Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Aug 7;11(8):2334.
doi: 10.3390/ani11082334.

Effects of Bait on Male White-Tailed Deer Resource Selection

James T Johnson  1 , Richard B Chandler  1 , L Mike Conner  2 , Michael J Cherry  3 , Charlie H Killmaster  4 , Kristina L Johannsen  4 , Karl V Miller  1
Affiliations

Effects of Bait on Male White-Tailed Deer Resource Selection

James T Johnson et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Bait is often used to increase wildlife harvest susceptibility, enhance viewing opportunities, and survey wildlife populations. The effects of baiting depend on how bait influences space use and resource selection at multiple spatial scales. Although telemetry studies allow for inferences about resource selection within home ranges (third-order selection), they provide limited information about spatial variation in density, which is the result of second-order selection. Recent advances in spatial capture-recapture (SCR) techniques allow exploration of second- and third-order selection simultaneously using non-invasive methods such as camera traps. Our objectives were to describe how short-term baiting affects white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) behavior and distribution. We fit SCR models to camera data from baited and unbaited locations in southwestern Georgia to assess the effects of short-term baiting on second- and third-order selection of deer during summer and winter surveys. We found little evidence of second-order selection during late summer or early winter surveys when camera surveys using bait are typically conducted. However, we found evidence for third-order selection, indicating that resource selection within home ranges is affected. Concentrations in space use resulting from baiting may enhance disease transmission, change harvest susceptibility, and potentially bias the outcome of camera surveys using bait.

Keywords: Georgia; Odocoileus virginianus; camera survey; space-use; spatial capture-recapture.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Properties in southwestern Georgia, USA, used to evaluate the effects of bait on male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) resource selection in 2015–2016. Property one contains camera array site A, property two contains site B, and property three contains sites C and D.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Raster density surfaces of each site (A–D) located in southwestern Georgia, USA, indicating distance from the spatial covariate, bait. Cameras were operated in the summer of 2015 and winter of 2016 to evaluate the effects of bait on male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) resource selection. Open circles represent baited cameras and closed circles represent passive cameras.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The effect of distance to bait on adult male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) density distributions within four sites during summer 2015 and winter 2016 surveys in southwestern Georgia, USA.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The probability that bait influenced second-order selection of male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in southwestern Georgia, USA, during summer (2015) and winter (2016) camera surveys.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Half-normal detection functions of each baited (solid lines) and passive (dashed lines) camera array site, by season (summer 2015 and winter 2016), describing how the encounter probability of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) changes as a function of distance (km) from camera at study sites in southwestern Georgia, USA.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Encounter probabilities (95% CI) of male white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) captured on passive and baited cameras during summer 2015 and winter 2016 surveys at four sites in southwestern Georgia, USA.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Langenau E.E., Jr., Flegerler E., Jr., Hill H. Deer Hunters’ Opinion Survey. Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Lansing, MI, USA: 1985.
    1. Wisconsin Bureau of Wildlife Management . Deer Baiting in Wisconsin: A Survey of Wisconsin Deer Hunters. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Wildlife Management; Madison, WI, USA: 1993.
    1. Frawley B.J. 1999 Michigan Deer Hunter Survey: Deer Baiting. Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Lansing, MI, USA: 2000.
    1. Kilpatrick H.J., Labonte A.M., Barclay J.S. Use of bait to increase archery deer harvest in an urban-suburban landscape. J. Wildl. Manag. 2010;74:714–718. doi: 10.2193/2009-244. - DOI
    1. Jacobson H.A., Kroll J.C., Browning R.W., Koerth B.H., Conway M.H. Infrared-triggered cameras for censusing white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1997;25:547–556.

LinkOut - more resources