Privately owned land the club leases (non-member owned)
(___) – Industry Land (e.g. timber company land)
(___) – Public Lands
5) How many members does your club have?
Number of Club Members -__________
6) How many white-tailed deer did members of your club harvest last season?