HANNAH CLEMENTS PHOTO · 2015-04-30 · 5 2005 WHITE-TAILED DEER HARVEST SUMMARY Following a couple...

HANNAH CLEMENTS PHOTO

NewHampshireFish and

GameDepartment

2005

VICTOR YOUNG PHOTO

www.wildlife.state.nh.us

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department11 Hazen Drive

Concord, NH 03301(603) 271-2461


2005

2

Printed on Recycled Paper© NHF&G, 2006. F&W06001.P7

We thank our partners in wildlife conservation, hunters and shooters, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service and private industry.

Excise taxes collected on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment aredistributed to state agencies like the N.H. Fish and Game Department to conductresearch, restore and manage wildlife populations, purchase habitat, conduct huntereducation programs and create opportunities for hunting and other wildlife-associated recreation.

You are the key to wildlife restoration success in New Hampshire!

This program receives Federal financial assistance from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Under Title VI of the CivilRights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, The US Department of theInterior and its bureaus prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, age or sex (ineducational programs). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, orif you desire additional information please write to: The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office for Diversity and CivilRights Programs – External Affairs, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 130, Arlington, VA 22203.

3

CONTENTS

2005 WHITE-TAILED DEER HARVEST SUMMARY ............................................ 5

DEER POPULATION OBJECTIVES BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT ................................................. 6

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEER WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNITS .................................................................... 7

TOTAL AND SEX-SPECIFIC DEER HARVEST FOR 1960-2005 HUNTING SEASONS .............................. 8

DEER KILL BY SEX, SEASON AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT IN 2005 ........................................ 9

ADULT MALE KILL BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT (1963-2005) ..................................................... 10

MALE KILL BY SEASON AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT DURING 2005 ..................................... 11

YEARLING ANTLER BEAM DIAMETER BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT (2001-2005) .................... 12

YEARLING MALE FRACTION BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT (2001-2005) .................................... 13

NEW HAMPSHIRE TROPHY DEER PROGRAM ................................................................................. 14-15

DEER KILL BY TOWN AND SEX DURING 2005 .................................................................................. 16-21

DEER KILL BY COUNTY, SEX, AND HUNTER RESIDENCY DURING 2005 ........................................... 21

2005 BLACK BEAR HARVEST SUMMARY ...................................................... 22

NEW HAMPSHIRE BEAR MANAGEMENT REGIONS ............................................................................. 23

REGIONAL BEAR POPULATION MANAGEMENT GOALS ...................................................................... 24

TOTAL BEAR HARVEST FOR 1983-2005 HUNTING SEASONS .............................................................. 24

BEAR HARVEST BY METHOD (1990-2005) ............................................................................................. 25

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF BEAR HARVEST (1990-2005) ................................................................ 26

BEAR HARVEST SEX RATIOS (1990-2005) ............................................................................................. 27

BEAR HARVEST BY REGION, WMU AND METHOD DURING 2005 ....................................................... 28

BEAR HARVEST BY METHOD AND SEX DURING 2005 ........................................................................ 29

BEAR HARVEST BY REGION AND SEX DURING 2005.......................................................................... 29

AVERAGE AGE IN YEARS OF HARVESTED BEARS (1992-2004) .......................................................... 30

NEW HAMPSHIRE HEAVY-WEIGHTS ..................................................................................................... 30

BEAR HARVEST BY TOWN AND SEX DURING 2005 ........................................................................ 31-33

2005 MOOSE HARVEST SUMMARY ............................................................... 34

NEW HAMPSHIRE MOOSE MANAGEMENT REGIONS.......................................................................... 35

N.H. MOOSE POPULATION MANAGEMENT GOALS BY REGION ......................................................... 36

SUMMARY OF N.H. MOOSE LOTTERY AND HARVEST ......................................................................... 36

AGE AND SEX OF THE 2005 MOOSE HARVEST BY MANAGEMENT REGION AND WMU .................. 37

METHODS OF HARVEST USED BY SUCCESSFUL HUNTERS DURING THE 2005 MOOSE HUNT...... 37

4

CONTENTS, continued

PERMITS ISSUED, HARVEST, SUCCESS RATE AND HARVEST PER SQUARE MILE OF LANDAREA FOR THE 2005 MOOSE HUNT BY MANAGEMENT REGION AND WMU ..................................... 38

SUMMARY OF MOOSE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE 2005 MOOSE HARVESTBY MANAGEMENT REGION AND AGE .................................................................................................. 39

TEN-YEAR MOOSE HUNTER SUCCESS RATES BY MANAGEMENT REGION AND WMU ................... 39

2005 WILD TURKEY HARVEST SUMMARY ..................................................... 40

NEW HAMPSHIRE TURKEY WILDIFE MANAGEMENT UNITS ............................................................... 41

2005 TURKEY HARVEST BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT (WMU) ................................................... 42

2005 TURKEY HARVEST BY COUNTY .................................................................................................... 42

SPRING TURKEY HARVEST BY WMU AND YEAR ................................................................................. 43

TOP 10 2005 SPRING GOBBLERS RANKED BY WEIGHT AND BEARD LENGTH ................................. 43

2005 TURKEY HARVEST BY TOWN AND WMU .................................................................................. 44-48

2004/2005 FURBEARER HARVEST SUMMARY .............................................. 49

NEW HAMPSHIRE FURBEARER HARVEST BY COUNTY (2004/05) ...................................................... 50

NEW HAMPSHIRE FURBEARER CATCH PER 100 TRAP-NIGHTS (1992-2004) ..................................... 50

NEW HAMPSHIRE HARVEST RECORDS FOR SELECT SPECIES DURING 1989-2004 ........................ 51

5

2005 WHITE-TAILED DEERHARVEST SUMMARY

Following a couple of severe winters in 2000-01 and 2002-03,the New Hampshire deer harvest has since increased for the secondyear in a row. The kill in 2004 was 7% above that in 2003 and the2005 kill of 10,595 was a 5% increase from 2004. As of this writing(late January 2006), winter severity has so far been average to below average. If the mild winter contin-ues, we should see deer populations continue to increase in those Wildlife Management Units (WMUs)where current levels are below population objectives based on the Big Game Management Plan.

The 2005 statewide adult male kill was 6,127, an 11% increase from 5,537 in 2004. Almost allWMUs produced similar or increased adult buck harvests in the 2005 season. The statewide female killin 2005 was 3,543, similar to the harvest of 3,676 in 2004. The general season framework and either-sex hunting opportunities were the same in 2004 and 2005.

The youth hunt kill during their special weekend was 326, up 4% from 312 in 2004. This slightincrease suggests that the youth kill may be leveling off following successive 28% increases in 2002and 2003. Archery hunters took 1,971 deer in 2005, down 9% from the 2,158 taken in 2004. Themuzzleloader harvest in 2005 was 2,549, up 16% from 2,194 in 2004 while “regular” firearm hunterstook 5,749 deer in 2005, up 5% from 5,469 in 2004. Subsequent tables give additional details on theharvest by season, sex and WMU.

Biological information was again collected during 2005 at select deer registration stations in orderto monitor the physical condition of New Hampshire’s deer and help assess harvest age structure.Average yearling antler beam diameter was 17.0 millimeters and yearling male field dressed weightaveraged 113 pounds. These values were slightly below the recent 5-year averages of 17.5 millimetersand 115 pounds respectively, but continue to indicate that deer populations remain below the biologicalcarrying capacity of our deer habitat and that deer are in good physical condition. The statewideyearling male fraction (the percentage of adult males consisting of yearlings) for the 2005 harvest was51.2%, a slight increase from 47.5% in 2004. The distribution of older males was 26% at 2.5 years old,16% at 3.5 years, 5% at 4.5 years and 2% at 5.5+ years old. Additionally, mature bucks at 4.5 years oldaveraged 192.3 pounds dressed weight with 8.6 points while bucks 5.5+ years old averaged 194.5pounds with 7.7 points.

In summary, the 2005 deer harvest was up as expected in light of limited either-sex hunting andthe recent average to mild winters. Revision of the “New Hampshire Big Game Management Plan”was recently completed and will guide deer (and other big game) management for the next decade(2006-2015). The deer population objectives in this plan for most WMUs call for increasing deernumbers. The objective in other units will be to stabilize or decrease deer abundance. In addition,efforts will be made to maintain good adult sex and age ratios. The deer population objectives andcurrent status are given in the following table while a copy of the complete plan is available on theN.H. Fish and Game Department website (www.wildlife.state.nh.us) under “hunting.”

6

DEER POPULATION OBJECTIVES BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT

Deer management decisions are based on our existing Big Game Population Management Plan.The objectives of this plan span the period 2006-2015 and are summarized in the following table. Anegative (-) value under “desired % change” indicates a need to decrease the population to achieve theobjective while a positive (+) value reflects a need to increase the population.

EXPRESSED AS ADULT (AGE 1.5+) MALE KILL

WMU

OBJECTIVE

CURRENT LEVEL1

DESIRED % CHANGE

A 335 279 +20%

B 125 99 +26%

C1 100 52 +92%

C2 125 80 +56%

D 790 537 +47%

E 100 61 +64%

F 150 79 +90%

G 530 357 +48%

H1 460 366 +26%

H2 750 552 +36%

I1 330 179 +84%

I2 360 205 +76%

J1 375 259 +45%

J2 940 849 +11%

K 735 596 +23%

L 525 533 -2%

M 535 754 -29%

TOTAL 7,265 5,832 +25%

��

7

NEWHAMPSHIRE

DEERWILDLIFE

MANAGEMENTUNITS

8

TOTAL AND SEX-SPECIFIC DEER HARVEST FOR 1960-2005 HUNTINGSEASONS

The graph below shows the number of male, female and total deer harvested during the past 46deer seasons. The highest harvest (14,204 deer) occurred in 1967 and the second highest occurred in1968. These harvests contained nearly equal portions of males and females and were the result of veryliberal either-sex hunting seasons. High female harvest rates, combined with severe winter weather,caused the state’s deer population to decrease from the late 1960s until the early 1980s. In 1983, theDepartment dramatically reduced the number of either-sex hunting days in most areas of the state toallow populations to begin to increase.

The graph below shows a highly variable deer harvest over the past 4 decades. Several factorscan affect the number of deer harvested in any given year such as: deer population density, habitatavailability and productivity, hunter density and access, weather severity (all seasons), natural foodproduction, and the Department’s season objectives (with respect to management plan goals). All of theabove factors have changed with time and will continue to change in years to come. For example,notice that the deer kill in the first half of the graph contains nearly equal numbers of males and fe-males, while the second half contains nearly twice the number of males as females. This change inharvest ratio is the result of the Department’s goal to increase the deer population, which was at an alltime low in 1983, but has since rebounded because of restricted antlerless seasons and reduced femaleharvests. It is noteworthy that when the deer population reaches the management plan goal, the totalharvest will contend with the harvests of 1967-68, but the herd will be at a higher level, and moreimportantly, the harvests will be sustainable.

02000400060008000

10000120001400016000

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

Year

Nu

mb

er H

arve

sted

Males Females Total

9

DEER KILL BY SEX, SEASON AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT IN 2005

The Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) specific and overall deer kill per square mile reported inthese tables is based on estimates of square miles of deer habitat. These estimates were derived as partof the New Hampshire Big Game Management Plan that will guide deer management from 2006 to2015.

��

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT SEASON A B C1 C2 D E F G H1 H2 I1 I2 J1 J2 K L M ALL ARCHERY 40 15 8 12 95 5 4 38 45 88 16 17 13 113 101 121 179 910 YOUTH 5 4 2 3 23 1 0 8 15 16 3 3 4 17 13 7 15 139 MUZZL. 102 18 12 19 118 8 21 77 89 133 47 43 38 189 189 192 287 1582 FIREARM 243 84 38 66 414 41 68 267 304 442 160 174 215 613 398 356 538 4421 TOTAL 390 121 60 100 650 55 93 390 453 679 226 237 270 932 701 676 1019 7052 KILL/ 0.71 0.31 0.99 0.20 1.20 0.69 0.62 1.20 1.91 SQ.MI. 0.37 0.44 0.08 0.63 1.05 0.67 1.26 1.63 0.87

��


��


10

ADULT MALE KILL BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT (1963-2005)

Adult male kill is the most consistent index of total deer population on a historical basis. Whileeither-sex hunting seasons have varied widely through time, adult male seasons have remained fairlyconstant, and the adult male kill provides an accurate and consistent index to change in populationlevels. Adult male kill figures prior to 1987 (the first year we have good data on a WMU basis) areestimated based on town of kill and current WMU boundaries. Since the number of deer killed in anygiven year can vary significantly as a result of snow cover, weather and natural food production, weuse two-year averages to assess population status relative to our management efforts and populationobjectives.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT YEAR A B C1 C2 D E F G H1 H2 I1 I2 J1 J2 K L M TOTAL 1963 158 169 63 109 392 157 122 402 238 286 184 210 288 312 298 139 120 3647 1964 244 185 66 134 391 158 110 333 217 211 123 147 306 254 207 104 66 3256 1965 301 207 87 167 532 236 170 506 228 244 158 160 399 355 225 128 69 4172 1966 240 168 67 137 479 201 152 440 215 277 147 199 406 402 241 150 75 3996 1967 310 278 109 177 768 234 192 491 286 371 184 236 523 596 374 209 123 5461 1968 353 232 99 163 650 245 178 457 236 322 139 180 467 494 234 195 75 4719 1969 235 200 82 137 548 166 183 472 182 210 101 141 371 262 124 122 46 3582 1970 215 134 63 102 427 164 146 354 133 156 84 93 313 260 88 138 64 2934 1971 166 85 55 65 408 121 119 317 133 186 84 106 332 337 108 216 69 2907 1972 143 79 58 72 493 150 99 281 113 139 86 75 295 294 100 150 71 2698 1973 138 53 42 36 340 90 85 187 99 107 60 49 270 288 88 137 41 2110 1974 113 47 41 52 398 95 101 235 128 162 87 76 353 402 122 207 89 2708 1975 116 61 54 60 470 121 106 294 169 237 111 96 360 526 140 243 116 3280 1976 141 83 65 80 470 126 133 276 180 272 140 132 363 613 211 253 145 3683 1977 109 63 49 56 360 103 98 211 168 221 94 104 255 441 132 170 90 2724 1978 43 28 18 25 229 41 41 122 151 174 85 109 170 398 125 174 117 2050 1979 22 19 10 12 178 24 45 128 152 176 93 103 216 403 139 208 92 2020 1980 73 41 26 39 167 47 46 113 154 234 93 118 220 428 130 217 125 2271 1981 94 46 23 40 252 54 46 134 180 256 100 142 228 459 211 255 138 2658 1982 82 39 13 26 153 28 25 80 137 173 71 85 139 323 130 169 114 1787 1983 79 36 15 20 126 20 34 141 130 149 58 94 112 280 123 161 92 1670 1984 155 63 24 25 257 41 33 139 143 231 78 97 191 372 149 209 143 2350 1985 190 56 32 54 252 69 48 173 171 327 112 130 257 494 244 288 202 3099 1986 190 65 25 42 229 52 42 180 221 363 132 147 328 571 255 320 228 3390 1987 189 82 18 44 270 37 36 144 204 340 127 128 231 499 252 265 276 3144 1988 279 71 32 38 236 44 47 169 196 369 131 151 245 527 296 397 332 3559 1989 270 90 45 51 335 66 63 222 204 443 165 176 260 655 410 448 384 4287 1990 328 102 40 60 288 66 62 227 221 457 141 151 248 618 388 428 410 4234 1991 248 122 54 58 389 68 74 309 329 535 187 185 303 713 464 474 414 4926 1992 221 93 40 40 404 79 74 342 358 611 248 225 331 906 482 484 496 5433 1993 212 99 38 45 421 68 74 343 320 595 237 254 318 874 489 473 488 5348 1994 213 82 24 38 376 70 53 286 327 486 234 210 257 772 429 445 489 4790 1995 388 152 48 85 539 92 81 376 412 599 220 265 343 939 539 502 546 6125 1996 315 106 43 47 546 72 66 365 348 590 220 218 317 960 487 475 564 5740 1997 382 138 59 81 675 89 75 389 349 575 199 249 374 899 580 536 657 6305 1998 306 118 45 67 624 73 69 309 263 491 157 126 253 714 450 447 615 5127 1999 421 142 50 62 620 62 74 373 273 478 155 157 292 714 466 579 724 5642 2000 428 169 77 98 722 74 89 430 335 550 195 196 319 816 600 593 863 6554 2001 306 119 66 81 571 53 85 357 333 601 186 185 287 799 581 543 828 5981 2002 387 128 71 106 642 62 85 420 375 642 234 288 308 969 714 597 827 6855 2003 355 141 55 70 618 43 53 336 392 562 181 169 219 762 605 576 691 5828 2004 264 98 48 68 488 69 66 342 331 506 149 179 263 856 565 499 746 5537 2005 294 99 56 92 585 52 92 372 400 598 209 230 254 842 626 567 761 6127

11

MALE KILL BY SEASON AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT DURING 2005

Harvests vary widely by day during the hunting season. Changes are primarily influenced bydifferences in hunting pressure and weather conditions. The typical distribution of harvest includes ahigh opening day kill in the muzzleloader and firearms seasons, high kills during the first 5 days of thefirearms season, and high kills on weekends for both seasons. The Thanksgiving weekend can alsoproduce high harvests. The number of males listed in this table is the total male kill (including fawns),thus the numbers are somewhat larger than those in the previous table.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT

DATE A B C1 C2 D E F G H1 H2 I1 I2 J1 J2 K L M ALL

ARCHERY SEASON (15 SEPTEMBER-15 DECEMBER) TOTAL 40 15 8 12 95 5 4 38 45 88 16 17 13 113 101 121 179 910

YOUTH WEEKEND (22-23 OCTOBER) TOTAL 5 4 2 3 23 1 0 8 15 16 3 3 4 17 13 7 15 139

MUZZLELOADER SEASON (29 OCTOBER-8 NOVEMBER) Oct. 29 27 3 3 3 60 2 8 23 38 44 20 12 13 63 69 54 73 515 Oct. 30 33 6 6 6 13 2 5 10 22 31 2 6 4 39 38 28 47 298 Oct. 31 7 3 0 2 5 1 0 3 1 4 3 2 1 14 16 8 15 85 Nov. 01 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 6 0 2 1 2 5 12 15 60 Nov. 02 7 1 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 5 1 3 0 3 7 8 9 52 Nov. 03 3 1 1 1 2 0 1 4 1 1 3 2 0 6 5 9 17 57 Nov. 04 2 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 3 6 1 3 2 8 6 13 18 69 Nov. 05 3 2 1 2 9 1 2 11 8 16 5 7 7 24 18 23 39 178 Nov. 06 6 1 0 5 14 0 3 11 9 13 8 5 4 18 14 29 29 169 Nov. 07 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 3 1 1 4 1 6 3 11 40 Nov. 08 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 5 3 4 3 0 2 11 5 5 14 58 TOTAL 102 18 12 19 118 8 21 77 89 133 47 43 38 189 189 192 287 1582

FIREARM SEASON (9 NOVEMBER-4 DECEMBER) Nov. 09 26 5 0 3 61 1 1 42 70 95 39 42 40 145 104 52 35 761 Nov. 10 26 8 0 2 20 5 4 13 56 53 6 12 18 98 54 21 31 427 Nov. 11 43 10 2 3 26 7 7 12 15 14 9 9 13 21 25 52 39 307 Nov. 12 10 3 3 5 33 2 3 18 25 41 7 18 14 51 23 48 66 370 Nov. 13 6 3 1 4 22 1 8 21 16 20 10 15 15 34 21 39 49 285 Nov. 14 2 2 0 3 5 1 4 3 3 6 0 4 4 9 3 11 9 69 Nov. 15 5 2 1 2 12 1 2 4 3 7 1 6 3 4 4 5 13 75 Nov. 16 4 2 1 1 7 1 1 3 3 7 2 4 7 14 7 8 10 82 Nov. 17 7 3 2 1 12 2 2 9 3 11 5 5 4 15 6 10 19 116 Nov. 18 17 0 1 2 13 0 2 7 9 14 3 1 8 14 11 13 24 139 Nov. 19 9 6 4 5 27 1 5 13 19 28 9 8 8 33 24 13 36 248 Nov. 20 5 2 0 2 22 1 3 17 7 26 9 6 12 26 28 15 21 202 Nov. 21 2 2 0 0 10 2 0 6 5 9 2 1 2 6 4 6 13 70 Nov. 22 3 2 0 3 7 0 1 1 2 5 2 1 3 5 2 2 4 43 Nov. 23 7 6 2 6 15 0 0 5 4 10 4 1 6 8 6 0 8 88 Nov. 24 5 3 2 4 15 3 1 14 11 13 8 6 9 15 10 10 21 150 Nov. 25 8 4 6 3 20 4 6 18 15 18 15 11 16 34 14 10 32 234 Nov. 26 10 4 4 3 10 3 0 17 12 18 4 11 9 25 18 14 24 186 Nov. 27 7 6 5 0 21 3 4 16 5 12 6 4 4 18 14 11 33 169 Nov. 28 12 2 2 4 12 1 1 6 0 3 1 3 3 4 3 1 4 62 Nov. 29 2 2 1 1 5 0 2 4 2 6 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 37 Nov. 30 2 1 0 0 6 1 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 20 Dec. 01 1 0 0 2 6 0 1 3 3 2 0 1 1 4 1 2 6 33 Dec. 02 6 0 0 0 8 0 1 3 2 3 1 1 0 2 3 1 4 35 Dec. 03 15 3 0 6 15 0 4 4 7 10 8 2 2 12 5 5 12 110 Dec. 04 3 3 1 1 5 1 2 7 5 10 8 1 11 14 6 6 20 104 TOTAL 243 84 38 66 414 41 68 267 304 442 160 174 215 613 398 356 538 4421 GRAND TOTAL 390 121 60 100 650 55 93 390 453 679 226 237 270 932 701 676 1019 7052

12

YEARLING ANTLER BEAM DIAMETER BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT(2001-2005)

The antler beam diameter of yearling (1.5 year old) males (YABD) is used to assess the quality ofdeer habitat. The biological maximum YABD on excellent range is around 24mm. This maximum isnot reached anywhere in New Hampshire because of our relatively unproductive soils and harshwinters. As deer densities increase from low levels, YABDs in the 17-19mm range indicate deer ingood to excellent health that can easily be sustained on the available habitat. Average YABDs below16mm on a consistent basis indicate deer densities may be nearing the carrying capacity of the WMU.In the following table, the number in parenthesis following each average is the number of deer measured.

YEAR WMU 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 5-YEAR AVERAGE A 17.3 (19) 17.5 (24) 18.4 (22) 18.1 (15) 17.6 (17) 17.8 ( 97) B 16.8 ( 9) 16.0 ( 2) 21.0 ( 7) 20.7 ( 3) 15.7 ( 3) 18.3 ( 24) C1 14.0 ( 1) 18.0 ( 2) 14.0 ( 4) 17.8 ( 8) 16.3 ( 8) 16.4 ( 23) C2 19.0 ( 1) . ( 0) . ( 0) . ( 0) 15.0 ( 1) 17.0 ( 2) D 17.0 (19) 19.7 ( 6) 16.1 (26) 17.1 (33) 16.4 (45) 16.8 (129) E 17.0 ( 3) 15.5 ( 2) 16.0 ( 2) 16.6 ( 5) 17.0 ( 2) 16.5 ( 14) F . ( 0) . ( 0) 16.5 ( 6) 16.5 ( 8) 15.6 (13) 16.1 ( 27) G 16.6 (11) 15.8 ( 5) 15.3 ( 6) 17.2 ( 6) 17.3 ( 9) 16.6 ( 37) H1 16.8 (19) 17.0 ( 3) 17.8 (14) 18.4 ( 9) 18.0 (30) 17.7 ( 75) H2 16.6 (23) 18.4 (13) 16.1 (18) 18.4 ( 5) 18.3 (10) 17.2 ( 69) I1 17.6 (14) 17.3 ( 4) 18.3 ( 4) 17.7 ( 7) 18.4 (14) 17.9 ( 43) I2 17.7 ( 7) 15.9 ( 9) 17.0 ( 8) 19.2 (11) 18.4 (12) 17.8 ( 47) J1 18.0 ( 6) 17.9 ( 8) 16.3 (14) 17.6 (12) 17.2 (13) 17.2 ( 53) J2 16.4 (35) 16.7 (25) 17.4 (36) 17.8 (60) 17.6 (37) 17.3 (193) K 16.8 (48) 17.1 (21) 18.0 (29) 18.6 (39) 18.4 (45) 17.8 (182) L 17.0 (27) 17.6 (36) 17.2 (28) 18.4 (18) 16.9 (38) 17.3 (147) M 17.6 (34) 17.5 (28) 18.3 (22) 19.4 (52) 17.7 (30) 18.3 (166) ALL 17.0 (276) 17.4 (188) 17.3 (246) 18.2 (291) 17.4 (327) 17.5 (1328)

13

YEARLING MALE FRACTION BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT (2001-2005)

The yearling male fraction (YMF) is the percentage of harvested adult males that are yearlings.The YMF reflects the average annual mortality rate of all adult males in the population by estimatingthe percentage lost to all causes on an annual basis (about half of our annual all-cause mortality is fromthe hunting seasons). In any given year, a high YMF may also reflect good fawn production 2 yearsprevious and/or good fawn survival the previous winter. New Hampshire has a relatively low annualmortality rate when compared to other northeastern states, and this is why we maintain good agestructure in the male population. In 2005, about 26% of harvested adult males were 2 ½ years old and23% were 3 ½ years or older. The number in parenthesis following each average is the number of agedyearling males in the sample.

YEAR WMU 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 5-YEAR AVERAGE A 63.3 (19) 63.4 (26) 56.4 (22) 42.1 (16) 28.3 (17) 48.1 (100) B 44.8 (13) 16.7 ( 2) 53.8 ( 7) 9.4 ( 3) 33.3 ( 3) 29.5 ( 28) C1 28.6 ( 2) 40.0 ( 2) 62.5 ( 5) 42.1 ( 8) 47.1 ( 8) 44.6 ( 25) C2 50.0 ( 1) 0.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 0) 0.0 ( 0) 100.0 ( 1) 25.0 ( 2) D 60.0 (21) 50.0 ( 7) 37.7 (26) 30.0 (33) 35.4 (45) 37.2 (132) E 60.0 ( 3) 40.0 ( 2) 40.0 ( 2) 41.7 ( 5) 25.0 ( 2) 40.0 ( 14) F . ( 0) 0.0 ( 0) 35.3 ( 6) 27.6 ( 8) 36.1 (13) 32.1 ( 27) G 47.8 (11) 50.0 ( 5) 26.1 ( 6) 18.8 ( 6) 32.1 ( 9) 31.9 ( 37) H1 63.3 (19) 50.0 ( 3) 41.2 (14) 47.4 ( 9) 53.6 (30) 51.7 ( 75) H2 52.1 (25) 47.1 (16) 54.5 (18) 16.7 ( 5) 31.6 (12) 41.5 ( 76) I1 66.7 (14) 66.7 ( 4) 40.0 ( 4) 26.9 ( 7) 50.0 (14) 47.3 ( 43) I2 42.1 ( 8) 52.9 ( 9) 50.0 ( 8) 37.5 (12) 60.0 (12) 47.1 ( 49) J1 42.9 ( 6) 42.1 ( 8) 53.8 (14) 31.0 (13) 40.6 (13) 40.6 ( 54) J2 46.7 (35) 46.4 (26) 52.2 (36) 53.6 (60) 41.3 (38) 48.3 (195) K 48.5 (50) 30.4 (21) 35.8 (29) 39.2 (40) 54.8 (46) 42.4 (186) L 46.0 (29) 60.7 (37) 47.5 (28) 31.1 (19) 63.3 (38) 49.7 (151) M 54.7 (35) 50.9 (29) 54.5 (24) 66.3 (55) 44.9 (31) 54.9 (174) ALL 51.2 (291) 47.5 (197) 45.5 (249) 38.2(299) 43.4(332) 44.5 (1368)

14

NEW HAMPSHIRE TROPHY DEER PROGRAM

Beginning in 1999, the New Hampshire Antler and Skull Trophy Club (NHASTC) assumedresponsibility for New Hampshire’s trophy deer program. The program annually recognizes hunterswho take deer with a weight of 200 pounds or more by each of three hunting methods (archery,muzzleloader and regular firearms). To qualify, deer must weigh at least 200 pounds completely fielddressed (with all internal organs including heart, lungs and liver removed). For entry information andan application form, look in the Hunting Digest published annually by Fish and Game and available atyour license agent or online at www.wildlife.state.nh.us. The following tables provide the overallhistorical top 10 and those for the 2005 season. For a complete listing of this year’s registry or informa-tion on trophy deer, moose and black bear, contact Roscoe Blaisdell, president of NHASTC, 22Scribner Road, Raymond, NH 03077, or call 603-895-9947. The information below was generouslyprovided by NHASTC.

ALL METHODS OVERALL 2005 TOP 10 YEAR NAME RESIDENCE WEIGHT COUNTY NAME RESIDENCE WEIGHT COUNTY

1985 Arnold Girroir W. Newbury, MA 289.25 Coos Danny Bisson Berlin, NH 247 Coos

1998 Mike Kenyon Bradford, VT 284 Grafton Robin Gowing Canaan, NH 245 Grafton

1998 Scott Magoon Topsham, VT 277 Coos Peter Thomson Orford, NH 235 Grafton

1984 Dave Alonzo Berlin, NH 273 Coos Timothy Collins Hudson, MA 235 Coos

1984 William Robinson Northfield, NH 273 Coos Karl Emde III Bethel, VT 232 Coos

1985 Bradley Frizzell Pittsburg, NH 272 Coos John E. Bijeau Gorham, NH 229 Coos

1980 Robert Neil Gorham, NH 267 Coos Robert Reed Rumney, NH 228 Grafton

1994 Steven Young Beecher Falls, VT 267 Coos Bill Allen New Boston, NH 222 Hills.

1995 Lawrence Gonyer Bow, NH 265 Coos Kevin Levesque Rochester, NH 222 Straff.

1986 Joe Daley Jr Brentwood, NH 265 Rock. Richard W. Kulis Gill, MA 222 Cheshire

FIREARMS OVERALL 2005 TOP 10 YEAR NAME RESIDENCE WEIGHT COUNTY NAME RESIDENCE WEIGHT COUNTY

1985 Arnold Girroir W. Newbury, MA 289.25 Coos Danny Bisson Berlin, NH 247 Coos

1998 Mike Kenyon Bradford, VT 284 Grafton Robin Gowing Canaan, NH 245 Grafton

1984 Dave Alonzo Berlin, NH 273 Coos Peter Thomson Orford, NH 235 Grafton

1984 William Robinson Northfield, NH 273 Coos Timothy Collins Hudson, MA 235 Coos

1985 Bradley Frizzell Pittsburg, NH 272 Coos Karl Emde III Bethel, VT 232 Coos

1980 Robert Neil Gorham, NH 267 Coos John E. Bijeau Gorham, NH 229 Coos

1995 Lawrence Gonyer Bow, NH 265 Coos Kevin Levesque Rochester, NH 222 Straff.

1986 Joe Daley Jr Brentwood, NH 265 Rock. Richard W. Kulis Gill, MA 222 Cheshire

1983 Perry Taylor Moultonboro, NH 262 Coos Gary Bisson Berlin, NH 219 Coos

1994 Howard Fields Jr Saline, MI 261 Coos Mitchell Bucklin Alexandria, NH 218 Grafton

15

NEW HAMPSHIRE TROPHY DEER PROGRAM, cont.

ARCHERY OVERALL 2005 TOP 10 YEAR NAME RESIDENCE WEIGHT COUNTY NAME RESIDENCE WEIGHT COUNTY

2002 Jeremiah Donaldson Albany, NH 252 Carroll Bill Allen New Boston, NH 222 Hills.

2002 Rodger Matthewman Meredith, NH 251.5 Belknap Stephen Livingston Derry, NH 207 Rock.

2002 Dave Lufkin Lancaster, NH 242.5 Coos Robert Palmer Auburn, NH 200 Rock.

2004 Ted Pinney Rochester, NH 240.5 Rock. No Other Archery Deer Were Entered in 2005

1995 Gregory Herbert Laconia, NH 237.5 Belknap 2001 Fred Schobel Rehoboth, MA 237.5 Rock.

1991 Johnny Smith III Milford, NH 237 Hills.

1989 Robert Maneely Andover, NH 235 Merri.

1999 Scott Ellis Keene, NH 234 Chesh.

1994 Robert Daniels Tilton, NH 233 Belknap

MUZZLELOADER OVERALL 2005 TOP 10 YEAR NAME RESIDENCE WEIGHT COUNTY NAME RESIDENCE WEIGHT COUNTY

1998 Scott Magoon Topsham, VT 277 Coos Robert Reed Rumney, NH 228 Grafton 1994 Steven Young Beecher Falls, VT 267 Coos Joe Pollard Seabrook, NH 221 Rock.

2001 Larry Miles North Conway, NH 260.6 Coos James R. Beetz Litchfield, NH 220 Hills.

1994 Dennis McLaughlin Barre, VT 257 Coos Jeffrey S. Dukette

Webster, NH 220 Merri.

1992 Colby Morrison Wentworth, NH 254 Grafton Larry Dufresne Jr.

Newport, NH 219 Sullivan

2000 Carl Baker Hyde Park, VT 254 Coos Daniel M. Thompson

Canaan, NH 216.5 Grafton

2004 Bryan McMann Stratford, NH 251.5 Coos Ryan Ross Henniker, NH 212 Merri. 1995 Jeffrey Caulder N. Woodstock, NH 250 Grafton Ray Archambeault Newmarket, NH 212 Straff.

2001 Michael Colby Lyman, NH 249 Grafton David P. Kane Manchester, NH 209 Rock. 1995 Lloyd Witham Northwood, NH 247 Rock. Russell Ward Milford, NH 209 Hills.

1990 Gary Bisson Berlin, NH 247 Coos

16

DEER KILL BY TOWN AND SEX DURING 2005

This is an alphabetical listing of New Hampshire towns with reported deer harvest in 2005. Itgives the Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) that the town is part of, as well as the deer kill by sexand per square mile. The kill per square mile for towns in this table continues to be expressed on thebasis of square miles of land area. Towns not listed below had no registered deer harvest in 2005.

TOWN WMUs IN TOWN MALE FEMALE TOTAL KILL/ SQ.MI.

ACWORTH (H1) 29 10 39 1.00 ALBANY (E/F/J1) 11 0 11 0.15 ALEXANDRIA (G/I1) 13 1 14 0.32 ALLENSTOWN (L) 34 11 45 2.19 ALSTEAD (H1/H2) 40 15 55 1.40 ALTON (J2) 67 26 93 1.12 AMHERST (K/M) 25 24 49 1.42 ANDOVER (G/I1) 22 7 29 0.71 ANTRIM (H2/I2/K) 21 11 32 0.88 ASHLAND (F/G/J2) 11 5 16 1.36 ATKINSON (M) 13 13 26 2.29 ATKINSON & GIL. AC. GR. (A) 6 4 10 0.52 AUBURN (L/M) 38 30 68 2.36 BARNSTEAD (J2) 58 25 83 1.85 BARRINGTON (J2/L) 87 34 121 2.49 BARTLETT (E) 5 1 6 0.08 BATH (D) 100 54 154 3.99 BEDFORD (K/L/M) 28 3 31 0.94 BELMONT (J2) 39 18 57 1.79 BENNINGTON (H2/K) 17 4 21 1.81 BENTON (D) 13 4 17 0.35 BERLIN (C1/C2) 19 3 22 0.35 BETHLEHEM (D/E) 24 6 30 0.33 BOSCAWEN (I1) 19 6 25 0.98 BOW (I1/K/L) 47 19 66 2.31 BRADFORD (I2) 16 6 22 0.61 BRENTWOOD (L/M) 32 42 74 4.36 BRIDGEWATER (G) 5 3 8 0.37 BRISTOL (G/I1) 6 0 6 0.27 BROOKFIELD (J1/J2) 20 4 24 1.03 BROOKLINE (K/M) 37 20 57 2.82 CAMBRIDGE (B/C2) 18 2 20 0.39 CAMPTON (F) 19 1 20 0.38 CANAAN (G) 44 25 69 1.25 CANDIA (L/M) 46 34 80 2.62 CANTERBURY (I1/J2) 38 12 50 1.12 CARROLL (D/E) 13 1 14 0.28 CENTER HARBOR (J1/J2) 21 6 27 1.66 CHARLESTOWN (H1) 49 26 75 1.97 CHATHAM (E) 6 1 7 0.12 CHESTER (M) 38 43 81 3.10

17



CHESTERFIELD (H2) 41 14 55 1.16 CHICHESTER (J2/L) 35 28 63 2.96 CLAREMONT (H1) 54 30 84 1.91 CLARKSVILLE (A) 55 48 103 1.65 COLEBROOK (A/B) 39 26 65 1.59 COLUMBIA (B) 33 17 50 0.82 CONCORD (I1/J2/K/L) 44 31 75 1.12 CONWAY (E/F/J1) 30 12 42 0.59 CORNISH (H1) 51 31 82 1.92 CROYDON (H1/I2) 22 5 27 0.72 DALTON (D) 17 0 17 0.60 DANBURY (G/I1) 14 1 15 0.39 DANVILLE (M) 20 18 38 3.21 DEERFIELD (L) 76 52 128 2.46 DEERING (K) 27 9 36 1.15 DERRY (M) 52 50 102 2.81 DIX’S GRANT (A) 3 1 4 0.20 DIXVILLE (A/B) 9 7 16 0.33 DORCHESTER (G) 12 2 14 0.31 DOVER (L) 29 24 53 1.82 DUBLIN (H2) 20 4 24 0.83 DUMMER (B/C1/C2) 33 8 41 0.83 DUNBARTON (K) 49 16 65 2.08 DURHAM (L) 36 32 68 2.75 EAST KINGSTON (M) 25 17 42 4.21 EASTON (D) 13 1 14 0.45 EATON (J1) 1 0 1 0.04 EFFINGHAM (J1) 24 15 39 0.98 ELLSWORTH (F) 3 0 3 0.14 ENFIELD (G/H1) 66 19 85 1.97 EPPING (L/M) 30 23 53 2.02 EPSOM (J2/L) 58 42 100 2.89 ERROL (A/B/C2) 21 10 31 0.45 EXETER (L/M) 27 18 45 2.25 FARMINGTON (J2) 54 21 75 2.03 FITZWILLIAM (H2) 44 19 63 1.75 FRANCESTOWN (K) 32 12 44 1.45 FRANCONIA (D/E) 6 1 7 0.11 FRANKLIN (I1) 17 5 22 0.75 FREEDOM (J1) 21 3 24 0.63 FREMONT (M) 20 28 48 2.76 GILFORD (J2) 31 7 38 0.71 GILMANTON (J2) 63 45 108 1.81 GILSUM (H2) 27 18 45 2.70 GOFFSTOWN (K) 44 15 59 1.57 GORHAM (C1/C2/E) 17 1 18 0.56 GOSHEN (I2/H1) 13 1 14 0.62

18


GRAFTON (G) 13 0 13 0.31 GRANTHAM (G/H1/I2) 21 5 26 0.93 GREENFIELD (K) 19 8 27 1.00 GREENLAND (M) 16 16 32 2.40 GREENVILLE (K) 6 1 7 1.02 GROTON (G) 10 1 11 0.27 HAMPSTEAD (M) 31 8 39 2.77 HAMPTON (M) 6 10 16 1.13 HAMPTON FALLS (M) 14 18 32 2.54 HANCOCK (H2/K) 18 7 25 0.80 HANOVER (G) 46 34 80 1.60 HARRISVILLE (H2) 15 2 17 0.84 HAVERHILL (D) 66 33 99 1.89 HEBRON (G) 4 1 5 0.26 HENNIKER (I2/K) 36 8 44 0.98 HILL (I1) 11 2 13 0.49 HILLSBORO (H2/I2/K) 28 10 38 0.85 HINSDALE (H2) 41 27 68 3.00 HOLDERNESS (F/G/J1/J2) 11 3 14 0.39 HOLLIS (M) 63 49 112 3.47 HOOKSETT (K/L) 49 18 67 1.80 HOPKINTON (I1/I2/K) 35 7 42 0.93 HUDSON (M) 31 18 49 1.67 JACKSON (E) 6 0 6 0.09 JAFFREY (H2/K) 32 21 53 1.32 JEFFERSON (C1/D/E) 39 25 64 1.27 KEENE (H2) 31 21 52 1.39 KENSINGTON (M) 32 21 53 4.42 KINGSTON (M) 22 31 53 2.52 LACONIA (J2) 18 5 23 0.88 LANCASTER (C1/D) 46 25 71 1.39 LANDAFF (D) 21 10 31 1.09 LANGDON (H1/H2) 22 10 32 1.96 LEBANON (G/H1) 66 37 103 2.50 LEE (L) 20 19 39 1.93 LEMPSTER (H1/I2) 20 2 22 0.67 LISBON (D) 50 28 78 2.93 LITCHFIELD (M) 16 9 25 1.64 LITTLETON (D) 68 30 98 1.82 LONDONDERRY (M) 65 65 130 3.09 LOUDON (J2) 71 34 105 2.25 LYMAN (D) 58 33 91 3.17 LYME (G) 63 19 82 1.49 LYNDEBOROUGH (K) 32 14 46 1.52 MADBURY (L) 24 16 40 3.28 MADISON (F/J1) 16 7 23 0.56 MANCHESTER (K/L/M) 6 5 11 0.31 MARLBOROUGH (H2) 24 10 34 1.65


19


MARLOW (H1/H2/I2) 32 15 47 1.78 MASON (K) 34 15 49 2.04 MEREDITH (I1/J2) 31 20 51 0.93 MERRIMACK (M) 44 35 79 2.36 MIDDLETON (J2) 16 5 21 1.13 MILAN (B/C1/C2) 22 10 32 0.50 MILFORD (K/M) 24 12 36 1.41 MILLSFIELD (A/B) 10 4 14 0.31 MILTON (J2) 33 15 48 1.40 MONROE (D) 42 31 73 3.06 MONT VERNON (K) 13 5 18 1.06 MOULTONBORO (J1/J2) 40 22 62 0.83 NASHUA (M) 16 17 33 1.04 NELSON (H2) 12 6 18 0.77 NEW BOSTON (K) 58 22 80 1.85 NEW CASTLE (M) 1 0 1 0.47 NEW DURHAM (J2) 45 12 57 1.30 NEW HAMPTON (G/I1/J2) 25 4 29 0.76 NEW IPSWICH (K) 31 17 48 1.45 NEW LONDON (G/I1/I2) 13 6 19 0.75 NEWBURY (I2) 20 3 23 0.60 NEWFIELDS (L) 11 4 15 2.07 NEWINGTON (M) 20 21 41 3.31 NEWMARKET (L) 26 15 41 2.89 NEWPORT (H1/I2) 40 24 64 1.47 NEWTON (M) 22 19 41 4.12 NORTH HAMPTON (M) 32 24 56 4.02 NORTHFIELD (I1/J2) 30 8 38 1.32 NORTHUMBERLAND (B/C1/D) 21 8 29 0.79 NORTHWOOD (J2/L) 41 24 65 2.15 NOTTINGHAM (L) 71 22 93 1.92 ODELL (B) 4 1 5 0.11 ORANGE (G) 2 1 3 0.13 ORFORD (D/G) 46 13 59 1.23 OSSIPEE (J1) 49 7 56 0.74 PELHAM (M) 40 20 60 2.24 PEMBROKE (L) 31 18 49 2.15 PETERBOROUGH (H2/K) 37 18 55 1.43 PIERMONT (D) 25 10 35 0.88 PITTSBURG (A) 224 145 369 1.27 PITTSFIELD (J2) 31 21 52 2.14 PLAINFIELD (H1) 87 44 131 2.47 PLAISTOW (M) 10 5 15 1.41 PLYMOUTH (F/G) 8 0 8 0.28 PORTSMOUTH (M) 21 10 31 1.84 RANDOLPH (C1/E) 2 2 4 0.08 RAYMOND (L/M) 41 28 69 2.33 RICHMOND (H2) 35 17 52 1.38


20


RINDGE (H2/K) 44 10 54 1.36 ROCHESTER (J2/L) 54 30 84 1.85 ROLLINSFORD (L) 5 10 15 1.98 ROXBURY (H2) 12 2 14 1.14 RUMNEY (F/G) 12 1 13 0.31 RYE (M) 36 26 62 4.72 SALEM (M) 25 15 40 1.55 SALISBURY (I1) 19 3 22 0.55 SANBORNTON (I1/J2) 29 7 36 0.73 SANDOWN (M) 19 28 47 3.26 SANDWICH (F/J1) 30 3 33 0.35 SEABROOK (M) 7 4 11 1.14 SECOND COLL GRANT (A) 12 4 16 0.38 SHARON (K) 11 3 14 0.89 SHELBURNE (C2/E) 14 2 16 0.33 SOMERSWORTH (L) 8 3 11 1.10 SOUTH HAMPTON (M) 22 19 41 5.10 SPRINGFIELD (G/I2) 21 3 24 0.54 STARK (B/C1) 13 8 21 0.35 STEWARTSTOWN (A) 35 33 68 1.45 STODDARD (H2/I2) 21 8 29 0.55 STRAFFORD (J2) 69 24 93 1.82 STRATFORD (B) 24 16 40 0.50 STRATHAM (L/M) 22 29 51 3.30 SUCCESS (C2) 10 4 14 0.25 SUGAR HILL (D) 19 2 21 1.22 SULLIVAN (H2) 15 9 24 1.28 SUNAPEE (G/I2) 20 6 26 1.03 SURRY (H2) 21 9 30 1.87 SUTTON (I1/I2) 31 7 38 0.88 SWANZEY (H2) 60 38 98 2.16 TAMWORTH (F/J1) 22 3 25 0.41 TEMPLE (K) 15 4 19 0.85 THORNTON (F) 19 0 19 0.37 TILTON (I1/J2) 8 2 10 0.84 TROY (H2) 22 13 35 1.99 TUFTONBORO (J1/J2) 36 13 49 0.99 UNITY (H1) 35 15 50 1.34 WAKEFIELD (J1/J2) 34 6 40 0.89 WALPOLE (H1/H2) 31 13 44 1.20 WARNER (I1/I2) 36 2 38 0.69 WARREN (D/F) 14 3 17 0.35 WASHINGTON (I2) 24 5 29 0.61 WEARE (K) 77 30 107 1.78 WEBSTER (I1) 18 4 22 0.76 WENTWORTH (D/F/G) 12 2 14 0.33


21


WENTWORTH’S LOCATION (A/C2) 11 5 16 0.83 WESTMORELAND (H2) 40 16 56 1.52 WHITEFIELD (D) 18 13 31 0.89 WILMOT (G/I1) 9 4 13 0.44 WILTON (K) 25 15 40 1.56 WINCHESTER (H2) 45 28 73 1.31 WINDHAM (M) 35 33 68 2.45 WINDSOR (I2) 2 1 3 0.35 WOLFEBORO (J1/J2) 39 11 50 0.86 WOODSTOCK (D/F) 6 1 7 0.12 TOTAL 7052 3543 10595 1.30

DEER KILL BY COUNTY, SEX AND HUNTER RESIDENCY DURING 2005

The kill per square mile by county in this table is expressed on the basis of square miles ofland area.

NH RESIDENTS NONRESIDENTS TOTAL KILL/ COUNTY MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL SQ.MI. BELKNAP 366 157 24 8 390 165 555 1.18 CARROLL 324 88 66 20 390 108 498 0.50 CHESHIRE 526 247 179 88 705 335 1040 1.43 COOS 541 335 247 98 788 433 1221 0.67 GRAFTON 744 312 272 103 1016 415 1431 0.82 HILLSBOROUGH 785 396 92 37 877 433 1310 1.47 MERRIMACK 794 315 39 14 833 329 1162 1.22 ROCKINGHAM 957 760 108 103 1065 863 1928 2.65 STRAFFORD 436 225 44 20 480 245 725 1.89 SULLIVAN 398 178 110 39 508 217 725 1.31 TOTAL 5871 3013 1181 530 7052 3543 10595 1.30


22

2005 BLACK BEAR HARVESTSUMMARY

New Hampshire’s long-term bear management goals for theperiod 1997-2005 were to reduce bear populations in the WhiteMountains and the Central regions, and to stabilize populations in thenorthern and southern regions. Our 2005 bear hunting season was

intended to achieve a harvest consistent with levels achieved during 1998-2002, which averaged 418bears per year.

Hunters took 433 black bears in New Hampshire during 2005; a 36% decrease in harvest fromthe high harvest and poor mast year of 2004. Good mast production during 2005 appears to haveallowed bears to feed in more remote areas, decreasing vulnerability of bears to hunter harvest. Abun-dant early fall fruit production decreased the need for bears to search extensively for food, resulting indecreased harvest by bait hunters and stalkers. Acorn crops during 2005 were above average acrossmuch of the state and provided good forage for bears during October, November and early December.Despite the fact that bears remained active late into the fall, late season harvest was low due to reducedoverlap between bear season and deer gun seasons.

Several large bears were harvested in the state during 2005. Four females exceeded 200 pounds,with the largest (253 pounds) taken in Success over bait. Three males exceeded 400 pounds, with thelargest, tipping the scales at 532 pounds, taken in Bethlehem by a still hunter. This represents a newstate record, surpassing the previous longstanding record of 494 pounds.

A big game planning process was completed during 2005 using Department staff and a group ofkey wildlife stakeholders identified by the Department. After extensive public review and input, a BigGame Management Plan was formulated which will serve as the basis for black bear management inNew Hampshire for the next decade (2006-2015). Regional black bear population goals from the newplan are listed in the first table included in this report.

Work continued on a “mark-recapture” study designed to estimate bear abundance in the state’snorthernmost bear management region using remote genetic tagging. This method employs “hairremoval traps” (barbed wire strung around scent posts) to sample and mark bears. DNA analysis isperformed on hair samples providing a genetic profile of individual bears and allowing each bear to be“marked.” Hair samples acquired during subsequent trapping efforts are used to quantify “recaptures.”Recapture rates are used in conjunction with mark-recapture models to develop a population estimate.Study results from 2004 suggest that this technique may constitute a viable method of estimating bearpopulations in New Hampshire. The DNA estimate was fairly similar to an independent estimatederived from New Hampshire bear biological/observation data. Further replication of this study isnecessary to assess the relationship between these two methods of population estimation. Work con-ducted on this project during 2005 involved planning for possible additional field testing during thespring and summer of 2006.

During 2005, research initiatives and our bear management program continued to generateinformation required to ensure that our bear population is wisely managed for present and future NewHampshire generations. Research is made possible through dedicated bear permit revenue. Current

23

NEWHAMPSHIRE

BEARMANAGEMENT

REGIONS

24

management programs are based on biological data provided through the registration of hunter har-vested bears, coupled with bear observation rates derived from hunter survey data.

REGIONAL BEAR POPULATION MANAGEMENT GOALS

Black bear management decisions for the next decade (2006-2015) will be based on our newlyestablished Big Game Population Management Plan goals. These goals are summarized in the follow-ing table. A negative (-) value under “desired % change” indicates a need to decrease the population toachieve the goal while a positive (+) value reflects a need to increase the population.

MANAGEMENT CURRENT* LEVEL

DESIRED REGION

GOAL FROM MODEL % CHANGE NORTH 0.6 0.63 0% WHITE MOUNTAINS 0.8 0.95 -16% CENTRAL 0.6 0.48 +25% SOUTHWEST 1 0.5 0.70 -29% SOUTHWEST 2 0.5 0.37 +35% SOUTHEAST 0.2 0.15 +33% ��

��

TOTAL BEAR HARVEST FOR 1983-2005 HUNTING SEASONS

Total bear harvest is the combined harvest of bait, hound and still hunters. As illustrated in theattached graph, bear harvest has increased notably during the past 2 decades. Periodic drops in harvestgenerally represent abundant mast years and a related decline in bear vulnerability to hunting. Con-versely, peaks in harvest generally occur during poor mast years and reflect increased vulnerability tohunters as a result of increased bear movements associated with food searching. The highest bearharvests in New Hampshire history have occurred since 1999. Historic highs in bear harvest reflect: 1)a strong bear population, 2) increased hunting pressure – the number of bear hunters has more thandoubled in the past decade, and 3) increased hunting opportunity – the entire state was opened to bearhunting beginning in 1998, and seasons have been extended in many regions to control bear popula-tion growth.

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

25

BEAR HARVEST BY METHOD (1990-2005)

A total of 433 bears were taken during the 2005 bear season. This represents a 36% decline fromthe 2004 harvest and a 23% decline from the preceding five-year average of 559 bears. Percent harvestby method in recent years averaged 57% by still hunters, 32% by bait hunters and 11% by houndhunters. Percent harvest during 2005 for still hunters, bait hunters and hound hunters was 44%, 41%and 15%, respectively. Variation by method from recent averages appears to reflect a growing participa-tion in bait and hound hunting. This increased participation in these methods of hunting is reflected bypermit issuance and is most notable for bait hunters. The number of permits issued to hunt bears usingbait and hounds has gradually increased in recent years, indicating that hunter effort by these methodshas grown. Increased interest in hunting over bait, coupled with the higher success rate of bait hunterscompared to other methods, has increased the annual percentage of the harvest taken by bait hunters.

During abundant food years, bears tend to enter dens later in the fall, resulting in a greater per-centage of bears being harvested during the muzzleloader deer season. During poor food years, bearsden early. Statewide, 21% of the still hunter harvest occurred during the muzzleloader deer season in2005 (a good food year) compared to 10% in 2004 (a poor food year).

HUNTING METHOD YEAR STILL BAIT HOUND

TOTAL

1990 105 114 72 291 1991 79 15 29 123 1992 157 34 39 230 1993 171 52 51 274 1994 153 39 47 239 1995 301 72 55 428 1996 62 52 38 152 1997 202 69 64 335 1998 181 53 45 279 1999 313 117 69 499 2000 294 118 37 449 2001 295 169 63 527 2002 203 92 43 338 2003 461 274 67 802 2004 343 244 92 679 2005 189 179 65 433

26

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF BEAR HARVEST (1990-2005)

The White Mountains region accounted for the largest regional harvest tally at 147 (34%) bears.The North and Central regions followed with 126 (29%) and 112 (26%) bears, respectively. Harvest istypically highest in the White Mountains region while harvest tallies in the North and Central regionshave a tendency to fluctuate between the second and third highest. Despite flux between the North andCentral regions, approximately 20-30% of the statewide harvest typically comes from each of theseareas. Harvest in the Southwest-1 and 2 regions (8% and 2%, respectively) were very consistent toharvest levels achieved prior to the record years of 2003 and 2004. Harvest in the Southeast region(0.9 %) was the highest to date but remained consistently low.

MANAGEMENT REGION YEAR

NORTH WT-MTS CENTRAL S-WEST(1) S-WEST(2) S-EAST TOTAL

1990 108 125 58 0 0 0 291 1991 28 49 46 0 0 0 123 1992 55 88 84 3 0 0 230 1993 78 131 65 0 0 0 274 1994 48 84 104 3 0 0 239 1995 100 170 156 2 0 0 428 1996 46 57 49 0 0 0 152 1997 99 120 106 10 0 0 335 1998 68 94 95 16 5 1 279 1999 144 180 138 32 4 1 499 2000 116 162 143 21 7 0 449 2001 134 195 156 31 11 0 527 2002 65 101 124 38 7 3 338 2003 254 241 238 56 12 1 802 2004 158 227 177 88 27 2 679 2005 126 147 112 35 9 4 433

27

BEAR HARVEST SEX RATIOS (1990-2005)

Since 1990, the bear harvest sex ratio has averaged 1.4 males per female. Higher mortality ratesfor males result in females being more abundant than males in our bear population, but this is rarelyapparent in our harvest data. During poor mast years female harvest tends to increase relative to maleharvest, with the result being that females equal or exceed males in the harvest (e.g., 2003). Theharvest sex ratio in 2005 was 1.3 males per female. Although this ratio indicates that the percentage offemales to males in the harvest was slightly higher than the long-term average, this ratio is relativelyconsistent with the historical average.

YEAR FEMALE MALE UNKNOWN MALES:FEMALE TOTAL 1990 112 179 0 1.6 291 1991 46 77 0 1.7 123 1992 91 139 0 1.5 230 1993 112 162 0 1.4 274 1994 103 136 0 1.3 239 1995 206 222 0 1.1 428 1996 55 97 0 1.8 152 1997 127 206 2 1.6 335 1998 124 155 0 1.3 279 1999 216 283 0 1.3 499 2000 190 259 0 1.4 449 2001 223 304 0 1.4 527 2002 141 197 0 1.4 338 2003 419 383 0 0.9 802 2004 313 366 0 1.2 679 2005 190 243 0 1.3 433

28

BEAR HARVEST BY REGION, WMU AND METHOD DURING 2005

This table summarizes the 2005 bear harvest by region, wildlife management unit (WMU) andhunting method. The decision to manage on a regional rather than WMU basis is driven in part by thesample size of harvested bears necessary for reliable data analysis. At the individual WMU level, oursamples are generally not large enough to allow for a meaningful assessment of local bear populations.The popularity and impact of bear hunting methods vary regionally in New Hampshire. Regional bearhunting preferences are documented from harvest statistics and are a result of tradition, landscape andaccess. The diversity of methods and habitats adds to the uniqueness of New Hampshire bear hunting.Statewide, still hunters accounted for 44% of the harvest while bait and hound hunters accounted for41% and 15%, respectively. Variations in harvest by method are evident between bear managementregions and help explain harvest trends. For example, bait hunters accounted for 57% of the harvest inthe North but only 21% and 20% in the Central and Southwest-1 regions, respectively.

METHOD OF HARVEST REGION UNIT STILL BAIT HOUND TOTAL NORTH A 3 28 0 31 B 7 20 7 34 C2 5 14 9 28 D1 21 10 2 33 NORTH ALL 36 72 18 126 WHITE MTNS C1 3 11 1 15 D2 36 17 5 58 E 3 18 4 25 F 16 26 7 49 WHITE MTNS ALL 58 72 17 147 CENTRAL G 17 12 6 35 I1 20 2 7 29 J1 10 4 8 22 J2 16 6 4 26 CENTRAL ALL 63 24 25 112 SOUTHWEST 1 H1 10 5 3 18 I2 13 2 2 17 SOUTHWEST 1 ALL 23 7 5 35 SOUTHWEST 2 H2 2 2 0 4 K 3 2 0 5 SOUTHWEST 2 ALL 5 4 0 9 SOUTHEAST L 4 0 0 4 M 0 0 0 0 SOUTHEAST ALL 4 0 0 4 STATEWIDE ALL 189 179 65 433

29

BEAR HARVEST BY METHOD AND SEX DURING 2005

Harvest sex ratios play a role in management decision-making due to the impact that femaleharvest has on bear populations. Harvest sex ratios in New Hampshire vary slightly by year but oftenvary substantially between hunting methods. Historically, all three hunting methods tend to harvestmore males than females. This is presumably due to higher movements by males that predispose themto increased harvest (and other mortality). Bait and hound hunters typically harvest an even higherpercentage of males because these hunters select for larger bears that tend to be males. During 2005,more males were harvested than females using all three hunting methods, however, bait hunters had thehighest harvest sex ratio.

METHOD FEMALE MALE MALE:FEMALE TOTAL STILL 86 103 1.2 189 BAIT 75 104 1.4 179 HOUND 29 36 1.2 65 TOTAL 190 243 1.3 433

BEAR HARVEST BY REGION AND SEX DURING 2005

Harvest sex ratios were lower than average (1.4 males per female since 1990) in the North, Cen-tral and Southwest-1 regions, reflecting a higher female component in the harvest. Although slightlybelow the long-term average, harvest sex ratios in the Central and Southwest-1 regions fell within thetypical range. The lower harvest sex ratio in the North was presumably due to lower food abundance inthat region compared to other areas of the state. Oak production was considered average to aboveaverage in most bear management regions during 2005, however oak is not widely distributed in theNorth. The low distribution of oak, coupled with a beechnut bust, appeared to create less favorableforaging conditions in the North as compared to other management regions. This decreased foodabundance may have caused bears in the North to be more vulnerable to harvest compared to bears inother management regions. During poor food years, female harvest tends to increase relative to maleharvest, with the result being that females equal or exceed males in the harvest. The harvest sex ratio inthe Southwest-2 region was again heavily biased towards males in 2005. This may reflect decreasedbear hunting pressure in this region compared to other management regions. Research in other stateshas indicated that due to their larger home ranges, males constitute the bulk of the harvest in areas withdecreased hunting pressure.

REGION FEMALE MALE MALE:FEMALE TOTAL NORTH 65 61 0.9 126 WHITE MTN 58 89 1.5 147 CENTRAL 50 62 1.2 112 S-WEST 1 15 20 1.3 35 S-WEST 2 1 8 8.0 9 SOUTHEAST 1 3 3.0 4 TOTAL 190 243 1.3 433

30

AVERAGE AGE IN YEARS OF HARVESTED BEARS (1992-2004)

Age data derived from premolars collected during bear registration are the backbone of the bearmanagement program. We use age data to calculate male and female mortality rates. Knowing theserates allows us to back-calculate a statewide minimum population estimate from annual mortality data.Regional sighting rates derived from hunter surveys, coupled with a knowledge of the amount of bearrange in each management region, allows us to partition our “minimum” population across our 6management regions. The New Hampshire bear management recipe is quite complex and places heavyreliance on bear age information.

��

YEAR SEX

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 FEMALES 5.0 6.0 6.1 7.1 5.2 5.9 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 6.0 5.9 5.8 MALES 5.3 4.1 5.4 4.4 5.9 4.4 4.8 3.8 4.9 3.7 4.4 3.3 4.0

��

NEW HAMPSHIRE HEAVY-WEIGHTS

The following table summarizes record weights (actual dressed weights) for male black bearsharvested in New Hampshire through 2005. It is important to note that not all harvested bears areweighed. However, it is likely that a high percentage of large bears are weighed due to hunter interest.

��

RANK YEAR WMU WEIGHT METHOD 1 2005 D1 532 STILL 2 1997 E 494 HOUND 3 2001 J1 494 HOUND 4 2002 D1 494 HOUND 5 1993 E 493 HOUND 6 2001 D1 486 HOUND 7 1993 C2 483 STILL 8 2004 D2 482 HOUND 9 1986 B 475 STILL 10 1988 E 475 STILL

31

BEAR HARVEST BY TOWN AND SEX DURING 2005

The following table summarizes the 2005 bear harvest by town. Towns where no bears werekilled are excluded from this table. TOWN WMUs IN TOWN MALE FEMALE TOTAL ACWORTH (H1) 2 0 2 ALBANY (E/F/J1) 4 1 5 ALEXANDRIA (G/I1) 2 1 3 ALSTEAD (H1/H2) 1 0 1 ALTON (J2) 0 2 2 ANDOVER (G/I1) 3 2 5 ASHLAND (F/G/J2) 2 1 3 BARRINGTON (J2/L) 0 1 1 BARTLETT (E) 7 2 9 BATH (D2) 7 3 10 BEAN’S PURCHASE (E) 1 0 1 BELMONT (J2) 0 1 1 BENTON (D2) 4 3 7 BERLIN (C1/C2) 2 2 4 BETHLEHEM (D1/D2/E) 9 6 15 BOSCAWEN (I1) 1 1 2 BOW (I1/K/L) 1 0 1 BRADFORD (I2) 1 1 2 BRIDGEWATER (G) 1 3 4 BRISTOL (G/I1) 1 0 1 BROOKLINE (K/M) 1 0 1 CAMPTON (F) 6 2 8 CANAAN (G) 1 3 4 CANDIA (L/M) 1 0 1 CARROLL (D1/E) 2 1 3 CENTER HARBOR (J1/J2) 1 0 1 CHARLESTOWN (H1) 1 0 1 CHATHAM (E) 1 0 1 CLARKSVILLE (A) 2 5 7 COLEBROOK (A/B) 6 2 8 COLUMBIA (B) 10 4 14 CONCORD (I1/J2/K/L) 1 0 1 CONWAY (E/F/J1) 4 1 5 CROYDON (H1/I2) 4 0 4 DALTON (D1) 0 3 3 DORCHESTER (G) 0 1 1 DUMMER (B/C1/C2) 5 8 13 DURHAM (L) 1 0 1 EATON (J1) 1 0 1 ELLSWORTH (F) 1 0 1 ENFIELD (G/H1) 2 0 2 ERROL (A/B/C2) 1 4 5 FARMINGTON (J2) 2 0 2

32

TOWN WMUs IN TOWN MALE FEMALE TOTAL


FRANCONIA (D1/D2/E) 0 1 1 FRANKLIN (I1) 4 0 4 FREEDOM (J1) 1 1 2 GILFORD (J2) 0 1 1 GILMANTON (J2) 2 0 2 GORHAM (C1/C2/E) 0 1 1 GOSHEN (I2/H1) 0 1 1 GRAFTON (G) 1 0 1 GRANTHAM (G/H1/I2) 1 0 1 GROTON (G) 2 0 2 HANOVER (G) 0 3 3 HART’S LOCATION (E) 0 1 1 HAVERHILL (D2) 4 5 9 HENNIKER (I2/K) 1 0 1 HILL (I1) 1 1 2 HILLSBORO (H2/I2/K) 0 2 2 HOLDERNESS (F/G/J1/J2) 1 0 1 HOPKINTON (I1/I2/K) 0 1 1 JACKSON (E) 1 1 2 JEFFERSON (C1/D1/E) 7 9 16 LACONIA (J2) 1 0 1 LANCASTER (C1/D1) 3 4 7 LANDAFF (D2) 1 3 4 LEBANON (G/H1) 0 1 1 LEMPSTER (H1/I2) 0 2 2 LINCOLN (D2/E/F) 2 2 4 LISBON (D2) 5 2 7 LITTLETON (D1/D2) 4 1 5 LIVERMORE (E/F) 1 0 1 LYMAN (D2) 2 1 3 LYME (G) 3 1 4 LYNDEBOROUGH (K) 1 0 1 MASON (K) 1 0 1 MEREDITH (I1/J2) 0 1 1 MIDDLETON (J2) 1 0 1 MILAN (B/C1/C2) 3 7 10 MILTON (J2) 1 0 1 MONROE (D2) 1 0 1 MOULTONBORO (J1/J2) 2 2 4 NELSON (H2) 0 1 1 NEW DURHAM (J2) 4 2 6 NEWBURY (I2) 0 2 2 NORTHUMBERLAND (B/C1/D1) 2 2 4 ODELL (B) 0 1 1 ORANGE (G) 4 0 4 ORFORD (D2/G) 3 1 4 OSSIPEE (J1) 2 2 4 PIERMONT (D2) 2 0 2

33

TOWN WMUs IN TOWN MALE FEMALE TOTAL


PITTSBURG (A) 2 2 4 PLAINFIELD (H1) 4 2 6 PLYMOUTH (F/G) 1 2 3 RAYMOND (L/M) 1 0 1 RUMNEY (F/G) 2 2 4 SALISBURY (I1) 1 2 3 SANBORNTON (I1/J2) 2 0 2 SANDWICH (F/J1) 2 6 8 SHELBURNE (C2/E) 0 1 1 SPRINGFIELD (G/I2) 0 1 1 STARK (B/C1) 1 3 4 STEWARTSTOWN (A) 7 5 12 STODDARD (H2/I2) 1 0 1 STRATFORD (B) 6 2 8 SUCCESS (C2) 2 2 4 SUGAR HILL (D1/D2) 0 1 1 SULLIVAN (H2) 1 0 1 SUNAPEE (G/I2) 1 0 1 SUTTON (I1/I2) 1 0 1 TAMWORTH (F/J1) 2 5 7 THORNTON (F) 1 1 2 TUFTONBORO (J1/J2) 0 3 3 UNITY (H1) 1 2 3 WALPOLE (H1/H2) 1 0 1 WARNER (I1/I2) 1 2 3 WARREN (D2/F) 5 1 6 WASHINGTON (I2) 2 2 4 WATERVILLE VALLEY (E/F) 2 0 2 WEARE (K) 1 0 1 WEBSTER (I1) 2 2 4 WENTWORTH (D2/F/G) 2 2 4 WENTWORTH’S LOCATION (A/C2) 1 1 2 WHITEFIELD (D1) 2 2 4 WILMOT (G/I1) 0 4 4 WOLFEBORO (J1/J2) 3 1 4 WOODSTOCK (D2/F) 4 1 5 TOTAL 243 190 433

34

2005 MOOSE HARVEST SUMMARY

The New Hampshire 2005 moose season took place fromOctober 15th through October 23rd. The weather was wild the firstthree days of the season with torrential rains and gale force windscausing flooding and closed roads. This was followed by almostconstant rain and overcast skies the remainder of the hunt. Moosewere moving however and hunters braved the elements to produce a78% success rate. Permit issuance was similar to 2004 at five hundred and twenty-six permits.

Four hundred and eight moose were taken during the nine-day season. The take consisted of 269(66%) antlered bulls, 125 (31%) cows and 14 (3%) calves. The statewide success rate of 78% wasslightly higher than last year’s 74%. Regional success rates were all slightly higher than in 2004 withthe exception of the Southeast region. The Southeast had a success rate of 26 %, which is below theregion’s 10-year average of 33%.

Regional either-sex permit adult sex ratios (bulls/cow) were: Southeast (1:1), Southwest (3:1),Central (2.8:1), White Mountains (2.2:1), North (2.2:1) and Ct. Lakes (2.9:1). While the North sexratio is the lowest it’s been in six years, none of these ratios are significantly different from past years.Hunters traveled from 18 different states to participate in the 2005 hunt. Non-residents took 69 (17%)moose while residents took the remaining 339 (83%). Moose were taken by rifle (386), muzzleloader(5), archery (5), shotgun (9) and handgun (2). Three hundred and six (75%) permittees and 102 (25%)sub-permittees were the primary shooters. Of these, fourteen were women.

Additional information on the lottery and moose season results can be found in the accompanyingtables. The Fish and Game Department adopted new moose management goals in 2005, following adetailed planning process. These goals (see the accompanying table), which will be in effect for thetime span 2006-2015, are measured on the basis of moose observation rates generated through asurvey of successful deer hunters. Observation rates, in conjunction with population estimates derivedfrom three years of aerial infrared surveys, provide New Hampshire biologists with one of the mostaccurate moose assessments in North America. A negative (-) value under “desired % change” indi-cates a need to decrease the population to meet the desired goal while a positive (+) value reflects aneed to increase the population.

35

NEWHAMPSHIRE

MOOSEMANAGEMENT

REGIONS

36

N.H. MOOSE POPULATION MANAGEMENT GOALS BY REGION

� !"�""#�$"%��&#'"%�� &%!

� �� !�� "�� #�� $�� %� �� %��&� �� '��

��(�

REGION RECOMMENDED

GOAL CURRENT LEVEL*

DESIRED % CHANGE

CT. LAKES 7.4 12.2 -39% NORTH 6.0 6.9 -13% WHITE MOUNTAINS 3.0 2.9 +3% CENTRAL 1.5 1.6 -6% SOUTH WEST 1.3 1.0 +30% SOUTH EAST 0.5 0.5 0%

�� !�� (�� )'��

*+,�-� !�� *�� %�� (� �� .!/�� ,��

�� 0�� .!/� �� (��

SUMMARY OF N.H. MOOSE LOTTERY AND HARVEST

STATEWIDE HARVEST YEAR

TOTAL APPLI- CATIONS

TOTAL PERMITS DRAWN

(ISSUED*)

RESIDENT ODDS OF BEING DRAWN BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL

PERCENT CALVES &

COWS

HUNTER SUCCESS RATE

1988 5,915 75 (75) 1 IN 76 37 15 5 57 35% 76% 1989 5,504 75 (75) 1 IN 71 33 22 4 59 44% 79% 1990 5,707 75 (75) 1 IN 72 39 11 3 53 26% 71% 1991 5,122 100 (100) 1 IN 49 64 21 4 89 28% 89% 1992 8,702 190 (190) 1 IN 45 117 48 7 172 32% 91% 1993 10,044 317 (317) 1 IN 30 188 79 14 281 33% 89% 1994 11,572 405 (405) 1 IN 27 204 84 17 305 33% 75% 1995 14,150 495 (495) 1 IN 26 256 104 24 384 33% 78% 1996 14,398 495 (493) 1 IN 26 257 97 20 374 31% 76% 1997 15,161 570 (569) 1 IN 23 248 152 28 428 42% 75% 1998 15,942 570 (569) 1 IN 25 235 139 33 407 42% 72% 1999 13,090 570 (570) 1 IN 20 227 155 24 406 44% 71% 2000 13,984 585 (581) 1 IN 20 225 138 15 378 40% 65% 2001 14,943 585 (584) 1 IN 20 250 144 25 419 40% 72% 2002 14,888 485 (484) 1 IN 23 209 127 19 355 41% 73% 2003 14,402 485 (482) 1 IN 23 236 118 8 362 35% 75% 2004 15,505 525 (522) 1 IN 23 280 96 12 388 28% 74% 2005 15,837 525 (526) 1 IN 24 269 125 14 408 34% 78%

*+,�"-��' #�� (� �� (� ��

�� (� ��1��

�� 2�� )�$��34(5� �� 405�

��$366 2�� "�� )� ��(�� / �� $&� �&� 7&

8$&� 8&� �$&� �$&� �&� �)&� 2� � �� 9$�

��$33$ "�� $�� (��

��$33 "�� 3� ��(�� / �� :� ��

��$33) / �� %$&� ;� � �� 9� ��

��$33� / �� %&� <&� =� � �� !� ��

��$33>�' 7�� '�� '� �(� �� / �� $&� �&� 7

� �� 8�

��'/ �� %� � �� ;� �� %*?%"� � �� ;$?;�

37

AGE AND SEX OF THE 2005 MOOSE HARVEST BY MANAGEMENT REGIONAND WMU

REGION WMU

ADULT BULLS

(AGE 2.5+)

YEARLING BULLS

(AGE 1.5)

ADULT COWS

(AGE 2.5+)

YEARLING COWS

(AGE 1.5) CALVES TOTAL

% COWS AND

CALVES

% ADULT BULLS

(AGE 2.5+) CT. LAKES A1 9 1 1 3 0 14 29% 64% A2 31 19 22 11 3 86 42% 36% ALL 40 20 23 14 3 100 40% 40% NORTH B 27 7 8 5 0 47 28% 57% C2 21 3 10 3 2 39 38% 54% D1 8 1 3 2 2 16 44% 50% ALL 56 11 21 10 4 102 34% 55% W. MTN. C1 11 5 4 2 1 23 30% 48% D2 11 1 4 3 0 19 37% 58% E1 5 1 1 1 2 10 40% 50% E2 4 0 1 0 0 5 20% 80% E3 6 0 3 1 0 10 40% 60% F 10 4 4 2 0 20 30% 50% ALL 47 11 17 9 3 87 33% 54% CENTRAL G 23 1 5 1 0 30 20% 77% H1 5 1 1 0 0 7 14% 71% I1 4 1 6 2 0 13 62% 31% I2 14 5 2 2 0 23 17% 61% J1 6 1 2 0 2 11 36% 55% J2 7 2 4 0 1 14 36% 50% ALL 59 11 20 5 3 98 29% 60% S. WEST H2N 5 1 1 0 0 7 14% 71% H2S 0 0 1 1 0 2 100% 0% K 6 0 1 0 0 7 14% 86% ALL 11 1 3 1 0 16 25% 69% S. EAST L 0 0 0 1 0 1 100% 0% M 2 0 1 0 1 4 50% 50% ALL 2 0 1 1 1 5 60% 40% STATEWIDE ALL 215 54 85 40 14 408 34% 53%

METHODS OF HARVEST USED BY SUCCESSFUL HUNTERS DURING THE 2005MOOSE HUNT

METHOD # OF HUNTERS % OF HUNTERS ARCHERY 5 1.23% HANDGUN 2 0.49% MUZZLELOADER 5 1.23% RIFLE 386 94.61% SHOTGUN 9 2.21% UNKNOWN 1 0.25% TOTALS 408 100.00%

38

PERMITS ISSUED, HARVEST SUCCESS RATE AND HARVEST PER SQUAREMILE OF LAND AREA FOR THE 2005 MOOSE HUNT BY MANAGEMENTREGION AND WMU

REGION WMU

EITHER SEX

PERMITS ISSUED

ANTLER-LESS ONLY

PERMITS ISSUED

TOTAL PERMITS ISSUED

TOTAL HARVEST

HUNTER SUCCESS RATE

HARVEST PER

SQUARE MILE

CT. LAKES A1 15 0 15 14 93% 0.09 A2 77 20 97 86 89% 0.21 ALL 92 20 112 100 89% 0.18NORTH B 51 0 51 47 92% 0.14 C2 41 0 41 39 95% 0.16 D1 19 0 19 16 84% 0.07 ALL 111 0 111 102 92% 0.13W. MTN. C1 25 0 25 23 92% 0.12 D2 25 0 25 19 76% 0.04 E1 15 0 15 10 67% 0.05 E2 5 0 5 5 100% 0.02 E3 21 0 21 10 48% 0.03 F 25 0 25 20 80% 0.04 ALL 116 0 116 87 75% 0.05CENTRAL G 40 0 40 30 75% 0.05 H1 10 0 10 7 70% 0.02 I1 20 0 20 13 65% 0.04 I2 29 0 29 23 79% 0.06 J1 15 0 15 11 73% 0.02 J2 24 0 24 14 58% 0.02 ALL 138 0 138 98 71% 0.03S. WEST H2N 10 0 10 7 70% 0.02 H2S 5 0 5 2 40% 0.01 K 15 0 15 7 47% 0.01 ALL 30 0 30 16 53% 0.01-S. EAST L 10 0 10 1 10% 0.00 M 9 0 9 4 44% 0.01 ALL 19 0 19 5 26% 0.01 STATEWIDE ALL 506 20 526 408 78% 0.05

*��-� #�� (� �� (� ��

�� (� ��1��

�� 2�� )�$��34(5� �� 405�

39

SUMMARY OF MOOSE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE 2005MOOSE HARVEST BY MANAGEMENT REGION AND AGE

-------------------BULLS---------------- ----COWS---- ANTLER BEAM

DIAMETER (MM) ANTLER SPREAD

(INCHES) WEIGHT

(POUNDS) WEIGHT

(POUNDS) MANAGEMENT REGION

AGE IN YEARS MEAN MAXIMUM MEAN MAXIMUM MEAN MAXIMUM MEAN MAXIMUM 0.5 . . . . . . 240 340 1.5 34.8 43 23.5 27.5 451 560 435 500

2.5-4.5 46.8 57 37.2 48.0 650 810 565 680 CT LAKES

5.5+ 60.0 67 51.0 60.5 773 955 597 685 0.5 . . . . . . 237 260 1.5 35.8 42 20.9 28.0 462 550 453 570

2.5-4.5 46.4 59 38.2 50.5 664 890 614 695 NORTH

5.5+ 57.4 65 50.2 60.5 774 930 568 680

0.5 . . . . 190 190 230 230 1.5 34.5 50 23.9 28.8 456 550 422 550

2.5-4.5 46.8 60 37.4 48.9 620 780 561 710 W.MTN.

5.5+ 57.5 61 49.8 57.5 731 890 585 620

0.5 . . . . 230 230 200 200 1.5 34.3 55 27.6 50.5 492 720 405 500

2.5-4.5 44.2 55 34.7 52.5 598 730 530 700 CENTRAL

5.5+ 56.6 68 48.6 65.5 722 870 533 625

0.5 . . . . . . . . 1.5 28.0 28 22.0 22.0 400 400 390 390

2.5-4.5 43.1 52 32.9 48.0 609 760 540 560 S.WEST

5.5+ 53.0 60 48.6 50.0 778 875 . .

0.5 . . . . . . 230 230 1.5 . . . . . . 450 450

2.5-4.5 54.0 62 37.8 44.5 565 565 600 600 S.EAST

5.5+ . . . . . . . .

TEN-YEAR MOOSE HUNTER SUCCESS RATES BY MANAGEMENT REGIONAND WMU

REGION UNIT 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 MEAN CT.LAKES A1 95% 71% 77% 74% 69% 94% 93% 100% 87% 93% 85% A2 95% 97% 93% 92% 84% 83% 95% 93% 94% 89% 92% ALL 95% 90% 89% 87% 80% 86% 95% 95% 93% 89% 90% NORTH B 97% 96% 93% 82% 87% 91% 92% 92% 96% 92% 92% C2 85% 95% 95% 88% 85% 95% 94% 94% 85% 95% 91% D1 87% 100% 80% 93% 80% 73% 93% 73% 86% 84% 85% ALL 89% 96% 92% 86% 85% 90% 93% 90% 90% 92% 90% W. MTN. C1 90% 87% 86% 67% 83% 83% 75% 75% 92% 92% 83% D2 70% 77% 73% 77% 52% 63% 76% 84% 64% 76% 71% E1 76% 57% 51% 63% 50% 70% 70% 70% 67% 67% 64% E2 68% 75% 75% 50% 50% 60% 80% 100% 100% 100% 76% E3 72% 67% 37% 33% 45% 55% 47% 40% 63% 48% 51% F 67% 80% 60% 72% 63% 63% 76% 70% 65% 80% 70% ALL 73% 73% 63% 61% 61% 67% 71% 71% 72% 75% 69% CENTRAL G 70% 67% 83% 83% 77% 80% 88% 78% 63% 75% 76% H1 80% 70% 40% 70% 47% 60% 80% 90% 80% 70% 69% I1* 55% 75% 55% 70% 67% 67% 30% 60% 35% 65% 58% I2* 55% 75% 55% 70% 45% 60% 70% 90% 67% 79% 67% J1 75% 75% 60% 47% 40% 73% 60% 60% 60% 73% 62% J2 60% 50% 45% 70% 59% 51% 46% 63% 60% 58% 56% ALL 67% 67% 62% 71% 59% 65% 63% 72% 60% 71% 66% S. WEST H2N* 60% 60% 60% 55% 40% 70% 70% 80% 70% 70% 64% H2S* 60% 60% 60% 55% 40% 80% 22% 60% 20% 40% 50% K 60% 33% 67% 73% 55% 85% 67% 67% 40% 47% 59% ALL 60% 49% 63% 63% 49% 80% 56% 69% 47% 53% 59% S. EAST L 33% 35% 40% 50% 31% 40% 40% 27% 50% 10% 36% M 40% 30% 30% 25% 35% 23% 32% 15% 40% 44% 31% ALL 37% 33% 35% 38% 33% 32% 35% 20% 45% 26% 33% STATEWIDE ALL 76% 75% 72% 71% 65% 72% 73% 75% 74% 78% 73%

*+,�"-� � �� '� @�� %� �� ;� ��

40

2005 WILD TURKEY HARVESTSUMMARY

A total of 3,042 turkeys (3,023 gobblers and 19 bearded hens)were harvested from 221 towns during the May 1-31, 2005, springgobbler season. This represents a 12% increase over the 2,706 turkeysover the 2004 season. The May 2005 harvest of 3,023 gobblers wascomprised of 1,589 jakes (53%) and 1,434 toms (47%), for a juvenile/adult male harvest ratio of 1.1 to1.0; virtually the same as the 1.2 to 1.0 ratio of 2004. The statewide harvest was composed of 53% 1-year olds, 31% 2-year olds, 13% 3-year olds, 3% 4-year olds and 1% 5-year olds. This is similar to theage distribution observed in 2004.

Opening day, May 3rd, of the regular season tallied 569 turkeys, or 19% of the season total. Thesecond highest tally occurred on May 4th when 257 turkeys (9%) were taken. The four weekendsaccounted for 352, 218, 134 and 126 turkeys respectively, or a combined 27% of the season total. The2005 Youth Hunt Weekend (May 1-2) tallied 389 gobblers or 13% of the total spring season harvest,compared to 321 gobblers or 12% of the harvest in 2004. Of the 17 wildlife management units, unitH1 (0.9 per sq. mi.) and unit D2 (0.8 per sq. mi.) had the highest harvest densities. Eight units nowhave spring gobbler harvests of > 0.5 gobblers killed per square mile, which is the criterion being usedto qualify units for inclusion in a possible fall shotgun season.

The statewide turkey population estimate as of August 2005 was 30,000 wild turkeys. Approxi-mately 18,000 hunters purchased turkey hunting permits. The population continues to increase inWMUs in eastern and northern New Hampshire. The turkey hatch during spring 2005 was aboveaverage. A sample of single hen broods from June averaged 9.8 poults per hen, and a sample of mul-tiple hen broods from June/July averaged 7.1 poults per hen.

A total of 296 turkeys (167 hens, 129 gobblers) were registered during the 2005 fall (September15 – December 15) archery season. This represents a 13% decline from the 342 turkeys taken duringthe 2004 fall season, and likely reflects better food production (and reduced hunting vulnerability)during 2005.

41

NEWHAMPSHIRE

TURKEY WILDIFEMANAGEMENT

UNITS

42

2005 TURKEY HARVEST BY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNIT (WMU)

SPRING SEASON FALL SEASON

WMU

HENS* JAKES TOMS HENS GOBBLERS GRAND TOTAL

SPRING KILL PER SQ.MILE**

B 0 9 8 3 2 22 0.07 C1 0 12 6 2 1 21 0.12 C2 1 7 6 2 1 17 0.08 D1 0 65 55 5 8 133 0.62 D2 2 165 170 15 18 370 0.84 E 1 19 28 2 2 52 0.11 F 0 40 43 4 3 90 0.22 G 6 147 116 11 7 287 0.48 H1 2 158 176 16 9 361 0.95 H2 3 169 198 18 14 402 0.59 I1 1 104 69 3 4 181 0.55 I2 0 90 103 14 5 212 0.59 J1 2 102 76 5 7 192 0.42 J2 0 165 130 16 14 325 0.40 K 1 185 157 19 13 375 0.60 L 0 83 48 11 9 151 0.32 M 0 69 45 21 12 147 0.21

TOTAL 19 1589 1434 167 129 3338 0.42

�7�� (

��7�� :;"� �� (� ��

2005 TURKEY HARVEST BY COUNTY

SPRING SEASON FALL SEASON COUNTY HENS* JAKES TOMS HENS GOBBLERS GRAND TOTAL BELKNAP 0 77 43 7 1 128 CARROLL 3 126 127 8 10 274 CHESHIRE 3 166 192 18 15 394 COOS 1 85 54 13 12 165 GRAFTON 8 358 345 30 29 770 HILLSBORO 1 212 193 32 16 454 MERRIMACK 1 225 192 17 13 448 ROCKINGHAM 0 56 38 16 12 122 STRAFFORD 0 95 57 9 11 172 SULLIVAN 2 189 193 17 10 411 STATE TOTAL 19 1589 1434 167 129 3338

�7�� (

43

SPRING TURKEY HARVEST BY WMU AND YEAR

TOP 10 2005 SPRING GOBBLERS RANKED BY WEIGHT AND BEARD LENGTH

HUNTER NAME - RESIDENCE WEIGHT (LBS)

BEARD LENGTH

(INCHES)

SPUR LENGTH

(INCHES)

WMU OF

KILL TOWN OF KILL 1. EDMOND QUIRK - MANCHESTER 25.0 9.75 1.38 K FRANCESTOWN 2. JAMES RUGAR - WARREN 24.5 10.00 1.00 F WARREN 3. STACY ROBERTS - CLAREMONT 24.5 9.50 1.25 H2 CLAREMONT 4. JOHN DOUBLEDAY - SANBORTON 24.0 10.00 1.00 J2 NEW HAMPTON 5. ROBERT WILLARD - GILSUM 24.0 10.00 1.00 H2 GILSUM 6. GEORGE GAGNON - NASHUA 24.0 10.00 1.00 M MERRIMACK 7. DAVID JOHANSON - NEW BOSTON 24.0 9.63 0.88 K NEW BOSTON 8. RAYMOND HUGHES - BROOKFIELD 24.0 9.50 0.75 J2 BROOKFIELD 9. ERIC GAGNON - NEW BOSTON 24.0 9.50 0.50 K NEW BOSTON 10. TODD WILCOX - CHARLESTOWN 24.0 9.25 1.00 H2 WESTMORELAND

WMU 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 16 17

C1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 18

C2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 26 14

D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 8 63 84 89 117 96 108 120

D2 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 25 43 51 122 148 218 267 286 251 295 337

E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 32 38 42 48

F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 19 27 55 61 68 66 77 83

G 2 1 1 8 4 7 14 15 20 22 48 74 101 143 209 233 218 237 269

H1 15 28 45 47 69 80 91 67 110 141 145 198 240 304 364 352 317 304 336

H2 34 36 52 65 71 109 120 134 202 231 243 235 282 327 385 435 388 359 370

I1 0 0 1 2 2 8 1 11 18 37 31 44 68 95 135 130 144 174 174

I2 2 1 5 2 14 13 20 25 39 55 52 75 91 139 148 179 162 160 193

J1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 75 97 125 136 154 180

J2 0 3 2 4 4 8 6 6 0 5 13 17 57 101 145 198 192 239 295

K 0 0 3 3 7 51 31 44 81 101 108 161 154 254 250 317 339 304 343

L 15 6 13 16 21 29 39 19 25 23 28 23 30 43 59 99 97 106 131

M 13 14 16 8 10 7 9 13 18 30 30 39 37 55 44 65 96 95 114

TOTAL 81 89 138 155 202 317 336 334 539 692 759 1015 1378 1893 2266 2636 2600 2706 3042

* As of 2002 harvest of bearded hens became legal and is included in season totals

44

2005 TURKEY HARVEST BY TOWN AND WMU

The following table summarizes the 2005 turkey harvest by town (and WMU). Towns where noturkeys were killed are excluded from this table.

SPRING HARVEST FALL HARVEST

TOWN

HENS

JAKES

TOMS

MALES

MALES PER SQ.

MI

HENS

MALES

TOTAL PER SQ MILE

ACWORTH (H1) 0 13 8 21 0.54 1 1 0.05 ALBANY (E/F/J1) 0 1 0 1 0.01 1 0 0.01 ALEXANDRIA (G/I1) 1 8 1 9 0.21 1 0 0.02 ALLENSTOWN (L) 0 0 2 2 0.10 0 0 0.00 ALSTEAD (H1/H2) 1 13 13 26 0.67 1 0 0.03 ALTON (J2) 0 12 9 21 0.33 1 0 0.02 AMHERST (K/M) 0 2 5 7 0.21 1 0 0.03 ANDOVER (G/I1) 0 8 8 16 0.40 0 1 0.02 ANTRIM (H2/I2/K) 0 8 7 15 0.42 1 0 0.03 ASHLAND (F/G/J2) 0 7 3 10 0.89 0 2 0.18 ATKINSON (M) 0 0 0 0 0.00 1 0 0.09 AUBURN (L/M) 0 1 0 1 0.04 0 0 0.00 BARNSTEAD (J2) 0 4 2 6 0.14 2 0 0.05 BARRINGTON (J2/L) 0 5 1 6 0.13 0 1 0.02 BARTLETT (E) 0 0 3 3 0.04 0 0 0.00 BATH (D2) 1 38 29 67 1.78 7 3 0.27 BEDFORD (K/L/M) 0 2 2 4 0.12 2 0 0.06 BELMONT (J2) 0 13 5 18 0.60 4 0 0.13 BENNINGTON (H2/K) 0 2 3 5 0.45 3 0 0.27 BENTON (D2) 0 3 7 10 0.21 0 0 0.00 BERLIN (C1/C2) 0 1 3 4 0.07 0 0 0.00 BETHLEHEM (D1/D2/E) 0 6 12 18 0.20 0 0 0.00 BOSCAWEN (I1) 0 15 12 27 1.10 0 0 0.00 BOW (I1/K/L) 0 5 4 9 0.32 1 1 0.07 BRADFORD (I2) 0 2 7 9 0.26 2 0 0.06 BRENTWOOD (L/M) 0 2 0 2 0.12 0 1 0.06 BRIDGEWATER (G) 0 8 2 10 0.47 0 0 0.00 BRISTOL (G/I1) 1 8 4 12 0.72 2 1 0.18 BROOKFIELD (J1/J2) 0 8 11 19 0.83 0 0 0.00 BROOKLINE (K/M) 0 2 2 4 0.20 1 1 0.10 CAMBRIDGE (B/C2) 0 1 1 2 0.04 0 0 0.00 CAMPTON (F) 0 7 10 17 0.33 1 0 0.02 CANAAN (G) 0 20 18 38 0.71 4 0 0.08 CANDIA (L/M) 0 1 1 2 0.07 0 1 0.03 CANTERBURY (I1/J2) 0 8 5 13 0.30 2 0 0.05 CARROLL (D1/E) 0 2 0 2 0.04 1 0 0.02 CENTER HARBOR(J1/J2) 0 2 1 3 0.23 0 0 0.00 CHARLESTOWN (H1) 0 14 19 33 0.93 0 0 0.00 CHATHAM (E) 0 5 8 13 0.23 1 2 0.05 CHESTER (M) 0 6 2 8 0.31 0 1 0.04 CHESTERFIELD (H2) 0 11 12 23 0.51 2 1 0.07 CHICHESTER (J2/L) 0 2 4 6 0.29 0 0 0.00 CLAREMONT (H1) 0 16 30 46 1.07 3 2 0.12 COLUMBIA (B) 0 0 1 1 0.02 0 0 0.00 CONCORD (I1/J2/K/L) 0 20 10 30 0.47 0 1 0.02 CONWAY (E/F/J1) 0 5 13 18 0.26 0 0 0.00

45


TOWN

HENS

JAKES

TOMS

MALES

MALES PER SQ.

MI

HENS

MALES

TOTAL PER SQ MILE

CORNISH (H1) 1 13 24 37 0.88 0 1 0.02 CROYDON (H1/I2) 1 17 13 30 0.82 1 1 0.05 DALTON (D1) 0 5 9 14 0.51 0 1 0.04 DANBURY (G/I1) 0 5 9 14 0.37 0 0 0.00 DANVILLE (M) 0 2 0 2 0.17 1 0 0.09 DEERFIELD (L) 0 4 3 7 0.14 2 1 0.06 DEERING (K) 0 9 8 17 0.56 1 2 0.10 DERRY (M) 0 1 2 3 0.09 0 1 0.03 DORCHESTER (G) 0 6 7 13 0.29 0 0 0.00 DOVER (L) 0 16 7 23 0.86 3 1 0.15 DUBLIN (H2) 0 2 8 10 0.36 0 1 0.04 DUMMER (B/C1/C2) 0 5 1 6 0.13 0 0 0.00 DUNBARTON (K) 0 7 7 14 0.48 0 0 0.00 DURHAM (L) 0 2 3 5 0.22 0 0 0.00 EAST KINGSTON (M) 0 2 0 2 0.20 0 0 0.00 EASTON (D2) 0 1 2 3 0.10 0 0 0.00 EATON (J1) 0 6 7 13 0.53 0 0 0.00 EFFINGHAM (J1) 0 9 6 15 0.39 1 1 0.05 ELLSWORTH (F) 0 2 0 2 0.09 1 0 0.05 ENFIELD (G/H1) 1 24 18 42 1.04 0 2 0.05 EPPING (L/M) 0 1 1 2 0.08 0 1 0.04 EPSOM (J2/L) 0 10 4 14 0.41 0 0 0.00 ERROL (A/B/C2) 0 0 1 1 0.02 2 0 0.03 FARMINGTON (J2) 0 6 6 12 0.33 0 1 0.03 FITZWILLIAM (H2) 0 11 10 21 0.61 2 0 0.06 FRANCESTOWN (K) 0 12 8 20 0.68 0 1 0.03 FRANCONIA (D1/D2/E) 0 5 5 10 0.15 0 1 0.02 FRANKLIN (I1) 0 6 2 8 0.29 0 0 0.00 FREEDOM (J1) 0 17 9 26 0.75 1 1 0.06 FREMONT (M) 0 1 0 1 0.06 0 0 0.00 GILFORD (J2) 0 5 4 9 0.23 0 0 0.00 GILMANTON (J2) 0 13 11 24 0.42 0 0 0.00 GILSUM (H2) 0 2 7 9 0.54 0 0 0.00 GOFFSTOWN (K) 0 20 11 31 0.84 2 1 0.08 GORHAM (C1/C2/E) 0 4 3 7 0.22 0 0 0.00 GOSHEN (I2/H1) 0 5 7 12 0.54 1 0 0.04 GRAFTON (G) 0 3 3 6 0.14 0 0 0.00 GRANTHAM (G/H1/I2) 0 5 6 11 0.41 1 2 0.11 GREEN’S GRANT (E) 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 GREENFIELD (K) 0 6 9 15 0.57 2 0 0.08 GREENLAND (M) 0 1 3 4 0.38 0 0 0.00 GREENVILLE (K) 0 4 2 6 0.88 0 0 0.00 GROTON (G) 0 4 7 11 0.27 0 0 0.00 HALE’S LOCATION (E) 1 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 HAMPSTEAD (M) 0 0 0 0 0.00 4 0 0.30 HAMPTON (M) 0 0 1 1 0.08 0 1 0.08 HAMPTON FALLS (M) 0 0 1 1 0.08 0 0 0.00 HANCOCK (H2/K) 0 10 6 16 0.54 1 0 0.03 HANOVER (G) 0 9 3 12 0.24 2 0 0.04 HARRISVILLE (H2) 0 4 8 12 0.64 0 0 0.00 HAVERHILL (D2) 0 25 33 58 1.14 2 4 0.12 HEBRON (G) 0 6 1 7 0.42 0 0 0.00 HENNIKER (I2/K) 0 13 16 29 0.69 0 2 0.05 HILL (I1) 0 1 5 6 0.23 2 0 0.08


46

HILLSBORO (H2/I2/K) 0 18 22 40 0.93 2 3 0.12 HINSDALE (H2) 0 4 7 11 0.54 0 2 0.10 HOLDERNESS (F/G/J1/J2) 0 11 5 16 0.53 0 0 0.00 HOLLIS (M) 0 13 8 21 0.66 1 2 0.09 HOOKSETT (K/L) 0 6 2 8 0.22 1 1 0.06 HOPKINTON (I1/I2/K) 0 10 10 20 0.48 0 1 0.02 HUDSON (M) 0 4 2 6 0.21 2 0 0.07 JACKSON (E) 0 1 6 7 0.10 0 0 0.00 JAFFREY (H2/K) 0 17 17 34 0.89 3 2 0.13 JEFFERSON (C1/D1/E) 0 19 7 26 0.52 4 3 0.14 KEENE (H2) 0 6 12 18 0.49 3 1 0.11 KENSINGTON (M) 0 0 3 3 0.25 0 0 0.00 KINGSTON (M) 0 2 0 2 0.10 2 0 0.10 LACONIA (J2) 0 6 0 6 0.30 0 0 0.00 LANCASTER (C1/D1) 0 14 13 27 0.54 2 3 0.10 LANDAFF (D2) 1 9 14 23 0.81 1 2 0.11 LANGDON (H1/H2) 0 8 4 12 0.74 2 1 0.19 LEBANON (G/H1) 2 14 13 27 0.67 1 1 0.05 LEE (L) 0 15 6 21 1.06 0 0 0.00 LEMPSTER (H1/I2) 0 10 6 16 0.50 1 0 0.03 LISBON (D2) 0 12 12 24 0.91 1 3 0.15 LITCHFIELD (M) 0 2 1 3 0.20 0 0 0.00 LITTLETON (D1/D2) 0 10 17 27 0.54 0 0 0.00 LONDONDERRY (M) 0 4 2 6 0.14 0 1 0.02 LOUDON (J2) 0 14 7 21 0.46 2 2 0.09 LYMAN (D2) 0 13 18 31 1.09 1 0 0.04 LYME (G) 0 14 16 30 0.56 1 0 0.02 LYNDEBOROUGH (K) 0 12 5 17 0.57 2 0 0.07 MADBURY (L) 0 5 2 7 0.61 0 0 0.00 MADISON (F/J1) 0 6 5 11 0.29 0 1 0.03 MANCHESTER (K/L/M) 0 0 0 0 0.00 1 0 0.03 MARLBOROUGH (H2) 0 7 12 19 0.93 0 1 0.05 MARLOW (H1/H2/I2) 0 5 7 12 0.47 0 0 0.00 MASON (K) 0 3 2 5 0.21 1 0 0.04 MEREDITH (I1/J2) 0 3 1 4 0.10 0 0 0.00 MERRIMACK (M) 0 2 4 6 0.19 1 2 0.09 MIDDLETON (J2) 0 5 0 5 0.28 0 2 0.11 MILAN (B/C1/C2) 0 6 3 9 0.14 0 0 0.00 MILFORD (K/M) 0 6 10 16 0.63 0 0 0.00 MILLSFIELD (A/B) 0 1 0 1 0.02 0 0 0.00 MILTON (J2) 0 5 2 7 0.21 1 1 0.06 MONROE (D2) 0 21 14 35 1.56 1 1 0.09 MONT VERNON (K) 0 2 1 3 0.18 0 0 0.00 MOULTONBORO (J1/J2) 0 7 4 11 0.18 0 0 0.00 NASHUA (M) 0 1 1 2 0.07 0 0 0.00 NELSON (H2) 0 3 7 10 0.46 0 0 0.00 NEW BOSTON (K) 1 18 12 30 0.70 1 1 0.05 NEW DURHAM (J2) 0 10 11 21 0.51 1 0 0.02 NEW HAMPTON(G/I1/J2) 0 8 6 14 0.38 0 0 0.00 NEW IPSWICH (K) 0 9 4 13 0.40 3 0 0.09 NEW LONDON (G/I1/I2) 0 6 5 11 0.50 0 1 0.05 NEWBURY (I2) 0 11 13 24 0.67 2 1 0.08 NEWINGTON (M) 0 1 1 2 0.25 2 1 0.37



TOWN

HENS

JAKES

TOMS

MALES

MALES PER SQ.

MI

HENS

MALES

TOTAL PER SQ MILE

47


TOWN

HENS

JAKES

TOMS

MALES

MALES PER SQ.

MI

HENS

MALES

TOTAL PER SQ MILE

NEWMARKET (L) 0 4 2 6 0.48 0 0 0.00 NEWPORT (H1/I2) 0 23 15 38 0.88 2 1 0.07 NEWTON (M) 0 0 1 1 0.10 0 0 0.00 NORTH HAMPTON (M) 0 2 0 2 0.14 0 0 0.00 NORTHFIELD (I1/J2) 0 3 7 10 0.35 0 0 0.00 NORTHUMBERLAND(B/C1/D1) 0 7 3 10 0.28 1 0 0.03 NORTHWOOD (J2/L) 0 2 6 8 0.28 1 0 0.04 NOTTINGHAM (L) 0 6 0 6 0.13 0 1 0.02 ORANGE (G) 0 1 3 4 0.17 0 1 0.04 ORFORD (D2/G) 0 13 13 26 0.56 1 2 0.06 OSSIPEE (J1) 1 13 6 19 0.27 1 0 0.01 PELHAM (M) 0 3 1 4 0.15 0 0 0.00 PEMBROKE (L) 0 5 4 9 0.40 0 0 0.00 PETERBOROUGH (H2/K) 0 5 17 22 0.58 2 1 0.08 PIERMONT (D2) 0 14 12 26 0.67 0 3 0.08 PITTSFIELD (J2) 0 4 5 9 0.38 0 1 0.04 PLAINFIELD (H1) 0 27 24 51 0.98 2 1 0.06 PLYMOUTH (F/G) 0 6 4 10 0.36 0 0 0.00 PORTSMOUTH (M) 0 2 1 3 0.19 0 0 0.00 RANDOLPH (C1/E) 0 2 0 2 0.04 0 0 0.00 RAYMOND (L/M) 0 1 0 1 0.03 0 1 0.03 RICHMOND (H2) 0 10 3 13 0.35 1 0 0.03 RINDGE (H2/K) 0 6 1 7 0.19 0 0 0.00 ROCHESTER (J2/L) 0 11 9 20 0.45 2 2 0.09 ROLLINSFORD (L) 0 2 5 7 0.96 1 0 0.14 ROXBURY (H2) 0 1 0 1 0.08 0 0 0.00 RUMNEY (F/G) 0 8 6 14 0.34 0 0 0.00 SALISBURY (I1) 0 16 9 25 0.64 1 1 0.05 SANBORNTON (I1/J2) 0 11 3 14 0.30 0 0 0.00 SANDOWN (M) 0 2 0 2 0.14 0 0 0.00 SANDWICH (F/J1) 0 6 13 19 0.21 1 0 0.01 SHARON (K) 0 0 3 3 0.19 0 0 0.00 SHELBURNE (C2/E) 1 1 2 3 0.06 1 1 0.04 SOMERSWORTH (L) 0 1 1 2 0.21 0 1 0.10 SOUTH HAMPTON (M) 0 1 1 2 0.25 2 0 0.25 SPRINGFIELD (G/I2) 0 9 8 17 0.39 0 0 0.00 STARK (B/C1) 0 0 2 2 0.03 0 1 0.02 STODDARD (H2/I2) 0 0 3 3 0.06 1 0 0.02 STRAFFORD (J2) 0 12 4 16 0.33 1 2 0.06 SUGAR HILL (D1/D2) 0 7 9 16 0.94 0 0 0.00 SULLIVAN (H2) 1 3 3 6 0.32 1 1 0.11 SUNAPEE (G/I2) 0 7 11 18 0.86 2 0 0.10 SURRY (H2) 0 4 6 10 0.65 0 0 0.00 SUTTON (I1/I2) 0 13 12 25 0.59 3 0 0.07 SWANZEY (H2) 0 13 6 19 0.43 0 1 0.02 TAMWORTH (F/J1) 0 11 12 23 0.39 1 0 0.02 TEMPLE (K) 0 12 7 19 0.86 0 0 0.00 THORNTON (F) 0 3 9 12 0.24 0 2 0.04 TILTON (I1/J2) 0 0 1 1 0.09 0 1 0.09 TROY (H2) 0 2 5 7 0.40 1 0 0.06 TUFTONBORO (J1/J2) 0 6 6 12 0.30 1 2 0.07 UNITY (H1) 0 9 8 17 0.46 1 0 0.03 WAKEFIELD (J1/J2) 0 11 11 22 0.56 0 1 0.03 WALPOLE (H1/H2) 1 15 16 31 0.88 0 2 0.06


48


TOWN

HENS

JAKES

TOMS

MALES

MALES PER SQ.

MI

HENS

MALES

TOTAL PER SQ MILE

WARNER (I1/I2) 0 8 8 16 0.29 0 0 0.00 WARREN (D2/F) 1 5 7 12 0.25 2 0 0.04 WASHINGTON (I2) 0 13 10 23 0.51 0 0 0.00 WEARE (K) 0 21 21 42 0.74 1 1 0.04 WEBSTER (I1) 1 19 10 29 1.04 0 0 0.00 WENTWORTH (D2/F/G) 0 6 8 14 0.34 1 0 0.02 WESTMORELAND (H2) 0 17 17 34 0.95 2 2 0.11 WHITEFIELD (D1) 0 12 3 15 0.44 1 2 0.09 WILMOT (G/I1) 0 8 5 13 0.44 1 0 0.03 WILTON (K) 0 3 8 11 0.43 1 1 0.08 WINCHESTER (H2) 0 10 12 22 0.40 1 1 0.04 WINDHAM (M) 0 0 1 1 0.04 0 1 0.04 WINDSOR (I2) 0 1 1 2 0.24 0 0 0.00 WOLFEBORO (J1/J2) 1 14 7 21 0.44 0 2 0.04 WOODSTOCK (D2/F) 0 1 0 1 0.02 0 1 0.02 TOTAL 19 1589 1434 3023 167 129


49

2004/2005 FURBEARER HARVESTSUMMARY

Trapping is a highly specialized skill and one that provides sub-stantial public benefit to our residents. Trappers continue to play asignificant role in the management of furbearer populations. Theyprovide important data to management programs and provide animportant public service in their capacity as damage control specialists. This furbearer harvest reportsummarizes data collected during the months of October 2004 through April 2005 (i.e., the 2004trapping season).

New Hampshire furbearers remain abundant and widespread as indicated by results from the2004 trapping season. There were 429 licensed trappers during the 2004 season. Average pelt valueswere derived from an annual winter fur auction conducted by the New Hampshire Trappers Associa-tion. Pelt values were similar to the previous year, and continued to average higher than they have innearly a decade. The value of the 2004 fur harvest to trappers was $120,452, based on average peltvalues and the total fur harvest in New Hampshire.

The 2004 beaver harvest, which totaled 2,496, was 9 percent below the 2003 take of 2,735.Beavers are a common source of nuisance animal complaints received by N.H. Fish and Game staff.Trappers play a significant role in managing local populations and in reducing beaver/human conflicts.Wildlife Control Operators took 968 beavers in addition to those taken by trappers. Their take consti-tutes 28 percent of the total statewide take. Trappers caught beavers at an average rate of 8.8 animalsper 100 trap nights of effort. This rate is indicative of relatively high beaver densities in our state.

The otter harvest for the 2004 season was 304. This was 14 percent below the 2003 harvest of352 and 2 percent below the previous 5-year average. The pelt value of $80.56 was 13 percent abovethe previous year’s average. Long-term population analysis suggests that New Hampshire can sustainan annual harvest of approximately 350 otters, and that a higher harvest over several years could leadto a decline. Harvests are generally kept below that threshold with the current season, which includes abag limit of ten otters.

The 2004 mink harvest of 354, was similar to the 2003 take (350) but 12 percent below theprevious 5-year average. The pelt value of $13.92 was 30 percent above the previous year and 42percent above the 5-year average. The catch per unit of effort was 2.48 mink captured per 100 trap-nights, a decrease from 3.71 the previous year. Trapper effort and harvest remained significantly belowhistoric highs due to low pelt values. The 2004 muskrat harvest of 2,315 was up 20 percent from 1,929the previous year and was 7 percent above the 5-year average. The catch per 100 trap-nights was10.57.

The 2004 fisher harvest was 749, a decrease of 5 percent from 2003 and 9 percent below the 5-year average. Fisher pelt values averaged $26.67, a decrease of 2 percent from $27.35 in 2003, but 24

50

percent above the 5-year average. Trapper effort increased by 8 percent from the previous year and thecatch per unit of effort was 2.61, compared to 3.10 the previous year. Previous analysis of long-termfisher harvest data suggests that the population can sustain an annual harvest of approximately 1,100animals, under normal circumstances.

Raccoon trappers took 626 raccoons, an increase of 22 percent from 515 the previous year. Foxtrappers took 115 gray and 408 red fox, down 57 percent and 18 percent respectively, from 2003.Coyote trappers took 659 animals, down 8 percent from the preceding year. Fur trapping data aresummarized in the tables that accompany this report.

NEW HAMPSHIRE FURBEARER HARVEST BY COUNTY (2004/05)

COUNTY BEAVER COYOTE FISHER GFOX MINK MUSKRAT OPOSSUM OTTER RACCOON RFOX SKUNK WEASEL BELKNAP 152 21 39 11 9 55 0 14 12 15 4 3 CARROLL 113 16 41 12 18 21 1 17 18 11 7 2 CHESHIRE 255 89 73 13 30 89 1 45 39 20 10 3 COOS 199 200 89 5 47 813 0 12 82 114 5 13 GRAFTON 234 159 55 7 86 266 3 25 145 110 50 1 HILLSBORO 405 42 107 26 46 263 3 42 76 36 28 6 MERRIMACK 496 64 91 10 48 358 5 57 70 40 33 4 ROCKINGHAM 406 19 152 12 26 289 3 53 89 16 44 4 STRAFFORD 132 9 26 13 9 58 4 20 55 27 25 7 SULLIVAN 104 40 76 6 35 103 0 19 40 19 7 9 TOTAL 2496 659 749 115 354 2315 20 304 626 408 213 52

NEW HAMPSHIRE FURBEARER CATCH PER 100 TRAP-NIGHTS (1992 –2004)

Year* 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 Beaver 6.51 9.74 6.58 7.91 7.66 8.51 7.04 9.28 9.87 8.85 9.99 8.55 8.82 Otter 2.08 2.06 1.43 2.02 2.21 2.29 1.19 2.81 1.88 2.48 2.86 2.68 1.91 Mink 1.21 1.32 1.01 1.76 1.75 1.77 2.40 4.20 1.89 2.41 2.72 3.71 2.48 Muskrat 7.34 7.69 6.92 6.90 6.73 10.2 7.90 11.2 10.1 7.97 8.97 8.91 10.57 Fisher 3.14 3.10 2.56 2.91 3.32 3.78 3.24 3.45 2.77 3.64 2.57 3.10 2.61 R-Fox 1.93 2.01 1.99 2.66 1.86 2.78 2.36 2.04 2.55 3.26 2.48 2.95 1.99 G-Fox 1.09 0.91 1.37 0.94 1.42 1.98 2.04 2.35 2.09 3.02 2.26 3.69 1.67 Coyote 1.64 1.76 1.81 1.18 1.83 3.00 2.32 2.01 1.34 2.47 2.86 2.26 1.68 Raccoon 24.9 19.2 20.9 14.4 26.5 24.5 30.6 8.22 3.62 3.87 3.97 3.16 3.38

*The year listed represents the year when the season opened. Depending on the species, the season may extend into the following calendar year.

51

NEW HAMPSHIRE HARVEST RECORDS FOR SELECT SPECIES DURING 1989-2004

Year*

Licensed Trappers

Gray Fox

Red Fox

Mink

Beaver

Muskrat

Otter

Raccoon

Fisher

Coyote

1989 643 58 504 465 3098 3746 329 890 406 169 1990 624 63 415 358 2589 2381 261 796 440 155 1991 457 76 426 537 3372 3886 316 965 442 227 1992 418 86 381 381 2059 2525 285 854 426 260 1993 380 76 378 441 3612 2273 405 994 525 298 1994 439 97 444 513 5901 4389 504 888 722 342 1995 393 75 343 386 4048 2731 317 902 426 380 1996 403 129 264 587 4752 2976 451 519 642 345 1997 411 104 324 429 3975 3980 344 684 1187 398 1998 400 120 195 453 3784 3517 288 459 923 318 1999 397 89 181 416 3416 1714 291 374 894 279 2000 387 75 208 256 2832 2137 242 241 668 358 2001 2002 2003 2004

419 443 432 429

183 167 267 115

409 353 498 408

618 362 350 354

4378 2240 2735 2496

3604 1453 1929 2315

397 271 352 304

558 406 515 626

1007 772 788 749

556 518 716 659

*The year listed represents the year when the season opened. Depending on the species, the season may extend into the following calendar year.

Are you, or someone you know, interested in hunting?If so, sign up for hunter education today!

LEARN:• Firearms safety and handling • Outdoor survival skills• Wildlife identification • Map and compass skills• Hunter ethics and responsibility • Game trailing, recovery and care

For class locations, times and home study options,or to buy a license online, go to:

www.wildlife.state.nh.us or call: (603) 271-3214

OWL BROOKHUNTER EDUCATION CENTER

Outdoor Education, Shooting Ranges, Interpretive Trails, 3-D Archery CoursePerch Pond Road, Holderness, NH • Call (603) 536-1290 for information

New HampshireFish and Game Department

��

� ��

��

�� !�"�

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department’s mission:

As the guardian of the state’s fish, wildlife and marine resources, the N.H.Fish and Game Department works in partnership with the public to:

• conserve, manage and protect those resources and their habitats;

• inform and educate the public about those resources; and

• provide the public with opportunities to use and appreciate thoseresources.

F&W0601A.P7

CALL OPERATION GAME THIEF

1-800-344-4262REPORT THESE FACTS:

��

��

��

��

Operation Game Thief, Inc. is madepossible through the generosity of:

Gun Owners of New HampshireKittery Trading PostLoon Preservation CommitteeSeacoast Seafood DealersN.H. Fish and Game CommissionWinni DerbySturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.Thompson/Center Arms Co.NE Safari Club InternationalN.H. Wildlife FederationMerrimack County, Office of the SheriffN.H. Commercial Fishermen’s Assn.Strafford County League of Sportsmen

$$ WE PAY CASH FOR VIOLATORS $$VISIT:


• on-line license sales

• latest Fish and Game news

• hunting and fishingregulations and reports

• educational programs

• Fish and Game merchandise

• Wildlife Journal TV Showupdates

• Wildlife Journal magazinesubscriptions

• wildlife profiles

• hiking, boating, OHRV,and more!

Date post:	17-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

HANNAH CLEMENTS PHOTO · 2015-04-30 · 5 2005 WHITE-TAILED DEER HARVEST SUMMARY Following a couple...

Documents