Feeding-Up Fawns - Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute ...

Does Fence Design Influence Fawn Visitation Rates at Supplemental Feed Stations?Chase R. Currie and David G. HewittCaesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas 78363, USAINTRODUCTIONRESULTSVisitation rates of white‐tailed deer at resource sites (i.e. supplemental feed stations, cornfeeders, or water stations) are influenced by social interactions between sexes and among age classes. Between sexes,males are generally dominate over females among all age classes. However, previous research has indicated the socialrelationship between adult females and yearling males was equal in most seasons, but during spring yearlings maleswere dominant (Donohue et al. 2011). Among age classes within sexes, older animals are typically dominate overyounger animals.Fawn visitation is influenced by a variety of factors, many of which stem from socialinteractions which were discussed above. Furthermore, feeder pen design may influence fawn visitation rates during thefirst 6 months of life because of accessibility, or lack thereof by fawns. The standard fence panel used for exclusion ofnon‐target animals has a minimum fence height of 34 inches if placed on a level surface. Recent studies have indicatedthis type of panel may be to tall for fawns to jump; therefore, limiting access to supplemental feed early in life(VanBogelen et al. 2010). We hypothesize fawn visitation rates at supplemental feed sites will be influenced by feederpen design, and higher visitation rates will occur at feeder pens with lower fence heights.OBJECTIVEOur objective was to assess patterns of white-tailed deer fawn visitation rates atthree feeder pen designs using Fawn:Doe ratios. We also assessed what proportion of fawns which visitedbait sites where males and females.MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONSMETHODSWe monitored white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) fawn visitation rates on 3 studysites in Zapata County along the Rio Grande river from April 2011 through January 2012, excluding July 2011. In southTexas, fawns are born during July; therefore, we graduated the previous years fawns, those born in July 2010, toyearlings on July 1. Motion triggered cameras (Cuddeback Capture) were deployed at bait sites for 1‐week each monthon all study sites. Bait site density was 1/50 acres. Feed was distributed via elevated corn feeders.We assesed fawn visitation rates at 3 different feeder pen designs: 1) the top quadrat of astandard fence panel was cut out in 2 foot sections 3 times, resulting in 3 places of the feeder pen with a minimum fenceheight of 29 inches, 5 inches shorter than the standard panel, 2) standard fence panel was raised off the ground,resulting in a gap of 26 inches from the ground to the bottom of the fence panel, and 3) a standard fence panel designwith a minimum fence height of 34 inches. Non‐target use at bait sites was not assessed, however feral hogs (Sus scrufa)and javelinas (Pecari tajacu) did not seem to be an issue on these study sites.We compared visitation rates of fawns between sexes November 2011 through January2012; only after the pedicle on males became externally visible allowing us to determine sex. Visitation rates of fawnsbetween sexes is expressed as the total number of photos/sex.Our results indicate fawn visitation rates are influenced by feeder pen design.Fawns are only able to access supplemental feed once they have reached 6 months of age using thestandard fence panel design. The raised panel design seems to be more effective than other designs whenfawns are 2-5 months of age. Managers may need to alter the standard fence panel design to increase thelikelihood of fawns visiting supplemental feed stations.AKNOWLEDGMENTSWe would like to thank the USDA-NIFA-AFRI for funding. We thank USDA-ARS,USDA-APHIS-VS, The Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory (KBUSLIRL) and theCFTEP for their assistance in this project. Also, we are grateful for the permission of access granted by thelandowners.LITERATURE CITEDDonohue, R. N., D. G. Hewitt, T. E. Fulbright, C. A. DeYoung, A. R. Litt, and D. A. Draeger. 2011. Aggressivebehavior in white-tailed deer at supplemental feed sites as affected by populationdensity.VanBogelen, K. A., D. G. Hewitt, and M. W. Hellickson. 2011. Fawn use of supplemental feed in southTexas. 34 thAnnual Southeast Deer Study Group Meeting, San Antonio, Texas.