state of nevada publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. nevada...

221

Upload: duongkhuong

Post on 12-Mar-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Page 2: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

            

Page 3: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

This publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Federal Laws prohibit discrimination

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you’ve been discriminated against in any NDOW program, activity, or facility, please write to the following:

Diversity Program Manager or Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nevada Department of Wildlife

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mailstop: 7072-43 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 Arlington, VA 22203 Reno, Nevada 8911-2237 Individuals with hearing impairments may contact the Department via telecommunications device at our Headquarters at 775-688-1500

via a text telephone (TTY) telecommunications device by first calling the State of Nevada Relay Operator at 1-800-326-6868.

STATE OF NEVADA

Brian Sandoval, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE Tony Wasley, Director

GAME DIVISION

Brian F. Wakeling, Chief

Mike Cox, Big Game Staff Biologist Pat Jackson, Carnivore Staff Biologist

Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer Staff Biologist Peregrine Wolff, Wildlife Health Specialist

Western Region Southern Region

Eastern Region

Regional Supervisors

Mike Scott Steve Kimble Tom Donham Big Game Biologists

Chris Hampson Joe Bennett Kari Huebner Carl Lackey Pat Cummings Matt Jeffress

Kyle Neill Cooper Munson Jeremy Lutz Ed Partee Caleb McAdoo

Jason Salisbury Kody Menghini Tyler Nall Clint Garrett

Scott Roberts

Page 4: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE

2016-2017 BIG GAME STATUS

This program is supported by Federal financial assistance titled “Statewide Game Management” submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)’s CFDA Program 15.611 and is made under the authority of: Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, 16 U.S.C. 669-669k.

Compiled and Edited by:

Mike Cox, Big Game Staff Biologist

Cody McKee, Elk Staff Biologist Cody Schroeder, Mule Deer Staff Biologist

Pat Jackson, Carnivore Staff Biologist Brian Wakeling, Game Division Chief

Mike Scott, Regional Supervising Biologist

Tom Donham, Regional Supervising Biologist Steve Kimble, Regional Supervising Biologist

Page 5: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR STATUS REPORTS BIG GAME STATUS STATEWIDE SUMMARY ................................................... SS-1 MULE DEER ............................................................................................ 1

UNITS 011 – 013: NORTHERN WASHOE AND WESTERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES .................................................. 1 UNIT 014: GRANITE RANGE, WASHOE COUNTY ................................................................................ 2 UNIT 015: INTERSTATE DEER HERD; DRY VALLEY RIM, BUFFALO HILLS, COPPERSMITH HILLS, WASHOE COUNTY .............. 2 UNIT 021: INTERSTATE DEER HERD; PETERSEN MOUNTAINS, DOGSKIN MOUNTAINS, FORT SAGE MOUNTAINS .................. 3 UNIT 022: VIRGINIA MOUNTAINS, PAH RAH MOUNTAINS, FOX RANGE .......................................................... 4 UNITS 031, 032, 034, 035: WESTERN HUMBOLDT COUNTY................................................................... 6 UNIT 033: SHELDON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; WASHOE AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES ....................................... 6 UNITS 041, 042: WESTERN PERSHING AND SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES .................................................. 7 UNITS 043 – 046: EASTERN PERSHING AND SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES .................................................. 8 UNIT 051: SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS; EASTERN HUMBOLDT COUNTY ........................................................... 9 UNITS 061 - 062, 064, 066 – 068: INDEPENDENCE AND TUSCARORA RANGES; ELKO COUNTY ................................ 9 UNIT 065: PIÑON RANGE; SOUTHWESTERN ELKO COUNTY ................................................................... 10 UNITS 071 – 079, 091: NORTHEASTERN ELKO COUNTY ...................................................................... 11 UNIT 081: GOOSE CREEK AREA; NORTHEASTERN ELKO COUNTY ............................................................. 12 UNITS 101 – 109: SOUTHERN ELKO AND NORTHWESTERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ............................................ 13 UNITS 111 – 113: EASTERN WHITE PINE COUNTY ............................................................................ 14 UNITS 114 – 115: SNAKE RANGE; SOUTHEASTERN WHITE PINE COUNTY ..................................................... 15 UNIT 121: NORTH EGAN, CHERRY CREEK RANGES; WHITE PINE AND ELKO COUNTIES ........................................ 16 UNITS 131 – 134: SOUTHERN WHITE PINE, EASTERN NYE AND WESTERN LINCOLN COUNTIES ................................ 16 UNITS 141 – 145: EUREKA AND WESTERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ............................................................ 17 UNITS 151, 152, 154, 155: LANDER AND WESTERN EUREKA COUNTIES ..................................................... 18 UNITS 161 – 164: NORTH-CENTRAL NYE AND SOUTHERN LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES ................................... 19 UNITS 171 – 173: NORTHWESTERN NYE AND SOUTHERN LANDER COUNTIES .................................................. 20 UNITS 181 – 184: CHURCHILL, SOUTHERN PERSHING, AND WESTERN LANDER COUNTIES .................................... 21 UNIT 192: CARSON RIVER INTERSTATE HERD; DOUGLAS COUNTY ............................................................ 21 UNIT 194, 196: CARSON RANGE AND PEAVINE MOUNTAIN INTERSTATE HERD; WASHOE AND CARSON CITY COUNTIES ....... 22 UNIT 195: VIRGINIA RANGE; STOREY, WASHOE, AND LYON COUNTIES ....................................................... 22 UNITS 201, 202, 204 – 208: WALKER – MONO INTERSTATE DEER HERD; DOUGLAS, LYON, AND MINERAL COUNTIES ........ 23 UNIT 203: MASON AND SMITH VALLEY RESIDENT HERDS; LYON COUNTY ..................................................... 24 UNITS 211, 212: ESMERALDA COUNTY ....................................................................................... 24 UNITS 221 – 223: NORTHERN LINCOLN AND SOUTHERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES .............................................. 25 UNIT 231: WILSON CREEK RANGE; NORTHEASTERN LINCOLN COUNTY ....................................................... 25 UNITS 241 – 245: CLOVER, DELAMAR, AND MEADOW VALLEY MOUNTAIN RANGES; LINCOLN COUNTY ........................ 26 UNITS 251 – 253: SOUTH CENTRAL NYE COUNTY ............................................................................ 27 UNITS 261 – 268: CLARK AND SOUTHERN NYE COUNTIES .................................................................... 27 UNITS 271, 272: SOUTHERN LINCOLN AND NORTHEASTERN CLARK COUNTIES ................................................ 28 UNIT 291: PINE NUT MOUNTAIN HERD; DOUGLAS COUNTY .................................................................. 28

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE .......................................................................... 30 UNIT 011: VYA AND MASSACRE RIMS, COLEMAN CANYON, BITNER TABLE .................................................... 30 UNIT 012 – 014: HIGH ROCK, LITTLE HIGH ROCK, HAYS CANYON, BOULDER MOUNTAIN, GRANITE RANGE, CALICO RANGE . 31 UNIT 015: BUFFALO HILLS, DRY VALLEY RIM, COPPERSMITH HILLS .......................................................... 32 UNITS 021, 022: VIRGINIA MOUNTAINS, DOGSKIN MOUNTAINS, PETERSEN MOUNTAINS, SEVEN LAKES MOUNTAINS, FORT SAGE

MOUNTAINS, LAKE RANGE, FOX RANGE............................................................................. 33 UNITS 031, 032, 034, 035, 051: HUMBOLDT COUNTY ..................................................................... 34 UNIT 033: SHELDON ......................................................................................................... 35 UNITS 041, 042: WESTERN PERSHING AND SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES ................................................ 36 UNITS 043 – 046: EASTERN PERSHING AND SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT COUNTIES ................................................ 37

Page 6: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ii

UNITS 061, 062, 064, 071, 073: NORTH CENTRAL ELKO COUNTY ......................................................... 38 UNITS 065, 142, AND A PORTION OF 144: SOUTHERN ELKO COUNTY, NORTHERN EUREKA COUNTY ......................... 38 UNIT 066: OWYHEE DESERT; NORTHWESTERN ELKO COUNTY ................................................................ 39 UNITS 067, 068: WESTERN ELKO AND NORTHERN LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES .......................................... 40 UNITS 072, 074, 075: NORTHEASTERN ELKO COUNTY ...................................................................... 40 UNITS 076, 077, 079, 081, 091: NORTHEASTERN ELKO COUNTY .......................................................... 41 UNITS 078, 105 – 107, 121: SOUTHEASTERN ELKO AND CENTRAL WHITE PINE COUNTIES .................................. 42 UNITS 101 – 104, 108, 109 PORTION OF 144: SOUTH CENTRAL ELKO AND WESTERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ............... 42 UNITS 111 – 114: EASTERN WHITE PINE COUNTY ............................................................................ 43 UNITS 115, 231, 242: EASTERN LINCOLN AND SOUTHERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ........................................... 44 UNITS 131, 145, 163, 164: SOUTHERN EUREKA, NORTHEASTERN NYE, AND SOUTHWESTERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES ....... 44 UNITS 132 - 134, 245: EASTERN NYE AND WESTERN LINCOLN COUNTIES ................................................... 45 UNITS 141, 143, 151 – 156: EASTERN LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES ..................................................... 46 UNITS 161 - 162: NORTHERN NYE, SOUTHEASTERN LANDER, AND SOUTHWESTERN EUREKA COUNTIES ...................... 47 UNITS 171 – 173: NORTHWESTERN NYE AND SOUTHERN LANDER COUNTIES .................................................. 48 UNITS 181 - 184: CHURCHILL, SOUTHERN PERSHING, WESTERN LANDER, AND NORTHERN MINERAL COUNTIES .............. 49 UNITS 202, 204: LYON AND MINERAL COUNTIES ............................................................................. 49 UNITS 203, 291: LYON, DOUGLAS COUNTIES ................................................................................ 50 UNITS 205-208: EASTERN MINERAL COUNTY................................................................................. 50 UNITS 211 - 213: ESMERALDA COUNTY ...................................................................................... 51 UNITS 221 – 223, 241: LINCOLN AND SOUTHERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES .................................................... 51 UNIT 251: CENTRAL NYE COUNTY ........................................................................................... 52

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK ............................................................................ 54 UNIT 051: SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS; EASTERN HUMBOLDT COUNTY ......................................................... 54 UNITS 061, 071: BRUNEAU RIVER AND MERRITT MOUNTAIN AREA; NORTHERN ELKO COUNTY ............................... 54 UNITS 062, 064, 066 – 068: INDEPENDENCE AND TUSCARORA RANGES; WESTERN ELKO, NORTHERN EUREKA AND LANDER

COUNTIES........................................................................................................... 55 UNIT 065: PIÑON RANGE, CEDAR RIDGE AREA; SOUTHWESTERN ELKO AND EASTERN EUREKA COUNTIES ..................... 56 UNITS 072, 073, 074: JARBIDGE MOUNTAINS; NORTHERN ELKO COUNTY ................................................... 57 UNIT 075: SNAKE MOUNTAINS; ELKO COUNTY ............................................................................... 58 UNITS 076, 077, 079, 081: THOUSAND SPRINGS, GOOSE CREEK AND PEQUOP MOUNTAINS AREA; NORTHERN ELKO COUNTY

..................................................................................................................... 58 UNIT 078, AND PORTIONS OF 104, 105 – 107, 109: SPRUCE MOUNTAIN; ELKO COUNTY ................................... 59 UNIT 091: PILOT RANGE; EASTERN ELKO COUNTY ........................................................................... 60 UNITS 101 – 103: EAST HUMBOLDT AND RUBY MOUNTAINS; ELKO COUNTY .................................................. 60 UNITS 111 - 115, 221 - 223: SCHELL, EGAN AND SNAKE RANGES; EASTERN WHITE PINE AND NORTHERN LINCOLN COUNTIES

..................................................................................................................... 61 UNIT 121, 104 AND A PORTION OF UNIT 108: CHERRY CREEK, NORTH EGAN, BUTTE, MAVERICK SPRINGS AND MEDICINE

RANGES; NORTHERN WHITE PINE AND SOUTHERN ELKO COUNTIES ................................................. 62 UNITS 131, 132 AND PORTION OF UNIT 108: WHITE PINE, GRANT AND QUINN CANYON RANGES; SOUTHERN WHITE PINE AND

EASTERN NYE COUNTIES ............................................................................................ 63 UNITS 144, 145: DIAMONDS, FISH CREEK RANGE, MAHOGANY HILLS AND MOUNTAIN BOY RANGE; SOUTHERN EUREKA AND

WESTERN WHITE PINE COUNTIES. .................................................................................. 64 UNITS 161 - 164: NORTH-CENTRAL NYE AND SOUTHERN LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES ................................... 65 UNITS 171 - 173: NORTH-WESTERN NYE AND SOUTHERN LANDER COUNTIES ................................................ 65 UNIT 231: WILSON CREEK RANGE; LINCOLN COUNTY ........................................................................ 66 UNIT 241, 242: DELAMAR AND CLOVER MOUNTAINS; LINCOLN COUNTY ..................................................... 67 UNIT 251: KAWICH RANGE; NYE COUNTY .................................................................................... 68 UNIT 262: SPRING MOUNTAINS; CLARK AND SOUTHERN NYE COUNTIES ...................................................... 68

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP.......................................................................... 70 UNITS 044, 182: EAST AND STILLWATER RANGES; PERSHING AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES .................................... 70 UNITS 045, 153: TOBIN RANGE AND FISH CREEK MOUNTAINS; PERSHING AND LANDER COUNTIES ............................ 70

Page 7: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

iii

UNITS 131 AND 164: DUCKWATER HILLS, WHITE PINE RANGE AND NORTH PANCAKE RANGE; SOUTHERN WHITE PINE AND EASTERN NYE COUNTIES ............................................................................................ 71

UNIT 132: GRANT RANGE AND QUINN CANYON RANGE; EASTERN NYE COUNTY .............................................. 72 UNIT 133, 245: PAHRANAGAT AND MOUNT IRISH RANGES; LINCOLN COUNTY ................................................ 73 UNIT 134: PANCAKE RANGE; NYE COUNTY ................................................................................... 73 UNIT 161: TOQUIMA RANGE; NORTHERN NYE COUNTY....................................................................... 74 UNITS 162, 163: MONITOR AND HOT CREEK RANGES; NYE COUNTY ......................................................... 74 UNIT 173: TOIYABE RANGE; NORTHERN NYE COUNTY ....................................................................... 75 UNIT 181: FAIRVIEW PEAK, SLATE MOUNTAIN, AND SAND SPRINGS RANGE; CHURCHILL COUNTY ............................ 76 UNIT 183: CLAN ALPINE RANGE; CHURCHILL COUNTY ....................................................................... 76 UNIT 184: DESATOYA RANGE; CHURCHILL AND LANDER COUNTIES ........................................................... 77 UNIT 195: VIRGINIA RANGE; STOREY COUNTY ............................................................................... 77 UNIT 202: WASSUK RANGE; MINERAL COUNTY ............................................................................... 78 UNIT 204: EAST WALKER RIVER; LYON COUNTY ............................................................................. 79 UNIT 205, 207: GABBS VALLEY RANGE, GILLIS RANGE, PILOT MOUNTAINS; EASTERN MINERAL COUNTY .................... 79 UNIT 206, 208: EXCELSIOR RANGE, CANDELARIA AND GARFIELD HILLS, AND MILLER MOUNTAIN; MINERAL COUNTY ......... 81 UNIT 211: SILVER PEAK RANGE AND VOLCANIC HILLS; ESMERALDA COUNTY ................................................. 82 UNIT 212: LONE MOUNTAIN; ESMERALDA COUNTY ........................................................................... 82 UNIT 213: MONTE CRISTO RANGE; ESMERALDA COUNTY ..................................................................... 83 UNIT 221, 223, 241: HIKO, PAHROC, SOUTH EGAN, AND DELAMAR RANGES; LINCOLN COUNTY ............................ 84 UNIT 243: MEADOW VALLEY MOUNTAINS; LINCOLN COUNTY ................................................................. 85 UNIT 244: ARROW CANYON RANGE; NORTHERN CLARK COUNTY ............................................................. 85 UNIT 252: STONEWALL MOUNTAIN; NYE COUNTY ............................................................................ 86 UNIT 253: BARE MOUNTAIN; SOUTHERN NYE COUNTY ....................................................................... 86 UNIT 254: SPECTER RANGE; SOUTHERN NYE COUNTY........................................................................ 87 UNIT 261: LAST CHANCE RANGE; SOUTHEASTERN NYE COUNTY ............................................................. 88 UNIT 262: SPRING MOUNTAINS (LA MADRE, RED ROCK AND SOUTH SPRING MOUNTAINS) AND BIRD SPRING RANGE; WESTERN

CLARK COUNTY ..................................................................................................... 89 UNIT 263: MCCULLOUGH RANGE AND HIGHLAND RANGE; SOUTHERN CLARK COUNTY ........................................ 90 UNIT 264: NEWBERRY MOUNTAINS; SOUTHERN CLARK COUNTY .............................................................. 90 UNIT 265: SOUTH ELDORADO MOUNTAINS; SOUTHEASTERN CLARK COUNTY ................................................. 91 UNIT 266: NORTH ELDORADO MOUNTAINS; SOUTHEASTERN CLARK COUNTY ................................................. 92 UNIT 267: BLACK MOUNTAINS; EASTERN CLARK COUNTY .................................................................... 92 UNIT 268: MUDDY MOUNTAINS; CLARK COUNTY ............................................................................. 93 UNIT 269: RIVER MOUNTAINS; CLARK COUNTY............................................................................... 94 UNIT 271: MORMON MOUNTAINS; LINCOLN COUNTY ......................................................................... 94 UNIT 272: VIRGIN MOUNTAINS AND GOLD BUTTE; NORTHEASTERN CLARK COUNTY .......................................... 95 UNIT 280: SPOTTED RANGE; NORTHWESTERN CLARK COUNTY ............................................................... 96 UNIT 281: PINTWATER RANGE; NORTHWESTERN CLARK COUNTY ............................................................ 97 UNIT 282: DESERT RANGE AND DESERT HILLS; NORTHWESTERN CLARK COUNTY ............................................. 97 UNIT 283, 284: EAST DESERT RANGE AND SHEEP RANGE; NORTHERN CLARK COUNTY ...................................... 98 UNIT 286: LAS VEGAS RANGE; NORTH CLARK COUNTY ...................................................................... 98

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP ................................................................... 100 UNIT 011: MASSACRE RIM, COLEMAN RIM; NORTHERN WASHOE COUNTY ................................................... 100 UNIT 012: CALICO MOUNTAINS AND HIGH ROCK CANYON; WESTERN HUMBOLDT AND WASHOE COUNTIES .................. 100 UNIT 013: HAYS CANYON RANGE; WASHOE COUNTY ........................................................................ 102 UNIT 014: GRANITE RANGE; WASHOE COUNTY ............................................................................. 102 UNITS 021, 022: VIRGINIA MOUNTAINS; WASHOE COUNTY ................................................................. 103 UNIT 031: DOUBLE H, MONTANA AND TROUT CREEK MOUNTAINS; HUMBOLDT COUNTY .................................... 104 UNIT 032: PINE FOREST RANGE AND MCGEE MOUNTAIN; HUMBOLDT COUNTY .............................................. 105 UNIT 033: SHELDON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; WASHOE AND HUMBOLDT COUNTIES .................................... 106 UNIT 034: BLACK ROCK RANGE; HUMBOLDT COUNTY ....................................................................... 107

Page 8: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

iv

UNIT 035: JACKSON MOUNTAINS; HUMBOLDT COUNTY ...................................................................... 107 UNIT 041: SAHWAVE MOUNTAINS; PERSHING COUNTY ...................................................................... 108 UNIT 051: SANTA ROSA RANGE; HUMBOLDT COUNTY ....................................................................... 109 UNITS 066: SNOWSTORM MOUNTAINS; WESTERN ELKO COUNTY ............................................................ 109 UNITS 068: SHEEP CREEK; NORTHERN LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES ..................................................... 110

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP ........................................................... 112 UNIT 074: THE BADLANDS; ELKO COUNTY .................................................................................. 112 UNIT 091: PILOT RANGE; ELKO COUNTY .................................................................................... 112 UNIT 101: EAST HUMBOLDT RANGE; ELKO COUNTY ......................................................................... 113 UNIT 102: RUBY MOUNTAINS; ELKO COUNTY ............................................................................... 114 UNIT 114: NORTH SNAKE RANGE – MOUNT MORIAH; EASTERN WHITE PINE COUNTY ........................................ 115 UNIT 115: SOUTH SNAKE RANGE – MOUNT WHEELER; EASTERN WHITE PINE COUNTY ...................................... 115

MOUNTAIN GOAT .................................................................................. 117 UNIT 101: EAST HUMBOLDT MOUNTAINS; ELKO COUNTY .................................................................... 117 UNIT 102: RUBY MOUNTAINS; ELKO COUNTY ............................................................................... 117 UNIT 103: SOUTH RUBY MOUNTAINS; ELKO AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES .................................................... 117

MOUNTAIN LION ................................................................................... 119 WESTERN REGION; AREAS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, AND 29 ............................................................ 119 EASTERN REGION; AREAS 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 AND 15 ......................................................... 120 SOUTHERN REGION; AREAS: 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 AND 27 ..................................................... 123

BLACK BEAR ....................................................................................... 125 WESTERN REGION ........................................................................................................... 125

Page 9: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

SUMMARY

SS-1

BIG GAME STATUS STATEWIDE SUMMARY MULE DEER Nevada hunters purchased 18,111 mule deer tags in 2016 which was down from the 20,998 sold in 2015. The decrease in tag sales was reflective of a decrease in the 2016 quotas approved by the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commission. Total harvest for 2016 was approximately 7,885 mule deer including bucks and does. Hunt return questionnaires indicated a statewide success rate of 46% for all deer hunters, which was slightly lower than the reported 47% during 2015. Total buck harvest was about 6,750 and of those bucks harvested about 41% had 4 (or greater) antler points on one side. The 2016 post-season aerial survey resulted in about 31,770 mule deer classified statewide compared to 14,800 in 2015. Statewide fawn production was significantly lower during 2016 with 48 fawns:100 does counted during post-season surveys (compared to 54 fawns:100 does during 2015). The statewide observed buck ratio was 30 bucks:100 does for 2016. The 2016 spring deer surveys classified 31,646 total deer with a ratio of 31 fawns:100 adults statewide, which was below the long-term average of 35: 100 adults. Nevada’s mule deer populations have been stable to declining the past several years. The 2017 population is estimated to be about 92,000 mule deer, slightly lower than the estimated 94,000 in 2016. The above average snowfall across much of northern Nevada during the winter of 2016-17 should help to alleviate previous drought conditions. During the past 4 years, much of Nevada has experienced severe to extreme drought conditions, which has directly impacted mule deer populations across the state. Tag quota recommendations have been lowered again in several areas of the state in response to poor recruitment and lack of more mature deer from previous years. The state of Nevada uses 30 bucks:100 does as the statewide management objective for mule deer. PRONGHORN ANTELOPE The 2016 pronghorn season provided for excellent hunting opportunity and success rates for Nevada sportsman. There were a total of 4,100 pronghorn tags available to hunters going into the 2016 draw, of which 1,180 were for Horns Shorter than Ear hunts. Over 21,700 people applied for pronghorn tags in the 2016 main big game draw, not including specialty tag draws such as the PIW and Silver State. A total of 1,820 adult bucks and 833 pronghorn from the Horns Shorter than Ear Hunt were harvested in 2016. Overall hunter success rate was 68% for all pronghorn hunts combined during 2016. The upward trend in horn length continued for 2016 with 32% of all harvested pronghorn bucks having horn lengths of 15” or greater. In 2016, Nevada Department of Wildlife game biologists classified approximately 12,000 pronghorn during composition surveys with a strong buck and fawn ratio of 41 bucks:100 does:42 fawns. This fawn ratio was primarily from surveys conducted in the fall and early winter months. The Department uses a management criteria of approximately 30-40 bucks:100 does when making quota recommendations for the following hunt year. The 2017 statewide population estimate for pronghorn is 29,000 which is unchanged from the 2016 estimate. The Nevada Department of Wildlife did not translocate pronghorn to the Colville Indian Tribe in Washington State as they did in 2016 due to poor weather and lack of optimum capture conditions for animal health and welfare. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK The elk season in 2016 was the third consecutive year in which over 11,000 tags were sold. The 2016 harvest consisted of 1,869 cows and 1,280 bulls. Combined hunter success for all sex and weapon classes was 28% and is unchanged from 2015. Combined success for antlered elk hunters was slightly down at 51.5% with 28% reporting antler lengths of 50 in or greater. Antlerless elk hunters reported a success rate of 27%, which is also a decline from 2015. Harvest remains an important tool for managing elk. Quotas will remain high until all of Nevada’s elk herds are within the limits of their population objectives.

Page 10: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

SUMMARY

SS-2

During the 2016-2017 survey effort, biologists with the Nevada Department of Wildlife classified 10,228 elk from nearly all herds in the State. Ratios representative of the statewide composition were 50 bulls:100 cows:38 calves. The bull ratio is the highest observed since, at least, 2005, while the calf ratio is down from 2016 but near the 10-yr average of 39 calves:100 cows. The observed bull ratio is likely skewed due to successive years of substantial cow harvest. While lower than 2015, calf ratios indicate the statewide elk population will be productive in 2017 and beyond. Nevada continues to provide diverse opportunities to resident and nonresident sportsmen interested in pursuing elk. Declines in hunter success rates, particularly during antlerless elk hunts, indicate current harvest strategies have been successful at lowering herds to their population objective. Indeed, the 2017 population estimate is 15,000 elk, representing a 6% decline from 2016, suggesting a reduction of harvest in certain areas may be appropriate. While tag quotas for antlerless elk may be reduced, quotas for antlered elk are unlikely to change dramatically due to the surplus of bulls observed post-season. Above-average moisture receipts in winter 2016-2017 are likely to improve quantity and quality of forage availability. Consequently, 2017 should be an excellent year for elk in Nevada. DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP There were 311 ram tags in 2016, compared to 307 in 2015. The 2016 hunter success rate of 92% was similar to 2015 rate of 93%. Average days hunted in 2016 was the lowest recorded at 4.4 days compared to long-term average of 5.9 days. The 2016 statewide average age of harvested rams was 6.5 years compared to long-term average of 6.3. The average B&C score was 153 6/8 in 2016, higher than the long-term average of 151 4/8. There were 18 170+ B&C rams harvested from 9 different units statewide in 2016, the second highest on record in a given year. This was the third consecutive year that ewe hunts were deployed to reduce specific bighorn herds toward their short-term population objectives that are appropriate for the habitat and water carry capacities of their occupied habitat. In 2016, 133 resident and 15 nonresident desert bighorn ewe tags were issued in Units 212, 213, 253 and 268. There were 104 successful hunters. The 2016 statewide desert bighorn surveys classified almost 5,800 desert bighorn. The observed lamb ratio was 34 lambs:100 ewes only slight higher than the last 2 years of 32 and 33, respectively. The average includes a wide variation in recruitment rates. For struggling herds that have known or likely active Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi.) circulating within the population (Units 252, 253, 262, 263, 264, 269), their average lamb ratio was only 13 lambs:100 ewes. The statewide 2017 desert bighorn population estimate of 10,100 is a 4% increase from 2016 and is the highest level recorded. Desert bighorn captures for ongoing disease surveillance, herd health profiles, and research were conducted from late October 2016 through February 2017 involving 203 animals from 17 herds. Samples were screened for bacteria, virus, parasites, trace minerals, and genetic material. Twenty animals were sampled in the Muddy Mountains to assess if the herd remains negative for Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi)i. Test results indicated exposure to, but not infection with Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) in 1 animal. An additional 15 animals were sampled and again 1 animal indicated exposure but no active infection. Detecting 1-2 animals with exposure to M. ovi is not typical of a herd in the early stages of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) infection. Active monitoring of the Muddy Mountains herd through targeted sampling and screening of hunter harvest heads will continue in fall 2017. The Nevada Department of Wildlife continues to collaborate with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service to describe the herd response of the State’s “border” bighorn herds to the transmission of multiple strains of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) over time. The River and Spring Mountains, and Last Chance Range were again sampled this year to monitor changes in herd health and compare to herds in California. Periodic monitoring in concert with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service’s monitoring efforts will contribute to on-going west wide research to understand what factors contribute to variable herd responses after infection with Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi). Establishing comprehensive herd health profiles were the focus of captures in Churchill (Clan Alpines), Mineral (Wassuks), Pershing (Tobins) and Lander (Mt. Moses/Fish Creeks) counties. Mycoplasma

Page 11: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

SUMMARY

SS-3

ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) was not detected in the Clan Alpines, Tobins or Mt. Moses. One of 7 animals in the Wassuk Range herd is likely carrying the Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) bactrium, but had not produced antibodies. This can occur if the pathogen introduction is recent. The North Range of the Nevada Test and Training Range, Nevada National Security Site, and Bare Mountains were again sampled, as they were in 2015, to further understand the spatial and temporal dynamics of low lamb recruitment and potential disease transmission with known ram movement into adjacent public land herds like the Bare Mountains. All 3 herds continue to show evidence of active Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) infection. Animals were sampled and tested in the Fairview/Slate, Sand Springs and Monte Cristo herds to continue to evaluate the positive herd response they are having following an all age die-off and Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) introduction in 2007. A subset of these animals and those in the Clan Alpine Range were GPS collared to provide habitat use data for the Naval Air Station land withdrawal process. In collaboration with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Geological Service, 21 rams and ewes were GPS collared on the Pintwater Range to describe habitat use areas for the South Range Nevada Test and Training Range land withdrawal. In addition samples were collected to monitor Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) status in this herd. All animals captured in the Garfield Hills and on Lone Mountain received full health evaluations. This is the second year of 3-year collaborative research project with University of Nevada, Reno, to study habitat resource selection by ewes during and after lambing. In addition to determining the presence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi), the Nevada Department of Wildlife is working with Washington State University to determine the strain types found in the Nevada herds. Research indicates that Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) strains have variable virulence which may impact the severity of an initial disease event as well as the timeline for prolonged lamb mortality and herd recovery. Infected bighorn herds usually only have 1 strain type. To date, a total of 75 hunter harvest bighorn sheep skulls have been screened for the presence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) and sinus tumors. Testing has not shown any new hunt units infected with Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi)other than those confirmed with our disease surveillance efforts, however sinus tumor has been confirmed or suspected in the Silver Peak Range and the Specter Range. Sinus tumor is an infectious disease that causes thickening of the lining or a solid mass in the sinuses. Sinus tumor was first described in Colorado and has been identified in Rocky Mountain, California and desert bighorn sheep. The results of on-going testing will provide wildlife managers within Nevada as well as across the West with critical information to make informed management decisions to prevent the spread as well as mitigate the effects of pneumonia in bighorn sheep. CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP Only 57 California bighorn ram tags were issued in 2016 partially due to the Montana Mountains die-off compared to 63 tags in 2015. Hunters experienced 95% success rate and averaged 6.7 days afield, both above the long-term averages. The average 2016 Boone and Crockett score and age was 152 1/8 and 6.8 years, respectively, compared to long-term averages of 150 6/8 and 6.2. Six of 10 ewe hunters in Unit 068 were successful in reducing the herd to its population objective in concert with current habitat resources. Approximately 1,000 California bighorns were classified during the 2016-2017 aerial surveys comparable to last year. The lamb ratio of 45 lambs:100 ewes was an increase from the last 2 years of 39 lambs:100 ewe ewes ratio. The 2017 statewide California bighorn population estimate is 1,900 a 6% increase from 2016, primarily due to herd increases in Units 031 and 032. The Nevada Department of Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon State University are collaborating on a multi-year research project to characterize the spread and consequences of respiratory disease in California bighorn along the Nevada and Oregon borders. The Santa Rosa herd suffered an all age die-off in the winter of 2003-2004 and has yet to fully recover. Seventeen sheep were captured, collared and sampled in 2017 to allow for Oregon State University graduate student and the Nevada Department of Wildlife technician to monitor lamb survival and ram movements throughout the Santa Rosa Range sub-herds.

Page 12: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

SUMMARY

SS-4

In the 5 years following an all age die-off, the Snowstorm Mountain herd has annually experienced poor lamb recruitment. This pattern is common in bighorn herds across the west and is believed to be due to the presence of a small percentage of adult ewes that survived the die-off and remain chronic shedders of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi). These animals are believed responsible for infecting the lambs that then develop pneumonia and die. Nevada is one of a number of states implementing a “test and cull” program to identify and remove these chronic shedders. Ten ewes that tested positive for Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) in 2016 were retested this year. Six tested positive and were sent to South Dakota State University for captive research to study this chronic or “super” shedder condition. The remaining 4 ewes were returned to the mountain. Five additional animals were sampled and marked. Lamb survival will continue be monitored in the Snowstorms this summer. ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP Most Rocky Mountain bighorn herds statewide continue to struggle from past exposure to deadly pathogens and inconsistent lamb survival inadequate to maintain herds. Only 5 tags were issued in 2016 in Units 114 and 115 and only 2 hunters were successful. Aerial and ground surveys in 2016 and 2017 classified 97 Rocky Mountain bighorns statewide with a ratio of 31:100 ewes compared to 56:100 ewes the previous year. The 2016 statewide Rocky Mountain bighorn population estimate is 240 slightly higher than 210 in 2016. The highest statewide population was attained in 2009 at 550 prior to the East Humboldt Range and Ruby Mountain die-offs. The Mount Moriah herd is the largest herd at 90 animals and the other 5 herds only average 30 adults. Unfortunately, the adjacent East Humboldt herd experienced a disease event in the fall and winter 2015 - 2016, likely from disease transmission from sympatric mountain goats carrying Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi). Adult mortalities may have reduced the population from 45 to 25 animals. In 2017, 7 animals were captured and sampled to confirm strain type, monitor the persistence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) in this herd and compare the herd performance and pathogen profiles to other Rocky Mountain bighorn west-wide. MOUNTAIN GOAT Eleven of 13 mountain goat tag holders in 2016 were successful. All tag holders continue to be encouraged to take the non-mandatory Mountain Goat Hunting Orientation on the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s website to help hunters determine sex of mountain goats in the field. Unfortunately, 3 of the 11 (27%) harvested mountain goats were nannies. The long-term average percent of nannies in the harvest is 19%. The average age of harvested mountain goats in Units 101 declined from 7.0 in 2014 to 5.3 in 2016. In contrast, the average age in Unit 102 increased to 6.1 compared to 5.0 and 5.5 in 2014 and 2015, respectively. The single billy harvested in Unit 103 was aged at 6 years old with the long-term average of 4.9 years of age. During the Unit 101 mountain goat aerial survey in March 2017, only 40 adults and 3 kids were observed. Kid survival has been the most affected by the continued circulation of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) in this mountain goat herd. The average kid ratio from 2011-2017 has only been 7 compared to an average 30 kid:100 adult ratio from 2001 – 2009. For Unit 102, the March 2017 survey sample was 93 mountain goats with resulting ratio of 15 kids:100 adults. The average kid ratio for Unit 102 from 2011-2017 was 15 compared to an average of 37 from 2001-2009. No formal survey was conducted in Unit 103 this year. Comparing Unit 103 kid ratios before and after the 2009-2010 disease events that occurred in Unit 101 and 102, there was almost no difference with 24 kids:100 adults before and 25 after. The 2017 population estimate for all three herds is 310, a 6% decrease from 2016. This decline is attributed to lack of kid recruitment in the East Humboldts. Studies to date support the findings that

Page 13: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

SUMMARY

SS-5

increased kid mortality in the summer months is due to pneumonia associated with the bacteria Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi). This pattern of young of the year loss has been documented throughout the west with pneumonia-caused lamb mortalities following all age die-offs in bighorn sheep herds. Ten mountain goats were captured and sampled in early 2017 and results indicate that some individuals are still carrying the bacterium and may be acting as chronic shedders, in turn infecting the kids. If the herd continues to decline below a viable population level, efforts to identify and remove chronic shedders may be considered. MOUNTAIN LION Mountain lion harvest limits for the 2016-2017 season were 113 for the eastern region, 83 for the western region, and 49 for the southern region. None of these harvest limits were reached. Mountain lion harvest was down from the 2015-2016 season. Sixty males and 40 female lions were harvested in the eastern region. Twenty-eight male and 25 female lions were harvested in the western region. Eighteen male and 10 female lions were harvested in the southern region. Lions were removed for livestock protection, public safety and on the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s projects in the eastern and western regions. BLACK BEAR Forty-one resident and 4 nonresident tags were issued for the 2016 black bear season; 5 male and 6 female bears were harvested. Human-bear conflicts were down from 566 in 2015 to 170 in 2016. The majority of these conflicts resulted from bears accessing garbage or other human food sources. Various bear sightings have been reported around the state, a good indicator that black bears are naturally recolonizing native black bear habitat.

Page 14: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

SUMMARY

SS-6

WEATHER AND CLIMATE EFFECTS This year’s summary of Nevada weather and climatic data was obtained from Natural Resources and Conservation Service’ SNOTEL sites throughout northern Nevada from October 2016 through April 2017. Water basin measurements from SNOTEL sites for snow water equivalent (SWE) through 18 April 2017 ranged between 115% in the Owyhee River to over 300% in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Figure 1). Total precipitation for the water year 2017 (October-April) was well above the long-term average and generally ranged between 125% of average in Eastern Nevada to over 200% of average in the Truckee River Basin (Figure 2). With the above average precipitation across much of the state, range conditions and forage quality should be excellent and provide high quality nutrition for many species of wildlife including big game. With the above average precipitation, many of Nevada’s ranges and water sources have reversed the long term drought conditions experienced during the past 5 years. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, as of 18 April 2017 only about 6% of Nevada is considered to be in an “Abnormally Dry” state while last year during the same time period drought conditions were considered “Extremely Dry” for about 25% of the state. The long term outlook from the Climate Prediction Center predicts above average moisture going forward through 2017.

Figure 1. Percent of normal snow water equivalent (SWE) for the state of Nevada and portions of California. Data was generated on 18 April 2017 from the USDA website: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov.

Page 15: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

SUMMARY

SS-7

Figure 2. Trends in percent of average October – April precipitation for Nevada water basins from 2007 – 2017 (SNOTEL sites, Natural Resources Conservation Service).

0

50

100

150

200

250

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017% o

f Avg

. Pr

ecip

itatio

n O

ct -

Apr

il Western Nevada Water Basins

% of Avg Precipitation Oct-April 2007- 2017

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN TRUCKEE RIVER WALKER RIVER

0

50

100

150

200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017% o

f Avg

. Pre

cipi

tatio

n O

ct -

Apr

il

Central/Eastern Nevada Water Basins

LOWER HUMBOLDT RIVER UPPER HUMBOLDT RIVER EASTERN NEVADA

0

50

100

150

200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

% o

f Avg

. Pre

cipi

tatio

n O

ct -

Apr

il

Northeastern Nevada Water Basins

BRUNEAU RIVER OWYHEE RIVER SALMON FALLS

Page 16: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

            

Page 17: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

BIG GAME HERD STATUS REPORTS

Page 18: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

            

Page 19: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

1

MULE DEER Units 011 – 013: Northern Washoe and Western Humboldt Counties Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Resident rifle hunter success improved when compared with the previous year to 40% in the early season and a very strong 79% in the late season. Youth hunters reported a very respectable 62% success rate. The overall 4-point or better in the harvest also improved this year to 46% for all weapons types and hunts and represents the highest for this unit group since 2011. As is typically the case, the late season hunts showed higher 4-point or better in the harvest than earlier season hunts. Survey Data Fall surveys within Units 011-013 classified a total of 183 mule deer with a ratio of 32 bucks:100 does:47 fawns. Sample sizes obtained during both fall and spring surveys continue to be lower than those recorded just a few years ago; however, buck ratios within the population remain near management objectives. Spring surveys were made more difficult this year due to the heavier than normal snow accumulations and long winter. Mule deer were forced to move longer distances and were not located in areas that are normally occupied during more moderate winters. Open slopes and southern exposures were flown at the lower elevations, but deer were scattered out and in many cases had moved into adjacent hunt units or across the borders into California or Oregon. A spring sample of 174 mule deer was classified during the early March survey with a ratio of 35 fawns per 100 adults. In 2015, the ratio was observed to be 38 fawns per 100 adults. Due to time constraints, surveys in Unit 011 were very limited and only the southern and extreme western portions of the unit were surveyed. Deer in this unit are believed to move west into California or north into Oregon during heavy winters. Habitat Overall habitat conditions have improved dramatically over the past two years as western Nevada finally received significant moisture helping to damper the effect from long-term drought. Major lake beds should be completely full this spring and hold water well into the summer months. Streamflow forecasts for this spring and early summer also project significant flows and run-off totals. The Nevada Water Supply Outlook Report shows the Northern Great Basin being 153% of average for median snowpack and 154% for water year to date precipitation as of March 1, 2017. No major wildfires occurred within Units 011-013 during the 2016 fire season; however, in recent years large fires such as the Coleman Fire in Unit 011 (2014, 15,000 acres) and the Lost Fire in Unit 013 (2012, 61,500 acres) have destroyed important mule deer habitat. The burned areas are expected to take a minimum of 15 years to recover despite significant restoration efforts. Population Status and Trend Harvest data from hunter questionnaires indicates hunters had more success and harvested more mature bucks during the 2016-17 hunting season; however, overall mule deer population levels continue to remain low in most of the major deer ranges within this unit group. Population levels in northwestern Nevada have been on a decreasing trend since the long-term drought began in 2007. Quota recommendations will continue to be more conservative until deer numbers begin to respond to the improving habitat conditions.

Page 20: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

2

Unit 014: Granite Range, Washoe County Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Harvest data for the Granite Range indicates that hunters continue to struggle to locate deer during the early season as hunter success rates were measured low at 26%. Late season hunters had more success and success rates improved to 53%; however, both success rates remain well below long-term averages for the hunt unit. The 4-point or better in the harvest category for all hunts and weapons classes improved slightly from 25% in 2015 to 32% in 2016. Survey Data Fall surveys located just 120 deer with a resulting ratio of 29 bucks:100 does:43 fawns. Sample sizes from surveys continue to be lower and deer have been increasingly more difficult to locate on survey. Good green-up resulted in scattered mule deer and made it difficult to locate good numbers of deer on fall surveys. Surveys concentrated on the upper elevations, but deer were scattered in both low and high elevations due to green-up. Locating deer during spring surveys was also difficult on the traditional winter ranges. Significant snowfall over the course of the entire winter had pushed deer far out into the flats and valleys. Many mule deer from the Granites moved west across Hwy 447 into Unit 015 and east across Hwy 34 into Unit 012 this winter. Deer were not located on typical winter ranges which is usually the toe slopes at the lower elevations of the Granite Range. Due to the long winter, with snow covering the valleys and flats, mule deer were forced to keep moving in effort to locate open areas and southern exposures. The deer were widely dispersed and a total of 14 mule deer were classified on spring surveys. The sample provided a ratio of 32 fawns per 100 adults. Habitat The significant snowfall and long winter forced mule deer to move to areas with less snow or on to southern exposures where snowmelt had occurred. The significant snowfall received this winter and spring will increase flows in streams and springs important to mule deer. Forage quality and water availability are expected to be excellent this year. Population Status and Trend Mule deer populations within the Granite Range appear to have peaked in 2012-13. Since then, the deer population is experiencing a downward trend. Harvest data, survey samples and reports from hunters confirm this. The lower recruitment observed this year will result in a continued downward trend for this population. Quota recommendations will continue to be conservative based upon current trends. Unit 015: Interstate Deer Herd; Dry Valley Rim, Buffalo Hills, Coppersmith Hills, Washoe County Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Harvest data indicates that rifle hunters had fair or average success this past hunting season and reported a 30% success rate during the late December hunt. Hunters had a 32% success rate in 2015. Junior tag-holders did slightly better this year with a success rate of 43%. One out of four archery hunters reported having success this past year while the two muzzleloader hunters reported being unsuccessful. Overall 4-point or better in the harvest was measured at 33%.

Page 21: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

3

Survey Data No fall flights were conducted this past year in area X5B by California biologists. Spring surveys were completed by Nevada Department of Wildlife on the Nevada side and a total of 485 mule deer were classified with a spring ratio of 40 fawns:100 adults. The recruitment for this herd was observed to be slightly higher than what was expected with the tough winter experienced this past year; however, as is often the case, snow accumulations were less on the Unit 015 winter ranges than many of the surrounding areas. Habitat Habitat conditions will improve in the short-term with the excellent moisture received this past winter and spring. Flows to spring and seeps should improve dramatically now that there has been back-to-back above average winters. Good green-up existed in March 2017 and will provide the wintering mule deer with good quality forage before making the journey back to the California summer ranges. Overall, mule deer habitat in Unit 015 has been severely impacted over many decades due to the loss of habitat from large wildfires and the cheatgrass and medusa head encroachment that followed. The lack of good quality thermal cover and adequate winter forage (sagebrush and bitterbrush) on lower elevation Nevada winter ranges will continue to be a challenge for this interstate deer herd. Most of the important upper elevation mule deer summer ranges in California have also burned and have also been invaded or taken over by cheatgrass and medusa head. Population Status and Trend Harvest on the California side of the border in X5b has been somewhat reduced in recent years and buck ratios appear to have increased over the past several years. In Nevada, hunting season success is strongly influenced by how many deer are pushed onto Nevada winter ranges due to winter storms and the timing of that moisture. The recruitment rate observed this year for this interstate deer herd is sufficient to allow for a short-term upward trend for this deer population. Deer numbers on Nevada’s winter ranges were higher this year due to the well above average snowfall and long winter. Fortunately, the low elevation winter ranges often have less snow on them due to their predominantly southern exposures. This allows mule deer to locate open areas or areas with less snow during moderate to severe winters. Quota recommendations are expected to be similar to slightly higher than those allocated in recent years. Unit 021: Interstate Deer Herd; Petersen Mountains, Dogskin Mountains, Fort Sage Mountains Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Unit 021, north of Reno continues to support a good quality late season mule deer hunt. Hunter success rates and buck quality have been very strong in this unit for the last several years. The 4-point or better in the harvest has also remained strong through this same timeframe. In 2016, resident rifle hunters enjoyed a 71% success rate and harvested 57% bucks with 4-points or better. Although, success rates for archery and muzzleloader hunters remains low. Survey Data Helicopter composition surveys were flown by California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the first time in many years in December 2016. The survey was conducted later in the year than usual but still provided the first fall and winter composition data collected since 2010. The survey classified a total of 536 mule deer in both California and Nevada hunt units. The sample provided a ratio of 39 bucks:100 does:51fawns.

Page 22: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

4

The higher buck ratio is believed to be a result of more conservative tag quotas being given out in California. In the past, high tag quotas often resulted in observed buck ratios in the low 20’s or even high teens. Spring flights were conducted in Nevada Unit 021 by Nevada Department of Wildlife. The March survey classified 530 mule deer in less than 2 hours of survey effort. The ratio from the spring sample provided a composition ratio of 36 fawns:100 adults. The higher sample size was due to more deer being pushed onto the Nevada winter ranges from California because of increased snowfall amounts and the overall severity of the winter. Habitat The winter 2016-17 has provided much needed moisture to northwestern Nevada and will help to ensure that water is available to mule deer and all wildlife through the summer. Forage quality should be excellent this coming spring and summer due to the high soil moisture and added moisture that will result from snowmelt. Stream flows are forecast to be well above average this spring and should still be flowing strong well into the summer. The Virginia Mountain Complex Fires burned in Units 021 and 022 in August 2016. The wildfires burned over 60,000 acres in several different locations. Important mule deer habitat was destroyed in the fires and critical shrub species such as bitterbrush and sagebrush that were lost in the fires are expected to take many years to recover. Restoration plans for the large fires will be initiated in the fall-winter of 2017-2018. Three of the fires burned in Unit 021 and burned 20,000 acres. One of the wildfires burned in the Sand Hills and partially burned a big game guzzler. The guzzler is scheduled for a complete rebuild in May 2017 and the funding and actual construction of the guzzler will involve several Nevada Department of Wildlife staff and as many as 60 volunteers representing multiple sportsmen’s groups including Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife. Restoration efforts for burned areas within this fire will also be undertaken over the next year. Population Status and Trend Mule deer in California Unit X6b and X7a, as well as the small resident herd that exists within Nevada Unit 021 continue to do well. Recruitment rates, although not outstanding, have allowed for continued growth of this herd. The current recruitment will allow for a continuation of this trend. The Nevada hunt has provided an excellent hunting opportunity for resident rifle hunters despite its close proximity to the Reno/Sparks area. The quality of bucks in recent years has also been strong and the late season hunt continues to be highly sought after by Nevada hunters. The tag quota for the Nevada portion of the interstate deer herd is expected to see a slight increase in 2017. Unit 022: Virginia Mountains, Pah Rah Mountains, Fox Range Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Hunters continued to enjoy good success in Unit 022 for mule deer. The success rate for resident rifle hunters was 50% in 2016 down from 54% in 2015. The 4-point or better in the harvest stayed strong at 56% compared with 62% the previous year. Mule deer hunting has remained consistent over the past several years and hunters have enjoyed a good quality hunt. Access issues due to the large wildfires that occurred this past summer caused some hunters to have more difficulty accessing upper elevation hunt areas; however, most of the hunters eventually were able to find a way to access and hunt the higher deer density areas.

Page 23: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

5

Youth hunters also enjoyed another successful campaign as a 61% hunter success rate was reported. Thirteen of the fourteen youth hunters harvested bucks. Survey Data No post season surveys are conducted within Unit 022. This area can be difficult to locate mule deer during the fall due to the lower deer densities and relatively small size of the herd. Spring surveys are conducted on the winter ranges of the Virginia Mountains when deer are more concentrated on lower elevation slopes and alluvial fans. A sample of 137 mule deer was classified during spring surveys in Unit 022 and had a fawn to adult ratio of 41:100. About 1 hour of survey time is expended in this hunt unit during spring surveys. The 2015 survey provided a ratio of 38 fawns:100 adults. Mule deer were scattered out over fairly wide areas despite the increased snowfall that occurred this year. Concentrations were in the low hills to the west of Cottonwood Creek and on northern aspects of the Virginia Mountains. Habitat Near record snowfall and precipitation in western Nevada has provided a significant boost to areas that just two to three years ago were suffering from the effects of the long-term drought. The excellent moisture and high soil moisture content from the long winter of 2016-17 will help to provide mule deer with good quality forage this coming spring and early summer. Water sources such as small lakes or reservoirs will be full and flows at other important water sources such as springs will be high. This improvement in available water will help all wildlife living in the hunt unit. The Virginia Mountain Complex Fires burned over 63,000 acres in Units 021 and 022. Over 40,000 acres burned in the Virginia Mountains of Unit 022. Significant mule deer habitat was lost in the fires and a high percentage of the eastern side of the Virginia Mountains was burned. Fortunately, some of the highest elevation deer summer range remained unburned and will provide mule deer much needed cover and forage this summer and fall. Some of the burned areas will be re-seeded this fall and winter but brush species such as bitterbrush and sagebrush will take many years to fully recover. Cheatgrass invasion is a concern for the drier slopes and lower elevations of the burned areas. Current restoration plans call for spraying many of these areas with a pre-emergent to limit the invasion of annual grasses. These areas would then be reseeded with native grasses and shrubs. Population Status and Trend The resident mule deer population in Unit 022 has been on a stable to slightly increasing trend over the past several years; however, the large fire that occurred in the Virginia Mountains this past summer may impact the herd into the future. Restoration efforts and natural recovery of the burned area will take many years and the loss of the shrub and tree cover will have a negative effect on mule deer. The trees and shrubs not only provided critical thermal and hiding cover for mule deer but also provided important forage throughout the year. Mule deer will seek out areas of unburned habitat that still provide essential cover and forage. The deer will use the edges of the burn to feed on the green-up and other plants that will start to regrow this coming spring; however, it will take many years for the shrubs and other vegetative cover to grow to heights that will provide deer with good quality thermal or hiding cover. Hunters have enjoyed good success hunting in Unit 022 and the hunt area is popular for those living in western Nevada. Hunters will have to concentrate their efforts in the unburned portions of the hunt unit until mule deer once again reoccupy the burned areas. Access issues in this unit will continue to be a challenge for hunters due to the high amount of private land ownership and the tribal lands that prevent access from the eastern side of the hunt unit. Quota recommendations for Unit 022 are expected to be slightly less than those allocated in 2016.

Page 24: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

6

Units 031, 032, 034, 035: Western Humboldt County Reported by: Ed Partee Survey Data Post season surveys in Management Area 3 took place over the course of 3 days in mid-November. During these flights a total of 625 deer were surveyed which compared to the 575 observed during the 2015 survey. One day of survey had good weather conditions, while two days were overcast and breezy. Overall, ratios obtained from these surveys were 28 bucks:100 does:64 fawns. During early March, spring mule deer surveys were conducted over a 2-day period. A total of 1,365 deer were classified which is up from the 1,270 that was classified during last year’s survey. This is the second year in a row that increased numbers have been observed. Over the last 2 years weather and habitat conditions have been conducive for these surveys. This year’s survey yielded a ratio of 42 fawns:100 adults. This ratio has held steady the last 2 years and is in line with the 5-year average. Habitat Conditions for Management Area 3 have improved significantly over the last 2 years with above-average precipitation. As of March 1st, precipitation values are at 155% of normal. With the added moisture the last couple of years, habitat conditions have improved in the been affected by fire. Unit 031 has recovered fairly well and deer numbers are starting to increase. The past couple of years have seen good spring and summer moisture which has benefited the burned areas. Continued moisture throughout the year will benefit this area greatly and sustain these populations at current levels. Continued rehabilitation work on past fires continues to improve these areas. Population Status and Trend The population estimate for Management Area 3 continues to hold at a relatively consistent level. Fall surveys resulted in better than average fawn ratios; however those ratios had minor fluctuations due to winter loss. Recovery efforts post-fire have provided initial relief. These areas will continue to be monitored and may take more than 10 years to return to pre-fire levels. Population levels at this time are expected to remain relatively constant with the current existing habitat conditions. Unit 033: Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge; Washoe and Humboldt Counties Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Deer hunters hunting during the early portion of the season struggled once again to harvest bucks on the Sheldon. The success rate for the early season was a disappointing 24%, however the late season success rate improved to 67%. The overall 4-point or better in the harvest for all hunts and all weapons classes was 63%. This represents the highest overall 4-point or better in the harvest figure over the past decade. Youth tag holders reported a success rate of 73%. Youth hunters continue to have the highest success as parents or family members work hard to ensure that their young family members are successful. The total or number of bucks harvested on the Sheldon has decreased over the past several years as quotas have been reduced and population levels have fallen. A total of 30 deer were harvested this past year on the Sheldon with 27 of the deer being bucks. In 2015, a total of 36 deer were harvested. In 2014, 54 mule deer were taken by hunters. Survey Data The number of deer located during deer surveys on the Sheldon continues to be very low when compared with previous years. Fall sample sizes are also down and are a more accurate reflection of the lower

Page 25: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

7

density of mule deer currently residing on the Sheldon. Fall surveys located 66 deer with a ratio of 29 bucks:100 does:46 fawns. The same major summer ranges on the Sheldon are flown every year and over time can provide a helpful way of accessing the trend in this deer population. Due to the lower sample sizes obtained in recent years, the Sheldon population is now modeled with Units 011-013. This allows for a more representative sample in which to more accurately determine trend for the mule deer populations in the northwestern portion of the State. The Sheldon was managed in this same manner for many years in the 1980’s and 1990’s. In the future this could continue to be necessary until deer densities reach a point where survey sample sizes are once again sufficient to provide accurate survival and recruitment data. Spring surveys in northwestern Nevada have always been challenging as the majority of deer generally move long distances to get to winter ranges. Deer often cross into adjacent hunt units and even into adjacent states for the winter. To further complicate spring deer surveys, the mule deer that stay in Nevada are usually scattered out over wide areas and do not become concentrated in the winter. Habitat The significant precipitation and snowfall received this past winter will help to partially fill many of the important lake beds on the Sheldon. The winter of 2015-2016 also provided much needed precipitation and helped start reversing the significant effects from the long-term drought. More water will be available to mule deer and other wildlife living on the Sheldon this summer. Forage quality should be excellent this coming year. The only reservoir that may not fill completely this year is Big Springs Reservoir. This good-sized reservoir has been dry for several years. The large spring sources that fed water to the reservoir dried up several years ago and were severely affected by the long-term drought conditions. High elevation mule deer summer ranges that have been very dry over the last several years will finally have sufficient reserves to hold water through the summer months. Other water sources such as springs and seeps should also have good water flows this coming spring and into the summer. No major wildfires occurred on the Sheldon this past summer. Population Status and Trend Deer numbers on the Sheldon remain low and it will take several consecutive years of above average precipitation to provide mule deer with the habitat conditions and the resources needed in order to reverse the long-term downward population trend. The Sheldon mule deer population has steadily declined since around 2006-2007. In 2007, Nevada experienced its driest year on record. Since that time there have been many more dry years than wet. Tag quotas for mule deer on the Sheldon will continue to remain conservative due to the lower population levels. Units 041, 042: Western Pershing and Southern Humboldt Counties Report by: Kyle Neill Survey Data This population is not modeled or surveyed. Quotas are derived using the 10-year average quotas for each hunt respectively. Recommended quotas are designed to maintain Hunt 1331 resident success rate between ranges of 35% to 45%. Last year's Hunt 1331 resident success rate was 40%.

Page 26: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

8

Population Status and Trend This herd continues to remain stable with minimal yearly growth or decline due to significant conversion of habitat by wildfires and limited annual moisture levels. Field observations from this past year indicate sightings of mule deer in the Selenite, Sahwave, Lava Beds, Seven Troughs, Trinity, Kamma, and Eugene Ranges as well as the Lovelock Valley. Units 043 – 046: Eastern Pershing and Southern Humboldt Counties Report by: Kyle Neill Survey Data Fall aerial surveys in this unit group are scheduled for 2 years on, 2 years off. 2016 marks the first year that fall surveys have been performed since 2013. This survey occurred in late November 2016, however inclement weather only allowed for one day of survey effort. All units were surveyed except Unit 043. The survey crew encountered a total of 592 mule deer in Units 044–046 and tallied into ratios of 37 bucks:100 does:43 fawns. The observed 2016 post-season buck ratio of 37 is greater than the long-term mean of 33 and is likely the result of the Commission approving the Pershing County’s request to increase the post-season buck ratio objective to 35. An aerial spring survey was conducted in mid-March for one day. Weather events cancelled a second day of survey effort. All units within the group were surveyed. Approximately 7 hours of helicopter time was used and resulted in the classification of 432 mule deer that equated to 41 fawns:100 adults. The spring fawn ratio has been improving over the last 2 years and is now slightly above the long-term average of 38 fawn:100 adults. Habitat Two wildfires occurred within Unit 044 last August. These were the Monroe and Rockhill Fires. The Monroe Fire encompassed the area on the north end of Buena Vista Valley to the west side of the East Range near Dun Glen Canyon-Barber Canyon. This fire burned a total of 11,220 acres with almost 100% of the burned area being previously burned in 1984. Approximately 2,000 acres were drill seeded. The Rockhill Fire burned a total of 1,766 acres and occurred on both the west and east sides of the East Range adjacent to the Monroe Fire. Almost 800 acres were aerial seeded. These two wildfires are not thought to negatively affect the Unit 044 mule deer herd in the short term; moreover, these fires should benefit mule deer in future years. According to the Nevada Water Outlook Report for March 1, 2017 the lower Humboldt River Basin’s snow pack was at 146% of average. Last year’s snowpack average for this timeframe was 113%. These back-to-back above-average moisture levels should continue to allow forage in upper elevations to flourish into the summer months. Population Status and Trend Eastern Pershing County’s mule deer population trend continues to be considered stable after demonstrating a declining trend from 2013 to 2015. Spring fawn ratios from 2016 and 2017 were near their respective long-term averages for the unit group. Also, percent of 4-point or better bucks harvested in all hunts in 2016 was 32%, which is near its 5-year average of 33%. The population estimate for 2017 is approaching 2,900 mule deer and equates to its long-term mean estimate.

Page 27: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

9

Unit 051: Santa Rosa Mountains; Eastern Humboldt County Report by: Ed Partee Survey Data Post-season helicopter flights were conducted during mid-November. During this 2 day survey, 234 animals were classified; slightly more compared to the 221 surveyed last year. The calculated ratio for the post-season survey equated to 33 bucks:100 does:51 fawns. This ratio is similar to the 5-year average. Spring survey flights were conducted over a 2 day period in early March. Conditions the first day were less than ideal for survey which only resulted in a half-day of flights. A total of 807 deer were surveyed which is higher than the 762 classified last year. The survey numbers are higher than the 5-year average and represent the most deer that have been surveyed over the last 9 years. Fawn ratios are holding steady at 43 fawns:100 adults despite the heavy winter. Habitat The weather patterns last year were much different than what was experienced the previous year. Very little precipitation fell in the form of rain through the summer months; however this winter and last winter were much wetter than the last several years. Snow conditions have improved tremendously in this unit with above average snowfall again this year. Recorded precipitation as of March 1st 2017 is 155% of normal. The upper elevations of the Santa Rosa Range continue to have above-average snowpack. This area was not affected last season by any additional wildland fires. Recovery is still taking place on past fires and continued rehabilitation efforts will continue. Summer range conditions in this unit have been good over the last few years which have benefited this herd. Continued moisture throughout the year will not only benefit this herd but have a tremendous effect on rehabilitation efforts. Population Status and Trend The population estimate for this herd has not changed over the last couple of years. Despite the moisture that has been received, this population appears to remain stable. Fawn production was fairly high going into the winter with slight fawn loss detected this spring. With fawn recruitment nearly stable, no major increases are expected at this time. With the continued moisture, summer range conditions should be in ideal shape to sustain these herds into the winter. Even though this unit received plenty snow this year, temperatures were such that the lower elevations melted off leaving forage exposed throughout the winter. With the amount of current green-up, it is expected that the quality of forage will lead to substantial antler growth. With the available habitat, increases are not expected at this time. Units 061 - 062, 064, 066 – 068: Independence and Tuscarora Ranges; Elko County Report by: Matthew Jeffress Harvest The percentage of bucks with 4-points or better was 40%; 1% higher than 2014 and 2015 hunt results. Survey Data Helicopter survey was conducted in December 2016 with a total of 6,495 deer classified as 32 bucks:100 does:70 fawns. This is the largest sample obtained since 1992. The observed buck ratio is equal to the anticipated post season objective. An abbreviated spring helicopter survey was conducted in April 2016, with a total of 2,990 deer classified yielding a ratio of 28 fawns:100 adults. The observed fawn ratio indicates a 50% overwinter fawn loss. The fawn loss is reflective of early snow, above average snowpack and the enormous loss of transitional habitat and winter range over the last decade.

Page 28: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

10

Habitat For the second year in a row average snowpack this winter should greatly improve mule deer habitat. Deep soil moisture received during the fall and winter 2016-2017 should help sustain mature sagebrush plants that survived the widespread sagebrush die-offs realized over the drought years of 2012-2015, as well as greatly improve the condition of rehabilitated lands ravaged by fires, particularly those affected by the Hot Pot Fire that burned much of the Izzenhood Range July 2016. The great improvement in snowpack should also greatly help aspen stands and mountain brush communities that were stressed by the drought. Even with gold prices maintaining around $1,200 per ounce over the last year, mining activity continues to increase throughout Management Area 6. Direct and indirect impacts to mule deer migration corridors remain the highest concern with increased mining and exploration. Population Status and Trend The population estimate for the Management Area 6 deer herd represents a drop of 1,000 animals from last year’s estimate, primarily due to the 50% overwinter loss of fawns. Given limited available winter habitat, management objectives will continue to maintain an overall population between 9,000 and 10,000 deer. The segment of deer wintering on the west face of the Independence Mountains was most impacted by deep and prolonged snow cover last winter. Deer that winter in the Izzenhood Range were observed using Bureau of Land Management’s Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation and Fuels habitat projects in the flats just west of the Izzenhood Range. It is believed these habitat improvement projects, coupled with sagebrush islands in the flats adjacent to the Izzenhood Range allowed the adult segment of the herd to maintain higher survival rates than predicted following the Hot Pot Fire. This herd is capable of increasing rapidly due to the excellent summer habitat and high fawn producing capabilities associated with Management Area 6. The high overwinter survival of collared deer on the southern winter ranges is a testament to successful past range restoration efforts implemented by the Elko Bureau of Land Management District Office, the Nevada Department of Wildlife and private landowners. A balance of sustainable grazing practices and restoration efforts will help ensure a positive benefit for wildlife on these important winter ranges. Recommended quotas for 2017 will see a decrease from 2016. As was the case in 2016, female harvest is necessary to maintain the deer population within the confines of the carrying capacity of winter range. Population management through the implementation of doe hunting will alleviate competition among deer for limited resources during moderate to severe winters, as was demonstrated this winter. Without implementing doe hunting over the past 5 years as a means to curb herd growth, the Management Area 6 deer herd would have likely experienced a much higher rate of fawn and adult mortality on compromised southern winter ranges. Unit 065: Piñon Range; Southwestern Elko County Report by: Scott Roberts Harvest There were 87 tags issued in 2016 across all weapon classes for both residents and nonresidents, with 59% of all tag holders successful in harvesting a deer. Of the bucks harvested, 54% were 4-points or better; below the previous 10-year average of 62%. For more specific hunt results please refer to the Appendix section. Survey Data No formal surveys were performed during this reporting period.

Page 29: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

11

Habitat As of April 1, 2017, water year to date precipitation figures recorded at Snotel sites in the water basins located within and adjacent to this unit group ranged from 124%-148% of long-term mean (www.nrcs.usda.gov). The above-average water year should ensure very productive conditions well into the coming summer. In August 2015, the Dixie Fire burned approximately 350 acres of mixed-mountain shrub habitat in the center of Unit 065. The burned area was comprised of a mixture of both public and private land. A coordinated effort was made to secure landowners permission to use Bureau of Land Management and Nevada Department of Wildlife resources to reseed the area in the winter of 2015-2016. The resulting seeding effort of a sagebrush, bitterbrush, and forb seed mix showed promising preliminary results after the 2016 growing season. Mineral exploration throughout the area continues to be a concern as companies are concentrating on much of the higher elevations of the Piñon Range. The Elko Bureau of Land Management District Office is in the process of reviewing a proposed expansion of the existing exploration footprint in the center of the hunt unit. Most of the areas seeing increased exploratory drilling represent the most productive summer range in Unit 065. Population Status and Trend This deer herd has been relatively static over the past five years, ranging between 750-800 adult deer. Units 071 – 079, 091: Northeastern Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Harvest The 2016 hunter success for both the early and late season Any Legal Weapon hunts increased from 2015. Hunter success for the early hunt was up from 55% to 67%; the late hunt increased from 70% to 79% success. In 2015, the reported harvest of 4-point or better bucks was 33% early and 52% late. This year, the reported harvest of 4-point or better bucks was slightly lower during the early season at 32% and higher in the late season at 54%. The 2015 archery success was 22% for the early season, down from 23% last year. Late season success decreased from 42% in 2015 to 25% in 2016. Survey Data Post-season aerial composition surveys were conducted in December 2016. A total of 4,965 mule deer was classified; yielding a ratio of 28 bucks:100 does and 32 fawns:100 does. Spring surveys were conducted in April 2017. A total of 2,635 mule deer was classified; yielding a ratio of 20 fawns:100 adults. Habitat An Environmental Assessment is being analyzed by the Wells Bureau of Land Management District Office for vegetation treatments within this unit group. Once the Environmental Assessment is completed, possible treatments may include removal of encroaching juniper, herbicide application where necessary and creating fuel breaks with the intent of reducing large acreage fires. All treatments should increase the health of the sagebrush ecosystem and benefit the wildlife that depends on it. The Environmental Assessment is projected to be completed by the fall 2017. The majority of the Management Area 7 deer herd winters south of Interstate 80 in the Pequop and Toano Mountains. There is currently 6 functional wildlife safety crossings on US Route 93 designed to facilitate movement across the highway. Four additional crossings will be completed on Pequop Summit in 2017.

Page 30: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

12

Deer-vehicle collisions have decreased each year the crossings have been in place, making the road safer for motorists, as well as deer. These migration routes for deer are crucial for habitat connectivity. Since 2008, 99 deer have been radio collared in a collaborative effort between Nevada Department of Wildlife, Newmont Mining Corp. and University of Nevada, Reno, on the Pequop winter range. As of spring 2017 there were 27 collars still active. The collar data has been, and will continue to be, used to assess impacts from mineral exploration and potential mine development in Long Canyon on wintering and migrating deer and to better define migration corridors and winter use areas. Population Status and Trend Due to a combination of fires, drought conditions and possible plant senescence, it is highly unlikely deer habitat in Management Area 7 can support the high numbers of deer documented in past decades. The low observed fawn ratio observed again this year is most likely a result of successive drought years followed by two tough winters. Recent deer collaring has been instrumental in better understanding migration triggers, timing, pathways, length of migrations (some deer are moving more than 100 miles to winter range) and seasonal use patterns for the Management Area 7 deer herd. The information garnered through the collars may also help identify potential habitat projects to address limiting factors for this deer herd. Unit 081: Goose Creek Area; Northeastern Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Survey Data Surveys were not conducted during the reporting period in Unit 081. Habitat The Unit 081 deer herd’s winter range and a portion of its summer range were significantly impacted by the West Fork Fire in 2007. The fire burned 154,943 acres of prime winter habitat. The fire burned very hot and left few islands of habitat, and although the area was intensely seeded the first winter following the fire, it will take many years for the brush community to fully recovers in this area. An Environmental Assessment is being analyzed by the Wells Bureau of Land Management Bureau Office for vegetation treatments within this unit group. Once the Environmental Assessment is completed, possible treatments may include removal of encroaching juniper, herbicide application where necessary and creating fuel breaks with the intent of reducing large acreage fires. All of the treatments should increase the health of the sagebrush ecosystem and benefit the wildlife that depends on it. The Environmental Assessment is projected to be completed by fall 2017. Population Status and Trend Overall, this is a relatively small resident deer herd, although there is likely some migration from both Idaho and Utah. The magnitude of migration from surrounding states is dependent on weather conditions during the hunting season and timing of the hunt. In an attempt to take advantage of these later migrations, the muzzleloader and Any Legal Weapon hunts have been scheduled later than in previous years. The intended result was to take advantage of the migratory segment of the herd and reduce hunting pressure on the small resident deer populations in the area. Hunter success increased again this past year during the Any Legal Weapon season. This unit has been managed as a trophy area in the past and with current challenges such as the reduction of winter range, the recommended tag quota will remain conservative.

Page 31: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

13

Units 101 – 109: Southern Elko and Northwestern White Pine Counties Report by: Caleb McAdoo Harvest The long-term hunt success rate for the early rifle season remains near 25%. For 2016, the early season success rate was 36% and the mid-season success rate was 41%. These success rates are much higher than the long-term average and can be attributed to reduced tags. The 2016 late-season hunter success was 64%, is relatively consistent with last year’s success of 61%. Tags have been reduced significantly in response to a myriad of indicators showing that the population experienced elevated mortality during the 2015-2016 winter as well as a decreasing trend in the percentage of 4-points making up buck harvest. These tag decreases have resulted in an immediate response as reflected in an increase in percentage of 4-points in the harvest, as well as increased hunter success overall. Survey Data A post-season composition survey was conducted in late November 2016, yielding observed ratios of 26 bucks:100 does:41 fawns. This buck ratio is noticeably lower than the post hunt buck ratio target of 30 and indicates that quotas would need to be adjusted downward again if a target of 30 bucks: 100 does is the desired management objective for the Management Area 10 herd. The fall fawn ratio (production) was low and is likely a result of the reduced body condition of does from the 2015-2016 winter manifesting itself in low neonate weights and /or abortion of fawns due to doe body condition. A spring helicopter survey was conducted in early April 2017. During this survey, 7,556 deer were classified, yielding a ratio of 26 fawns:100 adults. While this fawn ratio is lower than necessary for positive population growth, given the relatively low fawn production in the fall 2016, the over winter mortality of 19% is considered excellent given the conditions experienced in the 2016-2017 winter. Habitat Both 2015 and 2016 have been extremely wet years in the form of heavy snow fall. Snow levels remained significant on all seasonal ranges from late November through January. Depending on the month and the location, Snotel sites were reporting snow pack values over 200% of normal. Unlike 2015 where the valleys held significant snow levels and created extremely tough conditions for deer survival, 2016 brought milder conditions in late winter-early spring. Late season storms and moisture continue to occur into mid-April, however transition range is very green and accessible. Given the snowpack remaining in April 2017, summer range conditions should be phenomenal and browse species should benefit greatly from the deep soil moisture from the last 2 winters. The Department of Wildlife continues to work on habitat projects initiated to improve mule deer winter and transitional range by setting back succession of the area to a more browse dominated stage. These efforts should increase wildlife diversity and reduce the potential of catastrophic wildfires by reducing the overall fuel load. These areas are, and have been, extremely important winter and transitional ranges for thousands of mule deer that reside in Management Area 10. Ongoing efforts in the Spruce Mountain area occurred during the fall-winter of 2015-2016 and resulted in the treatment of an additional 3,400 acres. The Overland Fire in Unit 108 occurred during summer 2016, burning primarily Phase II and Phase III pinyon and juniper. Portions of the fire burned through critical migration areas. Short-term losses to mule deer are moderate; however, biologists are optimistic regarding the potential for long-term benefits to the Management Area 10 mule deer resource with successful post-fire rehabilitation efforts. Population Status and Trend Significant adjustments were made to the Management Area 10 deer population model in 2015 to better reflect recent observations in recruitment, harvest data, survey results, and to account for the severe winter conditions which occurred during the 2015-2016 winter. The population estimate dropped from 18,000 in 2015, to 15,000 in 2016 and to 14,000 in 2017. In addition to being the result of readjusting the

Page 32: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

14

modeled population estimate to more accurately reflect data and field observations, some of the reduction can be attributed to winter conditions that resulted in both extremely low fawn recruitment as well as adult mortality. Harvest management strategies and quotas in Management Area 10 have targeted a post-season buck ratio objective of 30 bucks:100 does. While survey data indicates that quotas, and ultimately hunter success, have achieved this management objective, data suggests that in order to restore a more even distribution of age classes, a higher post-season buck ratio objective may be necessary in the short term. Both harvest and survey data suggest that the male age structure is more heavily represented by younger aged bucks. Units 111 – 113: Eastern White Pine County Report by: Kody Menghini Harvest For specific hunt results, please refer to the Appendix section. Survey Data The first post-season survey to be conducted in this unit group since 2013 was in December 2016 when 3,012 mule deer were classified yielding sex and age ratios of 38 bucks:100 does:44 fawns. For the eighth consecutive year, spring mule deer surveys were conducted in conjunction with post-season elk surveys in early March 2017. A composition count of 2,485 mule deer yielded a ratio of 30 fawns:100 adults. The previous 5-year average (2012-16) fawn recruitment is 29 fawns:100 adults for this herd. Habitat The above average winter precipitation in 2015-2016, followed by timely spring and summer rains in 2016 improved quality and quantity of habitat available for mule deer. The 2016 fall was warm and dry, resulting in minimal fall green-up. The National Weather Service precipitation total for the 2016 calendar-year measured at the Ely Airport was 113% of normal. The winter of 2016-2017 was snowy and cold. The National Weather Service reported the 2016-2017 total winter precipitation was 217% of normal at the Ely Airport. As of March 1, the Berry Creek Snotel site received 153% of the long-term average (1981-2010) snowpack during winter 2016-2017. Despite the snowy and cold winter, many storms were followed by mild temperatures that resulted in snow on south-facing slopes and benches to burn-off or reduce snow levels. This likely helped to alleviate stressful winter conditions. This was the second consecutive above average winter, which should continue to improved habitat conditions. The long-term habitat potential for mule deer is slowly declining due to the encroachment of pinyon and juniper trees into mountain brush habitats, range degradation due to excessive numbers of feral horses in some areas and subdivision and sale of private parcels in quality habitat. Over the past several years, habitat enhancement projects have included 2 new wildlife water developments and several thousand acres of chaining and other pinyon and juniper removal projects in Unit 112. A 5,700 acre shrub enhancement project was completed on the east side of Unit 111 as well. Tree cuttings on US Forest Service lands in Duck Creek Basin and Siegel Creek areas will benefit mule deer habitat. Numerous other projects with potential benefits to mule deer are still in the planning stages. In June 2012, the Range and North Schell fires burned approximately 15,000 acres on the west side of the Duck Creek Range and from the Muncy Creek drainage northward on the east side of the Schell Creek Range. Although these fires may negatively impact mule deer in the short-term, a net positive benefit for mule deer is expected in the long-term. Population Status and Trend High sample sizes in recent years, upward trends in percent 4-points in harvest, and an observed post-season buck ratio of 38 bucks:100 does all indicate that this mule deer herd has recently been

Page 33: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

15

underestimated to some degree. Adjustments were made to the current population model to more accurately reflect observed sex ratios and other metrics. The current population estimate is 5,200 mule deer. Units 114 – 115: Snake Range; Southeastern White Pine County Report by: Kody Menghini Harvest For specific hunt results, please refer to the Appendix section. Survey Data The first post-season survey to be conducted in this unit group since 2013 was in December 2016 when 394 mule deer were classified yielding sex and age ratios of 52 bucks:100 does:46 fawns. For the eighth consecutive year, spring mule deer surveys were conducted in conjunction with post-season elk and bighorn surveys and occurred in early March 2017. A composition count of 548 mule deer yielded a ratio of 36 fawns:100 adults. The previous 5-year (2012-2016) average sample size is 450 total deer with an average fawn recruitment rate of 29 fawns:100 adults for this herd. Habitat Similar to Units 111-113, above average precipitation was observed in the Snake Range units. The above average winter of 2015-2016 followed by timely spring rains improved habitat conditions in 2016. The winter of 2016-2017 had above average snow levels. As of March 1, 2017, the Silver Creek and Wheeler Peak Snotel sites had received 8.4” and 21.0”of precipitation, respectively, since October 1, 2016, compared to 7.8” and 15.7”, respectively, in 2016 during the same time period. This was the second consecutive above average winter, which should continue to improve habitat conditions. The long-term habitat potential for mule deer is slowly declining due to encroachment of pinyon and juniper trees into mountain shrub and sage-steppe habitats. In some areas, recurrent drought has resulted in loss of native vegetation and expansion of cheatgrass and noxious weeds. Large scale projects designed to control the encroachment of trees without imposing long-term impacts to shrub communities will be needed to reverse this trend. Great Basin National Park is developing plans to use prescribed fire to create openings in expansive areas of conifers, many of which hold the remnants of aspen stands currently being crowded out by conifers such as white fir. These actions could benefit mule deer far into the future. The Black Fire (Unit 115) burned 4,900 acres in 2013, the Hampton Fire (Unit 114) burned 12,500 acres in 2014, and the Strawberry Fire burned 4,600 acres in 2016. Most of these fires were at higher elevation and in dense trees. While response has varied, multiple years of above average precipitation should benefit vegetation response and benefit mule deer. Population Status and Trend The Snake Range continues to be plagued by cycles of drought having negative impacts on the high quality vegetation mule deer need for survival and favorable fawn recruitment levels. Since 2009, approximately 61 mountain lions have been removed by Wildlife Services and through harvest. These predator removal efforts do not appear to have produced any measurable benefits to the deer population. Even with a small population, a conservative hunting strategy has maintained a robust male age structure in this herd. This area continues to produce quality mature bucks, with the 10-year (2006-2015) average percent 4-point or better buck harvest at 47% compared to the statewide average of 40% indicating quality hunting opportunity remains strong. For 2017, the mule deer population is showing a slight increase with an estimated 1,600 mule deer.

Page 34: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

16

Unit 121: North Egan, Cherry Creek Ranges; White Pine and Elko Counties Report by: Scott Roberts Harvest The 2016 total harvest across all weapon classes of 150 deer (149 bucks, 1 doe) was lower than the previous 10-year average of 195. The overall harvest of 4-point or better bucks was 36%; noticeably higher than the previous 10-year average of 30%. For specific 2016 hunting season results, please refer to the Appendix section. Survey Data The scheduled 3 day post-season survey in November was limited to one day due to weather and scheduling conflicts. The abbreviated survey classified a total of 1,444 deer; yielding sex and age ratios of 28 bucks:100 does:50 fawns. The transition winter range in Smith Valley continued to hold a majority of the deer with 950 classified individuals (66%) being surveyed there. The Smith Valley sample continues to have a significantly lower buck ratio (21 bucks:100 does) than the rest of the unit (43 bucks:100 does). The difference in observed buck ratios is likely a function of the openness of Smith Valley, its higher road density and its proximity to the town of Ely resulting in a comparatively greater buck harvest. The fawn ratio in Smith Valley came in at 50 fawns:100 does and was very close to the rest of the unit that came in at 48 fawns:100 does. An aerial spring mule deer survey was conducted during March 2017. A sample of 1,700 deer was classified in Unit 121; yielding a ratio of 33 fawns:100 adults. The resulting observed ratio represents 20% over winter fawn mortality. Habitat Pinyon and juniper encroachment continues to plague a significant portion of this unit. Several large scale habitat enhancement projects are proposed in the near future. The Combs Creek project was approved to reduce or remove pinyon and juniper on 7,000 acres of high quality habitat on Bureau of Land Management managed lands in the southern portion of Unit 121. This initial 7,000 acres of project acreage has been treated, with the final 353 acres being cleared in summer 2016. This project will protect and enhance some of the most productive summer and winter range Management Area 12 has to offer. This year’s survey demonstrates the importance of this area, as a significant portion of the unit’s deer herd spent most of the fall in or around this project area before the heavy snow loads pushed them to lower elevations. Population Status and Trend The spring fawn ratio rebounded from the previous year’s ratio of 28, but was still slightly lower than the previous 10-year average of 37. The increase in the observed fawn ratio resulted in a slight increase of the unit’s population estimate. The planned enhancement of thousands of additional acres of summer, winter and transitional habitats could allow for noticeable population growth in coming years. Units 131 – 134: Southern White Pine, Eastern Nye and Western Lincoln Counties Report by: Clint Garrett Harvest Overall tag quota reductions in 2016 led to an overall buck harvest drop of 21% compared to the previous year. Junior tags were reduced by 19% and success dropped 8% compared to the previous year. The 4-point or better buck harvest was 43%; which is lower than the previous 5 year average of 46%. For specific 2016 hunting season results, please refer to Hunt Tables in the Appendix Section.

Page 35: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

17

Survey Data No post season aerial surveys were conducting during this reporting period. In March 2017, an aerial spring deer survey was conducted with 732 deer classified; yielding a ratio of 39 fawns:100 adults. This total is considerably lower than the 2016 spring survey which was the third highest survey on record (1977-2017) and saw the classification of 1,932 deer; yielding a ratio of 32 fawns:100 adults. Survey conditions for 2017 were warmer with less snow compared to 2016 resulting in deer migrating north two weeks prior to survey. Migration trails at lower elevations in thick trees were followed on the east side of Unit 132 with limited success. Deer were shading up early with afternoon temperatures approaching 75 degrees. Only eight deer were classified in the Golden Gate Range of Unit 133. No collared or tagged deer were seen on survey. The 2017 observed fawn ratio is above average compared to the previous 5 year spring ratio of 35 fawns:100 adults. Habitat Range conditions this past summer and fall were drier than normal with a window of good precipitation in September but below average moisture from then until winter. Precipitation in early March was followed by a warming trend which provided early green-up. The US Drought Monitor currently shows the very southern and western portions of Units 132, 133 and 134 as abnormally dry; however this is an improvement over last year’s rating of moderate drought to abnormally dry throughout. The above-average precipitation this year should sustain range conditions for deer going into spring with soil moisture just below normal at 26% saturation for eastern Nevada and above average for southern Nevada at 42% according to the February 2017 Nevada Water Supply Outlook report by Natural Resources Conservation Service. Carrying capacity for deer is being diminished by conifer encroachment at upper elevations and pinyon and juniper encroachment at lower elevations. Ongoing projects by the US Forest Service have crews cutting small pinion and juniper trees preventing domination of brush communities. Increasing feral horse numbers are degrading habitat in the Mt. Hamilton area where a significant population has established. New exploratory drill pads were observed in the Green Springs area of Unit 131. If development of a mine happens in this area there will be impacts to sage grouse, mule deer and elk. Plans are underway this year for construction of a new guzzler in Unit 132. There are five wilderness areas in Unit 131, 2 in Unit 132 and 3 in Unit 133. The Basin and Range National Monument encompasses most of Unit 133 and a small portion of Unit 132 totaling 704,000 acres. Population Status and Trend Deer were collared this last winter to help unravel some of the complexity revolving around migration of this herd. Information gathered through this collaring effort can give a better understanding of limiting factors and seasonal use patterns that in turn would initiate habitat enhancement projects for the future as well as recognize the success or failure of past projects. Current and future habitat enhancement projects by the US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of Wildlife will work to promote mule deer populations in future years. The population has been increasing steadily since 2008 and the population estimate for 2017 shows an increase with above average fawn recruitment. Units 141 – 145: Eureka and Western White Pine Counties Report by: Clint Garrett Harvest The 2016 combined harvest of 362 deer was 13% higher than the previous 5 year average of 315. For 2016 junior hunt success was 75% which is 10% higher than the previous 5 year average of 65%. The 4-point or better buck harvest was 33%; which is higher than the previous 5-year average of 29%. For specific 2016 hunting season results, please refer to the Appendix section.

Page 36: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

18

Survey Data In November 2016 a post season aerial survey was conducted with 1,677 deer classified; yielding ratios of 33 bucks:100 does:56 fawns. In March 2017, an aerial spring deer survey was conducted with 1,946 deer classified; yielding a ratio of 40 fawns:100 adults resulting in an estimated overwinter fawn loss of 13%. Four collared and tagged deer were seen on survey. The 2017 spring observed fawn ratio was above the previous 10 year average of 34 fawns:100 adults and slightly above the previous 5 year average of 39 fawns:100 adults. Habitat Significant numbers of feral horses were been removed from private property in the Cortez Range in 2015 and by the Bureau of Land Management in the Diamond Range in 2013. Unfortunately, feral horse numbers continue to rise uncontrolled throughout Management Area 14 impacting habitat. Pinyon and juniper thinning continues on private and public lands in Units 142-145 with support and funding through Eureka County, Eureka County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Future approval of the 3 Bars Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Project EIS will lead to additional pinyon and juniper treatments in Unit 143 enhancing range conditions that benefit wildlife. The Pinto Fire in July 2016 burned approximately 1,900 acres in the Diamond Range impacting important sage-grouse and deer habitat. Rehabilitation efforts were started by Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of Wildlife in January 2017, with more treatments planned through the spring 2017. In 2015, due to fire, 7,000 acres of important mule deer habitat was lost on the east side of the Diamond Range. Deer were observed this year utilizing the early flush of grasses and forbs in this area due to the past rehabilitation efforts of Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Plans are still underway to fence and protect the Robinson spring area this upcoming year. Mining and known mineral exploration continues in the Cortez Range in Unit 141 and in the Roberts Mountain area in Unit 143 impacting sage grouse and mule deer. With assistance from the Battle Mountain Bureau of Land Management District Office, an old abandoned big game guzzler targeting deer in Unit 142 was approved to be rebuilt. Population Status and Trend Deer were collared this last winter to help gain a better understanding of the connectivity between the Unit 144 deer herd and surrounding hunt units. Information gathered through this collaring effort can give a better understanding of limiting factors and seasonal use patterns that in turn would initiate habitat enhancement projects for the future as well as evaluate the success or failure of past projects. The removal of 1,800 feral horses in the Cortez Range in February 2015 may have contributed to the high 72 fawn:100 doe ratio observed this last fall in that area. The observed fawn ratio in the Cortez Range was the highest observed in all of Management Area14 during the fall 2016 survey. Through the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s Predator Management Program, Wildlife Services conducted coyote removal from January 2016 to present removing a total of 953 coyotes in the Diamond Range. This removal project focuses on deer wintering and fawning grounds. Information is currently being collected to help determine removal impacts to this herd. The past 5-year average population estimate (2012-2016) is 4,000 deer, with the 2016 and 2017 estimates at 4,100 and 4,200 respectively, showing a slight increase in population and fawn recruitment. Units 151, 152, 154, 155: Lander and Western Eureka Counties Report by: Jeremy Lutz Survey Data A fall helicopter survey was conducted in November 2016. A total of 650 mule deer was classified yielding observed ratios of 35 bucks:100 does:61 fawns. The lower than average fall sample size was the result of

Page 37: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

19

omitting higher deer density areas of the Shoshones and Simpson Park Mountains from the survey effort due to inclement weather and time constraints with other regional flight priorities. No fall surveys were performed in 2015 for comparison; however the average post season observed buck ratio over the last 5 years is 34 bucks:100 does. A spring aerial composition survey conducted in mid-March 2017 resulted in the classification of 1,037 deer yielding an observed ratio of 31 fawns: 100 adults. In comparison, the 2016 spring survey resulted in the classification of 814 deer; yielding an observed ratio of 22 fawns:100 adults. Habitat Habitat in Management Area 15 has responded well to two years of above average moisture, and according to the National Drought Monitor Index, Lander and Eureka Counties are officially out of the drought. The shrub community looks to be in great condition with ample leader growth seen last fall despite 4 years of severe drought from 2012-2015. Continuing spring moisture receipts spring should result in a flush of native grasses and forbs which should benefit deer throughout the spring and summer months. Without a doubt this above average moisture is a very promising situation for all wildlife in Management Area 15, especially mule deer. Unfortunately, a rapid increase of feral horses is occurring throughout Lander and Eureka counties and is an alarming trend. Several Horse Management Areas are well above their established Appropriate Management Levels, and there are designated “horse free” areas which are also receiving horse use. Both of these situations are resulting in negative impacts to wildlife habitat. Population Status and Trend This population has been regulated by the amount and timing of precipitation received in Management Area 15. Reduced fawn recruitment due to extended periods of drought and/or above average snow depths on winter range is expected to result in population declines. Management Area 15 has typically followed a “boom or bust” population cycle. This cycle can be moderated by keeping this population at a sustainable level at or slightly below current habitat carrying capacity through the use of female harvest management. Units 161 – 164: North-Central Nye and Southern Lander and Eureka Counties Report by: Joe Bennett Harvest 2016 was the tenth consecutive year of the Any Legal Weapon, Early-Late split season structure, mule deer hunt in both Management Area 16 and 17. In 2007, the season changed from a single 23-day season to a split 16-day Early-Late season structure. The split season is intended to allow those sportsmen willing to deal with larger crowds and comparatively more difficult hunting conditions a greater chance of obtaining a deer tag on a regular basis, while at the same time offering a hunt later in the fall with significantly smaller crowds, and cooler temperatures, for those sportsmen willing to wait longer between deer tags. Since the inception of the split hunt, the Management Area 16 Early Resident Any Legal Weapon season success has averaged 42%, while the Late Resident Any Legal Weapon season success has averaged 58%. During the same 10-year period, the average harvest percentage of 4-points or better during the early and late seasons has been 33% and 54%, respectively. Survey Data No post-season composition surveys were conducted in Units 161-164 during 2016. In 2014, post-season composition surveys yielded a total of 1,292 mule deer classified as 191 bucks, 734 does, and 367 fawns. The sample obtained during the 2014 fall survey was the highest seen since 1990 when a total of 1,322

Page 38: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

20

deer was classified. The buck ratio of the 2014 survey could be biased low because the timing of survey was conducted slightly after the peak of the rut. Spring aerial composition survey in 2017 yielded a sample size of 789 deer which were classified as 597 adults and 192 fawns. In comparison, 2016 yielded a sample size of 817 deer which were classified as 622 adults and 195 fawns. Survey was drawn from portions of Units 161, 162, and 163 to include a well distributed sample. Population Status and Trend The Management Area 16 mule deer population has remained relatively static for most of the past decade. Regularly occurring periods of drought, excessive feral animal numbers, aging of browse species, and increasing pinyon juniper densities have collectively managed to keep mule deer populations in central Nevada from experiencing any significant growth. In recent years, drought conditions during the winter-spring periods in central Nevada have acted to maintain the static trend; however, 2015’s above-average precipitation (146% of 30-year average) and 2016’s above average spring precipitation (51% of the total) should have allowed rangeland conditions to improve to some extent, and cause much needed reprieve from recent drought periods. A habitat enhancement pinyon juniper removal project was conducted in summer 2016 near Danville Creek in Little Fish Lake Valley. A total of 717 acres of pinyon and juniper was cut and left in response to encroachment into the valley. The removal of these trees will allow the herbaceous understory to regenerate providing good forage and habitat to mule deer at certain times of the year. A pinyon juniper removal project is anticipated to occur in the Clear Creek area in the summer 2017 as well. The Management Area 16 mule deer population is believed to be relatively static or slightly increasing due to fawn recruitment and precipitation patterns. Units 171 – 173: Northwestern Nye and Southern Lander Counties Report by: Joe Bennett Harvest The 2016 mule deer season represents the tenth consecutive year of the 16-day Early-Late split Any Legal Weapon season in Management Area 17. The split season is intended to allow those willing to deal with larger crowds and comparatively more difficult hunting conditions a greater chance of obtaining a deer tag on a regular basis, while at the same time offering a hunt later in the fall with significantly smaller crowds, and cooler temperatures for those sportsmen willing to wait longer between deer tags. Since the inception of the split hunt, the Early Resident Any Legal Weapon season success has averaged 27%, while the Late Resident Any Legal Weapon season success has averaged 39%. During the same 10-year period, the average harvest percentage of 4-points or better during the early and late seasons has been 27% and 44%, respectively. Survey Data A new survey methodology was implemented during the fall 2016 and the spring 2017. Post season aerial survey yielded a sample size of 1,018 deer which were classified as 158 bucks, 534 does, and 326 fawns. Due to the vacancy of the Tonopah field biologist position, no post-season surveys in Management Area 17 were conducted in 2015. Spring aerial composition surveys for 2017 yielded a sample size of 743 deer, which were classified as 557 adults and 186 fawns. In comparison, 2016 yielded a sample size of 1089 deer, which were classified as 856 adults and 233 fawns. In 2016 and 2017, majority of the sample came from hunt Unit 173 on the east side of the Toiyabe Range from Carvers north to Birch Creek.

Page 39: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

21

Population Status and Trend Periods of drought have plagued central Nevada over the past decade or more. This, along with various other factors, has resulted in very little overall growth of mule deer populations and a relatively static trend. Before 2015 and 2016, drought conditions experienced over the past few winter-spring periods in central Nevada has resulted in consecutive years of depressed production and recruitment of fawns in Management Area 17; however the above-average precipitation in 2015 and 2016 has plausibly resulted in improved rangeland conditions to some extent. This has led to a slight increase in fawn recruitment over the past two years. Due to slightly higher fawn recruitment, the Management Area 17 mule deer population is currently experiencing a static to slightly increasing trend. Units 181 – 184: Churchill, Southern Pershing, and Western Lander Counties Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data A 2 hour aerial survey was conducted in January 2017. A total of 114 deer were classified; yielding ratios of 22 bucks:100 does:40 fawns. A small ground survey in March 2017 resulted in the classification of 69 mule deer; yielding a ratio of 33 fawns:100 adults. Habitat In summer 2016, a human-caused fire erupted in the lower portions of Little Den Creek. This fire consumed a total of 3,560 acres of pinyon and juniper woodland, as well as higher elevational sagebrush basins. The Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Bureau of Land Management seeded the burn from this fire in January 2017. Favorable winter precipitation should aid in the establishment of the seeded plant species. Over the long term, this burn area will be beneficial to the mule deer herd. Over the past 3 years, fires have consumed 8,900 acres of mainly pinyon and juniper woodland within the Desatoya Mountain Range. The removal of pinyon and juniper will allow for the establishment of brush and grass species. This habitat conversion will enable the deer herd to thrive in these newly created early successional stage plant communities. These newly created foraging areas will also draw in feral horses. Springs and riparian areas have also been identified in the Clan Alpines and Desatoya ranges for protective fencing projects. Fencing key riparian areas with pipe rail fences will allow for increased flow of water while providing un-grazed grass and forb areas. Population Status and Trend The Management Area 18 mule deer herd seems relatively stable. Winter 2016 had significant snow fall at the upper elevations forcing mule deer to seek out the prevalent basal green-up located on the toe slopes. The 2016 hunter data indicates that 41% of harvested bucks were 4-point or better with the ten year average being 38% 4-points or better. Unit 192: Carson River Interstate Herd; Douglas County Report by: Carl Lackey Survey Data Post-season survey flights were not conducted in 2016. Spring helicopter surveys conducted in mid-March 2017 resulted in the classification of 236 deer with a ratio of 41 fawns:100 adults. Spring conditions were ideal with record snow fall, which concentrated the deer, and sunny, cool flying weather.

Page 40: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

22

Habitat There were no significant changes to the habitat occupied by this deer herd in 2016-2017. The majority of the herd uses the eastern slopes of the Carson Range as critical winter range, migrating from the Tahoe Basin and Hope Valley summer ranges. Drought conditions that had persisted since 2011 in western Nevada were alleviated during winter 2016-2017 with record snowfall, although temperatures were not so cold as to have a huge effect on deer survival. Browse was in much better condition as a result. Population Status and Trend The population estimate is about 1,000 animals and it has been at this level for several years. Survey and harvest data indicate this deer herd has been maintaining over the last few years, with adequate fawn recruitment rates and generally good age cohort distribution. Point-class distribution in the hunter harvest of bucks continues to favor 4-points. The Nevada Department of Wildlife and the University of Nevada, Reno, continue to study this deer herd, providing survival rates, mortality data, and migration information from over 100 collared deer. Unit 194, 196: Carson Range and Peavine Mountain Interstate Herd; Washoe and Carson City Counties Report by: Carl Lackey Survey Data Post-season survey flights were conducted by California Department of Fish and Wildlife in December 2016. California Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists classified 752 deer with a ratio of 33 bucks and 52 fawns:100 does. Spring helicopter surveys conducted by the Nevada Department of Wildlife in March, 2017 resulted in the classification of 717 deer with a ratio of 46 fawns: 100 adults. Spring conditions were ideal with record snow fall, which concentrated the deer, and sunny, cool flying weather. Habitat Urban sprawl and the accompanying human recreation associated with it are the most negative issues facing the Carson Front deer herds. Drought conditions that had persisted since 2011 in western Nevada were alleviated somewhat during winter 2016-2017, although temperatures were not so cold as to have a huge effect on deer survival. Browse was in much better condition as a result. The majority of this herd uses the eastern slopes of the Carson Range as critical winter range, migrating from their summer range in the Tahoe Basin or the Truckee, California area. Population Status and Trend The 2017 population estimate is around 1,700 and it has been at this level for the last few years. Over the last few years this deer herd has appeared healthy with adequate fawn recruitment rates and generally good age cohort distribution. With continued urban development on and near Peavine Mountain the long-term trend in abundance is downward, mostly due to habitat loss and fragmentation. This unit remains a much desired area to hunt deer for locals and non-residents, with high success rates and good point-class distribution. Unit 195: Virginia Range; Storey, Washoe, and Lyon Counties Report by: Carl Lackey Survey Data Formal post-season and spring surveys have not been completed for Unit 195 since 2002.

Page 41: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

23

Habitat The majority of land in this unit is privately owned and a significant portion has been developed commercially and residentially. The resulting fragmentation and loss of habitat, along with increased traffic on US 395, has decreased this once migratory herd to a resident herd. Population Status and Trend There is no modeled population estimate for this herd. The population estimate of 500 adult deer for this herd is derived from harvest statistics and is based upon total buck harvest. Deer are fairly common along the Truckee River corridor on mostly private lands. Significant portions of the unit contain monocultures of pinion-juniper and the deer in this unit spend a considerable amount of time in these pinion-juniper forests, making them hard to detect. Deer also seem to be fairly well distributed in the southern part of the unit near Jumbo Grade. Hunter success indicates an adequate number of deer for the tags sold. Units 201, 202, 204 – 208: Walker – Mono Interstate Deer Herd; Douglas, Lyon, and Mineral Counties Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data An aerial deer survey was conducted in February 2017. A total of 1,117 deer were classified; yielding ratios of 16 bucks: 100 does: 32 fawns. No spring surveys were conducted by California Fish and Game this year. Habitat Water is very limited in certain parts of theses unit groups. Future water developments will aid in the establishment a of viable resident deer herd. Pinyon and juniper encroachment is a continuing problem for the Bodie interstate herd. Future management plans have identified potential project areas for the benefit of sage grouse. These same areas will aid in restoring the brush communities which in turn will benefit the mule deer herd. Population Status and Trend In March 2017, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife captured 157 mule deer from the X-12, Management Area 20 mule deer herd. The purpose of this collaring project is to look at body condition of individuals over an extended time frame. This information will be used to determine why we are experiencing a reduction in population trend. The population decline this herd is experiencing may suggest that it is exhibiting a density-dependent response due to limited resources. Mule deer are thought to be in poor body condition. This assumption is based on continued low fawn ratios. Biologists also believe that degraded summer range in California leaves mule deer in poor condition when entering winter. Research suggests that reducing competition for limited resources may enable this population to experience an upward growth trend following positive climatic conditions. One way to reduce competition is to introduce a management doe hunt which will allow biologists to assess body condition as well. Body condition scoring information could then be utilized to evaluate carrying capacity of this interstate herd. Based on current fawn to adult ratios this population is declining in population trend.

Page 42: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

24

Unit 203: Mason and Smith Valley Resident Herds; Lyon County Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey data No formal surveys were conducted in this unit group. Harvest information is used to derive the management of buck harvest. Population Status and Trend The Mason and Smith Valley mule deer herds are believed to be stable at this time. The 1331 any legal weapon hunt can be an indicator of stability. The 2016 overall hunter success rate was 36% with 36% of the harvested bucks having 4-points or greater. Mule deer habitat within Mason Valley consists of alfalfa fields surrounded by buffalo berry and salt desert shrub communities. The Mason Valley Wildlife Management Area contributes the most to this mule deer herd in Mason Valley and serves as a sanctuary to the habitat fragmentation that surrounds it in the valley. The highest concentrations of deer exist in and around the Walker River corridor which provides thick stands of willows creating shelter and escape cover. Future plans on the Mason Valley Wildlife area include revegetating some tracts of non-irrigated land. Seed mixes will be developed that may be suited for the area and offers the greatest chances for success. These newly created areas may allow for some limited expansion for the mule deer herd. Habitat fragmentation that converts salt desert shrub to housing tracts, mines, or specialized agriculture will not afford the population the ability to grow or expand. Population Status and Trend There is no modeled population estimate for this herd. This population is believed to be stable, but has the potential to increase under more ideal habitat conditions. Units 211, 212: Esmeralda County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data Currently, no formal surveys are conducted in Management Area 21. Past survey efforts have not resulted in sufficient sample sizes for use in monitoring population dynamics. Population Status and Trend Based upon annual harvest data and ground survey data, the Management Area 21 mule deer population appears to have remained static at comparatively low levels for quite some time. Recent drought periods over the past decade or more have depressed mule deer populations in Esmeralda County. 2015’s above average precipitation (146% of the 30-year average for central Nevada) and 2016’s above average spring precipitation (51% of 2016’s total) should have alleviated some of the detrimental rangeland effects caused by recent droughts. Along with precipitation related impacts, increasing densities of pinyon and juniper, and the aging of the shrub component in the area have collectively impacted the quantity and quality of available habitat in Management Area 21. Aerial survey data which was gathered in adjacent hunt units indicate that fawn production and recruitment rates in this region of Nevada remain somewhat static or slightly increasing. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is likely the same situation exists in Management Area 21. Currently, the Management Area 21 mule deer population is considered to be static or slightly increasing.

Page 43: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

25

Units 221 – 223: Northern Lincoln and Southern White Pine Counties Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data Post season aerial surveys were conducted in December 2016. Deer were encountered in each unit and mountain range and large groups of migratory deer were classified. A total of 1,202 deer were classified composed of 213 bucks, 701 does, and 288 fawns. This equates to a ratio of 30 bucks:100 does:41 fawns. Spring deer surveys were conducted in March 2017 in Units 221, 222, and 223. Aerial surveys resulted in the classification of 2,035 deer composed of 1,513 adults and 522 fawns for a ratio of 35 fawns: 100 does. Deer were observed making the transition from crucial winter grounds to the higher elevation summer habitat. Habitat Habitat conditions are improving throughout much of Management Area 22; a result of above average precipitation in 2015 and 2016. According to Community Environmental Monitoring Program precipitation data, Lincoln and White Pine Counties received 110% of the previous ten-year average of precipitation. Persisting snowpack and early spring precipitation should allow for ample forage throughout much of the summer range in Management Area 22. Multiple threats exist for mule deer throughout Management Area 22. Pinyon and juniper forest continues to expand in both elevation and density into all seasonal ranges for mule deer. Although pinyon and juniper provides thermal cover for mule deer, it reduces the understory and limits forage availability for deer. Fire suppression and wilderness areas continue to allow dense pinyon and juniper stands to remain undisturbed throughout large expanses in Management Area 22. Multiple off-road vehicle issues may increase seasonal stress for mule deer in Management Area 22. The Silver State Trail system, various motor vehicle races, and shed antler hunters use areas occupied by mule deer during winter and spring, increasing stress on animals at a difficult time of year. Wilderness areas prohibit projects that would benefit mule deer through vast acreages of Management Area 22. A solar energy zone is being proposed in Dry Lake Valley, adjacent to several crucial mule deer wintering areas. Feral horse numbers are excessive in some parts of the area, leading to decreased use of those areas by mule deer. Finally, there is still a proposal to pipe water from areas in Management Area 22 to southern Nevada. Population Status and Trend The Management Area 22 deer herd appears to be stable with a static population estimate on a 5-year average. The population is estimated at approximately 4,200 adult animals. Unit 231: Wilson Creek Range; Northeastern Lincoln County Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data Post season aerial surveys were conducted in December 2016 resulting in the classification of 1,662 deer. Composition of surveys resulted in a post hunt ratio of 28 bucks: 100 does:63 fawns. Many of the deer were encountered in the Wilson Mountain and Fortification mountain areas along with agricultural areas that have been developed on historical winter range that may augment winter forage. Spring deer surveys were conducted during March 2017, where 1,388 deer were classified during aerial surveys in Unit 231. Spring ratios provided a result of 40 fawns:100 adults. Many observed deer were in transition from winter range to summer habitat.

Page 44: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

26

Habitat Habitat conditions are moderate for most of Management Area 23 due to average precipitation during 2015 and 2016 which reduced the threat of drought in the area. Moderate amounts of precipitation accumulated throughout the providing good snowpack which persisted in high elevations providing for some ephemeral water flow that will enhance some riparian areas that have been affected by drought in the recent past. Deer likely went into winter in good condition due to the timing of late summer and fall precipitation in 2016. According to Community Environmental Monitoring Program, this portion of Lincoln County received 104% of the 10 year average annual precipitation during 2015. Landowners in Management Area 23 continue to encourage mule deer to utilize alfalfa and other agricultural lands in late fall and early winter and thus receive landowner compensation tags. The availability of plentiful forage on private property likely helps deer in Management Area 23 to persist through the winter in better condition. Mule deer habitat in Management Area 23 is threatened by continued invasion of pinyon and juniper into both upper and lower elevations, as well as increasing in density in areas already invaded. Fire suppression efforts in dense pinyon and juniper forest result in continued stagnation of large expanses of degraded habitat. Multiple habitat improvement projects have been accomplished by Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of Wildlife to remove pinyon and juniper from over 4,000 acres in Unit 231. The primary focus of the projects was to develop and increase Sage Grouse habitat but will also benefit mule deer and other wildlife. Excessive numbers of feral horses continue to result in degraded habitat and water sources, with no outlook for any relief or reduction of horse populations. Large numbers of shed antler hunters continue to place added stress on mule deer and other wildlife in late winter and early spring. Although the added stress may not directly have adverse effects on deer numbers, there may be other indirect effects from increased stress during the late winter. Wilderness created in Management Area 23 prohibits the completion of any habitat projects beneficial for mule deer in vast areas of degraded mule deer habitat. Population Estimates and Trend The Management Area 23 deer herd population has been on the rise over the last 10 years and appear to be stable and healthy. The population is similar to last year with the 2016 computer-generated population estimate of 3,500 adult mule deer. Units 241 – 245: Clover, Delamar, and Meadow Valley Mountain Ranges; Lincoln County Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data Post season aerial surveys were conducted in December 2016 in Unit 241 and 242. The majority of the survey was conducted in the Clover and Delamar Mountains on transitional habitat and winter ranges. A total of 898 deer were classified and composed of 441 does, 193 bucks, and 264 fawns. This provides a survey ratio of 60 fawns:100 does:44 bucks. No spring deer surveys were conducted in 2017 due to limited aircraft availability during this timeframe. Habitat Habitat conditions are fair throughout most of Management Area 24 due to slightly above average precipitation during 2016. According to Community Environmental Monitoring Program, approximately 100% of the previous 10-year average precipitation was received during 2016; this potentially reduced the risk of drought in the area. In 2017, Management Area 24 received average amounts of precipitation that should provide for improved vegetation growth.

Page 45: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

27

Although mule deer exist in all units of Management Area 24, the bulk of mule deer habitat is found in Unit 241 and 242. In the Clover Mountains portion of Unit 242, pinyon and juniper is so dense that mule deer habitat is limited by lack of understory. The highest densities of deer are found in areas which have either burned or been managed by habitat improvement projects. Many deer are also found near private agricultural land as well. The Delamar Mountains portion of Unit 241 also contains mule deer in somewhat lower densities. Many deer are also found associated with areas that burned within the last decade. Although some large fires have burned in both of these units in the past, vast areas of dense, closed-canopy pinyon and juniper exist in both areas. Feral horses exist in both Unit 241 and 242 in very high densities. These are both areas that have been declared horse-free by Bureau of Land Management and had the Appropriate Management Levels set to zero. A proposal for a new large powerline down through the Clover Mountains has the potential to bring increased development and traffic into that area. Population Estimates and Trend The 2017 population estimate is approximately 1,100 adult animals. This population has shown slight variability in estimated population but is relatively stable. Portions of this population reside along the Utah-Nevada border which complicates the process of evaluating the consistent population residing in Nevada. Units 251 – 253: South Central Nye County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data Presently, neither post-season nor spring surveys are conducted in these units. The last survey conducted was in 1998 and failed to yield a sufficient sample for analysis. Population Status and Trend Management Area 25 has limited amounts of quality mule deer habitat. The greatest quantity and quality of mule deer habitat in Management Area 25 resides in Unit 251. With this being said, majority of the mule deer population occurs in Unit 251. Due to recent drought periods, impacts from excessive numbers of feral animals, pinyon and juniper expansion, and aging of browse species, the mule deer population in Unit 251 has remained static at relatively low numbers for some time. The above-average precipitation in 2015 (146% of the 30-year average for central Nevada) and in 2016 (51% of the total for 2016) may alleviate some of the detrimental effects on rangelands caused by recent droughts. The aerial survey data from 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 gathered in adjacent units indicate that fawn production and recruitment rates in much of central Nevada has remained static. Due to limited fawn production and recruitment, and continuing impacts to habitat by competition for resources and precipitation, the Management Area 25 mule deer population is currently experiencing a static or slightly increasing trend. Units 261 – 268: Clark and Southern Nye Counties Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In Management Area 26, the majority of the mule deer inhabit the Spring Mountains (Unit 262). Mule deer occur in low densities in the Newberry Mountains, Crescent Peak and southern portion of the McCullough Range. Overall, mule deer habitat is marginal; consequently, deer densities are low and below levels that warrant annual or periodic aerial surveys. The lack of composition data precludes development of a useful model that would demonstrate herd population dynamics and generate population estimates.

Page 46: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

28

Habitat The 1 July 2013 Carpenter 1 Fire was ignited by lightning. The fire consumed vegetation across 27,869 acres. The 43.5-square-mile fire consumed plants within several vegetative associations along a 5,560’-elevation gradient. Mule deer summer and winter ranges were impacted in Trout Canyon, Lovell Canyon, Harris Springs Canyon and Kyle Canyon. Management Area 26 is in close proximity to Las Vegas and other growing cities. Recreational pursuits that include off-highway vehicles and mountain bike use and the resultant proliferation of roads and trails coupled with suburban sprawl, serve to degrade mule deer habitat. In the Spring Mountains, mule deer habitat is also impacted by feral horses and burros. In June 2004, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest issued a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Motorized Trails Designation Project. The decision to implement alternative 5 (with modifications) as summarized in the respective Environmental Assessment involves minimal closure of newly established roads. Thus, the recently authorized management prescription for motorized trails ensures the status quo for the foreseeable future. Population Status and Trend In April 2017, environmental conditions range from fair to good due to moisture producing storms in late 2016 and early 2017. Based on favorable mule deer harvest data in 2016 hunt seasons, and satisfactory environmental conditions, it is reasoned the mule deer population in Management Area 26 is stable to increasing. The National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center forecasts no development of drought conditions through June 2017. Units 271, 272: Southern Lincoln and Northeastern Clark Counties Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data No mule deer surveys were conducted in Unit 271 or 272 during the reporting period. Mule deer densities are low enough that standard surveys do not result in enough data for analysis. The harvest strategy is based on hunter demand and success. Habitat Mule deer habitat is limited in Management Area 27. Although better mule deer habitat is found in the Virgin Mountains, it is still a low density mule deer area. Both units are within Mojave Desert ecotypes with pinyon and juniper found at higher elevations. Water is very limited and mule deer are generally found in areas not far from water, at least during the warmer times of the year. This area observed 100% of the 5-year average precipitation during 2016 and early 2017 which will likely result in increased habitat conditions in Management Area 27. Unit 291: Pine Nut Mountain Herd; Douglas County Report by: Carl Lackey Survey Data No formal surveys were conducted in this unit. General observations and anecdotal reports indicate that this herd is stable over the short-term but has declined significantly over the long-term. Habitat Loss of brush communities over the long-term in this unit continues to keep the deer population at low levels. Expansion of the pinion forest over the past few decades, increased human recreational activity

Page 47: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MULE DEER

29

and increased urbanization on the perimeter with corresponding traffic have all contributed to loss of habitat and the decline of mule deer in Unit 291. Significant portions of the unit contain monocultures of pinion-juniper, much of which is dead. Habitat improvement projects are ongoing to reduce the pinion-juniper coverage, yet short of an entire habitat regime change affecting thousands of acres, the deer herd will likely not increase significantly in numbers. The Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Bureau of Land Management are conducting habitat treatment in several areas under the Pine Nut Health Project funded in part by Habitat and Upland Game stamp funds and the Nevada Wildlife Heritage Project in hopes of increasing browse and decreasing the pinon and juniper footprint. Population Status and Trend There is no modeled population estimate for this herd. This population is believed to be stable, but has the potential to increase under more ideal habitat conditions. Many of the deer, particularly in the northern part of the management area, are resident deer. The 2017 population for Management Area 29, estimated at 500-700 adult animals, based on buck harvest, is well below the historic levels recorded for the Pine Nut Mountains.

Page 48: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

30

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE Unit 011: Vya and Massacre Rims, Coleman Canyon, Bitner Table Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest The 2016 resident rifle quota for Unit 011 increased by 5 tags in 2016. Hunters experienced a good hunting season and the success rate for resident rifle hunters was 70%. This is similar to the long-term average for this hunt unit. Archery and muzzleloader hunters also had very respectable success rates at 55% and 33%, respectively. Survey Data Helicopter surveys took place in mid-September 2016. A total of 221 pronghorn were classified with a resulting ratio of 38 bucks:100 does:40 fawns. Buck ratios remain strong in this hunt unit and hunters report seeing good numbers of bucks. One concern for this hunt unit is the reduced number of animals located on our survey this year. The number of animals classified in this unit dropped by around 50% when compared with the previous year’s sample. This could be due to a significant increase in the amount of water available this year that scattered antelope far and wide; however, there is some concern that the significant snow accumulations the past two winters could possibly have negatively impacted the herd and reduced overall survival. Fawn ratios remain fairly strong for this herd but the 40 fawns per 100 does recruitment rate was 5 fawns lower than the 2015 fawn ratio of 45 fawns per 100 does. This is more than likely due to the tougher winter conditions in Unit 011 during the winter of 2015-16. With a second consecutive tough winter in 2016-17 overall pronghorn fawn and adult survival is expected to be reduced. The buck ratio of 38 bucks per 100 does from the 2016 survey showed an increase when compared with the previous year’s result of 32 bucks per 100 does. The percentage of adult bucks in the sample showed that a decent numbers of mature bucks will be available for harvest in 2017. However, the lower yearling buck percentages within the buck sample may indicate that survival the preceding year was lower. Habitat The improved moisture over the past two winters has helped fill up the lake beds that are located on critical summer ranges in Unit 011. These important summer ranges had been completely dry over the past several years. During the long-term drought, the extremely dry conditions and lack of available water forced pronghorn to move away from these upper elevation summer ranges to locate better resources. Other important water sources such as spring and seeps have also been boosted by the recent increase in precipitation. This has allowed pronghorn and other wildlife to once again remain on these important summer ranges during the hotter months of the summer. Forage quality has also improved over the past two years due to the increased moisture receipts. There were no major wildfires that occurred over the summer of 2016 however, Unit 011 has experienced the significant loss of pronghorn habitat due to past wildfires. The Barrel Springs Fire that occurred a decade ago burned significant habitat along the northern portion of Unit 011. Although, some portions of the Barrel Springs Fire have partially recovered there are also large expanses or areas of the burn that are currently lacking the critical sagebrush and bitterbrush that were present prior to the fire. The most recent fire, the Coleman Fire, burned additional acreage to the east of the Barrel Springs Fire and also re-burned into areas that had been previously burned, The Bureau of Land Management has re-seeded portions of the burned areas but the area will take years to fully recover.

Page 49: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

31

Population Status and Trend Pronghorn populations within Unit 011 have generally been on a downward trend since the drought began in 2007. However, habitat conditions have finally improved with the increase in moisture that has occurred over the past two years. Fawn recruitment was measured at 40 fawns per 100 does and should reverse this trend for the Unit 011 pronghorn population in the short-term. The weather conditions during the early portion of the winter of 2015-16 were severe in northwestern Nevada when as much as 5-6 feet of snow buried much of the region. The winter of 2016-2017 was one of the hardest winters on record with significant snow accumulations that lasted over the course of the entire winter. The tough conditions over the past two winters are believed to have put more stress on antelope populations in Unit 011 and may have impacted overall survival of pronghorn during this time. Due to lower numbers of animals classified on surveys this past year, a more conservative approach to quotas will be recommended for the upcoming hunting season. Recommended quotas are expected to be similar or even reduced in 2017. Unit 012 – 014: High Rock, Little High Rock, Hays Canyon, Boulder Mountain, Granite Range, Calico Range Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Tag quotas for resident rifle hunters were reduced slightly in 2016 due to the impacts from the long-term drought that had plagued western Nevada since 2007. Buck harvest and hunter success rates for this hunt unit group improved in 2016 and hunters experienced a much better hunt as the 74% success rate suggests. Muzzleloader and archery hunters had above average to average hunting success. Survey Data The number of animals classified during helicopter composition surveys increased by around 9% this year. A total of 602 pronghorn were classified during the post-season survey and the sample provided a ratio of 43:bucks:100 does:52 fawns. The 2015 survey resulted in a ratio of 38 bucks:100 does:50 fawns. Two consecutive years of much improved recruitment shows just how important a role precipitation plays in pronghorn productivity and recruitment. Through the drought years over the past decade, recruitment rates were generally in the 30’s and low 40’s. Fawn ratios have rebounded the past two years due to the improved habitat conditions from two consecutive wet years. During the long-term drought the extremely dry conditions and lack of available water impacted the recruitment and overall productivity of this herd. Distribution of animals also changed dramatically as higher elevation summer ranges dried up during the extended drought. Pronghorn were forced to move off of their dry summer ranges in search of better resources. Buck ratios have also risen over the past two years due to the increased productivity of this herd; however, many of these bucks are younger age class bucks and will be only 1 to 2 years old entering the 2017 hunting season. Habitat Habitat conditions have improved significantly over the past two years and pronghorn populations have responded with improved fawn recruitment. The amount of water available to pronghorn has increased substantially, especially in the drier areas of the unit group. Some of the pit tanks and spring sources had been dry for nearly a decade. Pronghorn summer ranges that were dry for the last several years will now have sufficient water and quality forage to hold pronghorn through the hottest months of the summer. During the long-term

Page 50: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

32

drought, pronghorn moved off of these high elevations ranges due to the lack of both water and good forage. No major wildfires occurred within the 012-014 unit groups this past year; however, fires have occurred over the last several years have negatively impacted large areas of important pronghorn habitat in hunt units 012, 013 and 014. Restoration efforts have met with decent results but have been limited due to the drought and lack of precipitation. In some instances, excessive grazing of recently planted seedling by cattle has negatively impacted restoration efforts. Population Status and Trend The pronghorn herd that resides within Units 012-014 has responded well to the improved habitat conditions brought on by two consecutive wet years. Hopefully, the upward trend will continue as we move forward over the next few years. Water availability is the best that has been observed over the past decade and will help allow pronghorn to use the expansive amount of habitat within this very large unit group. Tag recommendations should be similar to slightly higher than those allocated in 2016. The excellent recruitment observed over the past two years will be realized over the next few years once the animals reach maturity. Unit 015: Buffalo Hills, Dry Valley Rim, Coppersmith Hills Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest A total of 75 tags were awarded to resident rifle hunters in 2016. This is down 27% from the 2015 total of 103 tags. Quotas were reduced for several reasons but mostly associated with the effect of the long-term drought on upper elevation summer ranges and changes in pronghorn distribution due to both the drought and recent large wildfires along the California-Nevada border. Hunter success rates for rifle were once again reported lower in Unit 015 than those in surrounding hunt units. Resident rifle success was 54% in 2016 and has generally been in the 50’s over the past several years. Archery success was better than average but muzzleloaders struggled and did not harvest an antelope. The quality of bucks with 15 inch or longer horns was 4% below the statewide average of 32%. Survey Data Pronghorn surveys were extended in Unit 015 in an effort to cover a larger area more intensively and in an overall effort to increase the sample size obtained for this hunt unit. In recent years, sample sizes have fallen off due to the drought conditions in important upper elevation summer ranges (areas where pronghorn are normally concentrated) and animals being drawn onto the California side of the border (into the burned area) due to the 2012 Rush Fire. Pronghorn often move into burned areas to seek out the succulent forage that starts to regrow in the burned area following the fire, as well as the fact that these newly created open areas provide a safer environment against predation. The September 2016 composition survey produced a total of 428 pronghorn with a composition ratio of 29 bucks:100 does:53 fawns. In 2015, only 188 pronghorn were classified due to both a reduced survey effort and pronghorn being scattered over wide areas. In 2015, the lower densities of antelope on upper elevation summer ranges caused biologists to end the survey earlier than normal. Buck ratios from this year’s sample showed the ratio to be very close to the harvest objective of 30 bucks per 100 does. This indicates that population estimates and recommended quotas were in line with current management objective and projections.

Page 51: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

33

Habitat Pronghorn densities on upper elevation summer ranges have not recovered to the levels that they were prior to the large wildfire that occurred in 2012. Over 300,000 acres burned on the California side of the line and another 50,000 acres burned in Nevada Unit 015. This large fire had caused dramatic changes in pronghorn distribution over the past several years. The other major contributing factor was the effect long-term drought had on water sources in upper elevations summer ranges of Unit 015. This combination of drought and animals moving into the large burns on the California side of the line reduced densities of pronghorn in Nevada Unit 015. Unit 015 was one of the hardest hit areas due to the long-term drought that lasted from 2007 through 2015. The past two above average winters have helped to improve habitat conditions and allow the area to recover from the very dry conditions that have been prevalent since the driest year in northwestern Nevada history in 2007. Pronghorn summer ranges at the upper elevations of the Buffalo Hills will now have plentiful water available for pronghorn through the summer months. This has not been the case for several years as cumulative impacts from the long-term drought resulted in dry lake beds and spring sources at the higher elevations. A wildfire during summer 2016 burned pronghorn and mule deer habitat above Squaw Valley Reservoir in Unit 015. The amount of acreage burned was estimated at between 5,000 and 6,000 acres. The fire burned in a mosaic pattern and opened up some areas of fairly heavy tree cover. The end result of the fire may actually end up being more positive than negative. The Bureau of Land Management plans on restoring portions of the burned area in the fall and spring of 2016-17. Population Status and Trend The good recruitment observed this year should result in an increasing trend for this population of pronghorn. Habitat conditions will improve drastically this year due to the significant moisture received during the winter of 2016-2017. Summer ranges throughout Unit 015 should be in very good shape this spring and summer due to the significant increase in moisture. Quotas for the 2017 hunting season are expected to be similar to those awarded in 2016. Good recruitment this year will allow the herd to experience an increasing trend; however, quota increases will be tempered due to the fact that the male fawns born this year will not be mature and available for harvest for another two years or more. Units 021, 022: Virginia Mountains, Dogskin Mountains, Petersen Mountains, Seven Lakes Mountains, Fort Sage Mountains, Lake Range, Fox Range Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest The resident rifle quota for Units 021,022, increased by 3 tags in 2016 when compared with the previous year’s total of 37. Quotas and population trend have generally been stable to slightly increasing over the past decade. This hunt unit group remains one of the most sought after tags for residents to draw due to its close proximity to Reno/Sparks and the trophy quality that exists within this population of pronghorn. Success rates continue to be very strong in this unit and good numbers of pronghorn are now harvested from Unit 021 where populations of pronghorn have continued to increase over the past several years. The harvest in recent years is fairly evenly split between the two hunt units. This helps to distribute hunters over a wider area and reduces some of the perceived congestion. Survey Data Surveys effort concentrated on the Virginia Mountains near Spanish Flat and the areas surrounding the Winnemucca Ranch Road. The area around Newcomb Lake and the very northern aspects of the Virginia Mountains were also surveyed. A total of 123 pronghorn were classified and had a ratio of 31 bucks:100

Page 52: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

34

does:40 fawns. Flights are conducted immediately following the rifle season and pronghorn are not as easily located due to being scattered from hunting pressure. The observed recruitment value of 40 fawns per 100 does was 7 fawns higher than what was observed in 2015. The increase in moisture and resulting improvement in habitat conditions is the main factor for the increased fawn recruitment in northwestern Nevada. Buck ratios remain near the managed buck ratio objectives for this unit group. This would indicate that the recommended quotas, and harvest levels for this herd are in line with current management objectives. Habitat The long-term drought conditions that prevailed between 2007 and 2015 completely dried up Spanish Flat Reservoir by late summer of 2015; however, the previous two winters have now provided significant moisture and will ensure that reservoirs are full and other water sources are recharged. Several wildfires in Units 021 and 022 occurred during the summer 2016 and combined to form the Virginia Mountain Complex. These fires burned over 60,000 acres of high quality pronghorn, mule deer and sage grouse habitat. The large size of these fires will result in the loss of a tremendous amount of cover and forage for pronghorn living in and around the Virginia Mountains. The sagebrush and other brush species are used by pronghorn in both the summer and winter for escape cover and important thermal cover. Pronghorn also use certain shrub species for forage at various times throughout the year. These burned areas are now mostly devoid of cover and will take many years to fully recover. An aggressive plan for restoration of these burned areas was compiled by Bureau of Land Management, the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Burned Area Emergency Response team soon after the flames were out. Restoration work began in the fall 2016 with more reseeding and replanting of brush species planned for 2017-2018. Pronghorn move into burned areas to take advantage of the succulent new growth but need the brush cover to hide from predators, escape the heat or freezing weather. Three large riparian and spring protection projects were completed this past summer on top of Spanish Flat in the Virginia Mountains. The pipe-rail fences will protect critical springs and riparian areas from overuse by horses and cattle. All three projects had multiple spring sources inside the fenced enclosures. Pronghorn, mule deer and sage grouse will benefit from the completion of these projects. The projects took 2 years to complete and were an impressive cooperative effort between the Nevada Department of Wildlife, Washoe County, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, the Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife and the owners and operators of the Winnemucca Ranch, as well as others. Population Status and Trend Recruitment for this herd was at maintenance levels during the recent drought. Fawn ratios observed this year showed that the increase in moisture and resulting improvement in overall habitat conditions allows pronghorn does to produce and be able to raise more fawns. However, the significant loss of habitat from this past summer’s wildfires could certainly have a negative impact on the herd in both the short and long-term. Biologists will be closely monitoring pronghorn population levels and recruitment over the next few years to see what impact the fires will have on pronghorn populations in the area. Tag quotas for Units 021 and 022 are expected to be similar to those allocated the previous year. Units 031, 032, 034, 035, 051: Humboldt County Report by: Ed Partee Survey Data In mid-September 2016 post-season aerial composition surveys were conducted in Management Areas 3 and 5. Four of the five units showed increases compared to the previous year. Unit 031 is showing slight

Page 53: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

35

improvements with the number of animals surveyed since the 2012 Holloway Fire. In Units 032-035 there was an increase in the number surveyed which is similar to the five-year average. Lower numbers were observed in Unit 051 again this year. No large groups were located during this survey and animals that were located were found at varying elevations. Despite the lack of summer rains that were experienced last year, the upper elevations stayed green throughout much of the year. Overall, antelope numbers observed in Humboldt County were higher than the previous year with buck and fawn ratios remaining relatively constant (Table 1). Table 1: 2016 Post-season pronghorn composition for Humboldt County

Unit Total Bucks:100 Does: Fawns

031 113 23:100:20 032-035 359 23:100:44 051 140 20:100:27 2016 Totals 612 22:100:30 2015 Totals 421 24:100:39

Habitat For the second year in a row winter precipitation has been ideal for these units. Precipitation receipts indicate that 155% of average precipitation fell during the winter of 2016-2017. Even though snowfall amounts have been so high, we were fortunate enough in this area to have warm conditions coupled with the rain that reduced snow levels in the lower elevations. With the amount of precipitation received thus far, range conditions are already showing signs of recovery from the last few dry years. As of this reporting period additional moisture will be needed to sustain these populations as well as recovery for those areas affected by fires. No additional large fires took place in Management Areas 3 or 5 during 2016. Population Status and Trend These units continue to show a stable trend at this point. With the added moisture that has been experienced over the last two years fawn recruitment should start to increase. Populations are mostly unchanged with some slight increases depending on the units. Summer rains will only benefit these herds throughout the remainder of the year. Fires that have occurred in the past are showing good responses to rehab efforts. Recruitment rates in Unit 031 are slightly depressed this year and have dropped from the long-term average. The horns-shorter-than-ears hunts appear to be keeping these populations from increasing, which results in them remaining within the habitat capabilities. Success on these hunts has been in line with the statewide average. Success on buck hunts in these units has dropped again which may be attributed to the drier conditions, smaller group size and lack of free water during these hunts which helps to concentrate animals. With current and expected habitat conditions, these populations should have a positive response. Unit 033: Sheldon Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Resident rifle hunters were allocated 35 tags for each of the two seasons on the Sheldon; however, several hunters turned their tags back into the Nevada Department of Wildlife prior to the start of the season which reduced the number of hunters in the field. The rifle hunt on the Sheldon is split into two seasons with an early hunt beginning on August 22 and a late season that begins August 29. Hunters reported fair to good success during their rifle hunts and reported 61% success in the early season and 76% success in the late. Hunter success is dependent upon the hunter locating a buck that meets their personal definition of a trophy buck, and many hunters choose to not pull the trigger if they do not find a larger buck than what they have already taken during a past antelope hunt.

Page 54: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

36

The quality of bucks taken this past year appears to be down from previous years as the percentage of bucks with horn lengths of 15 inches or greater dropped to 34% in 2016. This is also influenced by a hunter’s choice to pull the trigger. Survey Data An approaching storm front along with high winds forced the survey on the Sheldon to be cut short. Despite, the shortened survey time, a reasonable number of 354 pronghorn was classified last year. The sample provided a composition ratio of 30 bucks:100 does:37 fawns compared to the ratio of 26 bucks:100 does:44 fawns from the 2015 survey. The fawn ratios on the Sheldon dropped from an average of 44 fawns:100 does in 2015 to an average of 37 fawns this year. Hopefully, the significant amount of moisture received thus far during the winter of 2016-2017 will translate into better habitat conditions and result in improved recruitment and survival next year. Buck ratios on the Sheldon were observed to be right at the harvest objective for the hunt unit of 30 bucks per 100 does. This would indicate that harvest and current population estimates are in line with our overall management objectives. Helicopter surveys attempt to obtain samples from wide areas of the Sheldon in order to get an accurate assessment of the average fawn recruitment and buck ratios of this population. Habitat Habitat conditions on the Sheldon have been the slowest to rebound from the long-term drought and many lake beds and or major springs or reservoirs remain dry or have limited levels or flows during the late summer. The winter of 2016-17 has thus far been one of the best on record as far as the amount of precipitation and snowfall received. As of late March 1, 2017, the Northern Great Basin sits at 153% of average for snowfall and 154% for total precipitation received. The much needed moisture will hopefully be sufficient to turn around the cumulative long-term negative effects that the extreme drought has had on the Sheldon. Important lake beds remained dry at the end of last year despite much improved precipitation from the 2015-2016 winter and spring. No major fires have been reported on the Sheldon over the past year. Sheldon personnel have initiated and completed several juniper removal projects along the western portion of the refuge. These projects will help to protect sagebrush and other important plants and shrubs from being impacted by invading junipers. Population Status and Trend The recruitment values observed on this year’s survey on the Sheldon indicate an average recruitment year for this pronghorn population. Population trend for this herd year will be static to slightly increasing; however, the much needed moisture from the current winter will certainly help to increase water availability throughout the Sheldon. This is a very positive note for all wildlife living on the Sheldon as the area has suffered tremendously over the past many years due to the cumulative effects from the extreme drought. Units 041, 042: Western Pershing and Southern Humboldt Counties Report by: Kyle Neill Survey Data An aerial survey was conducted in late September over a two day period. This was the first aerial survey since 1996. A total of 10.45 hours (survey and ferry time) was expended that resulted in the classification of 470 animals. Survey conditions were considered fair with high winds hampering efforts on the first day.

Page 55: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

37

Survey results are summarized in Table 1. Both 2016 buck and fawn ratios are above their respective 5-year averages. Table 1: Pronghorn composition survey results for Units 041 and 042.

Year Bucks Does Fawns Total Bucks:100 Does: Fawns

2015 84 265 107 456 32:100:40 2016 97 258 115 470 38:100:45 5-year average 86 244 93 423 35:100:38

Habitat Fortunately, periodic summer moisture maintained key grass and forb species. Adequate water sources also remained viable during the summer months. Antelope habitat throughout the unit group is thought of as remaining productive to continue to allow for herd growth. Fawn ratios over the last three years have averaged 42 fawns: 100 does, indicating ample habitat resources exist to promote herd growth. Population Status and Trend Western Pershing County’s antelope population has been growing at a mean rate of 5% since 2015. Doe hunts for this unit group have been designed to provide hunting opportunity while slowing growth rates. This herd’s 2017 population estimate is 1,900 animals and now equates to the record high estimate of 2013. Since 2007, hunters who harvested antelope bucks were asked to provide horn length as part of their questionnaire data. Since then, Units 041-042 have averaged 38% of bucks harvested with horn lengths of 15 inches or longer. Harvest results from 2016 indicate that of the 101 bucks measured, 41% of them had horn lengths of 15 inches or longer, compared to the 2016 statewide average of 32%. Horn lengths in Units 041-042 of 15 inches or longer has been above the long-term average for the last two years. Units 043 – 046: Eastern Pershing and Southern Humboldt Counties Report by: Kyle Neill Survey Data Composition surveys were preformed from the ground in early February 2017. This survey timeframe continues to be ideal because antelope are usually in large winter groups and are generally located in the valleys of each unit. Similar to previous years, some areas of the unit group were inaccessible due to muddy or washed out roads. Biologists observed a total of 401 animals, which is a record sample for this hunt unit. These survey results provide ratios of 50 bucks:100 does:36 fawns. The post-season buck ratio is near both the 5-year and long-term averages, while the fawn ratio is slightly below average. Habitat Habitat conditions in the unit group appear to be ideal for promoting herd growth and expansion. All mountain ranges within the unit group offer excellent water and forage resources for antelope propagation. Primary habitat use areas in Unit 043 include Relief Canyon Mine Area, Fisher Canyon-Buffalo Springs north to Creek Hill. Unit 044 use areas are Den Glen Flat, Dun Glen Canyon, east side of Rose Creek Mountain south to Spaulding Canyon, Willow Creek Road-Canyon, Table Mountain, Reed and Inskip Canyons and the agricultural fields along Unionville Highway as well as the agricultural fields off of Grass Valley Road south of Spaulding Canyon. Areas of utilization in Unit 045 are the base of Miller Basin north to Pollard Canyon on the west side of the Tobin Range and the base of Morning View Canyon to the base of Flag Canyon. Antelope use in Unit 046 occurs around Button Point, Pole Creek-Kramer Hill, Edna Mountains, Pumpernickel Valley and on the west side of the Sonoma Range at varying elevations from Washoke Canyon north to Button point. Quotas for the 2017 hunting season are expected to remain similar to slightly higher than the 2016 levels.

Page 56: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

38

Units 061, 062, 064, 071, 073: North Central Elko County Report by: Matthew Jeffress Survey Data A ground survey was conducted in the 061-073 Unit Group in September 2016, where 1,035 pronghorn were observed yielding ratios of 44 bucks:100 does:52 fawns. The fawn ratio was well above the 10-year average. The buck ratio has increased over the past 3 years and is at the targeted post hunt objective. Habitat Above average snowpack for a second winter in a row should benefit pronghorn summer range and winter range. Deep soil moisture received in fall and winter 2016-17 should help sustain mature vegetation; particularly the sagebrush communities along the Mountain City Highway corridor. Young sagebrush plants that capitalized on shallow soil moisture received over the previous 4 summers should also benefit greatly from the above average snowpack. Sagebrush islands along the Interstate 80 corridor, coupled with forage kochia seeding, support the majority of this herd during the winter months. The seeding and sagebrush islands continue to support more than 1,500 pronghorn during the winter months. Population Status and Trend Pronghorn occupy all available summer habitats from Interstate 80 north to Idaho. The number of pronghorn using Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service lands on the northern portions of Units 061 and 071 has increased. Since the 2007 Murphy Fire, this portion of the pronghorn population has continued to grow and offer great opportunities for hunters. Concentrations of pronghorn were observed on the southern Owyhee Desert and the west side of the north Tuscarora Range during winter elk surveys. Many of the pronghorn observed during winter surveys on the north end of Unit 067 probably spend summers along the west side of the Independence Range. Units 065, 142, and a portion of 144: Southern Elko County, Northern Eureka County Report by: Scott Roberts Harvest The 2016 season marked the third highest total harvest on record for this unit group. Unit 065 continues to account for the majority of the take with 96% of all harvested pronghorn coming from the unit. Survey Data A ground survey was conducted in November 2016 resulting in 552 pronghorn classified with age and sex ratios of 52 bucks:100 does:47 fawns. This survey represents the largest observed sample to ever come out of this unit group. The larger sample size was attributed to the relatively dry conditions that were present, allowing for a more thorough coverage of the northern portion of Unit 065. Habitat As of March 1, 2016, snowpack figures recorded at Snotel sites in the water basins located within and adjacent to this unit group ranged from 135%-162% of the long-term mean (www.nrcs.usda.gov). The winter precipitation should lead to improved grass and forb production throughout the unit group and provide excellent range conditions into the coming summer. The 2015 Dixie Fire burned about 300 acres of mixed-mountain shrub habitat in the center of Unit 065. The burn area was comprised of a mixture of both public and private land. A coordinated effort was made to secure landowner permission to reseed the area during the winter of 2015-16 using funds from the Bureau of Land Management and Nevada Department of Wildlife. The limited temporal loss of ecological

Page 57: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

39

function of these acres was mitigated with the application of a seed mix comprised of sagebrush, bitterbrush and forbs. Pronghorn were documented multiple times during the summer of 2016 utilizing the rehabbed fire scar. Population Status and Trend The above average fawn ratio has led to approximately a 5% population increase over the 2016 estimate. All assessed variables (success rates, horn length and observed buck ratio) for the buck hunt in this unit group continue to be higher than the statewide averages, indicating this herd continues to provide hunters with a high quality pronghorn hunt. Unit 066: Owyhee Desert; Northwestern Elko County Report by: Matthew Jeffress Survey Data No formal survey was conducted in 2016. Habitat No large landscape changes occurred in 2016. Since 1995, 7 big game water developments have been constructed on the Unit 066 portion of the Owyhee Desert. The addition of perennial water sources has had little effect on increasing the Owyhee Desert portion of the population. Several guzzlers were upgraded and rebuilt last summer. Vast expanses of winter range are available on the eastern portion of the unit; however degraded winter range along the southern and western portions of the Snowstorms has limited the winter carrying capacity of this herd. Increases in mining exploration across the Snowstorm Mountains and on wintering grounds south of Chimney Reservoir in Humboldt County have been observed in recent years. More than 500 horses occupy the area between the Dry Hills and Snowstorms. Many of these horses are outside identified Herd Management Areas. In addition to growing horse numbers outside herd management areas, the Owyhee Complex had an estimated 3,067 horses as of last fall. The Bureau of Land Management’s appropriate management level for the Owyhee Complex is 483–779. Last winter, approximately 1,800 horses were gathered off the Owyhee Desert and Snowstorms. Some were removed from the range and some were given birth control and released on site. The Bureau of Land Management has initiated, and continued to maintain, many miles of sagebrush mowing along existing roads on the Owyhee Desert. These mowing are intended to breakup fuel continuity across the core of the Owyhee Desert. In addition to stimulating growth of young palatable sagebrush plants, the Bureau of Land Management has recently added a forb and grass seed component to these areas. The mowing will likely benefit pronghorn a great deal over the next decade. Population Status and Trend The current population estimate for pronghorn within Unit 066 is similar to that of 2016. A large proportion of the pronghorn within this unit group reside in the Snowstorm Mountains, with lower densities found on the Owyhee Desert. An unknown number of pronghorn occupy the Petan Ranch and Duck Valley Indian Reservation during the summer and fall months. Large concentrations of pronghorn were observed on the Owyhee and YP Deserts during aerial winter elk surveys. Where these pronghorn spend the summer is currently unknown.

Page 58: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

40

Units 067, 068: Western Elko and Northern Lander and Eureka Counties Report by: Matthew Jeffress Survey Data A ground survey was conducted in this unit group in February 2017, where 822 pronghorn were observed; yielding ratios of 34 bucks:100 does:39 fawns. Pronghorn were concentrated on forge kochia seeding on the west side of the Sheep Creek Range, the mouth of Rock Creek on the east side of the Sheep Creek Range and sagebrush islands on the southwest side of the Dunphy Hills. Habitat Similar to the Management Area 6 deer herd, pronghorn have been greatly affected by wildfires and the loss of vital sagebrush communities. In 2011, 212,000 acres of rangeland burned in Units 067 and 068. Despite the challenges with range rehabilitation, the Elko Bureau of Land Management District Office, Newmont Gold Company, the Nevada Department of Wildlife, private landowners and sportsman’s organizations seeded over 39,800 acres of burned private land and 52,500 acres of burned public land during the fall and winter 2011. Seed appeared to take well in many areas north of the Carlin Trend and past restoration and rehabilitation efforts along the Interstate 80 corridor benefited from proper livestock grazing practices and timely summer and fall rains. Last summer the Hot Pot and Izzenhood fires burned a significant portion of pronghorn transitional range as well as some winter habitat. As a result of these fires approximately 700 pronghorn were observed on the west flanks of the Sheep Creek Range in October last year, presumable forced to utilize the kochia seeding early as a result of the loss of transitional habitats. Both fires were heavily seeded with desirable forage species this winter. Optimal soil moisture should facilitate a good response from seeded forage species. Appropriate forage use is important to maintain the viability and production of seeding on transitional and winter ranges. If seeding are overused prior to the onset of winter (particularly forage kochia seeding), the benefits to herds of pronghorn that depend on this for winter forage could be severely limited. Poor range conditions have existed throughout much of the 25 Allotment over the past 6 years. Requests by the Nevada Department of Wildlife for the Bureau of Land Management to alleviate livestock grazing pressure along the west face of the Sheep Creek Range were answered the past two winters. Kochia seeding on the west side of the Sheep Creek Range were not grazed substantially by livestock this past fall and early winter 2017. Population Status and Trend The population estimate for Units 067-068 is the same as 2016. Harvest levels in 2016 maintained the population within the carrying capacity of the winter range. Because yearling bucks being harvested during the Horns Shorter Than Ears hunt can influence post-hunt buck ratios, adjustments were made to the population model to account for such harvests and will continued to be assessed when recommending quotas in units where female harvest is used as a tool for population level control. Units 072, 074, 075: Northeastern Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Survey Data Ground surveys conducted in mid-August 2016 resulted in the classification of 608 pronghorn. The observed sex and age ratios were 34 bucks:100 does:39 fawns. The observed buck ratio was lower than the 2015 ratio of 38 bucks:100 does, while the fawn ratio was higher than the 2015 observed ratio of 34 fawns:100 does. The survey in this unit group is typically conducted between the archery and rifle seasons due to the migration of pronghorn out of the northern end of Unit 072 and into Idaho during and after the rifle season.

Page 59: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

41

Habitat This unit group was affected by wildfire in 2007 and 2008, with about 700,000 acres burned. On summer range, the effects of these fires have been beneficial with perennial grasses and forbs dominating the recovering burned areas. On winter range, brush species pronghorn depend on for winter survival has been negatively affected, although sagebrush is beginning to recover and provide forage and cover during the critical winter months. An Environmental Assessment is being analyzed by the Wells Bureau of Land Management District Office for vegetation treatments within this unit group. Once the Environmental Assessment is completed, possible treatments may include removal of encroaching juniper, herbicide application where necessary and creating fuel breaks with the intent of reducing large acreage fires. All of the treatments should increase the health of the sagebrush ecosystem and benefit the wildlife that depends on it. The Environmental Assessment is projected to be completed by the fall 2017. Population Status and Trend A Horns Shorter Than Ears hunt was initiated in this unit group for the first time in 2015. The 2016 hunter success for that hunt was similar to the statewide average at 76%. The pronghorn population in this unit group is taking advantage of the increase in carrying capacity due to the natural recovery of perennial grasses and forbs as well as to extensive seeding efforts in both Nevada and Idaho in previously burned areas. Total snow accumulations over the past 2 winters have been much greater than those experienced during the previous several years, and the heavy, drifting snow coupled with the lack of burned off slopes likely decreased over winter survival of pronghorn in some areas. Units 076, 077, 079, 081, 091: Northeastern Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Survey Data Ground surveys conducted in September 2016 resulted in the classification of 341 pronghorn. The observed sex and age ratios were 46 bucks:100 does:25 fawns. The buck ratio was slightly lower than the 2015 ratio of 47 bucks:100 does and the fawn ratio was significantly lower than the 2014 ratio of 35 fawns:100 does. Habitat Major fires affected the habitat in this unit group in 2007 with about 244,000 acres burned. The long-term effects of these fires are beneficial to pronghorn as perennial grasses and forbs dominate the recovering burned areas. Sagebrush is also beginning to recover and will be available as forage and cover during the critical winter months. An Environmental Assessment is being analyzed by the Wells Bureau of Land Management District Office for vegetation treatments within this unit group. Once the Environmental Assessment is completed, possible treatments may include removal of encroaching juniper, herbicide application where necessary and creating fuel breaks with the intent of reducing large acreage fires. All of the treatments should increase the health of the sagebrush ecosystem and benefit the wildlife that depends on it. The Environmental Assessment is expected to be completed by fall 2017. Population Status and Trend This pronghorn herd appears to be stable to slightly increasing. Production continues to be lower than in surrounding units, which is likely a result of much of the unit group (such as Pilot Valley) experiencing comparatively low precipitation and having lower forage quality. This herd has begun using the northern portions of Unit 076 and Unit 081 more than in previous years. This is a result of the recovering burns, as

Page 60: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

42

well as increased precipitation and better forage quality. With the continuation of favorable precipitation, these burned areas will likely facilitate increases in the pronghorn herd in coming years. Units 078, 105 – 107, 121: Southeastern Elko and Central White Pine Counties Report by: Scott Roberts Harvest The 2016 hunting season marked a record harvest for bucks, and the second highest harvest of does in this unit group. This was the second season Units 078 and 105-107 were added to the Horns Shorter Than Ears hunt that traditionally only included Unit 121. The recently added areas accounted for 40% of the Horn Shorter Than Ears harvest. Survey Data A ground survey was conducted in January 2017 during which 486 pronghorn were classified; yielding sex and age ratios of 56 bucks:100 does:44 fawns. The survey was difficult due to heavy snow accumulations in the valleys that led to the closure of portions of the unit group to vehicle traffic. This year’s survey sample came from Unit 078, Unit 105, and the Steptoe Valley portion of Unit 121. Habitat As of March 30, 2017, snowpack figures recorded at Snotel sites in the Eastern Nevada Water Basin are at 116% of the long-term mean, with water year-to-date precipitation totals at 119% of average (www.nrcs.usda.gov). The above average precipitation received in the past two years should lead to excellent range conditions throughout this unit group. All of the recently surveyed guzzlers in this area are completely full and should provide dispersed water throughout the coming summer. Wild horse populations continue to pose a problem for this unit group. Most of this unit grouping is made up of arid basin and range, with very few natural water sources. The competition for these water sources can be extreme because according to 2016 estimates, the wild horse populations in the 4 associated herd management areas range between 309%-1,245% of the appropriate management level as determined by the Bureau of Land Management (www.blm.gov/programs/wild-horse-and-burro/). Population Status and Trend The 2017 population estimate is slightly higher than that of 2016, and is a result of the above average fawn ratio. Comparatively liberal quotas were initiated in 2015 in response to the relatively stagnant nature of this population over the past decade. This population has shown little ability to increase during the recent past and appears to have been constrained by density dependent factors. The increased quotas will continue in an effort to stimulate a population level response to this herd’s chronically low fawn ratio. A very promising sign that this hunt strategy is working is that the fawn ratios observed in the past two years have been the highest since 2005. Units 101 – 104, 108, 109 portion of 144: South Central Elko and Western White Pine Counties Report by: Caleb McAdoo Survey Data Due to access issues, only a portion of this unit group was surveyed from the ground in January 2017. Three hundred and fourteen animals were classified yielding sex and age ratios of 59 bucks:100 does:45 fawns. The observed buck ratio was up substantially from that obtained in 2016, but this was likely due to the sample not being representative of the unit group as a whole rather than an actual increase in the buck ratio. The observed fawn ratio was also above average; but similar to the elevated buck ratio, it was likely due to a non-representative survey sample rather than an actual increase.

Page 61: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

43

Habitat Coming off of the very wet winter of 2015-2016, the fawning and summer range habitat conditions were in excellent condition. These range conditions created ideal forage for newly born pronghorn; however, the same winter conditions which benefited the habitat unfortunately had a negative impact on adult does carrying fawns. Subsequently, does were in poor condition as a result of the long, tough winter resulting in decreased production of fawns. Within this unit group, several habitat management efforts were implemented to improve sage-grouse habitat, and these projects also have benefits to pronghorn. The Overland Pass project was one such project, and over 200 pronghorn were observed in the project area during the critical winter months. In general, habitat conditions are good for pronghorn in this unit group despite the presence of wild horses. Forage overuse by wild horses continues to be a chronic problem for this unit group, especially in Units 104 and 108. Yearlong grazing by horses has contributed to the decrease in carrying capacity of the range. Population Status and Trend The current population estimate for the unit group is about 970 adult animals, up slightly from the 2016 estimate. Buck ratios remain strong; however, many animals are not available for harvest due to private lands and hunting restrictions at the Ruby Lake National Wildlife refuge; as such, harvest cannot be maximized due to the unavailability of large portions of this unit group to hunting. The 5-year trend for this population is stable despite drought conditions in previous years and recent severe winter weather. Doe hunts will continue to be a part of the hunt strategy in this unit group to meet management objectives and reduce conflicts with other land-uses. Units 111 – 114: Eastern White Pine County Report by: Kody Menghini Survey Data The 2016 post-season ground survey was conducted from November 2016 to February 2017. Ten days were spent conducting this survey. Group size was modest and groups were scattered. Nine hundred and fifty-eight pronghorn were classified yielding observed sex and age ratios of 46 bucks:100 does:45 fawns. In comparison, observed ratios of 41 bucks:100 does:30 fawns were obtained in 2015. The observed fawn ratio of 45 is above the 5-year (2011-2015) mean of 32 fawns:100 does. Habitat The above average winter precipitation in 2015-16, followed by timely spring and summer rains in 2016 improved quality and quantity of habitat available for pronghorn. The 2016 fall was warm and dry, resulting in minimal fall green-up that benefited pronghorn prior to winter. The National Weather Service precipitation total for the 2016 calendar-year measured at the Ely Airport was 113% of normal. The winter of 2016-2017 was snowy and cold. The National Weather Service reported the 2016-2017 total winter precipitation was 217% of normal. Despite the snowy and cold winter, many storms were followed by periods of mild temperatures that resulted in snow on south-facing slopes and benches to burn-off or reduce snow depths. This likely helped to alleviate stressful winter conditions. This was the second consecutive above average winter, which should result in improved habitat conditions. Habitat projects have reduced tree cover over many acres in north Spring Valley and the north end of the Antelope Range. In 2013 and 2014, over 12,000 acres burned in 3 separate wildfires in the north end of the Schell Creek and Antelope ranges. Much of the acreage burned was in dense pinyon and juniper forests, thereby effectively increasing pronghorn habitat. The above-average precipitation received the last two years should promote positive vegetation responses. Pronghorn are taking advantage of these habitat improvements and landscape changes.

Page 62: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

44

Planning is currently underway to rebuild several guzzlers and possibly construct new guzzlers in the near future in Antelope and Snake Valleys. Population Status and Trend This pronghorn herd is increasing. The population estimate for 2017 is 1,600 adult pronghorn. Units 115, 231, 242: Eastern Lincoln and Southern White Pine Counties Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data Ground surveys were conducted for pronghorn in this hunt unit during October 2016. Survey conditions were difficult due heavy precipitation making roads inaccessible and longer travel times. A total of 154 antelope were classified, consisting of 40 bucks, 88 does, and 26 fawns. This total provides a ratio of 30 bucks: 100 does: 46 fawns. Antelope were classified in Lake, South Spring, Hamlin, and Snake Valleys. Multiple groups of pronghorn were surveyed in densely vegetated areas not commonly observed as pronghorn winter range. This may suggest that pronghorn were utilizing available forage of pine nuts that had a major increase in production this year. Habitat Habitat conditions during the survey were good due to strong precipitation events in July and August. Overall Lincoln County experienced approximately 104% of the 10-year average precipitation during 2016 according to the Community Environmental Monitoring Program data. Pronghorn were observed utilizing many of the recent habitat enhancements and water developments. Feral horse numbers are at alarming levels and continue to be well above appropriate land management level, which results in degraded habitat conditions for antelope as well as other wildlife. Pinyon and juniper expansion into lower elevations continues to slowly reduce available habitat for pronghorn. Sagebrush and pinyon and juniper removal projects have been completed in Lake Valley, South Spring Valley, and Hamlin Valley for the benefit of sage grouse which may eventually result in improved habitat for pronghorn. Population Status and Trend This antelope population has shown a few years of low recruitment and reduced population, but appears to be in reasonably healthy and productive. Ongoing drought conditions may have limited the population growth to some extent but habitat improvements, new water developments, and two years of average precipitation should promote increased antelope populations. Predator removal projects were implemented in 2016 in an attempt to increase the recruitment of young into the population by removing coyotes in the area. The computer-generated population estimate for 2017 is consistent with the estimate from 2016 with a total estimate of 450 individuals. Units 131, 145, 163, 164: Southern Eureka, Northeastern Nye, and Southwestern White Pine Counties Report by: Clint Garrett Harvest This is the highest combined buck and doe harvest this hunt unit group has seen since the inception of the buck hunt in 1989 and the doe hunt in 2014. For 2017, season dates will change for archery and muzzleloader hunters. For archery hunters the seasons will be from August 1 to the 14 and for muzzleloader hunters it will be from August 15 to the 21.

Page 63: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

45

Survey Data The 2016 post-season pronghorn ground survey was conducted for this unit group in October and November 2016. Four days were spent classifying four hundred and seventy six pronghorn yielding sex and age ratios of 41 bucks:100 does:38 fawns. The observed buck ratio is lower and the observed fawn ratio is substantially higher when compared to the four day post-season ground survey conducted in 2015. Surveys were conducted in Antelope, Fish Lake, Jakes, Little Smoky and Railroad Valleys. Conditions were dry for both October and November with groups scattered early and then grouping up for winter later on in the survey period. The observed fawn ratio is above the previous 5-year-average (2011-2015) of 30 which ranged from a low of 18 to a high of 53. Habitat This hunt unit group lies within the central basin and range ecoregion which is typified by pinyon and juniper woodland, sagebrush valleys and basins mixed with some cool season grasses and saltbush-greasewood vegetation. The summer and fall of 2016 was drier than normal and range conditions were below average until much needed precipitation arrived in November and December with additional surges of precipitation in both January and March. An above average warming trend in March provided good early green up for animals coming out of winter. The US Drought Monitor currently shows the southern portion of Unit 163 as abnormally dry. This is an improvement over last year’s rating of moderate drought in the southern portion of Unit 163 and abnormally dry for all the other hunt units. The above average precipitation for the 2017 water year should sustain range conditions for pronghorn going into spring and early summer in this hunt unit group with soil moisture still just below normal at 26% saturation according to the Nevada Water Supply Outlook Report by National Resources Conservation Service for February 2017. Seven big game water developments targeting pronghorn antelope have been constructed in Antelope and Jakes Valley increasing water availability for wildlife. There were 31,269 acres of reservation expansion lands transferred over from the federal government to the Duckwater Indian Reservation in Unit 164. There are 5 wilderness areas located within Unit 131. Population Status and Trend The modeled August population estimates over the last 5 years have ranged from 900 to 950 adult pronghorn with the 2017 estimate being 900. This pronghorn herd is considered stable to increasing given current habitat conditions and fawn recruitment is above average, suggesting carrying capacity has not yet been reached. Pinyon-juniper removal and thinning projects followed up with spring enhancement or guzzler construction throughout this entire hunt unit group would be beneficial to this pronghorn population. Units 132 - 134, 245: Eastern Nye and Western Lincoln Counties Report by: Clint Garrett Harvest The only year to match this past season’s level of harvest was 2012. Both 2012 and 2016 mark the highest buck harvest this hunt unit group has seen since the inception of the hunt in 1989. For 2017, season dates will change for archery and muzzleloader hunters. For archery hunters the seasons will be from August 1 to the 14 and for muzzleloader hunters it will be from August 15 to the 21. Survey Data The 2016 post-season pronghorn ground survey was conducted for this unit group in October 2016 and February 2017. Two days were spent classifying217 pronghorn yielding sex and age ratios of 35 bucks:100 does:33 fawns. The observed buck ratio is substantially lower and the observed fawn ratio is substantially higher compared to the 3 day post-season ground and aerial survey conducted in 2015. Surveys were conducted in the northern half of the unit group in Railroad and White River Valleys of Unit 132 and the

Page 64: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

46

Lunar Lake area of Unit 133. Conditions were dry in October with pronghorn groups being scattered, and wet in February with larger groups being observed. The observed fawn ratio is above the 5-year average (2011-2015) of 27 which has ranged from a low of 14 to a high of 46. Habitat This hunt unit group lies within the central basin and range ecoregion and transitions into the Mojave basin and range ecoregion on the southern end. Pinyon and juniper, sagebrush valleys and basins in the northern and central portions turn into Mohave Desert habitats with desert shrub and cactus to the south. The southern portion of this hunt unit group tends to be less productive for pronghorn than the northern portion due to this habitat change. The summer and fall of 2016 was a lot drier than normal until above average precipitation arrived during the winter months and then again during a very wet March. An above average warming trend in March promoted some early green up for animals coming out of winter. The US Drought Monitor currently shows the very southern and western portions of all the hunt units as abnormally dry but this is an improvement over last year’s rating of moderate drought to abnormally dry throughout this hunt unit group. The above average precipitation for the 2017 water year should sustain range conditions for pronghorn going into spring and early summer. For Units 132 and 134 soil moisture in eastern Nevada is still just below normal at 26% saturation and for Units 133 and soil moisture in southern Nevada is well above normal at 42% saturation according to the Nevada Water Supply Outlook Report by Natural Resources Conservation Service for February 2017. Six big game water developments targeting pronghorn antelope have been constructed in Coal Valley, Garden Valley and the Cove increasing water availability for wildlife. Both Cove guzzlers were inspected in October of 2016 and a need has been identified for additional storage and capacity for late season use by pronghorn. The Basin and Range National Monument encompasses most of Unit 133 and a small portion of Units 132 and 245 totaling 704,000 acres. Also within this hunt unit group are 5 wilderness areas. Population Status and Trend The modeled August population estimates over the last 5 years have ranged from 600 to 650 adult pronghorn with the 2017 estimate being 600 animals. This pronghorn herd is considered stable to increasing given current habitat conditions and fawn recruitment is above average, suggesting carrying capacity has not yet been reached. Pinyon-juniper removal and thinning projects followed up with spring enhancement or guzzler construction throughout the entire hunt unit group would be beneficial to this pronghorn population. Units 141, 143, 151 – 156: Eastern Lander and Eureka Counties Report by: Jeremy Lutz Survey Data Post-season antelope surveys were conducted from the ground beginning in October 2016 and finishing in February 2017. Areas surveyed included Crescent Valley, Grass Valley, Antelope Valley, Reese River Valley, and the Simpson Park Mountains. There were 1,522 animals classified during a combined 6 days of surveys, yielding sex and age ratios of 53 bucks:100 does:48 fawns. The previous 6-year average fawn ratio for this unit group is 47 fawns:100 does. The smaller sample size obtained during the most recent survey effort is a reflection of fewer survey days due to time constraints and inclement weather. Habitat According to the National Drought Monitor Index, Management Areas 14 and 15 are both officially out of the drought. Two wet years with above average snow pack have helped alleviate drought like conditions in Lander and Eureka counties. Habitat conditions have responded well to the above average moisture with ample leader growth seen on most browse species as well as strong growth on annual and perennial grasses. Known winter ranges had adequate forage available this year and it appears that antelope were able to withstand above average snow depths for the second year in a row.

Page 65: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

47

Since 1999 over 450,000 acres have burned in Management Areas 14 and 15. Upper elevation burns have responded well with a mixture of brush, native grasses and forbs; however, the lower elevation burns have been less successful with exotic annuals like cheatgrass and mustard dominating the landscape. Areas that were identified as crucial wintering areas for wildlife were reseeded, resulting in the successful establishment of forage Kochia and crested wheatgrass. Forage Kochia is proving to be an essential winter browse for this population and should be managed as such. With successful rehabilitation of fires since 1999 and maturation of the re-established plant community, antelope numbers have responded positively to these large scale disturbances. Long-term habitat conditions for antelope continue to maintain or improve across much of Lander and Eureka counties. Population Status and Trend To help alleviate some of the issues on agriculture fields in Units 151,153 and 156 the Horns Shorter Than Ears Hunt 2181 was restructured to focus harvest in those particular units as opposed to the larger unit group that was previously being hunted with the goal of ultimately decreasing conflicts with agriculture. Initial reports for this hunt have been well perceived by landowners and sportsmen. The total amount and timing of precipitation will ultimately regulate this population’s ability to grow and expand. The high fawn recruitment the past several years has resulted in strong population growth for this herd. Female harvest should continue to be used as a method to control this population’s growth at a sustainable level. Units 161 - 162: Northern Nye, Southeastern Lander, and Southwestern Eureka Counties Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data A post-season pronghorn composition survey was conducted in Units 161 and 162 in October 2016. Survey yielded a sample size of 169 pronghorn, which were classified as 28 bucks, 110 does, and 31 fawns. In 2015, no post-season ground composition surveys for Units 161 and 162 were conducted due to the vacancy of the Tonopah field biologist position. Although the majority of animals observed during these surveys reside primarily in Units 161 and 162, movement of pronghorn between these and adjacent units is known to occur. The ingress (movement in) and egress (movement out) of pronghorn among units is reflected in population modeling and the quota setting processes. Habitat In 2016, according to Community Environmental Monitoring and Planning precipitation data, central Nevada received 62% of the 30-year average. Spring precipitation (March, April, and May) resulted in 51% of 2016’s precipitation accumulation. In the early part of 2017, much needed precipitation receipts have been received. The one SNOWTEL site located in central Nevada measured snow pack levels at over 140% in March 2017. Above-average spring precipitation for the second consecutive year should help to alleviate drought effects of recent years. Higher forage vigor has plausibly resulted in response to above-average spring precipitation. This increase in the quantity and quality of forage growth is critical during the fawning period. Female pronghorn require forage with higher nutritional value during the fawning period because of the added energy expenditures that are necessary to raise young. Summer monsoonal precipitation was extremely limited in 2016 (12% of the total). Lack of monsoonal precipitation during the summer months would have caused plants to decline in forage quality earlier in the growing season. Not only are grasses and forbs important forage for adult animals, but fawns also depend on these plants to provide cover for protection from predators. Lastly, higher than average winter precipitation for the beginning of 2017 should increase ground soil moisture conditions, which in turn, should result in higher quality and quantity of forage in spring 2017. The recent completion of three water developments in the southern portion of Unit 162 should benefit pronghorn that have been impacted by the degradation of natural spring sources caused by feral animals

Page 66: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

48

and drought. An increase in pronghorn near agricultural areas has occurred over the past several years, and if drought conditions re-occur this trend is expected to continue. A pinyon and juniper removal project was conducted in summer 2016 near Danville Creek in Little Fish Lake Valley. A total of 717 acres of pinyon and juniper was treated in response to encroachment into the valley. These tree species are known to out-compete understory plants for resources. The removal of these trees will allow the herbaceous understory to regenerate providing good forage and habitat for pronghorn at certain times of the year. Population Status and Trend While the Unit 161-162 pronghorn population experienced a slight increase in production and recruitment rates during 2014, 2015, and 2016 when compared to 2012 and 2013, observed fawn to 100 doe ratios remain below average. The overall herd is showing a decreasing trend in response to below-optimal fawn recruitment that has been experienced in recent years. Units 171 – 173: Northwestern Nye and Southern Lander Counties Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data A post-season pronghorn composition survey was conducted in Units 171-173 in October 2016. Survey yielded a sample size of 128 pronghorn, which were classified as 20 bucks, 84 does, and 24 fawns. No formal post-season ground composition surveys for Management Area 17 were conducted in 2015. Habitat In 2016, according to Community Environmental Monitoring and Planning precipitation data, central Nevada received 62% of the 30-year average. Spring precipitation (March, April, and May) resulted in 51% of 2016’s precipitation accumulation. In the early part of 2017, much needed precipitation receipts have been received. The one SNOWTEL site located in central Nevada measured snow pack levels at over 140% in March 2017. Spring precipitation produces nutritious forage for does approaching the critical fawning period allowing them to enter in better body condition. Not only does increased spring precipitation produce better quality and quantity of forage for adults, it provides necessary grasses and browse species which fawns use for hiding cover to avoid predators. Population Status and Trend During 2012 and 2013, the Management Area 17 pronghorn population experienced suppressed production and recruitment due to drought. However, production unexpectedly rebounded during 2014. This increase in production has slowed the decreasing trend of the Management Area 17 pronghorn population, at least temporarily. 2015 and 2016’s above-average spring precipitation should result in some degree of rangeland improvements in Management Area 17. This could have a positive response at the population level. Similar to what is occurring in many other central Nevada pronghorn management units, an increase in pronghorn using areas in and around agricultural areas is being seen in Management Area 17. While this may be partially due to increases in overall pronghorn numbers seen over the past five to ten years, it is also likely due to recent drought conditions making these areas more attractive to pronghorn. Due to regular movements of pronghorn between Nye, Esmeralda, Mineral, and Churchill Counties, the total number of pronghorn in the unit group can vary widely on a seasonal basis. This is taken into account in the computer model when estimating population size.

Page 67: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

49

Units 181 - 184: Churchill, Southern Pershing, Western Lander, and Northern Mineral Counties Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data Ground surveys were conducted for pronghorn in Management Area 18 during the fall of 2016. There were 378 antelope classified as 70 bucks, 199 does, and 109 fawns, yielding sex and age ratios of 35 bucks: 100 does: 55 fawns. Habitat Range conditions within this unit group remain in excellent condition. Forage leader growths as well as bunch grasses are lush and plentiful because of precipitation received in 2016. A pipe rail fence was constructed around Corral Springs located in Smith Creek Valley. Previously, a hog wire fence excluded antelope from using this water source. Within a few weeks of completing the project pronghorn started using this new water source. Population Status and Trend This is the second year in a row where higher fawn ratios have been observed. This will allow for positive growth trends. Hunter success for the general rifle hunt was 92%, with 27% of harvested bucks measuring over 15 inches. This represents a slight increase in the size of harvested bucks when compared to 2015 results of 21% of harvested bucks measuring over 15 inches. Units 202, 204: Lyon and Mineral Counties Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Ground surveys were conducted in Units 204 and 202 and resulted in 30 antelope classified in February 2017. The resulting sex and age ratios for the sample were 44 bucks:100 does:44 fawns. Habitat Two water developments located near the Baldwin Canyon area will be upgraded in the near future. A new pipe rail fence, gutter, and drinker will be installed to allow for use by antelope. Previous barbwire fence designs have excluded antelope from using these water sources. In 2013 the Spring Peak Fire consumed over 14,000 acres in Nevada and California. The Nevada Department of Wildlife seeded approximately 1,552 acres within the Spring Peak Fire area. Follow up indicates an abundance of native grasses and forbs as well as crown sprouted bitterbrush. This area seems to be recovering quite nicely and should provide some new areas for the antelope to occupy. Population Status and Trend The observed fawn ratio will allow for an increasing population trend. At one time this herd numbered close to 200 animals. Consecutive years of low fawn production have withered the herd down to just over 100 animals. Future projects to remove pinyon and juniper will allow for some limited expansion. Also creating corridors between California and Nevada will enable the herd to migrate easier from summer range to winter range. The population estimate for Bodie interstate herd is 110 animals.

Page 68: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

50

Population Status and Trend This pioneering herd continues to demonstrate an increasing population trend. Evidence of an upward trend can be correlated to an increase in composition sample size, increasing hunter success over the last two years and an increase in field observations from this past year in all units. The population estimate for 2017 is 650 animals. Units 203, 291: Lyon, Douglas Counties Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data A ground survey was conducted in February 2016 for Units 203, 291. A sample of 45 antelope was obtained providing a composition ratio of 50 bucks:100 does:38 fawns. Habitat Past fires in the Pine Nut Mountains have opened up the pinyon and juniper canopies. Fires like the Bison Fire that occurred in 2013 and burned over 24,000 acres of pinyon and juniper woodlands will enable the antelope herd to extend its range into the upper elevations of Unit 291. Numerous acres of pinyon and juniper within the Pine Nut Mountains has been cut down or masticated to enhance and protect important sage grouse habitat. In the process, this has opened up travel corridors and foraging opportunities for the pronghorn population as well. Future projects that target the removal of trees will only enhance the landscape for this antelope herd. Feral horses within the Pine Nut Herd Management Area are increasing and will have a negative effect on the antelope population. Horses need to be kept within appropriate management level to reduce competition for limited resources. Future water development projects are needed in the Singatse, Buckskin, and Pine Nut Mountain Ranges which would enable the herd to occupy new and varying terrain. Population Status and Trend This population of antelope over the years has been static with low fawn ratios. The observed fawn ratio will not afford the population any increases in positive growth trend. Future projects that will aid this herd in occupying larger areas would include tree removal and water development in key areas. Predator removal may also be necessary to allow for increased fawn survival. Units 205-208: Eastern Mineral County Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data Post-season herd composition surveys were conducted from the ground in fall 2016. In total, a sample of 106 pronghorn was observed yielding a ratio of 25 bucks:100 does:39 fawns. Habitat The Calvada Flat water development went dry in 2016. Future recommendations may include upgrading the water development with a new drinker and increased storage capabilities. Between 2013 and 2015 a total of 7 new water developments were built in the Candalaria Hills, Miller Mountain, Garfield Hills, and Eastside Mine area. These new water holes will be vital to establishing new populations of antelope in a very water-limited resource area.

Page 69: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

51

Population Status and Trend Small subgroups of antelope occupy a large geographic area in and around limited water sources. Interspecific competition exists between horses and antelope. Horses deplete forage quantity as well as quality. Water developments provide the needed space and availability of resources that many perennial water sources do not provide. Units 211 - 213: Esmeralda County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data A post-season pronghorn composition survey was conducted in Units 211-213 in October 2016. Survey yielded a sample size of 42 pronghorn, which were classified as 8 bucks, 24 does, and 10 fawns. No formal ground composition surveys were conducted in 2015. In 2014, ground post-season composition surveys yielded a total of 58 pronghorn being classified as 8 bucks, 34 does, and 16 fawns in Units 211-213. Observed fawn ratios indicate the herd experienced above-average production in 2014 and 2016, although the small sample size increases the likelihood of bias in observed ratios. Habitat Much of Management Area 21 falls within the transition zone between the Great Basin and the Mohave Desert. As a result, the quality of pronghorn habitat throughout the area varies widely. During periods of favorable climatic conditions, pronghorn tend to expand the areas they inhabit in Management Area 21, while during dry periods, these areas contract. Recent drought years, coupled with competition from feral animals in many areas, continue to impact overall habitat conditions throughout Management Area 21. However, 2015’s overall above-average precipitation (146% of 30-year average) and 2016’s above-average spring precipitation (51% of total) should have resulted in some degree of rangeland improvements in Management Area 21. In 2017, to date Central Nevada has experienced above-average precipitation receipts. Population Status and Trend As pronghorn populations in surrounding areas increased in number and expanded in distribution over the past 15 years, pronghorn moved into the Great Basin-Mohave transition zone in Esmeralda County in greater numbers than had previously been seen. While many animals continue to drift in and out of the area based upon season and prevailing climatic conditions, more and more animals have become permanent residents of the county. The majority of the Esmeralda County pronghorn population is made up of 2 core herds. One herd currently resides in and around the Monte Cristo Range in northern Esmeralda County, while the other typically inhabits the region near, and between, the towns of Goldfield and Silver Peak, Nevada, in east central Esmeralda County. Pronghorn also occur, albeit in smaller numbers, throughout many other areas of the county. Currently, due to favorable production rates observed in 2014 and 2016, the Management Area 21 pronghorn herd is considered stable to slightly increasing. Units 221 – 223, 241: Lincoln and Southern White Pine Counties Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data Ground surveys were conducted for pronghorn in these units during October 2016. A total of 156 antelope were classified consisting of 40 bucks, 82 does, and 34 fawns, which results in a ratio of 42 bucks: 100 does: 49 fawns. Antelope were classified in Delamar, Dry Lake, Cave, Lake, South Spring, and Steptoe Valleys. Approximately 50 antelope were classified in near vicinity of the boundary of Management Area 22 and 11. This may be attributed to seasonal habitat use due to weather conditions. Overall the survey

Page 70: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

52

did not result in the classification of a large sample size, which may be attributed to the increased production of pine nuts. Pronghorn were observed using this forage resource throughout the area and in elevations not generally associated with pronghorn habitat during the early winter months. Habitat Habitat conditions appeared to be good during the survey due to consistent precipitation throughout the summer and fall. Pronghorn seem to utilize the recently completed habitat enhancement projects in Cave Valley, which were initiated for the benefit of sage grouse. New water developments in Delamar Valley should allow expanded use of habitat in that area. Feral horse numbers continue to be well above appropriate management levels in some parts of this hunt unit and are rapidly expanding across the range. A solar energy zone is being designated in Dry Lake Valley that will be a major threat to pronghorn habitat in that area which consists of 24,000 acres slated for development. Pinyon-Juniper expansion into the lower elevations continues to reduce habitat quality and quantity for pronghorn. Population Status and Trend Although this population has seen low fawn recruitment over the past few years, it seems to be doing reasonably well despite recent drought conditions. Habitat improvements and water developments are contributing to allow antelope to utilize increased areas throughout the area. The computer-generated population estimate for 2017 is similar to the 2016 estimate of 400 individuals and consistent with a 5 year average of the population estimates. Unit 251: Central Nye County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data A post-season pronghorn composition survey was conducted in Units 251 in October 2016. Survey yielded a sample size of 219 pronghorn, which were classified as 48 bucks, 134 does, and 37 fawns. No formal ground composition surveys were conducted in the fall of 2015. The previous formal survey in 2014 yielded a total of 107 pronghorn being classified with 27 bucks, 52 does, and 28 fawns. Habitat Pronghorn habitats in Unit 251 have been impacted by competition with feral animals and regularly occurring drought periods. Many natural water sources have been severely degraded in this unit by unmanaged regulation of use. Feral animal gatherings that have occurred within this unit over the past year should have provided some reprieve to rangeland conditions, water sources, and competition for resources. Prior to 2015 and 2016, central Nevada experienced a long extensive drought period. The high spring moisture receipts that have occurred in 2015 and 2016 have provided much-needed reprieve for rangeland conditions and water source recharge. In 2015, central Nevada experienced above-average precipitation (146% of 30-year average), which would plausibly increase forage vigor and allow pronghorn to go into the fawning and winter seasons in better condition. In 2016, although it experienced above-average spring precipitation there was minimal summer precipitation. In 2017 to date Central Nevada has experienced above-average precipitation. Above-average winter precipitation will plausibly result in increased plant vigor during the spring and early summer months when does are in highest need of highly nutritional forage.

Page 71: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

PRONGHORN ANTELOPE

53

Population Status and Trend The Unit 251 pronghorn population is currently showing a relatively stable trend. However, recent year’s drought conditions may have caused higher population numbers to be present in and adjacent to agricultural lands. The appeal of agricultural lands is drawing more and more animals to the area from within withdrawn lands of the Nevada Test and Training Range. 2015’s above-average precipitation and 2016’s above-average spring precipitation should have relieved pressure off of agricultural lands by causing green up to occur in larger quantities throughout the unit.

Page 72: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

54

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK Unit 051: Santa Rosa Mountains; Eastern Humboldt County Report by: Ed Partee Survey Data Post-season helicopter surveys were conducted in Jan 2017. One-hundred and forty-three elk were classified, which is up from 60 elk observed during the 2016 survey. This is the fourth annual survey that has taken place in this area. The resulting ratio from the 2017 survey was 166 bulls:100 cows:59 calves. Once again the majority of elk observed were bulls. The bull ratio is still high, when compared to the statewide average of 41. Calf ratios are about average when compared to other areas of Nevada. Surveys are typically conducted in the Osgood Mountains, Hot Springs Range, and the Santa Rosa Range and require about 2 days to complete. Habitat Habitat conditions are excellent for this unit. Moisture for the current water year has been substantial with well above average snowpack, although summer 2016 moisture was slightly below average. The upper elevations of the Santa Rosa Range provide ideal habitat for elk with quality forage that should result in good antler growth and body condition. With the benefit of the snowpack and spring moisture receipts, above-average recruitment is expected in 2017. Population Status and Trend The estimated population for Unit 051 is 180 animals. This year’s estimate has increased from 2016. This herd is increasing at a rapid rate with on-going immigration from neighboring areas. Telemetry data from on-going radio collaring efforts indicate elk exhibit strong fidelity to the Santa Rose Range. Movement of elk occupying the southern portion of Unit 051 to Management Area 6 has also been documented. The Unit 051 elk herd continues to grow, while telemetry monitoring will provide insight into seasonal movements to and from adjacent areas. Harvest management is to limit the growth of this herd to maintain year-long resident adult elk numbers below 200. Units 061, 071: Bruneau River and Merritt Mountain Area; Northern Elko County Report by: Matthew Jeffress Harvest For the third year in a row, the Sep rifle hunt for cows maintained above-average hunter success. Further, the success of spike hunts was better than expected. Hunter success decreased during the combination management hunt for antlered mule deer and antlerless elk, but can be explained, in-part, by a substantial increase in the quota for these tags. Survey Data Three-thousand seven-hundred and forty-two elk were classified during an aerial survey in Feb 2017. The sex and age ratios of the sample were 52 bulls:100 cows:37 calves. The observed calf ratio was 23% below the 10-year mean, while the bull ratio was the highest on record. Additional flight time was used to survey west of Sheep Creek, towards Idaho State Highway 51. Habitat Above average snowfall was documented in the Bruneau River Drainage for the second year in a row. Bunchgrass production was good in the Diamond A Desert between the Jarbidge and Bruneau Rivers, while dense stands of cheatgrass and mustard were documented around Arch Table. Abundant water was present and spring emergence of herbaceous vegetation observed between Sheep Creek and the Bruneau

Page 73: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

55

Canyon, however, standing bunchgrass was sparse. Perennial grass communities are still robust throughout the Bruneau River Drainage in Nevada. The Nevada Department of Wildlife is currently working on a vegetation monitoring plan for the Bruneau Watershed in 2017. Population Status and Trend Elk west of the Bruneau River appear to be increasing at a higher rate than those between the Bruneau and Jarbidge Rivers. The zone where Duck Valley, Idaho, and Nevada converge provides several hundred thousand acres of prime summer, fall, and winter habitat and provides a refuge for elk during the hunting season in Nevada. Survey data, as well as recent telemetry data, indicate elk use portions of Duck Valley and Idaho throughout the calendar year. Movement data from elk using the J-P Desert indicate this portion of the Bruneau elk herd remains in Idaho and Duck Valley almost exclusively. A telemetry project initiated in 2016 to monitor elk using the Diamond A Desert found half of elk with radio collars migrated to Unit 072 during late spring, summer, and early fall. This movement likely explains lower hunter success and antler length for harvested elk in Units 061, 071 when compared to statewide averages. In contrast, Unit 072 continues to see higher than expected hunter success and antler length. Additional radio collars deployed on elk in the Diamond A Desert in Feb 2017, and neighboring areas, will assist Nevada Department of Wildlife biologists in further partitioning summer habitat of elk occupying this common wintering ground. Harvest management implemented by Idaho Department of Fish and Game for the portion of the Bruneau elk herd residing in Idaho recommends conservative quotas for antlered elk, with aggressive antlerless harvest north of Unit 061 and conservative antlerless harvest north of Unit 071. Nevada Department of Wildlife biologists continue to work with Idaho Department of Fish and Game to advance the understanding of elk distribution along the Nevada-Idaho border and improve elk management in both states. Units 062, 064, 066 – 068: Independence and Tuscarora Ranges; Western Elko, Northern Eureka and Lander Counties Report by: Matthew Jeffress Harvest For the first time in three years, hunter success during the Sep rifle hunt for antlerless elk dropped below 30% likely due to an over-allocation of tags. Hunter success decreased during the combination antlered mule deer and cow elk management hunt due to a substantial increase in the quota. Survey Data Aerial surveys in Jan 2017 resulted in the classification of 457 elk. The sex and age ratios of the sample were 36 bulls:100 cows:42 calves. The calf ratio was slightly below the 10-yr average and the bull ratio was the fourth lowest on record. The observed bull ratio is likely attributed to an abbreviated survey. For the first time on record, elk wintered on the north end of the Snowstorm Mountains. Telemetry data indicates elk that typically winter along the southeastern edge of the Owyhee Desert pushed further west and ultimately crossed the South Fork Little Humboldt River during the late cow hunt, presumably in an attempt to avoid continued hunting pressure. Habitat Over the last 15 years, several wildfires have created widespread communities of perennial grasses. Elk have benefited from the flush of perennial grasses seeded for watershed stabilization and natural regeneration post-fire. The northern shift of elk continues in 2016. Very few elk were reported by hunters in the South Tuscarora and Sheep Creek Ranges. Although range conditions along the Interstate 80 corridor have recently improved, the south end of the Owyhee Desert is far more productive than the south Tuscarora Range and the Sheep Creek Range.

Page 74: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

56

Population Status and Trend After adjustments to the population model to better fit measured harvest rates, the overall population is estimated at 750 adult elk. Based on telemetry data from a representative sample of radio collared elk, about 225 elk spend most of the year beyond the unit group boundaries, including some that summer in Idaho. When the segment of the population occurring outside of Units 062, 064, 066-068 is considered, the population estimate for adult elk permanently residing in Nevada is 525. Despite recent increases in tag quotas, hunter success continues to decline indicative of a declining population. Reductions in the tag quota for antlerless elk should result in improved hunter success and take commensurate to previous years. Spike hunts have allowed for additional bull hunts without added pressure on the mature bull segment of the population. A population objective of 500 adult elk was set in the current Western Elko County Elk Management Plan, which translates to 100 adult elk per mountain range: Independence, Bull Run, north Tuscarora, south Tuscarora, and Snowstorm. As the herd has been reduced, a retraction of elk from peripheral mountain ranges has been observed, particularly the south Tuscarora Range. Harvest objectives will be aimed at maintaining the herd at objective. The Nevada Department of Wildlife is continuing to work with landowners to reduce conflicts with elk on private land. For the third year in a row, there were no conflicts reported in 2016. Currently, no landowners have participated in the private lands antlerless elk hunt, yet the Nevada Department of Wildlife will continue to pursue agreements with willing landowners to greatly reduce or eliminate elk use on and adjacent to agricultural lands. In Feb 2017, an additional 8 elk were radio collared from various sub herds within this population. Telemetry data from these elk provide a better understanding of population demographics and seasonal movements. Unit 065: Piñon Range, Cedar Ridge Area; Southwestern Elko and Eastern Eureka Counties Report by: Scott Roberts Harvest The 2016 hunting season marked the fourth year of elk hunting in Unit 065. For the second year in a row, 2 tags went unfilled during the antlered elk hunt in Sep. Antlerless elk hunters fared much better with a 44% success rate. Survey Data Aerial surveys were conducted in Feb 2017. The survey classified 22 elk yielding ratios of 0 bulls:100 cows:38 calves. Survey conditions were poor with mild temperatures and partial snow coverage. Due to tree density in this unit, it is difficult to survey in all but perfect conditions. All 3 radio collars deployed in this unit were located in the 2 small herds observed on survey. Habitat The Cedar Ridge Wilderness Study Area, the Red Spring Wilderness Study Area, and the Huntington Creek corridor provide yearlong habitat for a majority of elk in this herd. The mixture of recent burns and pinyon and juniper woodlands provide adequate food and cover for resident elk. To the west of the core population, there is an abundance of suitable habitat in the Piñon Range that will allow for future expansion of the herd. The 2015 Dixie Fire burned about 350 acres of mixed-mountain shrub habitat in the center of Unit 065. The burned area was comprised of a mixture of both public and private land. A coordinated effort by the Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of Wildlife was made to secure landowner permission to reseed the burn area during winter 2016. The vegetative response following reseeding efforts and natural regeneration began providing productive habitat for elk the following summer.

Page 75: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

57

Population Status and Trend In Jan 2016, 3 cow elk were captured and fitted with radio collars near Red Spring to better understand this relatively new and growing herd. On-going depredation issues on an alfalfa field near Huntington Creek precipitated the need to build an exclusionary fence surrounding the property using money from the Elk Damage Mitigation Fund. Construction of the fence was completed in Oct 2015. Telemetry data collected do-date indicates the new fence has encouraged a shift in seasonal use patterns away from the agricultural area. A population objective of 200 elk for Unit 065 was established through the Western Elko County Elk Management Sub-Plan. The Nevada Department of Wildlife has been aggressive with harvest over the last 4 years to manage this population below objective. Units 072, 073, 074: Jarbidge Mountains; Northern Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Harvest Hunter success dropped slightly during the early rifle hunt for antlered elk with a reported 50% success compared to 51% in 2015. The late season also decreased to 34% success compared to 40% success in 2015. Four rifle seasons for antlerless elk were implemented to reduce the population. Tag numbers were again increased and hunter success varied among seasons. Hunter success during the wilderness-only rifle hunt for antlerless elk was 45%, which was, once-again, higher than areas outside of wilderness. Survey Data Surveys conducted in Jan 2017 resulted in the classification of 1,107 elk with sex and age ratios of 71 bulls:100 cows:32 calves. The bull ratio and calf ratio was considerably lower than those observed in 2016 (98 bulls:100 cows:55 calves). Habitat Several wildfires burned in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2012 further enhancing habitat for elk. The recovery of perennial grasses and forbs has been remarkable in most of the burned areas. Vegetation communities from the most recent wildfire, affecting 6,700-acres in Stud Creek, are recovering well and providing productive forage to elk. Vegetation monitoring conducted in 2010 and 2012 on lands managed by the US Forest Service documented use by elk in the majority of sampled aspen stands. The intensity of use, however, was minimal and not sufficient to degrade the productivity of those aspen stands. A similar pattern was documented in mountain mahogany stands. Aspen and mountain mahogany stands in areas affected by wildfire will continue to be monitored to determine if regeneration is limited by herbivory. Population Status and Trend The population objective in the Jarbidge Mountains Elk Herd Management Plan is to maintain the elk herd at 1,000 adult animals (+/-10%) on the US Forest Service’s portion of Unit 072. The Wells Resource Area Elk Plan allotted an additional 220 elk in portions of Unit 072, 074, and the east side of 073 on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The Western Elko County Elk Plan identified 200 elk for the west side of Unit 073. Cumulatively, the population objective for elk in Units 072, 073, 074 is 1,420 adult elk. In Jan 2017, 10 radio collars were deployed on the Inside Desert between the East Fork of the Jarbidge River and Clover Creek in Idaho. The objective of the monitoring is to determine seasonal distribution of elk and extent of interstate movements. Ten additional elk were radio collared on the Diamond A Desert. Telemetry data will assist in differentiating Jarbidge and Bruneau elk inhabiting a shared wintering area.

Page 76: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

58

Due to low hunter success for antlerless elk, antlerless tag quota recommendations will remain aggressive to curtail population growth and meet management objectives. The wilderness-only hunt for antlerless elk in the Jarbidge Wilderness continues to be a success and is recommended for further use. Unit 075: Snake Mountains; Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Survey Data Surveys conducted in Jan 2017 resulted in the classification of 141 elk yielding age and sex ratios of 21 bulls:100 cows:46 calves. Bull and calf ratios were lower than those observed in 2016 (56 bulls:100 cows:60 calves). Elk were forced to depart the Snake Mountains due to snow accumulation and were located northeast of Cold Springs Mountain in Unit 074. Habitat In 2006, a 16,720 acre wildfire burned in Deer Creek. Although initial impacts to wildlife were not favorable, the elk herd is now using this area due to the recovery of perennial grasses, forbs, and aspen stands. Vegetation succession occurring in the 2007 Hepworth Fire scar is also benefiting elk. Population Status and Trend The population objective for Unit 075 is 100 elk (+/-10%) and was established by the Wells Resource Area Elk Plan. Quota recommendations for hunts of antlered and antlerless elk will continue to be designed to reduce herd size toward population objectives. Due to the large amount of private land (about 50% of the total area), this herd continues to be a management challenge. Most landowners permit access to hunters, however elk will move to private lands that do not permit access. The Nevada Department of Wildlife continues to work with these landowners to increase access for hunters. Units 076, 077, 079, 081: Thousand Springs, Goose Creek and Pequop Mountains Area; Northern Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Harvest Success rates for the 2016 early and late rifle hunt for antlered elk dropped to 63% and 61%, respectively. In 2012, 5 depredation hunts for antlerless elk were implemented for the northeast portion of Unit 081. Nearly 600 elk have been harvested in Unit 081 since inception of the depredation hunts. To increase antlerless elk harvest and distribute hunting pressure throughout the unit group, a late season antlerless hunt was offered in 2015. Success was 60% in both 2015 and 2016. Survey Data Surveys in Jan 2017 resulted in the classification of 769 elk yielding age and sex ratios of 39 bulls:100 cows:40 calves. The bull ratio was higher than the 36 bulls:100 cows observed in 2016, while the calf ratio was lower than the 50 calves:100 cows observed in 2016. Habitat Nearly 240,000 acres burned in this unit group during summer 2007. Extensive seeding was conducted to rehabilitate burned areas. The habitat is responding favorably, as it did after the fires in 1999 and 2000. The long-term outlook of this habitat for elk is favorable.

Page 77: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

59

Most planned wildlife water developments have been built and are currently being used by elk. Increased water availability has distributed elk throughout the unit group. Existing cable fences around water developments have been replaced with pipe rail fences to more effectively exclude livestock. Population Status and Trend Elk spend a substantial amount of time on private lands due to the amount and distribution of these parcels. Thirteen landowners qualified for 52 elk incentive tags for allowing elk use on private rangeland, which is a 33% increase from 2015. In Jan 2017, 2 radio collars were deployed on elk in the Deadline Ridge area of Unit 081. Eight additional radio collars will be deployed in 2018 to determine if elk wintering in Nevada spend their summer in Idaho. The depredation hunts in Unit 081 were developed in response to low hunting pressure and increasing elk numbers. The goal of these hunts is to reduce elk numbers and alleviate pressure on private land. The depredation hunts have proven successful and will be recommended again in 2017. Unit 078, and portions of 104, 105 – 107, 109: Spruce Mountain; Elko County Report by: Caleb McAdoo Harvest Splitting the rifle hunt for antlered elk into an early and late season to reduce hunter densities has had overwhelming support from sportsmen. For the 2016 season, 19 rifle tags for bulls, were issued and split between the early (11 tags) and late (8 tags) seasons. Of the 19 tags, 13 tag holders were successful. Across all weapon classes, 70% of the bulls harvested had 6 or more points, down from 79% in 2015. A hunt for spike elk was also instituted in 2016. Of the 6 spike tags issued, 3 hunters were successful. Fifty rifle tags for antlerless elk were issued for the 2016 season with a hunter success of 49% as compared to 59% in 2015. Twenty-four cow elk were harvested during the archery, muzzleloader, and rifle seasons combined. Survey Data An aerial survey was completed in Mar 2017. One-hundred and forty elk were observed yielding sex and age ratios of 173 bulls:100 cows:46 calves. This bull ratio is the highest ever observed but should be cautiously interpreted since the overall sample size was down from previous years and many of the larger cow groups were unclassified. If those cow groups had been encountered, the observed bull ratio likely would have been lower than reported. Habitat Populations of feral horses well above appropriate management levels continue to impact rangeland health and, in consequence, diversity and abundance of wildlife. Yearlong overuse of grass and forbs by unmanaged horses has reduced the herbaceous understory of vegetation in many areas of the unit group. Perennial springs and riparian vegetation have also been degraded from overuse by horses. The Spruce Mountain Restoration Project is underway with over 3,000 acres of habitat restoration completed since 2013. Up to 7,000 additional acres occurring in the vicinity of Spruce Mountain are scheduled to be treated within the next 10 years. These restoration activities benefit elk, deer, sage-grouse, and other wildlife. Population Status and Trend Elk have established themselves throughout the unit group since their release on Spruce Mountain in 1997. Elk are now well established in Unit 078 and Unit 107. More frequent observations of elk in Unit 106 continue, and some hunters have begun to focus their efforts on these areas. Movement also occurs between adjacent units such as Unit 077 and Unit 121. Past telemetry studies have provided useful information about movement patterns by elk. Hunts for antlerless elk were recently implemented to

Page 78: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

60

manage this herd near its population objective of 340 elk. The modeled estimate of 350 adult elk, down from 370 in 2016, is indicative of the efficacy of increased antlerless harvest and demonstrates the ability to keep this herd within the confines of population objectives through harvest. Unit 091: Pilot Range; Eastern Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Harvest Thirteen bulls were harvested in Unit 091 during the 2016 hunting season by Utah hunters and 6 by Nevada hunters. An additional 24 cows were harvested in a depredation hunt on the TLBar Ranch in Utah. Hunters who draw this tag are able to hunt Pilot Mountain in Nevada and Utah. Specialty tag holders are prohibited from hunting elk in Unit 091 due to low tag quotas and a cooperative agreement between the Nevada Department of Wildlife and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, which directs both states to evenly share the elk resource. Survey Data Aerial composition surveys in Aug 2016 resulted in the classification of 113 elk yielding age and sex ratios of 41 bulls:100 cows:51 calves. Combination bighorn sheep and elk surveys were conducted by UDWR. Habitat The Rhyolite Fire burned about 4,500 acres on the northeast portion of Pilot Mountain in 2013. Vegetation communities responded well to this disturbance and provide productive habitat for elk. A wildlife water development south of Miners Canyon was recently upgraded. An old, saucer style unit was replaced with a new metal apron collection surface with 4 storage tanks. The unit should benefit elk and bighorn sheep. Population Status and Trend The long-term trend for this elk herd is stable to slightly increasing. Calf ratios are usually lower than surrounding hunt units. Herds associated with private meadows, however, have experienced considerably higher production and recruitment. A population objective of 250 elk was established in the Wells Resource Area Elk Plan. The objective was based on the original Unit 079 boundary that has now been divided into Units 079 and 091 and included only the Nevada portion of Pilot Mountain. The Unit 091 herd is predominately found on the Utah side of Pilot Mountain and remains below population objective. Units 101 – 103: East Humboldt and Ruby Mountains; Elko County Report by: Caleb McAdoo Harvest The Nevada Department of Wildlife has remained committed to managing this population to restrict a sustainable elk population. Since 1999, 513 elk have been harvested from the elk restricted zone in the Ruby Mountains. In 2014, the Nevada Department of Wildlife implemented its most aggressive hunt strategy since the inception of the first depredation hunts in 1999. This latest strategy included management hunts for antlerless elk coinciding with existing mule deer hunts and resulted in additional antlerless harvest. For 2016, antlered quotas remained at 100 tags. Until 2014, antlerless quotas had fluctuated from a maximum of 176 tags to a low of 21 tags and seasons varied from 4 distinct seasons to a single, 6-month

Page 79: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

61

season. Through the evolution of these quotas and season structures, success rates have ranged from 10–20% with about 6-15 cows harvested annually. In 2016, 1,240 antlerless tags were issued, up from 735 in 2015, resulting in the harvest of 15 cows (4 in 101, 9 in 102, and 1 in 103). Despite the significant increase in tags, the net harvest of cows decreased with 605 more tags when compared to harvest in 2015. For 2016, success rates for antlerless hunts varied from 0–3% with most cows harvested during the 6-mo. antlerless season and the early management hunt. Tags were evenly split for the early and late depredation antlered hunt with hunter success rates of 38% and 22%, respectively. The distribution of harvest for the combined 28 bulls killed included 9 in Unit 101, 10 in Unit 102, and 9 in Unit 103. Survey Data Elk specific surveys were not conducted for this unit group and incidental observations remain limited. Landowner complaints regarding elk damage have been minimal the last 10 years, with none reported since 2010. For these reasons, the hunt strategies implemented to-date are considered a success in achieving management goals. Population Status and Trend The current hunt strategy is to keep elk numbers low and modify their behavior to prevent or reduce depredation on agricultural lands. This aggressive strategy has been effective, although anecdotal evidence suggests numbers are gradually increasing in localized areas. Observations of small groups of elk within the unit group have increased in recent years, probably a result of elk crossing unit boundaries. Units 111 - 115, 221 - 223: Schell, Egan and Snake Ranges; Eastern White Pine and Northern Lincoln Counties Report by: Kody Menghini Harvest Tag quotas for antlered elk were split for the fifth consecutive year for Units 111-115 and 221-223. Unit 223 was added to Units 221 and 222 in 2014. Bull quality remains high in both unit groups. In Units 111-115, 73% of the bulls harvested were 6-points or greater and 40% had antler lengths 50 in or longer. In Units 221-223, 68% of the bulls harvested were 6-points or greater and 39% had antler lengths 50 in or longer. These metrics are down slightly from prior years but are well above the statewide averages. Survey Data For the eighth consecutive year, the post-season composition survey for elk was combined with spring deer surveys, finding 2,376 elk classified yielding sex and age ratios of 36 bulls:100 cows:39 calves. Sex and age ratios have averaged 30 bulls:100 cows:36 calves over the previous 5 years. This was the second year in a row that the observed calf ratio was higher than the 5-year average. Habitat Above average winter precipitation in 2015-2016, followed by timely spring and summer rains in 2016, have improved quality and quantity of habitat available for elk. The 2016 fall was warm and dry, resulting in minimal green-up available to benefit elk prior to winter. Many wildlife water developments were empty by late summer and elk were observed traveling long distances to water. The National Weather Service precipitation total for the 2016 calendar-year measured at the Ely Airport was 113% of normal. The winter of 2016-2017 was snowy and cold. The National Weather Service reported the 2016-2017 total winter precipitation to be 217% of normal at the Ely Airport. As of 1 Mar, the Berry Creek SNOTEL site and the Ward Mountain SNOTEL site received 153% and 199%, respectively, of their long-term average

Page 80: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

62

snowpack during winter 2016-2017. Despite the snowy and cold winter, many storms were followed by mild temperatures that facilitated snowmelt on south-facing slopes and benches. This likely helped to alleviate stressful winter conditions. This was the second consecutive above average winter, which should result in improved habitat conditions. Habitat conditions are negatively affected by feral horses in some areas. The loss of quality habitat has also occurred from the subdivision and sale of private land. Gradual encroachment of pinyon and juniper woodlands continues to reduce habitat quality. Nevertheless, elk are benefiting from many thousands of acres of pinyon and juniper chaining, thinning, and other tree removal projects recently completed by the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service. Future projects are planned in the north Schell Creek Range, Ward Mountain, south Steptoe and Cave Valleys, and Duck Creek Basin. The expansion of storage capacity at several big game water developments is currently planned, as well as the possible construction of new catchments in the Antelope, Snake, and Steptoe Valleys and the Antelope Range. Between 2012 and 2014, over 50,000 acres have burned in 7 different wildfire events throughout the area. Much of the impacted acreage was formerly dominated by pinyon and juniper woodlands. Elk are beginning to expand into the burns as recovery of vegetation begins. In 2016 the Strawberry Fire burned 4,600 acres on the north end of Unit 115. The majority of this burn occurred on Great Basin National Park where no hunting is allowed. This burn could make elk management challenging in the future by providing productive habitat for elk and a refuge from hunting pressure on surrounding Bureau of Land Management lands. The above-average precipitation received over the last two years should promote recovery of native vegetation in burn areas and will be beneficial to elk in the future. Population Status and Trend Due to above-average harvest and moderate calf recruitment this population has declined since 2016. The current population estimate is 4,500 elk. Quota recommendations will be designed to further decrease this population toward the population objective. Unit 121, 104 and a portion of Unit 108: Cherry Creek, North Egan, Butte, Maverick Springs and Medicine Ranges; Northern White Pine and Southern Elko Counties Report by: Scott Roberts Harvest There were 74 tags issued for antlered elk across all weapon classes in 2016, with a 59% success rate. Of the 44 bulls harvested in this unit group, 70% were 6 points or greater. Fifty tags for antlerless elk were issued across all weapon classes, with a 52% success rate. Three antlerless depredation hunts are implemented to limit use by elk on private lands in Steptoe Valley, Unit 121. There were 80 combined tags issued for the depredation hunts from 1 Aug 2016-31 Jan 2017, with an 18% success rate. Survey Data Aerial post-season elk surveys were conducted in Feb 2017. The survey classified 411 elk yielding ratios of 42 bulls:100 cows:33 calves. Survey conditions were good, with cold temperatures and 100% snow coverage. Due to the abundance of trees within this unit group, the bulls continue to be difficult to locate. Of the bulls observed on survey, 46% were yearlings. Habitat Encroachment of pinyon and juniper woodlands occurs across a substantial portion of this unit group. Several large scale habitat enhancement projects are proposed for Unit 121. The Combs Creeks project was designed to reduce pinyon and juniper encroachment on 7,000 acres in the southern portion of Unit 121. The treatment was completed in the summer of 2016 when the final 353 acres were cleared.

Page 81: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

63

The appropriate management level for the Triple B Herd Management Area is 250-518 horses. The 2016 Bureau of Land Management estimate for the Herd Management Area was 1,600 horses. During the brief, cursory, survey effort in 2017, Nevada Department of Wildlife biologists observed 381 horses in a relatively small portion of the Triple B Herd Management Area. An overabundance of horses in this unit group continues to cause direct competition with wildlife for limited resources, particularly in the water-limited Units 104 and 108. On a positive note, as of 22 Mar 2017, the Eastern Nevada Hydrologic Basin has received 115% of average precipitation and 102% of average snowpack for the current water year. Population Status and Trend In winter 2016, radio collars were deployed on 5 cow elk in the central portion of Unit 121. One additional radio collar was deployed in winter 2017 to replace a collar failure. Telemetry data collected from these radio collars will track the seasonal movements of a portion of the Unit 121 elk herd. Another objective of this project is to document elk use on summer range near Telegraph Peak, which has recently been a point of contention with a local landowner. Radio collar deployments will continue to help the Nevada Department of Wildlife document elk use days on private parcels in the area and aid in calculations for incentive tags. An ancillary, but potentially important, benefit of this project will be to document use by elk before and after the Egan and Johnson Basins Habitat Enhancement Project. This project will treat about 11,000 acres in the area directly associated with the radio collaring effort. Baseline information will be compared to post-treatment use by elk and will help guide future vegetation treatments. The combination of the Unit 121 depredation hunts and the standard hunt seasons for antlerless elk have led to a relatively stable herd during the past 5 years. The Nevada Department of Wildlife is committed to reducing private land damage in Steptoe Valley while providing hunting opportunity to sportsmen. The depredation hunts have been successful by removing many of the offending elk. Future quota recommendations for the depredation hunt will be designed to reduce elk presence on private lands in Steptoe Valley. Units 131, 132 and portion of Unit 108: White Pine, Grant and Quinn Canyon Ranges; Southern White Pine and Eastern Nye Counties Report by: Clint Garrett Harvest Hunts in Unit 131 were first offered for antlered elk in 1995 and antlerless elk in 2007. Antlered and antlerless hunts in Unit 108 and Unit 132 were added, successively, until the current unit group was established in 2013. Total harvest in 2016 was 36 bulls and 44 cows and is nearly identical to the 5-yr average for total harvest of 32 bulls and 44 cows. Several season changes and additions highlight 2017. There will not be a split season offered for resident rifle tags for antlerless elk. A single rifle season for antlerless elk, instead of a split season, is offered for resident and nonresident tag holders and runs 25 Sep–4 Oct. Dates for the muzzleloader season for antlerless elk were changed to 17-24 Sep and is now available to nonresidents. Archery seasons for antlered and antlerless elk were also added for nonresidents in 2017, which will run concurrently with the corresponding resident seasons. Survey Data A limited composition survey was conducted during spring deer surveys in Management Area 13 in Mar 2017. Normally this survey is conducted in Feb and, in contrast to the 2016 survey, conditions were poor. Thick tree cover, poor snow coverage, clear skies with light winds, and warm temperatures made survey difficult. Sixty-five elk were observed on the 2017 survey yielding sex and age ratios of 59 bulls:100 cows:44 calves. In comparison, the survey in 2016 totaled 312 elk with observed ratios of 50 bulls:100 cows:38 calves. The 10-yr average calf ratio is 36 calves:100 cows.

Page 82: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

64

Habitat Range conditions during summer and fall 2016 were drier than normal and precipitation was below average until winter. Precipitation in early Mar 2017 was exceptional followed by a warming trend which provided an early start to the growing season. As of spring 2017, the US Drought Monitor shows the very southern portion of Unit 132 as abnormally dry. This is an improvement over last year’s rating of moderate drought to abnormally dry throughout the unit group. Above-average precipitation receipts should sustain range conditions for elk through spring with soil moisture just below normal at 26% saturation in eastern Nevada according to the Nevada Water Supply Outlook Report by Natural Resources Conservation Service for Feb 2017. Ongoing projects by the US Forest Service have crews removing small pinion and juniper woodlands encroaching into grass and brush zones in both units. These projects, as well as past burns, promote production of grasses and forbs benefiting elk, as well as other wildlife in the area. Increasing feral horse numbers are degrading habitat in the Mt. Hamilton area where a large herd has established. New mineral exploration drill pads were observed in the Green Springs Area of Unit 131. If development of a mine occurs in this area there will be impacts to sage grouse, mule deer and elk. Several big game water developments have been built for deer, elk, and pronghorn. There are 5 wilderness areas in Unit 131 and 2 in Unit 132. The recently established Basin and Range National Monument encompasses a small portion of Unit 132. Population Status and Trend The White Pine County Elk Management Plan established a population objective of 300 adult elk (+/-20%) for Units 131, 132. The population estimates for 2016 and 2017 are 380 and 330, respectively, while the 5-yr average is 450 elk. The elk herd is currently at population objective and, due to aggressive harvest, is highlighted by a 37% population reduction since 2013. Units 144, 145: Diamonds, Fish Creek Range, Mahogany Hills and Mountain Boy Range; Southern Eureka and Western White Pine Counties. Report by: Clint Garrett Harvest Depredation hunts for antlered and antlerless elk were initiated in 2012 to prevent the establishment of a viable elk population in accordance with the Central Nevada Elk Plan. Due to thick tree cover, a small population size, and dispersed movement patterns, elk hunting conditions can be difficult. To-date, there have been 41 bulls and 29 cows harvested. In 2015 and 2016, 7 seasons offered a total of 85 tags. There will be 3 seasons for antlered and 4 for seasons for antlerless elk beginning on 1 Aug 2017 and ending on 21 Jan 2018. The late season for antlered and antlerless elk has been extended from 15 Jan to 31 Jan. Survey Data Elk numbers are low in this unit group and no formal composition survey was conducted during the reporting period. An incidental observation of 2 yearling bulls in Unit 145 occurred during post-season mule deer surveys in Nov 2016. A landowner complaint in Unit 144 resulted in the observation of 3 bulls and 5 cows on private property in Oct 2016. Total incidental observations of elk for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 are 27 and 10, respectively. Population Status and Trend A formal population model is not maintained for this population due to its small size and limited availability of data. Units 144 and145 is a transition zone and seasonally used by elk. Current harvest management practices have been successful as population levels remain low.

Page 83: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

65

Units 161 - 164: North-Central Nye and Southern Lander and Eureka Counties Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data A post-season aerial elk composition survey was conducted in Unit Group 161-164 during Jan 2017. Survey yielded a sample size of 398 elk, which were classified as 111 bulls, 202 cows, and 85 calves. A thorough survey of Unit 163 was precluded due to inclement weather. Fresh snow accumulations allowed for good tracking conditions. Elk were primarily observed in Unit 162 where the bulk of the population resides. In comparison, the Jan 2016 survey yielded a sample of 545 elk classified as 83 bulls, 310 cows, and 152 calves. Habitat In 2016, according to precipitation data provided by the Community Environmental Monitoring and Planning, central Nevada received 62% of the 30-yr average. Spring precipitation resulted in 51% of 2016’s precipitation accumulation. Above-average spring precipitation in 2015 and 2016 should help to alleviate drought effects of recent years. Although spring precipitation has recently been above-average, summer precipitation in 2016 was only 12% of the total accumulation. Monsoonal rain, which central Nevada relies upon to maintain forage vigor throughout the summer months, did not occur in 2016. Increased browse vigor and growth of grass species has plausibly resulted in response to above-average spring precipitation. This should allow animals to enter the calving and winter periods in better condition than recent years. A project to remove pinyon and juniper trees to enhance habitat was conducted in summer 2016 near Danville Creek in Little Fish Lake Valley. Seven-hundred and seventeen acres of pinyon and juniper was cut and left in response to encroachment into the valley. The removal of these trees will allow the herbaceous understory to regenerate providing good forage and habitat to elk during parts of the year. A pinyon and juniper removal project is anticipated to occur in the Clear Creek area in summer 2017, as well. Population Status and Trend In Jan 2004, the Board of Wildlife Commissioners approved the revised Central Nevada Elk Plan (CNEP). The CNEP included updated population objectives for elk in Units 161-164, which allowed for modest increases in numbers. More than 10 years later, the elk population has reached, and slightly exceeded, the population objective of 850 adult elk. A significant increase in tag quotas for elk in 2014, 2015, and 2016, particularly for the antlerless hunts, was intended to stop herd growth. The wilderness-only hunt in Unit 162 has successfully increased harvest of antlerless elk since its inception. A harvest of 155 elk occurred during the 2016 season. The specific cause of reduced harvest during the 2016 season is unknown. A record harvest of 185 elk was reported for the 2015 season and 168 elk were removed in 2014. Record harvest over the last 3 years is reflected in population estimates. However, to manage the Unit Group 161-164 elk herd at the appropriate level, a harvest management strategy similar to recent years will be recommended for 2017. Units 171 - 173: North-Western Nye and Southern Lander Counties Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data An aerial composition survey was not conducted in Units 171-173 in 2017 due to inclement weather. The survey usually includes portions of Unit 184 along the east side of the Desatoya Range where the core herd of elk typically winters. Due to survey timing, and the small size of the core herd, the 2016 survey was unsuccessful when 5 bulls were observed. This survey can be challenging even under the best of conditions, and typically only results in a sample size of 40-50 elk.

Page 84: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

66

Habitat In 2016, according to precipitation data provided by the Community Environmental Monitoring and Planning, central Nevada received 62% of the 30-yr average. Spring precipitation resulted in 51% of 2016’s precipitation accumulation. In the early part of 2017, much needed precipitation receipts have been received. As of Mar 2017, the one SNOWTEL site located in central Nevada measured snow pack levels at over 140%. Consecutive years of above-average spring precipitation should help to alleviate effects of drought from previous years. Increased browse vigor and grass species growth has plausibly resulted in response to above-average spring precipitation. This should allow animals to enter the calving and winter periods in better condition than recent years. Although spring precipitation has recently been above average, summer precipitation in 2016 was only 12% of the total accumulation. Monsoonal rain, which central Nevada relies upon to maintain forage vigor throughout the summer months, did not occur in 2016. The above-average spring precipitation occurring over the last 2 years should have increased the quality and quantity of forage species during the critical birthing period, when female ungulates are most in need of forage high in nutritional value. Population Status and Trend For many years, few elk were reported in Units 171-173. Presumably, these elk were moving between Unit 173 and adjacent Units 161 and 162. By the early 2000’s, reports had become more frequent, and the Nevada Department of Wildlife determined that a small resident herd had permanently established itself in the southern portions of Units 171-173. In 2007, several cow elk were fitted with radio collars in Units 172 and 173 to aid in delineating seasonal use patterns and to help more accurately estimate size of the herd. Through the collaring effort, it was determined that the core population of elk was inhabiting the southern portions of the Toiyabe and Shoshone Ranges during the summer and fall and migrating to Units 171 and 184, in Ione and Smith Creek Valleys, during the winter and spring. These movements have remained consistent to present time. Currently, the Units 171-173 elk herd is considered stable or increasing at low levels. Observations during survey efforts, as well as incidental observations of the core herd throughout the year, continue to hover around 40-50 animals. This has occurred despite the fact that recruitment has been documented, bull harvest remains minimal, and there is no legal harvest of antlerless elk. Unit 231: Wilson Creek Range; Lincoln County Report by: Cooper Munson Harvest During the hunting season in 2016, 225 elk were harvested from Unit 231. Harvest composition included 122 cows and 103 bulls. Harvest totals in 2016 represent a 10% decrease from the 2014 season and a 16% decrease from the 2015 hunting season. Survey Data Aerial surveys were conducted during Jan 2017 and resulted in the classification of 178 elk consisting of 83 bulls, 61 cows, and 36 calves. Fifty-six percent of the bulls observed were classified as spikes to 4-points. Large groups of elk typically observed during surveys were difficult to locate due poor snow conditions. Most of the elk were concentrated in densely vegetated zones of the Wilson, Fortification, and White Rock Mountain Ranges. Habitat According to precipitation data acquired from Community Environmental Monitoring Program, Lincoln County Received approximately 113% of the 10-yr average and near the 30-yr average during 2016. According to the US Drought Monitor, the US Seasonal Drought Outlook is predicting drought conditions

Page 85: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

67

may decrease in 2017. Numbers of feral horses are at exceedingly high levels. The Bureau of Land Management gathered horses in an emergency roundup due to public safety concerns near roadways. Nonetheless, excessive horse numbers were observed during elk surveys. Encroachment of pinyon and juniper woodlands continues to reduce both quality and quantity of elk habitat. Suppression of wildfires, which facilitate the replacement of dense pinyon and juniper stands with grasses and shrubs, further degrades habitat quality. Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of Wildlife removed pinyon and juniper trees from over 5,000 acres and reseeded with native plant seeds. Areas that have burned in the last few decades are providing the majority of elk habitat in Unit 231. Recent installation and maintenance of water developments, built by the Nevada Department of Wildlife and local sportsmen, are allowing elk to use habitat where conflicts with livestock operators and private landowners are reduced. Shed antler hunters continue to place added stress on elk and their winter range during the late winter and early spring. Although antler collection does not appear to affect population productivity, it may influence elk distribution throughout their winter range. Population Status and Trend The elk population in Unit 231 remains high despite aggressive harvest. The Nevada Department of Wildlife will continue to recommend suitable numbers of tags in an attempt to keep the elk population below management objectives as identified in the Lincoln County Elk Management Plan. Elk move freely between Unit 231, Utah, and Management Area 22, each of which maintains higher densities of elk. Many of the elk in Unit 231 feed on agricultural lands which the Nevada Department of Wildlife addresses through the elk damage and incentive tag programs. According to recent telemetry data collected from radio collars, several elk in Unit 231 spend time in Utah, which may explain the decreasing population estimates with relatively high harvest. The separation of Unit 231 from Units 241, 242 in 2015 has decreased hunter congestion and added hunter opportunity. Unit 241, 242: Delamar and Clover Mountains; Lincoln County Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data Twelve elk were observed during aerial surveys conducted in Feb 2017. The majority of elk encountered were residing in the Clover Mountains and surrounding areas. Survey conditions were moderate with heavy snow that was quickly melting, making it difficult to locate elk. Ground observations and trail cameras have provided for the classification of additional elk. The elk observed were classified as 5 bulls, 16 cows, and 11 calves. Ratios derived solely from aerial survey were 31 bulls:100 cows:68 calves. Habitat Habitat conditions have improved due to slightly above-average precipitation during 2016. Feral horse numbers are excessive in Units 241, 242, where the Appropriate Management Level is 0. Several water developments that have recently been rebuilt are promoting elk use of habitats impacted by wildfire. Fire suppression continues to limit habitat as well as competition between feral horses and livestock. Recent wildfires burned a portion of Unit 242 and damaged 2 water developments, which were subsequently repaired in 2015. Habitat in the area appears to be recovering well due to restoration efforts and precipitation. A small wildfire that burned in summer 2016 was reseeded by the Nevada Department of Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management. A variety of native vegetation was planted to stabilize soils and increase wildlife habitat. Population Status and Trend A population model has not been developed for elk in Units 241,242 until the Nevada Department of Wildlife is confident that elk are permanently established in the area. Return card data indicate that 4

Page 86: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

68

cows and 1 bull were harvested from this unit group in 2016. The 2017 survey, combined with reports and sightings, indicate that up to 150 elk reside in the area. The division of this unit group from Unit 231 should facilitate a decrease in hunter congestion and added hunter opportunity. Unit 251: Kawich Range; Nye County Report by Joe Bennett Survey Data Formal survey data does not exist for elk in Unit 251. Habitat The Kawich Range is comprised mainly of pinyon and juniper woodlands at low- to mid-elevations and open mountain sage stands at higher elevations. Population Status and Trend In recent years, with the expansion of the Units 161-164 elk herd, there have been an increased number of elk sightings in Unit 251. The revised 2004 central Nevada Elk Plan designated this area as a non-establishment area for elk (i.e., elk-free zone). Although no formal surveys have been conducted, trail camera data, along with ancillary observations, indicate that elk occur in Unit 251 on a year-round basis. In order to comply with the Central Nevada Elk Plan, the establishment of elk in Unit 251 warrants the implementation of a depredation hunt. To-date, elk densities in the Kawich Range are low. Coupling low densities with dense tree cover will make this hunt a challenge. In coming years, formal elk surveys will be attempted to verify status of elk and generate modeled population estimates. Unit 262: Spring Mountains; Clark and Southern Nye Counties Report by: Patrick Cummings Survey Data In Feb 2017, an aerial survey conducted over the Spring Mountains yielded a sample of 146 elk. The sample comprised of 33 bulls, 87 cows and 26 calves. The majority of elk were encountered in and below the sagebrush and pinyon and juniper ecotone in lower Macks Canyon, and in the vicinity of Cold Creek. Elk were also encountered in the lower Willow Creek drainage and south of Lovell Summit. In Jan 2015, an aerial survey sample comprised of 37 bulls, 105 cows and 21 calves. Habitat In Jul 2013, the Carpenter 1 Fire was ignited by lightning. The fire consumed vegetation across 27,869 acres. The 43.5-mi2 fire consumed plants within several vegetative associations along a 5,560-ft elevation gradient. Severely degraded vegetative conditions on the McFarland Burn were noted in 15 aerial surveys conducted between 2002 and 2017, and likely the reason that few elk were encountered in the area. Degraded habitat is largely the result of an over population of feral horses aggravated by the effects of periodic drought conditions. The US Forest Service disengaged from a process to produce a comprehensive feral horse herd management plan. The plan would have covered horse and burro removals and revised Appropriate Management Levels. Initially the USForest Service announced the decision would be signed in fall 2013, and then US Forest Service would request to be put on the gather schedule. As of Apr 2017, progress in producing a comprehensive herd management plan has been impeded by advocacy groups and lack of funding. Elk avoidance of roads and decrease in habitat use adjacent to roads has been reported in literature. Based on well-documented findings, use of off-highway vehicles also influences elk distribution. In recent years,

Page 87: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

69

recreational use of off-highway vehicles in the Cold Creek area and on the McFarland Burn has increased substantially. In Jun 2004, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest issued a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Motorized Trails Designation Project. The decision involves minimal closure of newly established roads in the McFarland Burn. Thus, the recently authorized management prescription for motorized trails ensures the status quo in the McFarland Burn for the near future. Population Status and Trend The population estimate for elk inhabiting the Spring Mountains remains unchanged from the estimate reported in 2016. Due to the large sample obtained in the Jan 2015 aerial survey, the population model was adjusted to reconcile cow and bull deficits. Quality of elk habitat throughout most of Unit 262 is marginal. Elk have existed on a relatively low nutritional plane limiting reproduction and recruitment. Calf recruitment in many years has been low. Formerly, under ideal conditions marked by fewer horses and normal precipitation receipts, the McFarland Burn afforded quality early-seral forage necessary for maintenance, growth, and reproduction. In the near future, meaningful efforts to improve elk habitat must entail management of horse and burro numbers consistent with the appropriate management levels and completion of habitat improvements. Elk habitat in the Spring Mountains can be enhanced by seeding recently burned areas, increasing water availability, and decommissioning and restoring newly created roads and trails.

Page 88: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

70

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP Units 044, 182: East and Stillwater Ranges; Pershing and Churchill Counties Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data No aerial sheep survey was conducted in Units 044 and 182 in 2016. Habitat The northern portions of the Stillwater Range have extremely high populations of feral horses. Spring sources are severely degraded. Often times a few hundred horses can be seen milling around a spring source. Pipe rail fences need to be erected to protect the water sources which will encourage use by bighorn sheep. Continued expansion of pinyon and juniper is limiting bighorn sheep habitat within the Stillwater Range. Prescribed fires and/or naturally occurring fires are needed in most of the northern half of the Stillwater’s to allow bighorn sheep to pioneer this area. Population Status and Trend The population of bighorn sheep occupying the Stillwater’s and the East Range are doing extremely well. Hunter reported observations of bighorn indicate good production and groups sizes well over 100 individuals during the hunting season. Also increased observations of bighorn occupying the southeast end of the mountain range are a common occurrence. During deer surveys in early 2017 as many as 50 bighorn were observed from Coyote Canyon north to Little Box Canyon. In November 2016, a young ram was fitted with a satellite collar at the south end of the Tobin Range to document bighorn sheep movement between the Tobins and Stillwaters. The data revealed the ram was moving through the Sou Hills to access the Tobin and Stillwater Ranges. This movement is alarming because of the close proximity of the Sou Hills to the agricultural fields located in the northern part of Dixie Valley. For a single month domestic sheep are held on these fields to forage. Concern exists and solutions are needed to reduce the potential threat of comingling of bighorn and domestic sheep during this time frame. Also concerning is the potential for disease to spread between management Units 182, 045, 153 and 044. The 2016 population estimate occupying the East and Stillwater Ranges is 450 bighorn. This year’s modeled lamb ratio of 44 lambs:100 ewes is an average of the past 10 years. Units 045, 153: Tobin Range and Fish Creek Mountains; Pershing and Lander Counties Report by: Kyle Neill Harvest A total of 6 tags were offered for the 2016 hunt. All tag holders harvested their rams from Unit 045. Survey Data A 1-day aerial survey was performed in late August in Unit 045 and 153. Unfortunately, no bighorns were observed during the brief survey effort in Unit 153. However, a record number of bighorns were encountered in Unit 045 in the Tobin Range. Biologists classified 142 desert bighorns that provided ratios of 63 rams:100 ewes:46 lambs. The 2016 ram ratio mirrors its long-term average while the 2016 lamb ratio is below the long-term average but remains strong and will continue to promote herd growth. Desert bighorns observed during the survey continue to remain well distributed throughout the southern end of the Tobin Range to the top of Mount Tobin.

Page 89: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

71

Habitat Desert bighorns in the Tobin Range continue to utilize habitat from the top of Wood Canyon south along the ridge to Mount Tobin, Cottonwood Canyon south to Miller Basin and extreme south to the Indian Caves. Population Estimate and Trend As part of NDOW’s disease surveillance program, 8 bighorn from Unit 045 and 5 animals from Unit 153 were captured and sampled last November. Fortunately, test results showed that these bighorns were clean. In conjunction with testing efforts, 3 rams from Unit 045 and 2 rams, 2 ewes from Unit 153 were fitted with GPS/VHF collars to aid biologists in identifying seasonal habitat movements. Unfortunately, 2 collars in Unit 045 have failed. However, movements prior to failing showed that the ram captured in the Indian Caves spent time in Unit 182 on the east side of the Stillwater Range near Fencemaker Pass Road, Sou Hills and in Unit 045 in the Indian Caves with forays into the South Tobin Range. The ram captured near Golconda Canyon continues to mostly use the Golconda Canyon area with trips south to Miller Basin. The collar on the third ram in Unit 045 failed shortly after the capture and did not provide much insight. The 2 collared ewes in Unit 153 have spent their time mostly between Butcher and Jersey Canyons with short movements into Unit 183, south of the Home Station Wash Road. The 2 collard rams in Unit 153 have also spent time between Butcher and Jersey Canyons and as of late March these rams were in Unit 183, near Cain Mountain. The small population of approximately 20 bighorns that resides in Unit 153 was established from bighorns pioneering from Unit 045 from the 2003 and 2008 augmentations, and continues to remain stagnate. The Tobin bighorn herd has shown an increasing population trend since becoming established in 2003. The 2017 population estimate for Unit 045 is 230 desert bighorns. Units 131 and 164: Duckwater Hills, White Pine Range and North Pancake Range; Southern White Pine and Eastern Nye Counties Report by: Clint Garrett Survey Data An aerial survey in September 2016 and a ground survey in February 2017 yielded 67 total sheep with a ratio of 34 rams:100 ewes:42 lambs. The observed lamb ratio for the combined units was the highest since 2009. Unit 131 continues to struggle with lamb recruitment with only a ratio of 13 lambs:100 ewes. Unit 164 had the highest observed lamb ratio to date with 87 lambs:100 ewes. The next highest ratio was obtained in 2009 with 58 lambs:100 ewes observed. Since 2008 the observed lamb ratio has averaged 22, with a high in 2009 of 56 and a low in 2015 of 5 for this unit group. Habitat Bighorn in Unit 131 can be found in a variety habitat types and a range of elevations depending on the snow conditions in a given year. This animal distribution can range from the top of Currant Mt. at over 11,000 feet in elevation to the toe slopes near Currant at 5,300 feet in elevation. Several surveys have found bighorn utilizing the old burn high in upper Currant Creek and bighorn are benefiting from the increased production of grasses and forbs in this area. Due to wilderness designations, management options in this area are limited but burns in the mid to upper elevations would be favorable to bighorn. Only 2 sheep were seen on survey this year in the Duckwater Hills and due to its lower elevation, water is a limiting factor. In Unit 164, the sheep seem to prefer the hills around Big Round Valley where water is also a limiting factor. Range conditions this past summer and fall were drier than normal and precipitation was below average until the late fall and winter 2016. Precipitation in early March 2017, was exceptional followed by a warming trend which provided good early green up. According to the United States Drought Monitor neither hunt unit is in any type of drought stage. This is an improvement over last year’s rating of abnormally dry. The well above average precipitation this year should sustain range conditions for bighorn going into spring with soil moisture just below normal at 26% saturation for eastern Nevada (NRCS, February 2017).

Page 90: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

72

One big game water development has been built targeting bighorn sheep on the south end of Currant Mountain. There were 31,269 acres transferred from the federal government to the Duckwater Indian Reservation in Unit 164. There are 5 wilderness areas in Unit 131. Population Status and Trend There have been 3 Rocky Mountain bighorn rams harvested in Unit 131 as well as 1 ram confirmed to be a Rocky Mountain-desert bighorn hybrid. All 3 sub-populations in this unit group, Currant Mountain, Duckwater Hills and the North Pancakes have been exposed to the bacterial pathogen Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae. Both the Duckwater Hills and the Pancakes have high risk of further exposure and interaction with domestic sheep. Reduced lamb survival from 2011 to 2015 likely due to the bacterial infection resulted in a declining population. This year’s strong lamb recruitment is near that observed prior to the initial pathogen exposure event which appears to have started in 2010. The population was estimated at a high of 180 adult sheep in 2011. The average population estimate over the previous 5-years (2012- 2016) has been 150. The 2017 population estimate is at 130 adults. Unit 132: Grant Range and Quinn Canyon Range; Eastern Nye County Report by: Clint Garrett Harvest Two tags were issued in 2016 but 1 of the tag holders turned their tag in immediately prior to the hunt which did not allow time for the tag to be reissued. Survey Data An aerial survey in September 2016 resulted in the classification of 57 sheep with sex and age ratios of 47 rams:100 ewes:43 lambs. This is the highest sample size obtained since 2009 and the lamb ratio was noticeably above the 5-year-average of 32. During the 2016 survey, a red ear tagged ewe known to be from a release in the South Pahroc Range in 2011 was observed. Habitat Bighorn sheep have been found mainly on the west side of this unit from Blue Eagle to Troy and on the southern end around Red Bluff. The sheep around Blue Eagle and Troy are limited by water and available grasses and forbs. Sheep utilize the burn at Troy for its flush of grasses and forbs with available water nearby. Tree removal along with spring enhancement or guzzlers in this unit would be beneficial to bighorn. Range conditions this past summer and fall were drier than normal and precipitation was below average until winter. Precipitation in early March 2017, was exceptional followed by a warming trend which provided good early green up. The United States Drought Monitor shows improvement over last year’s rating of moderate drought to abnormally dry throughout the unit. The well above average precipitation this year should sustain range conditions for bighorn going into spring with soil moisture just below normal at 26% saturation for eastern Nevada (NRCS, February 2017). Bighorn have been known to use the Blind Canyon guzzler. The Basin and Range National Monument encompasses a small portion of Unit 132. There are 2 wilderness areas in Unit 132. Population Status and Trend The sheep in the Grant Range have been exposed to and have tested positive several times for the bacterial pathogen Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi). In 2015 a sick lamb was reported in the Troy Canyon area and lab testing determined it died from bacterial pneumonia. Since then no other sheep have been reported or seen with signs of pneumonia. Origins of the Quinn Canyon Range sheep are unclear. A red ear tagged ewe was observed during the 2016 survey, which was originally released into the South Pahroc Range in 2011. An aerial survey in the Quinn

Page 91: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

73

Canyon Range was conducted in February 2014 in which 10 adults and 5 newborn lambs were classified. The survey was cut short and it became apparent that lambing occurred 2 months earlier than the Grant Range. The Quinn Canyon population appears to have little or no connectivity with the Grant Range herd as biological samples were collected for genetics and disease testing with the results being negative for Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi). During sample collection a collar and purple ear tag were placed on a ram in the area. Unfortunately the collar failed but the ram was observed on past surveys in the same area. The 2017 population estimate for the entire unit is 100 which is slightly below the 5-year of 110 adult sheep but appears to be beginning a slight upward trend when compared to last year. Unit 133, 245: Pahranagat and Mount Irish Ranges; Lincoln County Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data Aerial surveys were conducted for desert bighorn sheep in September 2016 in both Pahranagat and Mount Irish mountain ranges with 119 sheep classified during the 4.5 hour survey. Survey composition consisted of 26 Rams, 70 Ewes, and 23 Lambs providing for a ratio of 37 Rams:100:Ewes:33 Lambs. Groups were encountered throughout most of the range and distributed across a wide range of elevations. Multiple groups were observed utilizing areas near water developments that have provided a vital resource in the area. Half of the observed rams were classified as 4+ years old, and 23% were classified as 6+ years old. Habitat Spring habitat conditions in the area had improved from previous years due to heavy precipitation events in April 2016. During the early summer 2016 above average precipitation fell in this area leading to good quality range conditions. The annual precipitation received in Alamo during 2016 was approximately 104% of the previous 10-year average (CEMP 2016 precipitation data). Most of the water developments in the North and East Pahranagats were holding good amounts of water in February 2016 and were being utilized by sheep throughout most of the year. One water development was noticed to have a malfunction but was quickly repaired by the NDOW water development crew out of Las Vegas. The timing of the precipitation should have allowed sheep to go into the winter in good condition. Population Status, and Trend This population has shown a static trend for the past few years. Mild winters may be increasing lamb survival. The computer-generated population estimate for 2017 is similar to that in 2016. In 2015, 10 sheep were captured and tested for disease, 8 in the Pahranagat range and 2 in the Mount Irish area. Test results showed that there was no Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae detected. Disease surveillance and monitoring will continue to document the possible spread of pathogens across the western states. Unit 134: Pancake Range; Nye County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data An aerial survey in September 2016 covered Palisade Mesa, Lunar Cuesta, Little Lunar Cuesta, Black Beauty Mesa, Citadel Mountain, Twin Springs, Echo Reservoir, and Big Fault Mesa. During the 2016 survey, 103 animals were classified in comparison to 116 in 2015. Overall, the observed lamb to ewe ratios of 35:100 for 2016, and 33:100 for 2015 are well-below the long-term average. However, there has been a higher lamb ratio observed since 2011 when pneumonia was detected in this herd.

Page 92: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

74

Habitat In 2016 Central Nevada received 62% of its 30-year average precipitation (CEMP). Spring precipitation (March, April, and May) resulted in 51% of 2016’s precipitation accumulation. In the early part of 2017, much needed precipitation was received. The 1 SNOTEL site located in Central Nevada measured snow pack levels at over 140% in early March 2017. Precipitation in 2015 and 2016 should have led to improved rangeland conditions. Although not observed in 2016, recent years’ moisture receipts during summer/early fall have tempered the impacts of drought. Desert bighorn habitat in Unit 134 has benefitted from these monsoonal moisture patterns and grass and forb species have experienced good production during the summer and fall periods. Population Status and Trend In 2011 a pneumonia disease event related to the presence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) is believed to have caused upwards to 20% adult and 90% lamb mortality. Lamb mortality continued at a rate of near 90% for 3 consecutive years from 2011 to 2013. An increase in lamb survival was documented in 2015 and 2016, but further monitoring of the herd will be necessary to determine if it indicates the beginning of a recovery. As a result of the disease event, the Unit 134 desert bighorn population is exhibiting a slightly decreasing trend. Unit 161: Toquima Range; Northern Nye County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data No formal aerial survey was completed in 2016. The most recent aerial survey conducted in early September 2015 observed 308 bighorn, classified as 84 rams, 159 ewes, and 65 lambs. Population Status and Trend The Unit 161 desert sheep population was re-established with 22 animals in 1982 and has fared so well that it has provided 123 sheep for 5 transplant events (2002 – 2007). The core Unit 161 herd inhabits the area on and around Mount Jefferson in the Alta Toquima Wilderness during summer and fall. The majority of these animals move to lower elevations in the surrounding area during the winter and spring months. A smaller herd established several years ago further north in the Northumberland area. Recent detection of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi), and the presence of pneumonia, in several central Nevada desert bighorn populations has raised concerns that the Unit 161 desert sheep population is at risk of suffering the same fate. Currently, however, there have been no reported observations of sick desert sheep in the Unit 161 area and the herd appears to be doing relatively well. However, periods of drought and impacts from unreasonably high numbers of feral animals continue to plague the herd. On the positive side, 2015 and 2016’s above-average precipitation should allow for some reprieve from recent years’ droughts. Currently, the Unit 161 desert sheep herd is considered to be stable at a moderate level. Units 162, 163: Monitor and Hot Creek Ranges; Nye County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data During the 2016 aerial survey in early September, 136 sheep were classified as 44 rams, 65 ewes, and 27 lambs. The survey covered the southern portion of Unit 162 and Warm Springs, Morey Peak and Hot Creek Canyon.

Page 93: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

75

Population Status and Trend A small number of desert bighorn sheep occurred in the Hot Creek Range prior to the 1990’s, but the population remained static at very low levels. Releases of desert sheep in 1994 and 1995 augmented the existing population, and resulted in stimulating herd growth. An ever-increasing number of animals continue to utilize the southern extent of the Hot Creek Range in the Warm Springs area, and movement between the Hot Creeks and the Kawich Range has increased concurrently. Bighorn had pioneered Hunts Canyon in Unit 162 prior to 2005 and has remained relatively static. Pioneering has also occurred in the southern portion of Unit 162 over the past several years. A small-scale radio collaring project was initiated in this area in January 2013, and the monitoring of a collared ewe and a collared ram has provided interesting data concerning sheep movements, lambing areas, and connectivity to adjacent herds. There is some concern that the pathogen that resulted in an epizootic pneumonia outbreak in adjacent Unit 134 in 2011 could find its way to Unit 163. Based on the very low lamb numbers observed during the 2014 survey, it is possible the pathogen may be present in Unit 163. Further monitoring of the Unit 163 desert sheep population will continue in an effort to confirm the presence or absence of the disease. Recent drought periods have impacted wildlife populations throughout central Nevada, and Unit 163 is no exception. 2015’s (146% of the 30-year average) and 2016’s above-average spring precipitation should have alleviated some of the negative effects on rangelands of recent years’ droughts. Currently, the Unit 163 desert sheep population is considered to be stable. A population model for Unit 162 has yet to be developed, but data indicates the population remains stable to increasing, at low levels. Unit 173: Toiyabe Range; Northern Nye County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data No aerial surveys were conducted in Unit 173 in 2016. The last aerial survey was completed in late August of 2015 with a sample size of 77 sheep and classified as 20 rams, 43 ewes, and 14 lambs. Areas surveyed included Peavine Canyon, Seyler Peak, and areas adjacent to Toiyabe Dome and North Twin River. Habitat The largest portion of the Unit 173 desert sheep population occurs in and around the Peavine Canyon/Seyler Peak area of the Toiyabe Range, although animals can regularly be found along the eastern side of the Toiyabes as far north as Ophir Canyon. Due to the regular occurrence of drought periods in this area for the past 10 plus years, the desert sheep inhabiting the Peavine Canyon area have become accustomed to using private lands that are more moist and lush than adjacent habitats. However, 2015 and 2016’s above-average precipitation should reprieve this issue to some extent by causing range conditions to be improved in areas adjacent to fields. Bighorn Sheep depredation of private lands is likely to continue during drought years until an acceptable solution to landowners, the Nevada Department of Wildlife, and sportsmen can be devised. Population Status and Trend The Toiyabe desert sheep population is 1 of only a few remnant sheep herds that exist in central Nevada. This population was nearly extirpated along with many other sheep herds in the state and had been reduced to an estimated 50 animals by the early 1980’s. During 1983 and 1984, 21 desert sheep were captured in southern Nevada and transplanted into the Toiyabe Range. In 1993, an additional 9 rams were released. The releases were intended to augment and stimulate the existing herd. In 1988 the desert sheep hunting season, which had been closed since 1969, was reopened. Although the majority of the Unit 173 desert sheep population inhabits the southern reaches of the Toiyabe Range, a growing number of animals also inhabit the San Antonio Mountains just north of the town of Tonopah. Occasionally, reports of desert sheep in the Bunker Hill-Big Creek area just south of Highway

Page 94: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

76

50 are received as well. The Big Creek area currently contains an active domestic sheep allotment, and expansion of this small portion of the herd will not be encouraged until risk of contact is eliminated. Recent detection of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi), and the presence of pneumonia in several central Nevada desert bighorn populations has raised concerns that the Unit 173 desert sheep population is at risk of suffering the same fate. Recent droughts have repressed lamb recruitment in Unit 173. Due to this fact, the Unit 173 desert sheep population is considered to be experiencing a static to slightly decreasing trend. Unit 181: Fairview Peak, Slate Mountain, and Sand Springs Range; Churchill County Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data In September 2016, a 3-hour aerial survey yielded 358 desert bighorn sheep. The observed sex and age ratios were 61 rams:100 ewes: 47 lambs. Areas surveyed included the Fairview Range, Sand Springs Range, and Monte Cristo Mountains. This is the highest recorded sample size ever obtained for this unit group. Habitat The old Fairview water development was upgraded in 2016 with a new 10,000 gallon water development that was built adjacent to the old Fairview unit. Two separate drinkers provide water to the Unit 181 bighorn herd. A natural tinaja was also developed within the B-17 boundary to provide an additional water source to the bighorn herd. A 4 foot wall of concrete was poured to retain about 3000 gallons of water when the area receives precipitation. Additionally, the Slate Mountain water development was upgraded in the spring 2016 with new gutters, a drinker, and rail fencing which will enable the herd to utilize it more effectively. The South Rail fence located in the Sand Springs Range was upgraded in the spring 2015. An additional 7,250 gallons was added for a 15,000-gallon capacity. This water development consists of collecting water from a spring source and storing it in underground tanks. The spring goes dry in early summer. An extremely dry weather pattern was experienced in the summer 2016. Bighorn sheep were heavily reliant on using the South Rail Fence project. Therefore, future recommendations may include installing a metal apron to serve as a backup system to this vital water source. Population Status and Trend The Unit 181 bighorn sheep herd continues to exhibit increasing growth trends. The current population model for this herd is 450 animals and is a 12% increase from what was reported last year. Unit 183: Clan Alpine Range; Churchill County Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data During a 3-hour aerial composition survey in September 2016, 365 desert bighorn sheep were classified as 106 rams, 189 ewes and 70 lambs. This was the highest recorded sample ever obtained for this unit. Habitat In the summer 2016, the Little Angel water development went dry. The Nevada Department of Wildlife quickly responded and filled the project. During the spring 2017, the Little Angel water development will be upgraded. The new proposed maintenance on this guzzler will increase the capacity from 7,250 to 12,000 gallons of water. The increased storage and apron size should enable the unit to be self-sustaining.

Page 95: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

77

The Lauderback water development should also be rebuilt as soon as possible. This development is currently 3,000 gallons and continually goes dry in late summer. Increased bighorn use coupled with overall small capacity causes it to go dry early. Increasing the capacity and apron size for the Lauderback guzzler will afford the bighorn population a reliable back up water source to the neighboring Little Angel water development. Population Status and Trend The 2017 population estimate for the herd inhabiting the Clan Alpine Mountains is 450 bighorn, a 31% increase from the 2016 estimate. The significant increase in the estimate is the result of obtaining a record high bighorn sample on the 2016 aerial survey. This year’s lamb ratio of 37 lambs:100 ewes will allow for a small population increase. Unit 184: Desatoya Range; Churchill and Lander Counties Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data In September 2016, a 3-hour survey yielded a sample of 149 desert bighorn sheep. The observed sex and age ratios were 49 rams:100 ewes:44 lambs. Bighorn sheep were encountered throughout the Desatoya Mountains, Eastgate Hills, and Greyback. This was the highest recorded sample for this unit group. Habitat In the summer 2016, a human caused fire erupted in the lower portions of Little Den Creek. This fire consumed 3,560 acres of pinyon juniper woodland as well as higher elevational sagebrush basins. The Nevada Department of Wildlife and the BLM seeded this fire in January 2017. Favorable winter precipitation should aid in the establishment of the seeded plant species. Over the long term this fire will be beneficial to the bighorn herd. Over the past 3 years fire has consumed 8,900 acres of mainly pinyon juniper woodland within the Desatoya Mountains. The removal of pinyon and juniper will allow for the establishment of brush and grass species. This habitat conversion will enable the bighorn herd to thrive in these newly created early successional stage plant communities. These newly created foraging areas will also draw in feral horses. Feral horses need to be kept within appropriate management levels (AML) to allow for successful establishment of plants and a thriving bighorn herd. Population Status and Trend The Unit 184 bighorn population seems to be slightly increasing at this time. The 2016 lamb ratio of 44 should allow for moderate population increases over time. Unit 195: Virginia Range; Storey County Report by: Carl Lackey Survey Data An aerial composition survey was conducted in September 2016 yielding a sample of 99 bighorn sheep with a ratio of 57 rams:100 ewes:20 lambs. Animals were found on Clark Mountain in the vicinity of the lower water development and throughout the Eagle-Picher Mine area. Habitat Habitat conditions in this unit are marginal to poor, due in large part to the feral horse population in the Virginia Range, estimated at over 2000 by the Nevada Department of Agriculture which has management responsibilities in this unit. The need for management of these feral horses is evident in the overall poor

Page 96: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

78

physical condition that many of the horses are in, and the deplorable habitat conditions in those areas frequented by groups of horses. However, the more favorable precipitation levels received during winter 2016-2017 should alleviate some of these concerns, at least temporarily. Population Status and Trend The modeled population estimate shows a slight upward trend despite the habitat conditions. Sheep inhabit Clark Mountain, the Gooseberry Hills, the Derby Dam cliffs and the area around the Eagle-Picher Mine. Miscellaneous survey data, such as trail camera photos from guzzlers, show increasing numbers of untagged sheep in various age classes, which is a good indication of recruitment into the population since the initial releases in 2011 and 2012. Although infrequent, there are continued reports of small groups of sheep, including rams, in the Flowery Range. This unit is not hunted. Unit 202: Wassuk Range; Mineral County Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data In September 2016, an aerial survey conducted in the Wassuk Range yielded a sample of 114 desert bighorn sheep. This sample provides a ratio of 40 rams:100 ewes:41 lambs. Habitat Fires are an important management tool that is needed in type 2 and type 3 pinion canopies. The higher elevation pinion woodland zones of the Wassuk Range are limiting bighorn sheep occupation. Areas like Cat Canyon have adequate sheep habitat at the bottom and mid-slope elevations but needs prescribed fires to remove tree canopy for sheep use. Future plans that will aid the bighorn herd include working with the Hawthorne Army Depot to develop water along the pipeline in Cottonwood Canyon and would allow sheep to utilize a higher elevation water source. Providing a water source in open terrain would reduce predation and should allow for increased distribution of the bighorn herd. Population Status and Trend Over the past 2 years bighorn sheep vehicle collisions have been increasing around the cliff area which is just north of the town of Walker Lake. Nineteen bighorn have died because of vehicle collisions. A meeting was held among Department of Transportation (NDOT), Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), NDOW, and Nevada Bighorns Unlimited to discuss what could be done to reduce animal/vehicle collisions. Ideas included reducing speed limits, more highly visible signage, overpasses and underpasses, limited fence in curves, reducing the population, and herbicide treatment along the highway. In the spring 2017, NDOT applied herbicide to reduce grasses along the roadside. This should reduce the green foliage and may reduce the time spent by bighorn along the highway corridor. This is just one step in a series of actions that are being evaluated to reduce vehicles collisions with bighorn sheep. In November 2016, 3 ewes were fitted with satellite collars to look at movement along the highway corridor. The information gained from the collars may provide some insight on potential problems and help aid in developing solutions to keeping bighorns as well as the public safe. The population estimate for Unit 202 is 200 animals, identical to last year.

Page 97: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

79

Unit 204: East Walker River; Lyon County Report by: Jason Salisbury Harvest In 2017, the Unit 204 bighorn herd will be a standalone unit. Previously Units 202 and 204 were combined. Ample mature rams exist for harvest in Unit 204. Survey Data A 1.5 hour aerial composition survey was conducted in Unit 204 in September 2016. In total 13 bighorn sheep were classified as 5 rams, 6 ewes, and 2 lambs in the East Walker drainages. In the summer 2016, students were sent out to count bighorn sheep in Unit 204. In total 65 bighorn were encountered at that time. Habitat The Flying M Ranch was purchased and has been given to Nevada State Parks. Plans are being developed on how the property will be managed. Fencing on the ranch along the East Walker River is restrictive to bighorn sheep. Potential projects that could benefit bighorn sheep may include removing barbwire or raising the bottom wire of a fence to at least 20” to allow sheep to cross under it. The torrential downpours and monsoonal activity that occurred in 2015 along the Walker River corridor created large debris dams within the river corridor. These debris dams created lakes and ponds and also leveled willows and trees to allow sheep the ability to access water without dense vegetation. Population Estimates and Trend The East Walker River population seems to be doing well enough considering the small geographic area it occupies. The favorable environmental conditions experienced in 2016 should allow for increased survivability in the herd. Unit 205, 207: Gabbs Valley Range, Gillis Range, Pilot Mountains; Eastern Mineral County Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data In September 2016, a 6.5-hour aerial survey yielded a sample of 364 desert bighorn sheep consisting of 88 rams, 183 ewes, and 93 lambs. These results provide a ratio of 46 rams:100 ewes :48 lambs. Habitat In 2017, the Sante Fe water development was rebuilt. The area is in one of the lowest precipitation zones in Nevada with a past 10 year average of 3.8” of precipitation. The new design will capture water on a 50’ x 90’ metal apron and store water within 5 low profile tanks totaling 12,000 gallons. This unit receives high use by bighorn sheep and in the recent past has gone dry almost every year. Faulty designs in the past may have caused the apron not to collect water efficiently coupled with high use by bighorn. During the summer 2016, Corral Spring was investigated for a potential pipe rail project. The Bureau of Land Management with Nevada Department of Wildlife along with the permittee discussed options to improve the spring and allow for more water to be stored in storage tanks. Currently we are working on an agreement to fix numerous springs that have heavy horse and cattle use in the area. By improving these natural water sources now, they may provide more reliable water in the future.

Page 98: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

80

Population Status and Trend The current modeled population estimate for this herd is 700 animals, which is a 7% increase from what was reported last year. The Unit 205/207 herd continues to grow at a slow pace. The outlook for this herd is good and ample mature rams are available for harvest.

Page 99: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

81

Unit 206, 208: Excelsior Range, Candelaria and Garfield Hills, and Miller Mountain; Mineral County Report by: Jason Salisbury Survey Data Aerial surveys were completed in September 2016 and resulted in the observation of 144 desert bighorn sheep classified as 36 rams, 81 ewes and 27 lambs. The observed lamb ratio of 33 lambs:100 ewes on survey indicate a stable population trend. Habitat In the last 5 years, 11 new water developments have been constructed in the Excelsior Mountains, Candalaria Hills, Miller Mountain, and the Garfield Hills. These new water developments have a combined total storage capacity of 90,000 gallons and will provide the necessary water for a growing and expanding herd. Population Status and Trend As part of a 3-year collaborative research project with the University of Nevada Reno study, 15 of the 18 bighorn translocated to the Garfield Hills from Lone Mountain (Unit 212) in early February 2016 were fitted with a GPS satellite collar and Vaginal Implant Transmitter (VIT). The research project is focused on describing habitat resource selection by ewes during and after lambing in their new translocated area and how that compares to lambing and lamb-rearing habitat selection of ewes on the more rugged, rocky, and steep Lone Mountain. Once birth occurs the VIT is expelled and a text message is sent to the researchers via the ewe GPS collar and satellites. Then researchers go out and locate the ewe and new born lamb within 2 days, hand capture it, and place an expandable collar on it to track its survival. Twelve lambs were collared the first year (April and May 2016). Up until Sept 2016, 3 lambs had died likely due to predators and 2 died due to possible abandonment/starvation. This would have resulted in 58 lambs:100 ewe ratio compared to the September aerial survey lamb ratio for Units 206, 208 of 33. This recent augmentation marks the first time sheep did not imprint quickly on known water sources. There are 3 big game guzzlers located in the Garfield Hills and one small seep. All known waters had trail cameras placed on them from February to August 2016. The first documented sheep appeared at the Mable Guzzler at the end of August. Collar monitoring data further showed that sheep never used known water sources until late August 2016. It is believed not having access to water along with lack of quality forage led to poor body condition and increased predation with ewes as well as lambs. A second capture occurred in January 2017 to recapture the remaining collared ewes from the Lone Mountain release. Of the 9 captured sheep only 2 were confirmed pregnant via portable ultrasound. Poor body condition likely contributed to the ewes not being pregnant. It appears that the sheep have now imprinted on existing water sources and combined with improved forage conditions should allow for improved body condition of the ewes through spring 2017. A farm flock of domestic sheep live on a ranch located along Hwy 95 and in front of the Black Dyke Mountains. In February 2016 volunteers and NDOW, with the permission from the private landowner, fortified the private fence to prevent domestic sheep from escaping the ranch. NDOW wants to effectively separate bighorn from domestic sheep to reduce threat of disease transmission. A second fence is being considered to be built on either the inside or outside of existing fence to prevent fence nose to nose contact. Additionally, not far from this domestic sheep flock is a growing domestic goat operation. It has been communicated to the owner the importance of not letting the goats wander away from the private land that is at the base of the Excelsior Range bighorn habitat. The Unit 206/208 desert sheep population continues to exhibit good production rates and continues to grow and occupy new terrain. The addition of the new water developments will allow the Excelsior’s core population to grow and should help foster growth in the Candelaria Hills as well as the Garfield Hills well into the future.

Page 100: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

82

Unit 211: Silver Peak Range and Volcanic Hills; Esmeralda County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data An aerial survey in September 2016 yielded a sample size of 232 sheep and classified 56 rams, 127 ewes and 49 lambs. The most recent survey in 2015 yielded a sample size of 208 sheep which were classified as 66 rams, 109 females and 33 lambs. Habitat The 2015 (146% of the 30-year average for Central Nevada) and 2016’s above-average spring precipitation (51% of 2016’s total) should have improved rangeland conditions compared to recent drought years. The recent installment of 2 new big game guzzlers in the Mineral Ridge area near Silver Peak should distribute the herd and alleviate the detrimental effects of sheep watering on the mine. Population Status and Trend The Unit 211 desert sheep herd is 1 of only a handful of remnant herds in central Nevada. Historically, sheep movement occurred regularly between the Silver Peak Range (Unit 211) and the Monte Cristo Range (Unit 213). The Monte Cristo Range served primarily as winter range for many of the sheep in the Silver Peaks. Over the years this movement has slowed considerably, and while some movement still takes place, each of the 2 ranges now support what are considered distinct populations. Some movement also occurs between the Silver Peak Range and Lone Mountain, Unit 212. The vast majority of the desert sheep inhabiting Unit 211 occur in the Silver Peak Range and the Volcanic Hills. However, some incidental use does occur on the Nevada portion of the White Mountains in the general area of Boundary Peak. Seasonal movements also occur between the Volcanic Hills and Miller Mountain/Candelaria Hills portions of western Esmeralda and eastern Mineral Counties, Unit 208. The presence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi), a bacterium related to pneumonia outbreaks in bighorn sheep, was documented in a ram harvested in Unit 211 during the 2013 desert sheep hunting season. During October 2014, a disease surveillance and radio marking effort was conducted in Unit 211. GPS collars were placed on 4 rams in Unit 211 during the effort, including 2 in the Silver Peak Range, and 2 in the Volcanic Hills. During the operation, biological samples were obtained from 13 sheep. Results indicate that Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) is present in both the Silver Peak portion of the Unit, as well as the Volcanic Hills. In addition, a lamb showing clinical signs of disease was collected in the Silver Peak Range in July, and tests revealed the presence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi), as well as severe pneumonia which would have likely resulted in the death of the lamb. While the observations of comparatively good numbers of lambs during the 2014, 2015 and 2016 aerial surveys are encouraging, it is still unclear what impacts the presence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) will have on the herd moving forward. Based on the apparent absence of pneumonia-related adult mortality and fair lamb recruitment, the Unit 211 desert sheep population is considered to be stable to slightly increasing. Unit 212: Lone Mountain; Esmeralda County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data An aerial survey was conducted in September 2016. Survey yielded a sample size of 350 sheep, which were classified as 118 rams, 162 ewes and 70 lambs. In 2015, an abbreviated aerial survey was completed to assess lamb production for an upcoming PhD project capture/translocation. The survey comprised a sample size of 206 total sheep classified as 66 rams, 106 females, and 34 young.

Page 101: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

83

Population Status and Trend The Unit 212 desert sheep population is 1 of only a few remnant central Nevada herds that survived extirpation during the 19th and 20th centuries due to a variety of anthropogenic causes. Once regulations that provided reasonable protections to bighorn sheep were put into place, the Lone Mountain herd began increasing steadily. By the late 1980’s the estimated population was over 200 animals. This population served as transplant stock during 2 successive years in the late 1980’s. Immediately following these captures, the herd experienced a sharp decline, and by 1991 the herd’s estimated population was less than fifty animals. The exact cause of this decline is uncertain. Due to excellent production and recruitment rates experienced over a decade now, the Unit 212 desert sheep population has increased at a phenomenal rate. Due to the steadily increasing population, and a desire to control densities, the Unit 212 herd was once again utilized as a source of transplant stock in November 2012. During the 2013 aerial composition survey, a very low observed lamb ratio raised disease concerns. Then, in late March 2014, the test results of a 2013 hunter-harvested ram from Lone Mountain were found to be positive for Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi). In April 2014, 2 adult ewes and a young ram were collected for sampling and necropsy. Results confirmed presence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) in the Unit 212 sheep herd. Additionally in 2014, as part of a larger disease monitoring effort, several sheep were captured and sampled and 2 rams were collared to assess movements. Despite the presence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi), and observations of animals showing clinical signs of disease, no significant adult mortality has been documented to date. Moreover, strong observed lamb ratios during the 2014 fall survey indicate the lamb segment of the herd did not experience unusually high mortality. In 2014, an ewe hunt was established in Unit 212 in an effort to help reduce sheep densities on Lone Mountain. The same ewe hunt was present in 2015 and 2016. If the herd continues to show good lamb production and recruitment despite the ongoing disease issues, it will be necessary to continue the harvest of ewes to manage animal density. In January 2016, 34 ewes were captured for a University of Nevada, Reno Ph.D. research project. Of these 34 sheep, 18 ewes were translocated to the Garfield Hills. The purpose of this project is to describe ewe selection of lambing and lamb rearing habitat sites and cause-specific mortality of lambs. In January 2017, 14 of the previous 15 ewes were recaptured along with 4 additional ewes as a continuation of this study. Partially as a result of the newly instituted ewe harvest strategies and translocation efforts, the Unit 212 desert sheep population is currently showing a stable to slightly decreasing trend. Unit 213: Monte Cristo Range; Esmeralda County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data An aerial survey was conducted in September 2016. Survey yielded a sample size of 397 sheep, which were classified as 100 rams, 201 ewes and 96 lambs. This survey covered Shovel Spring Basin, South Gilbert, Trough Spring, Devils Gate, and the hills north of the gap. The last survey was conducted in early September of 2015 and classified 265 sheep as 77 rams, 146 ewes and 42 lambs. Population Status and Trend The Monte Cristo desert sheep population is 1 of only a few remnant sheep herds in central Nevada. The herd has exhibited steady growth over the past 7 to 10 years, and the population has reached a level where there is concern over animal densities. During the fall of 2011, 34 bighorn were removed from the Monte Cristo Range for translocation to the Virginia Range, Unit 195 to reduce animal densities. In addition to the 2011 capture effort, an ewe hunt was established in 2014 to further reduce animal densities in the Monte Cristo Range. During late 2013/early 2014, bacteria related to pneumonia in bighorn sheep, Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi), was documented in adjacent herds in Units 211 and 212. As expected, it was not long before the

Page 102: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

84

pathogen was detected in the Unit 213 desert sheep population. As part of a larger disease surveillance effort for the metapopulation in Esmeralda and Mineral Counties, 10 sheep were captured from various parts of the Monte Cristo Range for pathogen testing. Four rams were also fitted with GPS collars. It is anticipated that this project will help biologists further understand the implications of the presence of M. ovi in bighorn sheep herds, as well as sheep movements between populations, and could potentially aide in future management of disease risk. Currently, desert sheep densities in the Monte Cristo Range are considered to be excessive. Now that the presence of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi)i. has been documented in Unit 213, translocating animals to reduce densities is currently not an option. If the herd continues to experience current levels of lamb recruitment despite the disease exposure, it will be necessary to continue with the newly instituted ewe hunt as a means of controlling animal densities. Due to the newly instituted ewe hunt, the current population model for Unit 213 shows a slightly decreasing trend for this herd. Unit 221, 223, 241: Hiko, Pahroc, South Egan, and Delamar Ranges; Lincoln County Report by: Cooper Munson

Survey Data Aerial surveys were conducted in September 2016 in Units 223 and 241. The survey classified 178 sheep with a composition ratio of 61 rams:100 ewes:22 lambs. The sample size was relatively high for the entire area except for the fewer sheep observed in the Delamar Mountains than in previous years. Recent hunter observations in the Delamars exceeded those observed during aerial survey. No surveys were conducted in Unit 221, although recent observations have been made as well as camera images captured of sheep in the area. Habitat Habitat conditions throughout this area were reported as excellent during September described by ample green grasses and other vegetation appearing healthy throughout a range of elevations. Water development surveys show several of the sheep guzzlers at or near capacity, but a few well below capacity. The Judy water development in the Delamars was rebuilt after being destroyed by fire, while 2 other water developments in the South Hiko Range were rebuilt in 2014. One water development was rebuilt in the North Hiko range to increase efficiency and storage capacity. Bighorn sheep in these areas are faced with a host of varied issues including OHV races and rock-crawling courses, new power lines, development, and domestic sheep interaction. In late October 2015, disease surveillance efforts resulted in the detection of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M ovi) within the herd. Staff will be monitoring this population in attempt to detect the progression of the disease. Population Status and Trend Two releases of 75 animals were completed in the Delamar and South Pahroc ranges in fall 2011. Bighorn released in these areas have been observed to commonly move to adjacent ranges. It appears that some of the sheep from the South Pahroc release have possibly even moved some 60 miles northwest to the Quinn Canyon Range, while others have taken up residency within Units 223 and 241. The computer-generated population estimate for 2017 is similar to the estimate for 2016. NDOW biologists allowed the inclusion of Unit 221 to the hunt area to allow hunters to seek rams in the South Egan range although density and distribution of individuals is not known at this time. There was a noticeable decrease in lambs observed in 2016 which may be related to the discovery of the pathogen M. ovi although no definitive causes have been determined.

Page 103: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

85

Unit 243: Meadow Valley Mountains; Lincoln County Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data No aerial surveys were conducted in this unit during 2016. Habitat According to CEMP, this area should have received about 100% of the 10 year average annual precipitation during 2016. Spring and early summer precipitation may have resulted in amplified habitat conditions across the landscape. Water developments were observed to be holding fair amounts of water in February, 2017 while maintenance and repairs have been accomplished on most of these developments keeping them functional and reliable water sources for wildlife. One water development unit was rebuilt to increase efficiency and capacity on the southern portion of the unit. Wilderness, private land issues, and limited roads combine to make access into the Meadow Valley Range difficult for sheep hunters. There is currently a threat of disease transmission between domestic sheep and goats with the wild sheep population in this area. NDOW is addressing this issue by monitoring the potential areas of contact between domestic livestock and wildlife. Population Status and Trend Previous releases of sheep into the Meadow Valleys and Delamars, combined with poor to moderate habitat conditions have resulted in a static trend in the population. Population estimates have been consistent during the last 3 years and the estimate for 2017 is slightly above the 5 year average. Disease surveillance conducted in late October 2015 showed 2 of 5 sampled bighorns had previously been exposed to Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae as had the surrounding herds in the Delamar and Mormon Mountains. Unit 244: Arrow Canyon Range; Northern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In late September 2016, an aerial desert bighorn survey over the Arrow Canyon Range and Battleship Hills yielded a sample of 124 sheep. The sample was comprised of 37 rams, 63 ewes and 24 lambs. Bighorn were encountered throughout much the range, and were nearly all found within 2 linear miles of available water. Relative to the previous survey conducted in fall 2014, Lamb representation in the recent survey was notably higher. Habitat Precipitation receipts in winter 2016-2017 were sufficient to foster new vegetative growth, and to recharge water developments. In the course of conducting inspections in February 2017, all 6 water developments in the Arrow Canyon Range and Battleship Hills were noted as fully recharged. In January 2014, the 231-mile long One Nevada Transmission Line that electrically connects northern and southern Nevada was commissioned. The 500-kV transmission line runs from the Harry Allen Generating Station north through the Arrow Canyon Range about 1.5 miles south of the Arrow Canyon #1 water development. The line continues north, closely skirting the west side of the Arrow Canyon Range to the new Robinson Summit Substation located west of Ely, Nevada. Population Status and Trend Based on population data collected in September 2016, lamb representation (38 lambs per 100 ewes) in the aerial survey sample was high and suggestive of increased recruitment in 2017. In contrast, aerial survey data in 2014 portrayed very low lamb representation (11 lambs per 100 ewes). Disease surveillance

Page 104: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

86

efforts in 2015 in the Arrow Canyon Range entailed the capture and sampling of 6 ewes. Subsequent PCR and ELISA positive lab results confirmed Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae infection in the desert bighorn herd. It was reasoned the bighorn population contracted in 2015 and 2016. Thus, recent aerial survey results are encouraging. Unit 252: Stonewall Mountain; Nye County Report by: Joe Bennett Survey Data The early September 2016 aerial survey for Unit 252 yielded 174 sheep classified as 55 rams, 108 ewes, and 11 lambs. Areas surveyed included Stonewall Proper, NE Hills, Pack Rat Canyon, Little Grand Canyon and the hills south of Vitavich. In comparison, the next most recent aerial survey took place in early October 2015, where 238 desert sheep were classified as 68 rams, 161 ewes, and 9 lambs. Population Status and Trend Before disease prevalence in the Stonewall Mountain herd was detected in 2014, lamb recruitment allowed the herd densities to increase steadily. In an effort to help decrease densities of desert bighorn sheep in the Stonewall Mountain area, a translocation project was conducted in fall of 2011. Twenty-eight animals were successfully removed to augment the Excelsior Range and to reintroduce bighorn back into the Virginia Range (Unit 195). Unfortunately, recent Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M. ovi) exposure to Stonewall Mountain and surrounding Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) subherds has caused high lamb mortalities for 3 consecutive years (2014-2016). To assess connectivity, movement, and disease transmission of bighorn sheep populations throughout the NTTR a satellite collaring and disease surveillance project was implemented in fall 2015 and supplemented in 2016. Nineteen sheep in 2015 were collared to help give insight into movements of bighorn sheep populations throughout the NTTR. An additional 6 sheep were captured in November 2016. Modeling of the Stonewall Mountain population is challenging due to the continual movement of desert bighorn between Stonewall Mountain and areas further within the NTTR. Currently, NDOW and NTTR personnel are coordinating to conduct further monitoring of the herd. Based on disease and lack of recruitment into the population, hunt Unit 252 is experiencing a decreasing trend. Unit 253: Bare Mountain; Southern Nye County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In late October 2016, a brief 2.4-hour aerial bighorn sheep survey over Bare Mountain yielded a sample of 188 sheep. The sample reflected gender and age ratios of 81 rams:100 ewes:28 lambs. Increasing gusty conditions precluded thorough survey over the west side of Bare Mountain and the hills north of Fluorspar Canyon. In comparison, in October 2014, a record aerial survey yielded a sample of 265 sheep. The largest recorded sample reflected gender and age ratios of 58 rams:100 ewes:54 lambs. Habitat Bighorn sheep continue to cope with environmental effects brought about by excess burros. The northern half of Bare Mountain lies within the Bullfrog Herd Management Area. The town of Beatty, Nevada is centrally located within the Herd Management Area (HMA), and US 95 divides the HMA into eastern and western portions. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) established the appropriate management level (AML) for feral burros in the herd management area (HMA) at 58-91. In January 2012, BLM finalized planning efforts to capture and remove excess feral burros from the Bullfrog HMA, and all burros beyond the established boundaries of the HMA. At that time, an aerial burro census resulted in 195 feral burros counted, of which 42 were encountered outside of the HMA. Undetected burros notwithstanding, the census over 4 years ago reflected a burro population 236% above the lower end of AML.

Page 105: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

87

The burro gather that was to begin in March 2012, was never accomplished and was postponed indefinitely due to lack of funding and limited space at short-term holding facilities. According to BLM at the time, the burro population of 195 would continue to increase at an estimated rate of 16% annually. Thus, despite removal of 44 burros from the Beatty area in 2015, the feral equid population is likely near (16% annual increase) 350 animals and about 500% over the lower end of AML. Environmental conditions in early 2017 may be characterized as fair to good. As of early February 2017, each of the 3 water developments was fully recharged. In April 2013, a water development was constructed on the southwest side of Bare Mountain. The new development incorporated a cross-leveling design (no float valve), a steel collection apron, 5 low profile tanks and an offset steel drinker. The total storage capacity of the new project is about 11,000 gallons. The water development is located 0.5 mile northwest of existing Bare #1 (considered offline), and was originally intended to replace the older and less reliable water development. Population Status and Trend Evidence suggests the bighorn sheep herd was exposed to Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M ovi) in 2014. In fall 2015, 7 ewes and 5 rams were captured, sampled and released on Bare Mountain. Subsequent lab diagnostic tests revealed active (PCR) M ovi infection among 5 sheep and definitive prior exposure (ELISA) among 3 individuals. In general, poor body condition (BCS <2.5) was noted in 10 of the 12 sheep captured and sampled. In addition, severe Psoroptic mite infestation was noted in 2 sheep. In early November 2016, in continuance of respiratory disease surveillance, 8 bighorn sheep were captured, sampled and released. Recent lab diagnostic test results were similar to results obtained from the fall 2015 bighorn capture contingent, and portray a herd still coping with M ovi infection. Indications are the bighorn population contracted. Important factors contributing to the population decline include ewe removals and reduced recruitment. Ewe removals through harvest under hunt seasons in 2015 and 2016 appear to be the principal factor driving the desired population decline. The ewe hunt seasons were implemented to reduce the bighorn population and address concerns primarily about water resource limitations. Desert bighorn sheep movements through the Beatty Wash—west Yucca Mountain area serve to maintain connectivity between bighorn population segments on Bare Mountain and in adjacent mountains on Department of Defense and Department of Energy lands. The area may be characterized as hills bisected by washes. Due to relatively low topographic relief and lack of water, desert bighorn sheep use of the area is reasoned to be primarily seasonal (late fall-winter-spring). The Beatty Wash—west Yucca Mountain area is an important movement corridor and should be recognized in land use planning. Desert bighorn capture activities in fall 2015 and fall 2016 were carried out over a broad area that included locations within the Nevada Test and Training Range and Nevada National Security Site and on Stonewall Mountain, Bare Mountain and Specter Range. Subsets of captured bighorn were fitted with GPS collars. The overall objectives were two-fold: to gain information on spatio-temporal dynamics of pneumonia over a large area, and to elucidate movement patterns on a landscape scale. Already, GPS movement data are beginning to substantiate the Beatty Wash—west Yucca Mountain area as a bighorn movement corridor. Unit 254: Specter Range; Southern Nye County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data No aerial bighorn sheep survey was conducted in Unit 254 in 2016. In early October 2015, an aerial survey conducted over the Specter Range yielded a sample of 69 desert bighorn sheep. The sample was comprised of 25 rams, 34 ewes and 10 lambs. Desert bighorn sheep were encountered primarily in the eastern half of the range.

Page 106: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

88

Habitat Environmental conditions may be characterized as fair to good in the Specter Range. Plant vigor appears to be improved relative to last year. As of early February 2017, 5 of 6 water developments were fully recharged. The outlier, Specter #4 (Redtail) was found to hold a small amount of water (12 % of capacity), as result of an apparent sheep-caused damaged float valve. Nevertheless, water stores are adequate to support the desert bighorn sheep herd throughout the upcoming summer and early fall months. There are no known springs or seeps in the Specter Range. Increasingly, the Nevada Department of Wildlife personnel have encountered feral burros or sign of feral burros (i.e., scat and prints) in the Specter Range. It is thought these feral burros ventured south over 30 miles from the Bullfrog Herd Management Area. Google imagery portrays burro trails that link the pond at the Sterling Gold Mine to Cinder Cone Pit along US Route 95, and intermittent trail segments that reach and emanate from Lathrop Wells. Burro presence in the Specter Range is a violation of the Wild Horses and Burros Act of 1971 and is concerning due to easily accessible, unfenced water sources. In 2011, the Bureau of Land Management (Tonopah) was notified of burro ingress to the Specter Range. Later in 2011, the Bureau of Land Management issued a draft Bullfrog Herd Management Area Feral Burro Gather Plan and Environmental Assessment. The burro gather was postponed indefinitely due to lack of funding and limited space at short-term holding facilities. Population Status and Trend In the Specter Range, events beginning as early as fall 2002 indicated the population was suffering from disease. Available evidence suggested bacterial pneumonia may have been a factor in high mortality among lambs. Recruitment during 6 consecutive years (2002-2007) was low to negligible. In spring 2008, several observations were made of ewes with lambs. Remote cameras installed at water developments in late spring and summer documented lamb survival through summer 2008. Lamb survival was further noted in the subsequent aerial surveys conducted in 2008, 2010 and 2015. In fall 2015, desert bighorn capture activities were carried out over a broad area that included locations within the Nevada Test and Training Range and Nevada National Security Site, and on Stonewall Mountain, Bare Mountain and Specter Range. In the Specter Range, 2 ewes and 4 rams were captured and sampled. Subsequent lab diagnostic tests revealed active (PCR) Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae infection in one ewe and definitive prior exposure (ELISA) in 2 rams. The bighorn sheep population estimate is about the same as last year. Unit 261: Last Chance Range; Southeastern Nye County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In mid-October 2016, an aerial survey over the Last Chance Range yielded a sample of 141 sheep. The sample reflected sex and age rations of 57 rams:100 ewes:15 lambs. Habitat Range conditions in the Last Chance Range may be characterized as good and improved relative to last year. Based on inspections of 4 of the 7 water developments in the Last Chance Range in February 2017, 3 units were fully recharged and 1 unit was 86% of maximum recharge. Available water stores inclusive of Point of Rocks Springs will be sufficient to meet bighorn demand throughout upcoming summer and early fall months. A consequence of the expanding human population in the Pahrump Valley is habitat degradation resulting from dispersed recreational use of off highway vehicles and permitted off highway vehicle races. Population Status and Trend The 2017 bighorn population estimate reflects a moderate contraction that is related to lower lamb

Page 107: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

89

recruitment in 2017. Bighorn sheep inhabiting the Last Chance Range are likely coping with respiratory disease. In mid-October 2014, 5 bighorn sheep were captured in the central portion of the Last Chance Range, sampled, and released. Results from ELISA and nasal swab PCR indicated Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M ovi) exposure and infection. In furtherance of respiratory disease surveillance, 3 ewes and 5 rams were captured and sampled in early November 2016. Recent lab diagnostic test results were similar to results obtained from the fall 2014 bighorn capture contingent, and portray a herd still coping with M ovi infection. Unit 262: Spring Mountains (La Madre, Red Rock and South Spring Mountains) and Bird Spring Range; Western Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In fall 2016, aerial survey efforts involved 15.6 hours of flight time over the course of 4 days, and were focused over the following areas: La Madre Mountain, Brownstone Basin, Calico Hills, Red Rock Escarpment, Potosi Mountain (east and south), Bird Spring Range, Shenandoah Peak complex, Table Mountain, Little Devil Peak and Devil Peak. The survey yielded a sample of 159 bighorn sheep. The sample was comprised of 47 rams, 99 ewes and 13 lambs. Habitat Unit 262 generally receives more precipitation than other areas in Clark County. Desert bighorn sheep benefit from adequate range conditions on a consistent basis; however, due to proximity to Las Vegas, recreational pursuits (e.g., off highway vehicle and mountain bike use, proliferation of roads and trails, rock climbing), feral horses and burros and suburban sprawl serve to degrade habitat. In June 2005, lightning strikes in the higher elevations near Potosi Peak ignited the Goodsprings Fire. The Goodsprings Fire consumed plants across 33,484 acres along a 3,940-foot elevation gradient and within 3 vegetative associations: creosote-bursage flats, Mojave Desert scrub, and pinyon-juniper woodland. Landmark areas within the Goodsprings Fire included: northern portion of the Bird Spring Range, Double Up Mine canyon, Ninety-nine Spring canyon, Cave Spring canyon, and Shenandoah Peak. Population Status and Trend Desert bighorn sheep population data obtained through aerial surveys and disease surveillance results portray a herd in decline due to bacterial pneumonia. Based on fall aerial surveys over several years, the herd has experienced a considerable contraction marked by negligible lamb survival and reduced adult survivorship. A chronology of relevant events that were reported in recent years may be found in the 2014-15 Big Game Status book. In early November 2016, continued disease surveillance measures entailed captures of 3 rams and 8 ewes in the south Spring Mountains. Subsequent lab diagnostic tests revealed active (PCR) M ovi infection among 2 sheep and definitive prior exposure (ELISA) among 6 individuals. The results of the lab tests and low lamb representation in the fall aerial survey suggest the herd is still coping with bacterial pneumonia. Bighorn sheep in the Spring Mountains face challenges with respect to habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss. In the La Madre Ridge area, human encroachment in the form of suburban sprawl and off highway vehicle use has degraded bighorn habitat. Increasingly, land management emphasis in the Red Rock area accommodates human recreational pursuits that often compromise habitat and wildlife conservation. In the late 1990s, the Bureau of Land Management (Las Vegas) administratively designated a large area (approximately 3,641 acres) east of La Madre Ridge as the Lone Mountain Community Pit. The intent of the designation was to accommodate local demand for an additional source of sand and gravel to support development in southern Nevada. In the 1960s, the Bureau of Land Management identified much of the area now within the boundary of Lone Mountain Community Pit as seasonally important for desert bighorn sheep.

Page 108: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

90

Unit 263: McCullough Range and Highland Range; Southern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In October 2016, aerial bighorn sheep surveys were conducted over the Highland Range and McCullough Range. Bighorn were encountered throughout much of the area covered over the McCullough Range; however, lamb encounters were low. In the Highland Range, sheep were encountered in the north half. Inclusive of both survey efforts, 66 rams, 160 ewes and 13 lambs were classified. Habitat On March 21, 2015, a fifth desert bighorn sheep water development was constructed in the McCullough range by members of the Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn and the Nevada Department of Wildlife personnel. The project is situated east of Hidden Valley near the crest of the range and enhances water availability in a region between the 2 southernmost existing water developments, Linda and Roy. The McCullough #6 water development is an equilibrium system (i.e., no float valve) and incorporates 4 low profile IRM tanks. Water storage capacity of the new development is 8,800 gallons. In late April 2015, the McCullough #5 water development was constructed between the 2 existing northeastern most projects, Penny and Roy. As of late April 2015, there are 6 bighorn sheep water developments situated north of McCullough Pass. In February 2013, the Poppy water development was reconstructed. Situated in the North McCullough Wilderness, the existing 3 upright poly tanks were replaced with low profile IRM tanks. The old drinker and float valve were replaced with a new drinker to complete the leveled system. Water storage capacity increased from 4,650 gallons to 8,800 gallons. Several projects to construct recreation trails in bighorn sheep habitat are underway or completed. The City of Henderson is constructing trails on the north end of the McCullough Range and the Bureau of Land Management will ultimately complete a network of linking trails in Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and in 2 wilderness areas. Population Status and Trend Bighorn sheep population data obtained through aerial surveys and disease surveillance results portray a herd in decline due to bacterial pneumonia. The herd has experienced a considerable contraction marked by low lamb survival. A chronology of relevant events that were reported in recent years may be found in the 2014-15 Big Game Status book. In November 2015, continued disease surveillance measures entailed captures of 1 ram and 6 ewes in the McCullough Range, and 1 ram and 1 ewe in the Highland Range. Subsequent laboratory diagnostic tests detected the Mojave National Preserve strain of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae in the McCullough-Highland bighorn sheep herd. Bighorn sheep in the northern portion of the McCullough Range face a variety of challenges in the near future. On the west flank of the range, suburban sprawl and flood control measures have already claimed much of the lower elevation habitat. To the north, the movement corridor between the River Mountains and the McCullough Range across US Route 93/95 at Railroad Pass has been effectively eliminated. Additional urban sprawl southward along I-15 is expected to degrade desert bighorn sheep habitat in the Hidden Valley area. Unit 264: Newberry Mountains; Southern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In October 2016, 13 rams, 48 ewes and 3 lambs were encountered in the course of an aerial bighorn sheep survey over the Newberry Mountains. The previous sample collected in 2012 was the largest recorded (Table 1).

Page 109: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

91

Table 1. Bighorn sheep herd composition obtained through aerial surveys in the Newberry Mountains.

Year Rams Ewes Lambs Total Rams:100 Ewes:Lambs

2016 13 48 3 64 27:100:6 2012 40 65 23 128 62:100:35 2010 34 54 11 99 63:100:20 2008 23 17 11 51 135:100:65 2006 22 19 4 45 116:100:21 2003 11 16 14 41 69:100:88 2000 12 18 5 35 67:100:28 1998 7 13 11 31 54:100:85 1996 6 11 4 21 55:100:36 1994 3 6 0 9 50:100:0

Population Status and Trend Bighorn sheep inhabiting the Newberry Mountains are surrounded by nearby bighorn populations that are coping with bacterial pneumonia. Although herd health profile information is lacking, it is reasoned the Mojave National Preserve strain of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M ovi) is endemic in the Newberry Mountains bighorn sheep population. The negligible lamb representation in the recent aerial survey sample is consistent with adjacent bighorn herds struggling with M ovi. The Mojave strain of M ovi has been associated with bighorn die-offs marked by not only low lamb survival, but also substantial adult morbidity and mortality. Unit 265: South Eldorado Mountains; Southeastern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data No aerial survey was conducted in the southern portion of the Eldorado Mountains in 2016. In October 2010, 19 rams, 9 ewes and 1 lamb were observed during a 2.4-hour survey (Table 2). The next aerial bighorn sheep survey in the south Eldorado Mountains is scheduled for fall 2017. Table 2. Bighorn sheep herd composition obtained through aerial surveys in the south Eldorado Mountains.

Year Rams Ewes Lambs Total Rams:100 Ewes:Lambs

2010 19 9 1 29 211:100:11 2003 2 6 4 12 33:100:67 2002 3 2 2 7 150:100:100 1998 14 3 1 18 467:100:33 1996 19 14 5 38 136:100:36 1994 1 5 3 9 20:100:60 1992 3 1 0 4 300:100:0

Since 1969, survey sample sizes have varied widely; samples have ranged from 0 to 50 animals. In some years, aerial Survey Data portray a disproportionate number of rams in the unit. In many of the 21 aerial surveys conducted since 1969, the number of rams observed either equaled or far exceeded the number of ewes.

Page 110: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

92

Population Status and Trend Bighorn sheep population data obtained through aerial surveys and disease surveillance results portray a herd in decline due to bacterial pneumonia. The herd has experienced a considerable contraction marked by high lamb mortality. A chronology of relevant events that were reported in recent years may be found in the 2014-15 Big Game Status book. In 2015, the Mojave National Preserve strain of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M ovi) was detected in bighorn in the Eldorado Mountains. The Mojave strain of M ovi has been associated with bighorn die-offs marked by not only negligible lamb survival, but also substantial adult morbidity and mortality. Unit 266: North Eldorado Mountains; Southeastern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In mid-October 2016, an abbreviated 1.9-hour aerial bighorn sheep survey was conducted over a southern portion of the hunt unit. Two rams and 6 ewes were encountered in the course of the brief survey. In early November 2015, an aerial survey was conducted over the northern end of the hunt unit. The survey yielded a sample of 65 bighorn sheep comprised 15 rams, 48 ewes and 2 lambs. Adult mortalities noted during the survey included 2 ewes and 4 rams. The majority of the sheep were encountered north of Boy Scout Canyon. Habitat The bighorn sheep herd in the Eldorado Mountains has and will continue to face challenges. Two massive highway projects are intended to divert traffic from Hoover Dam and Boulder City. The Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge and new US Route 93 alignment was opened to traffic in October 2010. The new bridge spans the Colorado River approximately 1,500 feet downstream of the dam. The second bypass project is designated Interstate 11 and will run around the south and east sides of Boulder City and link with the already completed western end of the US Route 93 Hoover Dam Bypass project. Thus, Phase 2 of the Boulder City Bypass will carve through desert bighorn sheep habitat in the northwest portion of the Eldorado Mountains. Several federal and state agencies are involved in and coordinating on numerous design and construction aspects including wildlife monitoring. The new alignment, once completed, will incorporate several crossing structures to accommodate wildlife movements and enhance highway permeability. In mid-January 2015, 25 desert bighorn sheep were captured in and near the Phase 2 project area. The primary intent of the desert bighorn sheep capture operation was to affix satellite GPS collars on ewes and rams to assess movements and measure bighorn permeability across the highway during construction and following construction. Population Status and Trend See the report from Unit 265, Population Status and Trend section for details on disease detection and surveillance in both the north and south Eldorado Mountains. Unit 267: Black Mountains; Eastern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data No aerial bighorn sheep survey was conducted in Unit 267 in 2016. In early November 2015, an aerial survey conducted over the Black Mountains yielded a sample of 208 desert bighorn sheep. The observed sex and age ratios were 44 rams:100 ewes:13 lambs. The aerial survey was conducted over the hills south of Echo Bay including Bighorn Island south to Manganese Wash, the Echo Hills and along the high main

Page 111: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

93

ridge northeast of Boulder Wash. The survey did not extend over Pinto Ridge, Razorback Ridge or areas south of Boulder Wash. Habitat Environmental conditions are good due to winter and spring storms in 2016-17. The likelihood for an overall dry year is not an immediate concern, as the National Weather Service seasonal drought outlook valid through June 2017 does not foresee development of drought conditions. Population Status and Trend Desert bighorn sheep occupying the Black Mountains and Muddy Mountains comprise a single population given the high degree of movement between ranges; however environmental conditions and local population dynamics have differed markedly. Over the long term, aerial survey data portray a decline in the number of desert bighorn sheep inhabiting the Black Mountains and an increase in sheep numbers in the adjacent Muddy Mountains. The 2017 population estimate for desert bighorn sheep inhabiting the Black Mountains and Muddy Mountains approximates the estimate reported last year. Unit 268: Muddy Mountains; Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Harvest The third desert bighorn ewe hunt in Unit 268 was held in October 2016. Forty-five tags were apportioned to the resident hunt and 5 tags were allotted to the nonresident hunt. Overall, 32 ewes were harvested. Survey Data In late October 2016, 5.3 hours of flight time were expended to conduct an aerial bighorn sheep survey over the Muddy Mountains. The survey yielded a sample of 404 bighorn sheep, of which 7 were unclassified. The observed sex and age ratios were 104 rams:100 ewes:43 lambs. In fall 2015, 557 bighorn sheep were encountered in 11.1 hours of survey over the course of 2 days. The observed sex and age ratios in the 2015 sample were 116 rams:100 ewes:42 lambs. Habitat Precipitation receipts in late fall 2016 through early April 2017 were sufficient to foster new vegetative growth and to recharge bighorn water developments. In the course of conducting inspections in February 2017, the 2 water developments, Safari and Jerry, on the south end of Muddy Peak were noted as 98% and 100% recharged, respectively. The remaining 4 water developments on the east side of the Muddy Mountains were fully recharged. In March 2013, the Cliff Site water development was reconstructed. The hypalon apron was replaced with a metal apron and the 4 upright poly tanks were replaced with low profile IRM tanks. The 2 old drinkers and float valves were replaced with a new drinker to complete the leveled system. Water storage capacity was increased from 7,800 gallons to 8,800 gallons. In late March 2012, the Five Ram water development was upgraded. Notably, the project was fully converted to a leveled system. Thus, the float valve was eliminated. The upgrade also entailed removal of 3 aged, high profile poly tanks and installation of 5 new, low profile tanks and a drinker. The upgrade augmented the water storage capacity from roughly 10,350 gallons to about 13,600 gallons. Population Status and Trend In late October 2016, 10 ewes and 10 rams were captured, sampled (i.e., blood, tonsil and nasal swabs) and released in furtherance of disease surveillance. All animals were negative on PCR for Mycoplasma

Page 112: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

94

ovipneumoniae (M ovi); however, 1 animal was positive on ELISA for M ovi. At the time in early November 2016, the uncertainty of the health status of the herd led to prompt cancelation of a scheduled bighorn sheep capture and removal project. At best, the plans to furnish Utah Division of Wildlife Resources a complement of bighorn sheep were postponed for a year. Within 2 weeks of the late October capture of 20 bighorn sheep, an additional 10 ewes and 5 rams were captured, sampled and released. Similar to initial ELISA results, 1 animal in the later capture group was positive on ELISA for M ovi. In an effort to rule out 2 false positive results, serum from the second ELISA positive animal was retested in March 2017. The results of the retest were not encouraging, as again sufficient M ovi antibodies were detected to confirm pathogen exposure. Thus, the present health status of the bighorn sheep herd remains uncertain. In October 2015, 9 ewes and 7 rams were captured, sampled (i.e., blood, tonsil and nasal swabs) and released in furtherance of disease surveillance. Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae was not detected on either PCR or ELISA tests. Desert bighorn sheep occupying the Black and Muddy Mountains comprise a single population given the high degree of movement between ranges; however, environmental conditions and local population dynamics have differed markedly. Over the long term, aerial Survey Data portray a decline in bighorn sheep inhabiting the Black Mountains and an increase in in the adjacent Muddy Mountains. The 2017 population estimate for desert bighorn sheep inhabiting the Black Mountains and Muddy Mountains approximates the estimate reported last year. Unit 269: River Mountains; Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings In mid-October 2016, 5.0 hours of flight time over the course of 2 days were expended to conduct an aerial bighorn sheep survey over the River Mountains. The survey yielded a sample of 212 bighorn sheep. The observed sex and age ratios were 60 rams:100 ewes:15 lambs. Habitat Range conditions are good due to winter and spring storms in 2016-17. The likelihood for an overall dry year is not an immediate concern, as the National Weather Service seasonal drought outlook valid through June 2017 does not foresee development of drought conditions. The River Mountains are not only surrounded by major roadways but also adjacent to large suburbs. Human impacts throughout the range are readily discernable and in some cases extensive. Population Status and Trend Since at least 1952, there has been no regulated bighorn sheep hunt in the River Mountains. The bighorn herd has the special distinction of contributing over 800 animals for purposes of in-state reintroductions and augmentations. In addition, bighorn sheep captured in the River Mountains were furnished to Utah and Colorado is support of desert bighorn sheep conservation programs. In fall 2013, Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M ovi) was detected in a female lamb captured in Hemenway Park, Boulder City. Subsequently, in spring 2015, the more virulent Mojave National Preserve strain of M ovi was confirmed. Thus since 2015, bighorn sheep population data obtained through aerial surveys and disease surveillance results portray a herd in decline due to bacterial pneumonia. A chronology of relevant events that correspond to adjacent bighorn herds may be found in the 2014-15 Big Game Status book. Unit 271: Mormon Mountains; Lincoln County Report by: Cooper Munson Survey Data No survey was conducted in the Mormon Mountains during 2016. Aircraft availability and weather conditions limited the amount of time that could be expended surveying Bighorn Sheep in Lincoln County.

Page 113: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

95

Habitat Habitat conditions in the Mormon Mountains were exceptional early in, and remained so throughout most of the year due to consistent precipitation events and receiving 115% of 10 year average precipitation. Three of the 5 water developments appeared to be holding reasonable amounts of water as of February 2017. All 5 water developments are in need of upgrades that are slated to be accomplished in the coming years, but are still being utilized by wildlife. Bighorn seem to prefer some of the areas that have burned within the last decade and are showing signs of vegetation regeneration. Rams have been observed in a wide range of elevations in the area throughout the year. According to the US Drought Monitor, the US Seasonal Drought Outlook is predicting that the drought conditions in this area may decrease for the coming year. Population Status, and Trend The Mormon Mountain bighorn population appears to be stable and healthy at this time. From disease surveillance conducted in late October 2015, Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae was detected through ELISA tests in 9 of the 14 animals sampled which confirms previous exposure to the pathogen but no active infection was detected at this time. Unit 272: Virgin Mountains and Gold Butte; Northeastern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data No aerial bighorn sheep survey was conducted in Unit 272 in 2016. In early November 2015, a 4.3-hour aerial survey was conducted over Lime Ridge, portions of Tramp Ridge, Bitter Ridge and over Virgin #1 and #2 water developments. The survey yielded a sample of 23 rams, 17 ewes and 1 lamb. The next aerial bighorn sheep survey over portions of Unit 272 is expected to occur in fall 2018. Habitat Environmental conditions are good due to winter and spring storms in 2016-17. The likelihood for an overall dry year is not an immediate concern, as the National Weather Service seasonal drought outlook valid through June 2017 does not foresee development of drought conditions. In late February 2017, the 2 water developments in the Virgin Mountains were inspected and both were fully recharged. In July 2006, lightning strikes ignited 4 wildland fires in the southern portion of the Virgin Mountains. The Whitney Pass Fire consumed vegetation across 230 acres on the northeast end of Whitney Ridge. The Virgin Gold Fire burned to within yards of the Virgin #2 water development before a slurry drop extinguished the fire. The Virgin Gold Fire consumed mid-elevation (Mojave Desert Scrub) and upper-elevation (pinyon-juniper woodland) vegetation across 2,700 acres. At its northern point, the Virgin Gold Fire burned to within 0.5 miles of the Virgin #1 water development. The Jeep Fire occurred northeast of the Virgin #1 water development in the vicinity of the Virgin Gold Fire and consumed vegetation over 196 acres. East of the Key West Mine, the Double Nickel Fire consumed vegetation across 523 acres. In late June 2005, lightning strikes in the Gold Buttes ignited the Fork Fire and Tramp Fire. Landmarks within the burned areas included: Tramp Ridge, Gold Butte, Mica Peak, Cedar Basin, Jumbo Peak, Jumbo Basin, Anderson Ridge, Rattlesnake Peak, Garnet Valley and the north face of Bonelli Peak. Burned-over areas that included Tramp Ridge, Gold Butte, Cedar Basin, and Mica Peak had a few remaining small mosaics of vegetation. Areas marked by little to no remaining vegetation included Jumbo Peak, Jumbo Basin, Anderson Ridge, Rattlesnake Peak, Garnet Valley and the north face of Bonelli Peak. In addition, vegetation associated with about 11 springs and at least 7 wash complexes were affected by fire. The Fork Fire consumed plants over 44,314 acres along a 3,300-foot elevation gradient including creosote-bursage flats, Mojave Desert Scrub, and pinyon and juniper woodland. The Tramp Fire consumed vegetation over 26,817 acres.

Page 114: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

96

Population Status and Trend Since 2005, some of the ewes released in the Virgin Mountains dispersed and created home ranges in the northern portion of the Gold Buttes. Much of the precipitous bighorn sheep habitat in the Gold Buttes consists of ridges interspersed by areas of moderate terrain. Bighorn sheep released in the Virgin Mountains and Gold Buttes since 2005 have inhabited the south Virgin Mountains, Whitney Ridge, Lime Ridge, Tramp Ridge, Bitter Ridge and the Cockscomb (Arizona). Presently, there is a lack of information on the distribution and abundance of desert bighorn sheep in Iceberg Canyon, Indian Hills and Azure Ridge. The 2017 population estimate for desert bighorn sheep inhabiting the Virgin Mountains and Gold Buttes reflects a moderate contraction relative to last year. The population decline was largely related to low lamb representation in the fall 2015 survey. The apparent low lamb survival may be associated with bacterial pneumonia. Disease surveillance undertaken in fall 2015 entailed capturing, sampling and releasing 5 ewes in the Gold Buttes and 1 ram in the Virgin Mountains. Subsequent PCR and ELISA positive lab results indicate Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae is present in the bighorn herd inhabiting the northeast portion of Clark County east of the Virgin River. Unit 280: Spotted Range; Northwestern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In early September 2016, a 3.6-hour aerial survey yielded a sample of 95 bighorn sheep. The sample comprised 20 rams, 57 ewes and 18 lambs. In many of the recent aerial surveys, lamb representation has been low (Table 3). Desert bighorn sheep were well dispersed and encountered throughout much of the survey area. Nearly all of the encounters were within 2 linear miles of water sources. Table 3. Bighorn sheep herd composition obtained through aerial surveys in the Spotted Range.

Year Rams Ewes Lambs Total Rams:100 Ewes: Lambs

2016 20 57 18 95 35:100:32 2015 28 49 17 94 57:100:35 2014 20 67 16 103 30:100:24 2012 23 36 6 65 64:100:17 2011 28 58 10 96 48:100:17 2010 33 57 11 101 58:100:19 2009 24 29 8 61 83:100:28 2008 21 36 15 72 58:100:42 2007 24 47 28 99 51:100:60 2006 15 40 18 73 38:100:45 2005 23 49 9 81 47:100:18 2004 11 21 11 43 52:100:52 2003 7 13 1 21 54:100:8 2002 13 18 6 37 72:100:33 2001 32 26 5 63 123:100:19 2000 18 20 10 48 90:100:50

Habitat Precipitation receipts in winter 2016-2017 were sufficient to foster new vegetative growth and to recharge desert bighorn sheep water developments. In the course of conducting inspections and performing minor maintenance in February 2017, 5 of 6 water developments in the Spotted Range were noted as fully recharged. One water development (Spotted #3, aka Patches) on the northeast end of the range was

Page 115: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

97

recharged to 70% of capacity. Thus, water stores are ample to support the bighorn herd throughout the summer and early fall 2017. In last year’s status report, it was noted that on the fall 2015 aerial survey there were indications of increased military training activity. Many spent flares, associated parachutes and other debris were encountered. Some existing target areas were expanded with additional military vehicle targets. Population Status and Trend The bighorn sheep population in Unit 280 was established through releases in 1993 and 1996. The initial release complement comprised 2 rams, 13 ewes, and 10 lambs. The 1996 release consisted of 8 rams, 16 ewes, and 1 lamb. The River Mountains bighorn sheep herd served as source for both releases. Unit 281: Pintwater Range; Northwestern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In early September 2016, a 5.8-hour aerial survey conducted over the Pintwater Range yielded a sample of 153 bighorn sheep. The observed sex and age ratios were 58 rams:100 ewes:43 lambs. The majority of the animals encountered were within approximately 2 miles of water sources. The fall 2016 survey sample over the Pintwater Range was the largest recorded since the initial aerial survey undertaken in 1973. Habitat Precipitation receipts in winter 2016-2017 were sufficient to foster new vegetative growth and to recharge some desert bighorn sheep water developments. The maintenance status of the several water sources ranges from very poor to good, and in some cases, near future critical component failures are anticipated. Sand Spring and De Jesus Spring are in need of extensive maintenance. It is anticipated that water will not be available at both springs in upcoming summer months. The questionable reliability of De Jesus Spring may be related entirely on or in part to inadequate recharge. Population Status and Trend The 2017 population estimate for the Pintwater Range approximates the estimate reported last year. In November 2016, 11 ewes and 10 rams were captured, sampled and marked with GPS collars in support of a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) being prepared by the United States Air Force. Distribution and movement data will be analyzed and modeled to assess potential impacts to bighorn sheep given the land withdrawal alternatives identified in the LEIS. Additional bighorn sheep that were captured and sampled (not collared) included 3 ewes and 2 rams. Unit 282: Desert Range and Desert Hills; Northwestern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In September 2016, an aerial survey yielded a sample of 117 bighorn sheep. The sample was comprised of 30 rams, 63 ewes and 24 lambs. The majority of bighorn encounters were within 2 miles of water sources. Heavy bighorn sheep use was evident by ground disturbance at the Tommy water development. Habitat There are no known reliable natural water sources on the Desert Range. As is the case elsewhere on the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, 2 water developments, Chuckwalla and Tommy, are old and require maintenance. Two of 5 water developments were fully recharged as of mid-February 2017. The Blacktop water development in the southern portion of the range receives heavy sheep use during summer, but was

Page 116: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

98

noted at only 31% charged. It is hoped late February 2017 storm activity resulted in additional recharge. It is anticipated that bighorn sheep densities will be relatively high in the southern portion of the range during summer and fall 2017 In March 2011, a new water development was constructed in White Sage Gap. The new unit was situated less than 400 yards west of the older, smaller water development and was constructed to better ensure water availability on the south end of the range. Population Status and Trend The 2017 population estimate for the Desert Range reflects a slight increase relative to the estimate reported last year. Historically, many desert bighorn sheep occupying the Desert Range are fall and winter migrants from the adjacent Sheep Range. Over the long term, the observed proportion of lambs to ewes obtained through aerial surveys has been low. Unit 283, 284: East Desert Range and Sheep Range; Northern Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In September 2016, aerial bighorn sheep surveys were conducted over the East Desert Range, Enclosure Ridge and northeast, northwest, south, and southwest portions of the Sheep Range. In the course of 12.9 hours of survey, 191 bighorn sheep were encountered, including 4 that were not classified. The observed sex and age ratios among classified sheep were 58 rams:100 ewes:25 lambs. Habitat In a 3-year period (2004-2006), wildland fires ignited by lightning strikes during summer months burned vegetation along thousands of acres on the east side of the Sheep Range. In bighorn sheep habitat, fires consumed vegetation at low, mid and high elevations. Much of the fire-caused damage occurred at low elevations. Present concerns relate to the likely establishment of fire-adapted invasive and exotic annual grasses at low and mid-elevations. Population Status and Trend Based on the results of fall 2016 aerial surveys, the population estimate in 2017 reflects a minor contraction. Many bighorn populations in southern Nevada were exposed to Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (M ovi) in recent years. Through disease surveillance measures, several strains of M ovi were identified in southern herds. It is possible that bighorn sheep inhabiting the Sheep Range and the greater Desert National Wildlife Range are in a recovery stage. In an effort to hasten recovery of the desert bighorn sheep population in the Sheep Range and in conformance with the Nevada Department of Wildlife’s Big Game Release Plan, 35 desert bighorn sheep captured in late October 1998 from the Muddy Mountains, Arrow Canyon Range and Specter Range were released at the mouth of Joe May Canyon. Subsequent monitoring efforts and aerial Survey Data suggest the release was not effective in achieving the objective. Unit 286: Las Vegas Range; North Clark County Report by: Pat Cummings Survey Data In late September 2016, an aerial bighorn sheep survey was conducted over Gass Peak, Castle Rock, Fossil Ridge, Quail Spring, area near Frozen Toe water development, Gunsight, Wamp Spring, Juniper Peak and the area near the Hidden Valley water development. In the course of the survey, 114 bighorn sheep were

Page 117: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

99

encountered. The sex and age ratios were 52 rams:100 ewes:45 lambs. In September 2014, an aerial survey yielded a sample of 128 bighorn sheep. The survey sample was the largest ever recorded. Habitat Environmental conditions have improved slightly in the Las Vegas Range. Plant vigor and production is fair to good. This spring, fully recharged water developments include Juniper Peak, Frozen Toe, Old Hidden Valley and WSF Hidden Valley. Maintenance problems remain unresolved at Wamp Spring. In April 2016, a new water development was constructed to eventually replace the Old Hidden Valley unit. The new water development incorporates 4 low-profile 2,300 gallon tanks and is a leveled system (i.e., no float valve). In 2005 and 2006, wildland fires sparked by lightning strikes during summer months burned vegetation along thousands of acres in the Las Vegas Range. In bighorn sheep habitat, fires consumed vegetation at low, mid and high elevations. Much of the fire-caused damage occurred at low and mid elevations. Present concerns relate to the likely establishment of fire-adapted invasive and exotic annual grasses at low and mid-elevations. Members of the Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn and the Nevada Department of Wildlife staff repaired fire-caused damage to 3 water developments (Juniper Peak, Hidden Valley and Frozen Toe). The Las Vegas Range is situated immediately north of the Las Vegas Valley, and suburban development has recently approached the southern boundary of the Desert National Wildlife Range. Increasingly, off highway vehicle (OHV) use has resulted in proliferation of unauthorized roads and trails. Despite federal regulation prohibiting the use of unlicensed vehicles on the refuge, the newly established network of roads and trails allows OHV users access to formerly undisturbed desert bighorn sheep habitat. Population Status and Trend The 2017 population estimate for the Las Vegas Range approximates the estimate reported last year. Respiratory disease was recently confirmed in nearby desert bighorn sheep populations. Dispersing bighorn onto the Desert National Wildlife Range may have translocated pathogenic bacteria associated with or responsible for causing respiratory disease; it is likely that the Las Vegas Range herd has been exposed to respiratory disease.

Page 118: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

100

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP Unit 011: Massacre Rim, Coleman Rim; Northern Washoe County Report by: Chris Hampson The original release on the Massacre Rim (also known as Long Valley Rim) occurred in March 1995 with a release of 21 sheep on the west side of the Little Sheldon (Unit 033). The small population never thrived and numbers of sheep observed in the area slowly diminished over the next 15 years. Bighorn were thought to have dispersed to surrounding areas over time. Between 2012 and 2014, NDOW released 2 different complements of bighorn totaling 44 sheep on the south end of the Massacre Rim and an additional 20 bighorn on the Nevada side of the Coleman Rim. Prior to the releases, a big game guzzler was built on the southern end of the Coleman Rim to help provide the newly released sheep with a more reliable water source on the Nevada side of the border. Further to the north on the Oregon side of the Coleman Rim a viable population of California bighorn exists and is currently estimated at around 80 animals. Following the releases, GPS satellite collar data showed sheep movements east onto the Guano Rim on the Sheldon as well as west and southwest onto the Horse Lake Rim and Vya Rim. After a few months of exploration, most of the sheep returned to the release sites; however, it is believed that a number of the sheep released on both the Coleman and Massacre Rims have become established within the borders of the Sheldon. This dispersal or outward movement of bighorn away from the release sites was also thought to have been partially due to excessive pressure put on the recently released sheep by lions. In mid to late December 2014, 5 of the collared ewes from the various releases were killed by mountain lions, including 3 that were killed along the Massacre Rim, 1 on Guano Rim on the Sheldon and 1 near Bitner Table, which lies to the east of the Massacre Rim. A contract with Wildlife Services to remove lions from the area of the release sites was started and coincided with the first release in 2012. Following the December 2014 predation event, Wildlife Services has removed 9 lions from Unit 011. The lion removals took place between June 2015 and mid-January 2016. Sport harvest also takes place throughout Northwestern Nevada. GPS satellite collar data and observations from the ground and air indicate that a minimum of 16 sheep have imprinted on the very south end of the Massacre Rim near Big Point. An additional 7 to 8 ewes and lambs are believed to have imprinted on the west side of the Little Sheldon and are usually observed coming down to water during the summer months. A group of 7 rams (all age classes) was observed during an aerial survey in 2015 that is believed to be remnants from the original release back in 1995. As many as 40 sheep have been observed on the Nevada side of the Coleman Rim near the new guzzler and are more than likely a mixture of Oregon sheep and bighorn from the 2013 release on Coleman Rim. In 2017, 5 additional GPS satellite collars will be affixed to bighorns living on the Massacre and Coleman Rims in an effort to continue to monitor survival and movements of sheep in Unit 011. It will be several more years before sufficient older age class rams are available in the population to allow for a hunting season. Unit 012: Calico Mountains and High Rock Canyon; Western Humboldt and Washoe Counties Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Results Four of the 5 hunters in Unit 012 were successful. Average age of the 4 harvested rams was 6.0 years. The 5 hunters expended an average of 6.4 days in the field. The unsuccessful hunter hunted 6 days and reported observing 5 or 6 mature rams but was unable to get within range. He was satisfied with his hunt despite not harvesting a ram. On a bright note, an 84-year old hunter was able to harvest his first California bighorn ram this past year in Unit 012.

Page 119: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

101

Survey Data Compositions surveys took place in August 2016 and biologists classified 66 bighorn with a computed ratio of 27 rams:100 ewes:51 lambs. The 51 lambs per 100 ewes was the highest lamb ratio observed in this unit since 2006 and is the highest ratio since the long-term drought started in 2007. The number of bighorns classified on survey continues to decrease in hunt Unit 012 and the 66 sheep observed in 2016 represents a decrease of 27% from the 90 animals observed in 2015. The sample obtained this year is 37% lower than 106 animals classified during the 2014 survey. The highest sample obtained for this unit was in 2011 when 156 bighorn was classified. Long-term drought conditions have severely impacted the amount of water available to bighorn as well as the quantity and quality of their forage. This is believed to be the major factor in the decreasing trend for this population. Health or disease-related issues could potentially have also played a role in the continued downward trend experienced between 2011 and 2016. In February of 2012, NDOW captured 7 rams and sampled each of the sheep for any potential health related issues. Lab results from all of the samples came back negative and indicated that the herd was not experiencing any major health related issues. The lab results from the sampling effort were negative despite the fact that several hunters had reported observations of sheep that were coughing, had runny noses and were shaking their heads, all of which can be indications of disease. A soremouth outbreak was also known to have spread through the Unit 012 bighorn population during 2009 and 2010 and may have been limited lamb recruitment during those years. On a much more encouraging note, no other reports or observations of sick or unhealthy sheep have been observed by NDOW or reported by hunters over the past 3 to 4 years. Each year, NDOW monitors for any health related issues in bighorn populations by sampling the harvested rams taken during the hunting season. No health related issues have been found from the rams harvested from Unit 012. On at least 2 separate occasions, over the past few years, rams with nasal bot fly infections have been harvested from hunt Unit 012. These infections can sometimes lead to sheep being in poor body condition and having the outward appearance of acting lethargic. Habitat Habitat conditions within hunt Unit 012 improved in 2016 due to the increase in moisture received during the winter 2015-16. Sporadic rainfall from summer thundershowers also contributed to the increase in the amount of water available to bighorn and other wildlife. Pit tanks throughout Unit 012 were at least ½ full of water during mid to late summer. The significant increase in the amount of available water has not been observed in this area for over a decade. Forage quality, especially at the higher elevations, was very good as well and fair to good green-up was available for most of the year. The Northern Great Basin that encompasses most of Northwestern Nevada sits at 152% of average for total precipitation received as of January 17, 2016. Snowfall percentages from the basin are even higher and sit at 165% of average for the same timeframe. The considerable moisture received during the month of January 2017 has set new records for snowfall and total precipitation received for many of the basins in the state of Nevada. Storm fronts continue to line up off of the Pacific coast and are projected to add more moisture to the already impressive totals. The significant moisture is expected to benefit water flows at springs and seeps that have been severely impacted from the long-term drought. Although, Units 012 and 033 have been the areas or regions hit hardest by the long-term drought, the impressive amount of moisture received thus far in 2016-17 should increase flows to these important water sources this coming summer. Population Status and Trend Forage conditions and the amount of water available to bighorn improved tremendously during 2016 due

Page 120: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

102

to the improved moisture received during the winter and spring 2015-16. Bighorn ewes were in excellent body condition and responded positively to the improved habitat conditions and plentiful water. Lamb survival this past summer was very good and the observed lamb ratio from late summer surveys was the highest observed since 2006 (prior to the long-term drought). The increased lamb survival and recruitment is expected to reverse the downward trend this population has experienced since 2011. Quotas for the 2017 hunting season are expected to be equal or slightly reduced compared to the 2016 hunting season. This is due to the negative impact long-term drought has had on lamb recruitment over the past decade. Lower numbers of mature rams in the population may also contribute to similar or even reduced quota recommendations. Unit 013: Hays Canyon Range; Washoe County Report by: Chris Hampson Several years after a catastrophic all age, all sex, die-off of bighorn (pop estimate of 110 sheep) in the Hays Canyon Range in 2007, a second attempt at establishing a sheep population was undertaken in early 2013. Before this could happen, however, nearly 5 years of monitoring including multiple aerial flights, ground surveys and trail camera surveillance of guzzlers was undertaken in an effort to locate any potential survivors from the disease event. No survivors of the disease event were ever discovered. Thirty bighorns were released into Hays Canyon in January 2013. A lion control project was started prior to the release in an effort to assist the bighorn sheep to once again become established in the Hays Canyon Range of Unit 013. GPS satellite collar data and observations from both ground and the air indicate that the sheep have become established in the area of the release site in Hays Canyon. Movements of the sheep have generally been within 7 miles to the north of Hays Canyon and within 2 miles south of the release site. Two of the young collared rams from the release did take a one week long foray to the south end of the Hays Canyon Range and then turned southeast towards Wall Canyon Reservoir and Cherry Mountain. However within one week the 2 rams had reversed course and returned to the release site. No other long distant forays or movements have been observed. In 2017, 5 more collars will be placed on sheep in the Hays Canyon Range to help monitor survival and movement of bighorn in this unit. Aerial and ground surveys showed fair to good recruitment for this herd and current numbers are estimated between 40 and 50 animals. Lion control efforts along with sport harvest have helped reduce lion-caused mortalities and allowed the population of bighorn to increase over time. Wildlife Services removed 6 lions from Unit 013 between July 2015 and March 2017. Sport harvest of lions has also occurred within the unit and has provided sportsmen with additional hunting opportunities. It will be a few more years before sufficient mature rams exist in the population to once again provide bighorn hunting opportunities in the Hays Canyon Range. Unit 014: Granite Range; Washoe County Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Results Three out of the 4 tag-holders were successful in harvesting their rams in 2016. The lone unsuccessful hunter reported hunting just 2 days due to work and family related issues. The 3 harvested rams were aged at 4, 7 and 12 years of age. The 4 hunters expended an average of 6.8 days hunting. Boone and Crocket scores were 131, 131 and 157 1/8 B&C inches. Hunters have reported having more difficulty in recent years locating mature rams in the Negro Creek area of the Granite Range. One of the rams was harvested on the southern end of the Granite Range near Granite Peak. This is only the third ram taken

Page 121: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

103

from this portion of the range since 2000. Most hunters choose to hunt the northern portion of the range near Negro Creek due to the much easier access and higher densities of bighorn. The southern area of the Granite Range is very remote and is extremely rugged. Survey Data Helicopter surveys within the Granite Range resulted in the classification of 41 bighorn with a composition ratio of 30 rams:100 ewes: 48 lambs. The 48 lambs per 100 ewes recruitment rate is the highest observed since the long-term drought started back in 2007. Lamb ratios for this population had been in low 30’s over the past 2 years. Ram ratios in this unit are difficult to obtain due to the low densities of bighorn in the range and due to the rams being scattered at the higher elevations of the Granite Range during late summer. Hunters have reported an increase in the density of rams within the Negro Creek subpopulation during the latter portion (mid to late October) of the hunting season. All sheep that were observed on survey appeared to be in excellent health and the much improved recruitment rate of 48 lambs per 100 ewes was very similar to the 51 lambs per 100 ewes observed in adjacent hunt Unit 012. Habitat Soil moisture and precipitation totals are near record levels as of mid-March 2017. The 2016-17 water year is shaping up to be the water year that has been so desperately needed to pull northwestern Nevada out of the severe drought conditions experienced since 2007. The increased snowfall amounts will help to boost water flows to important springs and seeps that have been severely impacted from the long-term drought. Forage conditions should also be excellent this coming spring and early summer due to the impressive soil moisture and snowpack. Feral horse populations are once again well above (3 to 5 times above) AML and competition with wildlife for both forage and water has been increasing over the past several years. It is time for the BLM to once again take action and remove horses from areas south of the Sheldon (Unit 012) and in areas surrounding the Granite Range. Habitat conditions in both riparian and upland sites are dismal and have been negatively affected by the unmanageable horse numbers. Population Status and Trend The much improved lamb recruitment observed this year for the Granite bighorn population will help to bolster this population of California bighorn and will help to reverse the downward trend this population has been experiencing since 2011. Habitat conditions are expected to improve significantly this spring and summer with the above average moisture received thus far during the winter 2016-17. Units 021, 022: Virginia Mountains; Washoe County Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Data All 4 of the tag-holders were successful in harvesting their rams in 2016. Ram ages for the harvested rams were 4, 5, 7 and 8 years. Hunters averaged 6 days in the field during the 2-month long season. Hunters had to endure some real challenges this year as a large wildfire burned over 40,000 acres in the Virginia Mountains during the summer 2016. This large fire event caused significant issues for hunters with regard to road closures that made accessing hunting areas more difficult as well as the bighorn moving away from traditional hunting areas due to the fire and extended firefighting activities.

Page 122: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

104

Survey Data Composition surveys were conducted following the large wildfire that occurred during the late summer 2016. Sheep were scattered due to the fire and firefighting activities that occurred over a 2 week period. Thirty-two sheep was classified with a resulting composition ratio of 53 rams:100 ewes:35 lambs. Other groups of sheep were observed and reported by firefighters and the general public following the fire being extinguished. Additional groups of bighorn that were not located during survey were reported in various locations including Big Canyon, Southwest corner of Tule Peak, and in the south end of the range near Hardscrabble and Paiute Canyons. The 35 lambs per 100 ewes are near maintenance levels and will result in a static or even a slightly reduced population estimate for this herd. The impact of the large fire on the Virginia Mountains (40,000+ acres) bighorn population has not yet been fully assessed and the vast areas of burned habitat will take many years to recover. Habitat The Virginia Mountain Complex Fires burned over 60,000 acres in and surrounding the Virginia Mountains during the summer 2016. Native grasses should respond fairly well especially at the higher elevations. The excellent moisture received during the fall/winter 2016-17 will help spur the growth of native grasses this coming spring. Cheatgrass encroachment may be an issue on the drier south and west facing slopes at the lower elevations of the Virginia Mountains. Restoration efforts on the private lands started soon after the wildfire was extinguished; however, restoration efforts on public lands portions have stalled due to problems encountered with funding and getting the proper clearances and paperwork from BLM. It appears that much of the restoration plan will be implemented in the Fall/Spring 2017-18. The BAER Team that assessed restoration needs arrived even before the fire was out and a restoration plan was in place just a few weeks following the fire. NDOW was heavily involved with the BAER planning process in an effort to prioritize areas important to wildlife and provide help with the planning of the overall restoration effort. Population Status and Trend The maintenance level recruitment observed this year will result in a static to slightly downward trend for the Virginia Mountains bighorn population. The impact from the large fire will continue to be assessed over the next few years as the population of bighorn adapt to their newly changed environment. Bighorn use areas may change or expand as the sheep branch out and explore the large expanses of burned habitat. Forage availability is expected to be good this coming year with the sprouting of native grasses within the burned area. Unit 031: Double H, Montana and Trout Creek Mountains; Humboldt County Report By: Ed Partee Survey Data Helicopter composition flights were conducted in Unit 031 during late August 2016. Two hours were spent in the Montana and Trout Creek Mountains to determine if any sheep could be located following the severe pneumonia dieoff event and depopulation that occurred in 2015-16. Fortunately no animals were located in these 2 areas during this survey as biologists would not have known whether or not they were survivors of the disease event that could still be capable of transferring pathogens to sheep in adjacent areas. The remainder of the survey was spent in the Double H Mountains. All the animals observed appeared to be very healthy and well distributed throughout this range. All age classes were represented with plenty of mature rams. Sheep are starting to move towards the east side of the range expanding into new unoccupied habitats. The loss of the sheep in the Montana Mountains makes it difficult to compare the average over the last 5 years. During the Double H flight, 81 animals were observed with a ratio of 97 rams:100 ewes:56 lambs compared with 88 animals during the previous survey in 2015. These ratios are

Page 123: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

105

much higher than the average was pre die-off of 62 rams:100 ewes:41 lambs. During the hunt in 2016, no reports of sick sheep in the Double H’s were reported. Habitat Habitat conditions have significantly improved recently. The past few years have seen very little precipitation in the form of snow; however, that has changed with well above average snowfall this winter. Prior to receiving heavy snows this year, this area received ample rains throughout the summer and fall months to sustain the vegetative component in this unit. The rain that came throughout the spring and summer months had positive effects on fire rehab efforts that have taken place in this unit. Precipitation amounts at this point are still above normal at 155% compared to 113% in 2015-16. The moisture that was received prior to winter combined with the current conditions should result in ideal forage conditions and positive effects on rehab efforts from past fires. Population Status and Trend This population took a severe hit with the disease event that occurred in the Montana Mountains during the winter 2015-16. Despite the disease issue and the actions that took place in the Montana Mountains, both adjacent herds in Oregon as well as the Double H Mountains presently appear to remain healthy. Over a year later the herd in the Double H’s are still doing well and have not been affected by the pneumonia die-off event in the Montana Mountain herd. Despite the 45% loss in the herd last year, the remaining bighorns appear to be on an upward population trend as the survey results show a strong age distribution of rams and lamb recruitment is high. The bighorn survey in the Double H’s is starting to show distribution of animals into rims on the east side where they have rarely been observed before. This population appears to be increasing and should see a productive lamb crop. The outlook for this year’s hunting season should be favorable to those lucky enough to draw tags. There will be continued monitoring of animals in the Double H’s over the course of the next few years. Unit 032: Pine Forest Range and McGee Mountain; Humboldt County Report by: Ed Partee Survey Data Aerial surveys were conducted in late August 2016 and resulted in 197 sheep classified compared to 152 classified the previous year. Results for this survey equate to a ratio of 53 rams:100 ewes:55 lambs which is close to the 5-year average. This unit is very large and expansive with vast areas to survey. The Pueblos, McGee Mountain and the Pine Forest Range were all surveyed with most of the sheep observed in the Pine Forest Range. No sheep were located in the Pueblos and only a few were on McGee Mountain. Habitat Habitat conditions appeared good going into the winter months. Prior to any snowfall occurring this year, rains had provided much needed relief to the dry conditions experienced during the past few years. Summer precipitation was somewhat lacking last year but caught up with the ample amount of snow that fell this last winter. Habitat conditions at the higher elevations were excellent throughout most of the year sustaining these herds. Plenty of quality forage was available allowing these sheep to remain in good body condition. Once again, mild temperatures and slightly warmer conditions between storms this winter likely allowed sheep to remain in moderate body condition. As of March 1st, precipitation amounts have improved significantly with snow totals at 155% of average. At this point the ground is well saturated and vegetation in this area should have a positive response. With the added snowpack, hopefully springs will get the boost they need to see some recharge. Summer moisture is still needed and would be a huge benefit in sustaining the free water that will be available early in the year. With the current green up and continued moisture forage conditions should be ideal for new lamb recruitment.

Page 124: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

106

Population Status and Trend The population estimate for this herd has increased once again and has reached an all-time high. Lamb ratios continue to show an increase and ram ratios remain high. The increase in this herd is resulting in improved distribution throughout this unit. This herd has been very productive and has provided more than 150 sheep that have been used in other areas to augment or establish new herds. The population has increased to over 300 animals despite the capture efforts that have taken place in this unit. Age distribution on rams remains stable with many age classes surveyed. At this time, it is anticipated that this herd will continue to expand and grow. Unit 033: Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge; Washoe and Humboldt Counties Report by: Chris Hampson Harvest Results Only 1 of the 2 tag-holders was able to harvest a ram in 2016. The hunter who was successful hunted almost the entire season and ended up harvesting a 4 year old ram towards the very end of the season. The second hunter was an older gentleman who expended 5 days hunting near Thousand Creek Gorge but was unable to make a second trip to the Sheldon to continue his hunt. He reported missing a shot at a larger mature ram the second day of his hunt and had observed sheep every day of his hunt. Survey Data Fifty-five bighorn was classified during sheep surveys on the Sheldon in August 2016, compared to 62 animals observed during the previous year. The ratio from the 2016 survey was 57 rams:100 ewes:39 lambs which was slightly above last year’s observed lamb ratio of 37. The lamb ratio has crept slowly upwards over the past 2 years as the amount of moisture has increased. Several of the major sheep use areas that were heavily used by bighorn prior to the long-term drought continue to hold lower numbers of bighorn than they once did. Harvest locations for the bighorn sheep harvested on the Sheldon in recent years have also changed dramatically when compared with past years. Alkali Peak is a good example of these phenomena and no bighorn have been harvested from the area since 2010. Previous to that (2005-2010), approximately 30 - 60% of the annual harvest was from areas near or on Alkali Peak. Habitat Habitat conditions have improved on the Sheldon over the past 2 years due to the much needed increase in moisture. The well above average winter 2016-17 has thus far provided a much needed boost to areas within the Sheldon. The significant moisture received this year will help to finally improve water availability this summer and start to heal the negative effects from the long-term drought. It may take another year or 2 of well above average water precipitation to bolster flows to some of the major springs that help to fill up larger reservoirs or to provide the amount of water needed to maintain water on important lakebeds through the summer. Over the past several years, wildlife living on the Sheldon has been forced to move from their very dry summer ranges in order to locate reliable water and better forage. In some cases, animals have moved extremely long distances and have even moved to adjacent states or crossed into adjacent units in order to try and locate better resources. The improved moisture received thus far in the winter 2016-17 should help to alleviate the need for animals to move these distances and allow wildlife to remain on upper elevation summer ranges. Population Status and Trend Hunters continue to struggle in their efforts to locate and harvest mature rams, despite a nearly 2 month long hunting season. Mature rams are scattered over an expansive area and can be difficult to locate.

Page 125: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

107

Bighorn distribution has also changed dramatically over the last several years due to the affects from the long-term drought. Surveys sample sizes on the Sheldon have improved over the past few years and document that mature animals are present for harvest; however, due to the relatively low densities and rugged country, hunter success rates have fallen in recent years. Over the past 4 hunting seasons, 4 of the 11 bighorn tag-holders have been unsuccessful while 1 hunter chose not to hunt. Unit 034: Black Rock Range; Humboldt County Report by: Ed Partee Survey Data Surveys in this unit took place in late August 2016. The total of 80 animals classified is lower compared to 109 that were observed on the 2015 flight and is slightly below the 5 year average. The ratios are a bit skewed due to the lack of rams located during survey. These numbers yielded a ratio of 14 rams: 100 ewes: 46 lambs. The modeled ram ratio still remains at 77 rams per 100 ewes. With the hot dry conditions during this survey rams may have a shifted use areas. Future surveys will attempt to confirm this especially with improved habitat conditions from increased precipitation. The bulk of the rams surveyed during this flight were found near Big and Little Mountain Habitat Habitat conditions remained fairly stable throughout most of last year. With the moisture that has been received during the 2016-2017 winter, bighorn habitat conditions should improve significantly. Last year there was a lack of moisture during the hot summer months. By the time late fall rolled around fairly good amounts of rain fell followed by above average snowfall. As of March 1st precipitation amounts are well above average and sitting at about 155%. The last 2 winters have received above-average precipitation which has benefited vegetation in this unit. Better than average conditions should affect these herds with good recruitment as well as improved body condition. Feral horses competing with wildlife will continue to be an issue in this area which should be monitored closely. Population Status and Trend Population estimates for this herd have not changed significantly over the last couple of years. Lamb ratios have remained consistent with this year showing an increase over the 5 year average. Following above average precipitation received over the past 2 winters we hope to see increased recruitment in the population. This herd has expanded into new areas over the last 5 years which has removed pressure from those concentrated areas. The last few years have been pretty stable but with the added moisture and forage availability we may see this population increase slightly. Hunter access has been altered by the designation of the Black Rock/High Rock Immigrant Trail National Conservation Area (NCA) and Wilderness Areas within the NCA. The BLM has marked the majority of the restricted access points and hunters who apply for this area need to understand these restrictions. Despite access issues in this area, hunter success has been good in this unit. Unit 035: Jackson Mountains; Humboldt County Report by: Ed Partee Survey Data This survey was conducted toward the end of August 2016, and resulted in the classification of 103 sheep, which is a record sample and is well above the long-term average of 50. The sample yielded a ratio of 55 rams: 100 ewes: 80 lambs. This population appears to be steadily increasing and the age class of rams still appears to be well distributed.

Page 126: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

108

Habitat Bighorn sheep in this unit continue to have a significant competition factor with feral horses. These populations are being monitored closely. The winter 2016-17 followed a fairly good winter from the previous year which had significant benefits to forage conditions. Habitat conditions in this unit are very good and appear similar to other areas in Humboldt County. Current precipitation receipts in Humboldt County indicate well above normal at 155%. Continued moisture throughout the year will benefit these herds tremendously and reduce the competition from feral horses. With the amount of moisture received vegetation should have a positive response which should benefit these populations during lambing periods. Population Status and Trend This population continues to show an upward trend with increase in the population over the last few years. With the 2 additional releases that took place 5 and 7 years ago this herd has steadily increased. Currently, this population is at the highest number this unit has seen and with the lamb ratios that we are seeing it should continue to grow. Animals continue to distribute themselves well throughout this range and are expanding into some new areas. With the forage conditions that are available at this time this herd should continue with positive increase in the near future. Quality of animals is starting to show signs of increase and will only continue to get better. Hunter access has been influenced by the designation of the Black Rock/High Rock Immigrant Trail National Conservation Area and Wilderness Areas (NCA). The NCA boundaries embrace bighorn concentration areas of King Lear Peak and Parrot Peak. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has marked the majority of the restricted access points and hunters who apply for this area need to understand these restrictions. Unit 041: Sahwave Mountains; Pershing County Report by: Kyle Neill Harvest Previously, hunting seasons occurred from 2001 to 2006. A limited number of mature rams enabled hunting seasons to proceed in 2015 and again in 2016. A single tag was offered in 2016 and the tag holder was successful in harvesting a 9 year old ram that unofficially scored 172 3/8 B&C inches from the Sahwave Mountains. Survey Data A ground survey occurred in the Sahwave Mountains for 1 day in early November 2016 with 38 bighorns being observed, the second largest sample to date. This provided sex and age ratios of 67 rams:100 ewe:44 lambs. The highest survey sample size was obtained in 2015 and totaled 40 bighorns. Population Estimate and Trend Bighorn sheep likely pioneered into the Sahwave Mountains in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s. Unfortunately, this herd is located within the largest domestic sheep allotment in the western United States. However, domestic use in the Sahwave Mountains is limited to trailing through the southern portion of the range in April/March. The origin of this pioneering herd is unknown. DNA work has confirmed that the herd is the California bighorn subspecies. Bighorns are thought to have pioneered into the area from the north or west out of the Virginia, Granite, Black Rock, Calico, or Jackson Mountain Ranges. In late July 2016, NDOW was informed that 2 domestic rams were observed near Bob’s Spring in the Sahwave Range. Wildlife Services, with help from NDOW, found and dispatched the 2 domestic rams. These domestic rams became estray at the end of May 2016. It is unknown how long they were in the Sahwave Mountains. Fortunately, test results showed that these estray domestic rams were clean.

Page 127: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

109

The Sahwave herd has experienced an average lamb recruitment rate of 53 lambs:100 ewes since 2012 and has resulted in an upward population trend. Currently, this population remains at 50 bighorns and continues to have a limited number of mature rams to allow for a harvest objective of 1. Unit 051: Santa Rosa Range; Humboldt County Report by: Ed Partee Survey Data Aerial survey was conducted in late August 2016 with 103 bighorn observed which is comparable to the previous 3 years of survey. Composition ratios were 8 rams:100 ewes:21 lambs. Lamb production is similar to that observed last year. Rams proved difficult to find on this survey, which resulted in a lower than normal ram ratio. The modeled ram ratio is still holding at approximately 45 rams:100 ewes. Habitat Forage and water availability is better than what has been observed in recent years. Winter precipitation was again very good this year with well above average snowfall. At the time of this report period there is 155% of normal precipitation. Despite the lack of summer moisture, the last 2 winters have resulted in snowpacks that have sustained the upper elevation throughout most of the year. With the moisture that has been received, rehab efforts that have taken place on the previous fires have been favorable. Continued moisture will help many of the efforts put forth to re-establish vegetation in these burn areas. Population Status and Trend The 2017 population estimate for this unit is lower than the previous year. This year differed on the north end of the range with good lamb recruitment taking place. Despite the better production on the north end, other areas within the range are not seeing the same results. We are currently in the process of studying lamb recruitment into these population as well as interstate movements. This range now has 4 main areas that are surveyed including the north end, south end, the east side or Hinkey Summit side, and the Capitol Peak area in the Calicos to the east. Most areas within this unit are seeing less than ideal lamb recruitment which is having a detrimental effect on the population. As predicted, continued years of poor lamb recruitment is resulting in slightly depressed population levels. Currently there is a cooperative effort between Nevada and Oregon to monitor these sub-populations to better understand the dynamics of disease events and how they persist within a population. Along with looking at overall health, movement between Oregon and Nevada is being monitored. Units 066: Snowstorm Mountains; Western Elko County Report by: Matthew Jeffress

Harvest Due to the August 2011 all-age bacterial pneumonia die-off, the season was closed to ram harvest between 2012 and 2014. One tag was issued in 2015 resulting in the harvest of a 6.5-year old ram and again last year 1 tag was issued with a 6.5-year old ram harvested. Survey Data As of this spring there are 17 ewes, 5 lambs and approximately 15 rams occupying the Snowstorms. The year 2016 marked another year of low recruitment with 3 yearling California bighorn observed in May 2016 (1 yearling ewe and 2 yearling rams). A combination of marked animals well distributed throughout occupied range, weeklong spring and summer ground surveys and an early 2017 trap-and-collaring event has resulted in a reliable estimate of the current population.

Page 128: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

110

Habitat Range conditions remain fair in the peripheral low elevations surrounding the Snowstorms. A combination of drought, livestock utilization and an overabundance of wild horses have contributed to degraded habitats, particularly riparian habitats on the west side of the Snowstorm Range. Many of the Immigrant Forage Kochia seedings in lower Jake Creek to Twenty-one Creek continue to be over utilized during late summer through early winter. On a positive note, due to the resiliency of the mid to upper elevations of the Snowstorm Range, much of the year-round California bighorn habitat remains in good to excellent condition. More than 500 horses occupy the area between the Dry Hills and Snowstorms. Many of these horses are outside identified Herd Management Areas. In addition to growing horse numbers outside HMA’s, the Owyhee Complex had an estimated 3,067 horses as of last fall. The BLM’s Appropriate Management Level for the Owyhee Complex is 483 – 779. Last winter approximately 1,800 horses were gathered off the Owyhee Desert and Snowstorms. Some were removed from the range and some were given birth control and released on site. Population Status and Trend As part of a greater effort to understand the dynamics of post die-off survivors and how pathogens within surviving populations affect lamb recruitment, Washington State University, Idaho Fish and Game and South Dakota State University embarked on a study entitled “Investigating the Role of Super-Shedders in Respiratory Disease Persistence and Transmission in Bighorn Sheep.” As part of the study, in late 2014 the Nevada Department of Wildlife gifted 11 California bighorn to South Dakota State University (SDSU). The project has evolved into a field experiment looking at the effects of removing super-shedder ewes from the Snowstorm herd. In late 2015 and early 2016 the 25 remaining ewes on the Snowstorms were caught and sampled and all remaining unmarked ewes were collared. The marked animals will allow the Nevada Department of Wildlife to continue monitoring Snowstorm California bighorn sheep in order to assess future performance as it relates to the removal of potential super-shedders and the amount of time elapsed since the initial die-off. Ten of the 25 sampled ewes were confirmed to be shedding Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae during the last round of sampling and 1 ewe was not tested due to evading capture. The 10 positive ewes and ewe that evaded capture from 2015/16 were all caught and resampled in early 2017. Seven of the 11 ewes were found to be shedding Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae. The 7 positive ewes were removed from the population. Six of the 7 were donated to SDSU. Recruitment values will be collected for the next 5 years and these data, coupled with pathogen samples collected in 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 will guide future management of the Snowstorm herd. Due to the lack of recruitment between 2011 and 2014, it is anticipated that only 1 ram tag will be issued for the 2017 hunting season. If lamb recruitment improves, the Nevada Department of Wildlife may be able to recommend 1 tag per year for the next few years as younger rams mature. Units 068: Sheep Creek; Northern Lander and Eureka Counties Report by: Jeremy Lutz

Harvest All 5 tag holders were successful in harvesting a ram in 2016. The average age of harvested rams was 6 years and the average Boone and Crockett score was 151”. In 2014 the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners adopted the first ever California bighorn ewe hunt in Nevada. This hunt is intended to reduce or effectively manage densities in areas where populations are estimated to be above sustainable management levels. In 2016, 10 ewe tags were issued for the Sheep Creek Range with a reported harvest of 6 ewes or 60% success.

Page 129: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

111

Survey Data In March 2017, 94 California bighorn were observed during aerial composition surveys; yielding ratios of 67 rams:100 ewes:29 lambs. This is the third highest sample ever obtained in this unit. Habitat During 2012, both big game guzzlers in the Sheep Creek Range went dry due to prolonged drought conditions and heavy use by bighorn. In 2013 and 2014, both big game units were retrofitted with new aprons and tanks. This should help the guzzlers from going dry in the future by increasing the catchment area and increasing the storage capacity to nearly 9,000 gallons per unit. As of March 2017 both units were at 100% storage capacity. The grass, forb and shrub component in the Sheep Creeks continues to respond favorably to the above average moisture received over the last 2 years. The majority of sheep hunter checkout forms from 2016 indicate harvested rams and ewes were in good to excellent body condition. Population Status and Trend Since 2012, the NDOW has made an effort to actively manage this herd through relocation efforts and ewe harvest in an attempt to maintain the population within sustainable management levels based on the current condition of habitat resources. The Unit 068 California bighorn sheep population primarily inhabits an area that also serves as winter range for several hundred deer, antelope and elk, as well as supporting several thousand livestock AUM’s. During drought, and even during normal winters, competition for resources is extremely high and lamb production, animal body condition, and to some extent horn growth of the California bighorn sheep can all be negatively impacted. California bighorn sheep research indicates when sheep populations are managed at or below carrying capacity through strategies such as ewe harvest and trap and transplant, body condition and lamb production can improve, as well as the average Boone and Crocket score on harvested rams. If the desired management outcome for this population is to maintain a healthy, sustainable bighorn sheep herd, current management practices should continue for the foreseeable future.

Page 130: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN

112

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP Unit 074: The Badlands; Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Harvest Due to the impacts of a disease event that occurred in 2014, this season has been closed since 2015. Survey Data An aerial survey was conducted in October 2016 and 18 bighorn were classified as 3 rams, 11 ewes, and 4 lambs. Two rams and 2 ewes observed were yearlings indicating lamb survival the previous year. Habitat An EA is being analyzed by the BLM’s Wells Field Office for vegetation treatments within this unit group. Once the EA is completed, possible treatments may include removal of encroaching juniper, herbicide application where necessary and creating fuel breaks with the intent of reducing large acreage fires. All of the treatments should increase the health of the sagebrush ecosystem and benefit the wildlife that depends on it. The EA is expected to be completed by the fall 2017. Population Status and Trend This herd experienced an all age die-off during the fall 2014. Necropsies found bighorn to be suffering from severe chronic pneumonia. One ewe tested positive for Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae for both blood antibodies and presence of the organism on PCR. A predator control project aimed at mountain lion removal is ongoing in this area. Five additional bighorn (4 ewes and 1 ram) will be collared in January 2018 to aid in bighorn distribution mapping and to help target areas for mountain lion removal. Three male lions have been removed since the initiation of the project. One collared ewe appeared to have died from lion predation in mid-October 2016. It is believed the disease event has subsided, but lamb recruitment will likely remain low for at least the short-term. Bighorn will continue to be monitored for lamb recruitment. Additional observations and monitoring of the existing mature rams through 2017 will be necessary to evaluate the potential for a hunt to be offered in 2018. Unit 091: Pilot Range; Elko County Report by: Kari Huebner Harvest Results One Utah resident tag was offered in this unit for the 2016 season. The hunter was successful in harvesting a 7-year-old ram. One tag will be offered to a Nevada resident for the 2017 hunting season. Survey Data An aerial composition survey was conducted by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources in August 2016 with 24 bighorn classified as 10 rams, 13 ewes, and 1 lamb. The only lamb observed on the survey appeared to be in poor health. Habitat The construction of an artificial water development was recently completed on the mid elevation slopes of Pilot Mountain. The placement of the unit at mid slope as opposed to the lower elevation benches is

Page 131: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN

113

intended to reduce the probability of bighorn sheep coming into contact with domestic sheep that use the valley. The bighorn seem to be reacting favorably to this newly available water. There are active domestic sheep allotments and trailing routes on the east side of Pilot and in the Leppy Hills, so the risk of disease transmission remains high. Population Status and Trend In 2010, the presence of bacterial pneumonia was documented in the population. The disease event severely impacted lamb survival. There are believed to be approximately 30 bighorn currently in the population. In 2012, 3 bighorn (2 ewes and 1 ram) were radio collared with the objectives of learning more about movement patterns and potential contact with domestic sheep. The 2 ewes moved very little from where they were first captured. One of the ewes spent her time exclusively in the Silver Islands which is where the active winter allotment of domestic sheep is located. Two satellite collars that were deployed on the young ram both failed so very little information was obtained from it. Bighorn were tested during the collaring operation and all of them had antibodies for Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae and 1 was still actively shedding the organism. The short-term outlook for this herd is poor. Lambs are being born, but few if any are being recruited into the population. Future recommendations for the ram hunt will be dependent upon results of population monitoring and documented lamb recruitment. Unit 101: East Humboldt Range; Elko County Report by: Caleb McAdoo Harvest In the winter of 2009-2010, a pneumonia epidemic struck the Unit 101 sheep herd resulting in an estimated 90% mortality. Consequently, no tags have been issued for Unit 101 since the 2009 season. Survey Data As part of the intensive follow-up of the 2009-2010 pneumonia outbreak, comprehensive aerial and ground surveys have been conducted since the die-off. In January 2016, during a capture effort, 25 total sheep were observed consisting of 3 rams (less than 3 years of age), 17 ewes, and 5 lambs. Weather and Habitat Two years of over 200% snowpack have provided high quality forage on the summer range. Observations of sheep throughout the year, as well as captures in January have indicated most animals in great body condition. From a forage perspective, winter range conditions were above average, resulting from cool spring moisture and sporadic summer rains, which influence the abundance and quality of the grasses which comprise the primary winter forage for bighorn sheep. Weather conditions on the winter range were relatively harsh this winter; however, due to the overall population reduction from disease related mortality, habitat resources will be more readily available on all seasonal ranges and will minimize any intra-specific competition with bighorn sheep. Population Status and Trend As discussed above, the bighorn sheep population in the East Humboldt Range experienced an all-age catastrophic pneumonic disease event in the winter of 2009-2010. Monitoring suggests mortality rates attributable to the pneumonia outbreak were nearly 95% across all age classes. This was the first measureable disease event in Unit 101 since the sheep were released in 1992, including the 1995-96 winter when the adjacent bighorn population in Unit 102 experienced considerable loss from a similar pneumonic die-off. The herd had been showing a strong growth trend from the original 31 animals released in 1992 to an estimated 180 animals in the fall 2009. In 2012, 15 sheep remained in Unit 101, consisting of 4 rams, 10 ewes and 1 lamb. In order to set the stage for a reintroduction into the area and

Page 132: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN

114

as part of an experiment to evaluate possible disease transmission from existing mountain goats back to bighorn sheep, the Department removed the remaining 15 sheep from Unit 101. The 10 ewes and lamb were released in Unit 102 and the rams were sent to Washington for disease research at the Washington Animal Disease Laboratory. After removing the remaining diseased sheep in 2012, the Department waited a year to bring in other sheep. In 2013, the Department reintroduced 20 sheep from Alberta, Canada into Unit 101. The compliment of sheep included 17 pregnant ewes, and 3 rams. From 2013 to fall of 2016, the sheep herd grew to approximately 42 animals. Unfortunately during late-fall and early winter of 2015, the sheep again succumbed to a pneumonic disease event involving a new disease “spillover” of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae likely transmitted from the sympatric mountain goat herd. Since that time, the herd has stabilized around 20 animals. Winter 2017 observations of lamb recruitment were positive with a lamb ratio of 29:100 ewes. Time will tell if this herd can maintain consistent annual lamb recruitment with the herd exposed to M. ovi Risk of disease transmission continues to exist with domestic sheep and goat farm flocks on private lands surrounding the mountain and checkerboard high-elevation private parcels on the mountain. Unit 102: Ruby Mountains; Elko County Report by: Caleb McAdoo Harvest In the winter of 2009-2010, a pneumonia epidemic struck the Unit 102 sheep herd resulting in an estimated 90% mortality. Consequently, no tags have been issued for Unit 102 since the 2009 season. Survey Data As part of the intensive follow-up of the 2009-2010 pneumonia outbreak, aerial and/or ground surveys have been conducted since the die-off. The Department has utilized trained volunteers to assist with conducting ground surveys in the Lamoille area to achieve the intensive level of survey needed to appropriately monitor this population. In January 2017, 27 total sheep were observed consisting of 7 rams, 11 ewes, and 9 lambs resulting in observed ratios of 64 rams: 100 ewes: 82 lambs. Of the 7 rams observed, two are mature and the others are young rams (less than 3 years of age). Most noteworthy; however, is that this is the second consecutive year with strong lamb recruitment. Weather and Habitat Two years of over 200% snowpack have provided high quality forage on the summer range. Observations of sheep throughout the year have indicated great body condition for most animals. From a forage perspective, winter range conditions were above average, resulting from cool spring moisture and sporadic summer rains, which drive the abundance and quality of the grasses which comprise the primary winter forage for bighorn sheep. Weather conditions on the winter range were relatively harsh this winter; however, due to the overall population reduction from disease related mortality, habitat resources will be more readily available on all seasonal ranges and will minimize any intra-specific competition with bighorn sheep. Population Status and Trend Prior to the winter of 2009-2010, the bighorn sheep population in the Rubies was recovering very well from a die-off that occurred in 1996. Monitoring of the 2009-2010 disease event suggested mortality rates attributable to the pneumonia outbreak were 90% across all age classes. In 2012, 10 ewes and 1 lamb were transplanted from adjacent Unit 101 into Lamoille Canyon. At that time the sheep from both the Ruby Mountains and the East Humboldt Range shared the same pathogen profile, so there was very little risk in moving the sheep from Unit 101. Between 2013 and 2015, the sheep herd remained stable to declining and lamb recruitment varied from low to maintenance levels. However, since 2015, this herd has shown

Page 133: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN

115

incredible lamb recruitment (>than 80 lambs:100 ewes). Should this trend continue, this population could reach harvestable levels in a few years. The current population estimate for this herd is 30 adult animals. Unit 114: North Snake Range – Mount Moriah; Eastern White Pine County Report by: Kody Menghini Harvest In 2016, 4 tags were available which is the largest quota ever offered in this unit group. One hunter harvested a 6-year old ram. This hunt continues to be physically and mentally demanding. Access to the Mount Moriah Wilderness area is challenging and rams are difficult to locate with extensive tree cover. Survey Data Aerial herd composition surveys were conducted in March 2017 in conjunction with post-season elk and spring mule deer surveys classified 35 bighorn. The observed sex and age ratios were 76 rams:100 ewes:29 lambs. The previous aerial survey was conducted in March 2016, when 41 bighorn were classified with observed ratios of 16 rams:100 ewes:48 lambs. Weather and Habitat The above average winter precipitation in 2015-16, followed by timely spring and summer rains in 2016 improved quality and quantity of habitat available for bighorn. The 2016-17 winter was snowy and cold. As of March 1, the Silver Creek Snotel site had received 8.4” of precipitation since October 1st compared to 7.8” in 2016 during the same time period. As of March 1, local Snotel sites near Ely were between 153% and 199% of normal precipitation compared to the long-term (1981-2010) average. Limitations to available bighorn habitat exist in the form of a band of dense mixed conifer and mountain mahogany that effectively separates seasonal ranges in much of the area presently occupied by bighorn. In July 2014 the Hampton Fire burned approximately 12,500 acres at mid-elevation in dense trees. There was massive erosion in August and September 2014 due to heavy monsoonal rains falling on bare soil. Vegetation response to the fire has varied with areas that had less tree cover pre-burn responding well with native bunch grasses and forbs, while other areas are dominated by cheatgrass. Locations that had heavy tree cover prior to the fire resulted in a hot burn that sterilized the soil. Consecutive above average winter and spring precipitation should facilitate a positive response in desirable vegetation in the burn area. Overall, the Hampton Fire should benefit bighorn. Population Status and Trend This population had been on an increasing trend for several years due to above average lamb recruitment. With lowered lamb recruitment in 2016 the population remains stable with an estimate of 90 bighorn. The age structure of rams in this population is strong and with numerous older age class rams. Unit 115: South Snake Range – Mount Wheeler; Eastern White Pine County Report by: Kody Menghini Harvest In 2016, 1 tag was available for the fifth consecutive year. The hunter harvested a 5-year old ram. Survey Data An aerial survey was conducted in early March 2017 in conjunction with post-season elk and spring mule deer surveys. A total of 20 bighorn was classified. The observed sex and age ratios were 27 rams:100 ewes:55 lambs.

Page 134: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN

116

Weather and Habitat The above average winter precipitation in 2015-16, followed by timely spring and summer rains in 2016 improved quality and quantity of habitat available for bighorn. The 2016-17 winter was snowy and cold. As of March 1, the Wheeler Peak Snotel site had received 21.1” of precipitation since October 1t compared to 15.7” in 2016 during the same time period. As of March 1, local Snotel sites near Ely were between 153% and 199% of normal precipitation compared to the long-term (1981-2010) average. Continued long-term habitat limitations exist in this unit in the form of dense mixed conifer and mountain mahogany that effectively separate seasonal bighorn ranges. Pinyon-Juniper trees dominate much of the lower elevation that bighorn use during late-winter and spring and reduce forage availability. Population Trend NDOW and Great Basin National Park have worked collaboratively to collar bighorn sheep in Unit 115 since 2009. Collaring projects in February 2015, November 2016, and February 2017 have resulted in the deployment of satellite GPS/VHF collars on 4 ewes and 1 ram. The data obtained from the collars will increase knowledge of seasonal ranges and habitat use by this bighorn herd. Population data collected for this herd support a minimal ram harvest over the short-term. Harvest recommendations will continue to be made based on herd viability and performance. A December 20th through February 20th season was established to ensure the tag holder has the opportunity to pursue rams below the Park boundary when they descend from higher elevations in late winter. This bighorn population is increasing with a population estimate of 40 bighorn.

Page 135: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MOUNTAIN GOAT

117

MOUNTAIN GOAT Unit 101: East Humboldt Mountains; Elko County Unit 102: Ruby Mountains; Elko County Unit 103: South Ruby Mountains; Elko and White Pine Counties Report by: Caleb McAdoo Harvest There were 13 mountain goat tags issued for the 2016 hunting season. Between 2010 and 2013, a conservative quota had been recommended due to the uncertainty of pneumonia-related mortalities of mountain goats that share the same summer range, and in some cases winter range, as bighorn sheep in both Units 101 and 102. After 5 years of assessing survey and harvest data post-die-off, there is greater confidence in adult survival rates for Unit 102, but goats in Unit 101 are still struggling with pathogens and subsequent decreases in annual survival rates. This, along with average to good kid production in Units 102 and 103, supports more liberal tag quotas relative to the population size. All 13 tag holders hunted during the 2016 season. Of those, two were unsuccessful, and one failed to check in his mountain goat at the time of this writing. Of the 11 mountain goats harvested 3 (27%) were nannies. The average age of harvested billies in Unit 102 was approximately 6.8 years. Only one billy was reported being harvested in Unit 101 and was aged at 6.5 years. The single billy harvested in Unit 103 was aged at 6.0 years. Nanny harvest is monitored closely each year and assessed relative to quota development to minimize any potential impacts to herd productivity following the recent disease event documented in the Management Area 10 mountain goat population. In an effort to curtail nanny harvest, the Nevada Department of Wildlife has posted a non-mandatory, Mountain Goat Hunting Orientation document to its website to help hunters identify and determine the sex of mountain goats in the field. Survey Data Aerial mountain goat surveys were conducted in March of 2017. The survey conducted in Unit 101 resulted in the observation of 43 mountain goats, of which only 3 were kids, for an age ratio of 8 kids:100 adults. Overall observations from surveys in Unit 101 since 2009 confirm a negative growth rate (see figures for Unit 101 below). Too few kids are being recruited on an annual basis in Unit 101 to stabilize the rapid population decline of this herd.

Figure 1. Unit 101 Mountain Goat kid ratios from aerial surveys, 2010-2017.

05

10152025303540

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Kids

: 100

Adu

lts

Survey Year

Observed Kid Ratio

Page 136: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MOUNTAIN GOAT

118

Figure 2. Unit 101 Mountain Goat aerial survey sample size for kids and adults, 2010-2017. The survey effort for Unit 102 yielded a sample of 93 total mountain goats, of which 15 were kids. The resulting age ratio was 19 kids:100 adults. The kid recruitment in Unit 102 seems to have stabilized in the mid-teens to low 20’s since 2013. This recruitment rate has enabled a stable to slightly increasing trend for the Unit 102 herd. Unit 103 was not surveyed during the winter 2017. Weather and Habitat Goats live at the highest elevations on the mountain. Normally, snow banks accumulate throughout the winter and sustain preferred forage for goats during most of the hot and dry summer months. Even in dry years, sufficient snow usually falls in the high country to facilitate mountain goat survival. Precipitation received during the 2016-17 winter was well above average and in some months, at some sites, exceeded 170% percent of normal. These conditions should create ideal conditions to produce high quality forage on summer range. Nevada’s mountain goat populations are generally limited by winter range and heavy spring snow loads that have the potential to cover their forage, limit their movements and increase their chances of fatalities from falls and avalanches. Population Status and Trend Concern for the declining Unit 101 mountain goat herd grows stronger as each year passes. While the 2015 kid ratio of 13 was improved compared to single digit ratios since 2011, the 2017 observations were back in the single digits and all surveys since 2011 are still well below the average of 30 kids:100 adults observed from 2001 – 2009. Studies to date support that the increased mortality in the kid segment of the population is due to pneumonia associated with the bacteria Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae. This pattern of the loss of young of the year has been documented throughout the west in annual summer bighorn lamb losses from pneumonia following all age die-offs in bighorn sheep herds. Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae was detected by both blood antibodies (ELISA) and presence of the organism on PCR in mountain goats in the East Humboldt Range during disease surveillance efforts in early 2017. Little to no kid recruitment in Unit 101 from 2011-2016 has resulted in a drastic decrease in the population. For Unit 101, the 2017 population estimate is 65 adults, down from 85 in 2016. If the trend in Unit 101 continues, the Department will likely eliminate harvest from Unit 101. For Unit 102, as a result of the stable kid recruitment values observed over the last several years, the 2017 population has been estimated at 200 individuals. The Unit 103 population estimate remains stable at 45 individuals despite strong observed kid recruitment.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Tota

l Obs

erve

d on

Sur

vey

Survey Year

Kids observed on survey

Adults observed on survey

Page 137: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MOUNTAIN LION

119

MOUNTAIN LION Western Region; Areas: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 19, 20, and 29 Report by: Carl Lackey Harvest Biologists recorded the take of 67 mountain lions between March 1, 2016 and February 28, 2017 within the Western Region (Table 1). This take included 53 animals harvested through licensed hunter harvest, a 10% decrease from the previous season, and 3 by US Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services. Two of these were for predator projects and one was taken under a depredation permit for killing 7 domestic sheep. Five lions were killed in Area 19 as a result of collisions with vehicles and four died as a result of being accidentally caught in leg hold traps set for furbearers. One lion was killed for public safety concerns. Table 1: Western Region mountain lion harvest limits and mortalities by type for 2016–2017.

Management area

Harvest limit

Harvest Type

Hunter Depredation Predator projects Other Total

1

Regional 89

10 0 1 0 11 2 3 0 0 1 4 3 7 0 1 0 8 4 6 0 0 0 6 5 8 0 0 0 8 18 4 0 0 0 4 19 6 0 0 7 13 20 8 1 0 3 12 29 1 0 0 0 1

Totals 89 53 1 2 11 67

Table 2: Western Region mountain lion hunter-harvest: 10-year sex and age comparisons, 2008–2017.

Year

Harvest Mean age

Males Females Percent Female

Percent Adult Female

≥3 years Males Females All mountain

lions

2007–2008 33 24 42% 21% 3.8 3.1 3.4 2008–2009 24 14 37% 29% 3.4 3.7 3.5 2009–2010 19 14 42% 21% 4.4 3.4 3.9 2010–2011 26 24 48% 32% 3.9 5.0 4.5 2011–2012 8 10 56% 28% 4.1 2.8 3.4 2012–2013 14 25 64% 41% NA NA NA 2013–2014 15 13 46% 25% 3.5 2.8 3.2 2014–2015 12 12 50% 21% 4.1 2.6 3.0 2015-2016 30 29 49% 32% 3.7 3.8 3.7 2016-2017 28 25 47% 19% 4.2 2.6 3.5

Note: two mortalities (unknown sex) in 2008 Population Status and Trend Harvest indices such as percent females killed, percent adult (≥3 yrs) females killed and average age of all lions in the harvest are used to monitor population trends. Mountain lion hunter effort is an additional

Page 138: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MOUNTAIN LION

120

indices used and is measured by the number of days hunted for each hunter that reported a harvest. The mean for the 2016–2017 season was 1.9 days afield/hunter. Population structure and trends are based on harvest data and reports from guides and hunters. In comparison with the 10-year hunter harvest trend (Table 2), no major long-term shifts in sex ratios or age cohorts were detected, suggesting that the mountain lion population in western Nevada is remaining stable. The Nevada Department of Wildlife continues working with the University of Nevada, Reno, and the Wildlife Conservation Society on a cougar research project in the Western Region. To date, 58 mountain lions have been fitted with tracking collars. Management Conclusions Although there are some yearly fluctuations within harvest categories, the mean ages and percent of females killed has not changed substantially. Hunter harvest regulation changes implemented beginning in 1997 have only marginally affected the number of mountain lions taken during the hunt. Data indicate regulations and harvest levels are compatible with the mountain lion resource and its resiliency to absorb harvest. Table 3: Ten-year Western Region mountain lion harvest trend, 2007–2017.

Season Year

Season Length

Hunter Harvest Limits

Harvest Type

Hunter Depredation Predator Project Other Total

2007–2008

365

114 57 27 NA* 6 90 2008–2009 114 38 12 NA* 2 52 2009–2010 103 33 12 NA* 2 47 2010–2011 103 50 22 NA* 7 79 2011–2012 169 18 24 15 12 69 2012–2013 169 39 5 8 6 58 2013–2014 89 28 8 9 4 49 2014–2015 89 24 6 3 5 38 2015-2016 89 59 5 14 6 84 2016-2017 89 53 1 2 11 67 10 year avg. 365 NA 39.9 12.2 8.5 6.1 63.3

*Mountain lions taken in association with the predator project (a project to remove mountain lions to mitigate predation on specific sensitive wildlife populations) were not classified separately prior to 2011. Eastern Region; Areas 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 Report by: Scott Roberts Harvest The Eastern Region maximum allowable hunter harvest for the 2016–17 season was 113 mountain lions. Two mountain lions were allocated to Unit 091 which exists as an interstate cooperative hunt with Utah, and the remaining 111 were allocated to the rest of the Eastern Region hunt units. No harvest limits were met during the 2016–17 season. The Eastern Region reported hunter harvest for mountain lions for the 2016–17 season was 100 animals (Table 4). The mean harvest for the previous 5 seasons (2011–2015) was 75. Guided hunters made up 44% of the region’s annual hunter harvest. The 2016–17 sex composition of hunter harvested lions was 60 males and 40 females for a ratio of 1.5 males:1 female. The total documented mountain lion harvest for the Eastern Region in 2016–17, including all known take, was 120 mountain lions. The annual combined harvest was comprised of 70 males and 50 females.

Page 139: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MOUNTAIN LION

121

Table 4: Eastern Region mountain lion hunter harvest by area, 2011–2016.

2011-2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016 2016–2017 Area Group

061–068 12 20 14 15 18 17

071–081 7 7 9 1 9 7

91 0 0 0 0 0 0

101–109 15 31 19 17 25 29

111–115 14 32 10 9 13 21

121 2 6 2 5 6 7

131–134 3 5 2 5 4 4

141–145 3 7 6 3 10 10

151–156 3 3 2 2 1 5

Eastern Region Total 59 111 64 57 86 100 Livestock depredation issues in 2016–17 resulted in the take of 5 mountain lions compared to 8 in 2015–16. There was 1 case of private depredation in protection of property and in the name of public safety. Twelve mountain lions were taken as part of bighorn sheep protection projects in Hunt Units 066, 101, and 102. Other harvest for the 2016–17 season included 2 additional lion mortalities, with 2 lions being accidentally trapped. Population Status and Trend Mountain lion harvest has been under close scrutiny by some sportsmen over the last few years. There is some concern over the quantity and quality of mountain lions within the Eastern Region. A review of statistics within the region indicates that although some members of the hunting public may believe there is a locally reduced population (e.g., seeing fewer mountain lions are seen in a favorite canyon or hunting location), regionally the population is holding up well. Population size is not directly proportional to annual harvest as many factors can influence harvest pressure and effort. For example, factors such as weather conditions, hunter effort, and expenses associated with hunting can affect annual mountain lion harvest. Age and sex structure of harvested lions are good measures of mountain lion populations. Overharvest will result in detectable changes to age and sex structure in the harvest. The mean estimated age of mountain lions taken by hunters in the Eastern Region was 3.8 years, which is slightly below the 10-year-mean (Table 5). Based on sex and estimated age ratios in the harvest, long-term harvest data analysis, and recorded mortality, the overall Eastern Region mountain lion population trend is considered to be healthy and stable (Tables 5 and 6).

Page 140: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MOUNTAIN LION

122

Table 5: Eastern Region frequency and mean age of harvested mountain lions, 2007–2016.

Year Males harvested

Females harvested

Mean estimated age

males

Mean estimated age

females

Mean estimated age all mountain

lions 2007–2008 31 24 3.8 3.8 3.8 2008–2009 38 16 4 4.1 4.1 2009–2010 40 34 3.8 3.8 3.8 2010–2011 49 22 3.7 3.2 3.6 2011–2012 38 21 3.9 4.1 4.0 2012–2013 58 53 4.6 4.4 4.5 2013–2014 42 22 3.9 5.1 4.3 2014–2015 35 24 4.1 3.9 4.0 2015-2016 64 22 4.0 3.7 4.0 2016-2017 60 40 3.5 4.0 3.8

Table 6: All known take of mountain lions in Eastern Region, 2007–2016.

Year Season Length (days)

Maximum allowable

hunter harvest

Hunter harvest

Depredation take

Other take

Total take

2007–2008 365 167 55 10 0 65 2008–2009 365 167 54 11 3 68 2009–2010 365 143 74 18 6 98 2010–2011 365 143 71 13 3 87 2011–2012 365 232 59 11 4 74 2012–2013 365 232 111 20 3 134 2013–2014 365 122 64 10 1 75 2014–2015 365 113 56 5 4 65 2015-2016 365 113 86 15 2 103 2016-2017 365 113 100 18 2 120 Mean 365 155 73 13 3 89

Management Conclusions Persistent snow throughout much of the winter of 2016–17 led to above average hunter success throughout the Eastern Region. The maximum allowable hunter harvest objective for the Eastern Region was 113, of which hunters took 100 mountain lions. Mountain lion population trends are stable within the Eastern Region. Although locating lions in some of the more accessible and popular mountain lion hunting areas may be difficult, there is a sufficient base population of mountain lions to allow for adequate reproduction and population maintenance. The dispersal of mountain lions from adjacent mountain ranges with little or no harvest is common. The base populations of prey species on which mountain lions depend are currently at stable to increasing levels regionally and are expected to continue to sustain healthy mountain lion populations.

Page 141: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MOUNTAIN LION

123

Southern Region; Areas: 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 Report by: Cooper Munson Harvest The 2016-2017 mountain lion season ran from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017 in all areas of the Southern Region, except Area 28 which remains closed to mountain lion hunting. The harvest limits in all areas were combined to form a regional harvest objective of 49 lions. Table 1 displays a comparison of harvest for the last ten years. Table 2 displays the regional lion harvest for the March 1, 2016 – February 28, 2017 season. Table 1: Comparison of Southern Region Harvest by area groups for the last ten years

Area Group

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

161-164

6 3 11 8 5 3 2 3 7 3

171-173

10 8 4 4 3 3 7 1 2 4

211-212

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

221-223

6 6 3 6 12 12 8 8 10 12

231 1 6 2 4 2 9 4 5 5 5

241-245

5 4 4 7 5 6 6 2 3 4

251-253

1 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

261-268

4 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0

271-272

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Totals 34 32 25 31 29 35 29 20 29 29

Table 2: All Southern Region Mountain Lion Mortalities by Type/ Distribution for 2016-2017

Management Harvest Sport Depredation Other Total Area Groups Limit Harvest Harvest Harvest Harvest

161-164 Regional 3 3

171-173 49 4 4

211-212 1 1

221-223 11 1 12

231 5 5

241-245 4 4

251-253 0 0

261-268 0 0

271-272 0 0

Totals: 49 29 0 0 29

Page 142: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

MOUNTAIN LION

124

Regional sport harvest for the 2016-2017 season consisted of 29 lions. Population Status Trend The 2016-2017 Southern Region mountain lion sport harvest consisted of 18 males and 10 females for a male to female ratio of 1.6:1 with a 5-year average ratio of 1.6:1. The number of lions taken was consistent with the previous season with 29 lions harvested during 2015-2016. The average estimated age of harvested males was 4.6, which equal to the ten-year average harvest age of 4.6. The average estimated age of harvested females was 4.2, which is above the ten-year average age of 3.9. Overall, the average estimated age of lions harvested in the southern region is 4.5 which is above the ten-year average of 4.2. The total harvest of 29 lions is slightly above the average of 28.5 over the last ten seasons (2007 – 2017). The Southern Region combined harvest was well below the 2016-2017 harvest limit of 49. Management Conclusions The sport harvest of 28 mountain lions was consistent the previous years’ sport harvest of 29 lions and steady with the average harvest in the Southern Region. One depredation lion was taken in the southern region during the reporting period. Above average precipitation was received throughout the Southern Region during 2016, which may result in slightly higher abundance of prey species. The western portion of the Southern Region (Areas 16, 17, & 21) accounted for 25% of the Southern Region lion harvest compared to 31% in 2015-2016 and 25% in 2014-2015. Days hunted reported by sport hunters was an average of 3.6 days. The average body condition reported was 3.9 (scale 1 – 5 with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent), indicating that most lions were in very good condition. In conclusion the mountain lion population in the Southern Region continues to be stable although a higher percentage of harvested lions were female. Lack of seasonal precipitation in previous years may have made it more difficult for hunters to be successful, the 2015-16 season received a higher frequency of snowfall.

Page 143: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

BLACK BEAR

125

BLACK BEAR Western Region Report by: Carl Lackey The Nevada Department of Wildlife maintains a database containing various data on all black bears captured or handled since 1997. The cumulative total since 1997 through the end of 2016 is 1,408 bears (Table 1). All bears captured and released are marked with permanently identifying individual ear tags, tattoos and/or PIT tags. To date the Nevada Department of Wildlife has permanently marked 520 individual bears. Table 1: Bears handled in the Western Region, 2007–2016.

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Bears handled 159 68 40 79 78 83 97 141 121 71

Cumulative totala (since

1997) 630 698 738 817 895 978 1075 1215 1337 1408

a Includes recaptured bears previously handled and marked in the same or preceding years. Harvest The hunt structure has remained constant other than variations in season length. The inaugural 2011 season was 134 days long beginning on August 20 and ending December 31. The season length was shortened to 108 days for the 2012-2015 seasons. These seasons began on September 15 to accommodate concerns certain publics had with bear hunting over the Labor Day weekend. The season was shortened further in 2016 by the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, and now runs from September 15-December 1 (78 days). The harvest limits established by the Commissioner have remained at 20 bears each year. Each year 45 tags are available to resident and non-resident licensed hunters. Applications for these tags have increased each year with 1,156 tag applications received in 2011, 1,762 in 2012; 2,021 in 2013; 2,143 in 2014; 2,339 in 2015 and 2,500 in 2016. These figures do not include applications for bonus points only (an additional 1,387 applications in 2016). The Nevada Department of Wildlife’s Black Bear Management Plan specifies annual harvest data will be analyzed along with harvest data from the most recent three years. To fully evaluate the demographics of the state’s bear population, the Nevada Department of Wildlife supplements this hunter harvest data with mark-recapture analyses to determine population size and trend. This provides the Nevada Department of Wildlife the ability to evaluate various demographics of the bear population, both short-term and long-term, and to discern any substantive changes in vital rates that may initiate a change in the bear hunt. All successful hunters were required to personally bring the hide and skull of harvested bears to a Department representative. Of the 82 successful hunters to date; nine (11%) were female hunters, 87% saved the bear meat, 17% were guided by professional guides, and four (4%) were nonresident hunters. The hunter success rate dropped slightly this year, likely due to the increased production of natural foods caused by the wet conditions last winter. When natural food production is high bears tend to move around less, making them less susceptible to hunter detection. The overall harvest of eleven bears in 2016 represents approximately two percent of the estimated population; therefore firm conclusions are difficult to draw. The three year harvest data indicate light harvest when considering age cohorts in the harvest. However, the percent female in the harvest has been high the last three years but only moderate when looking at all years combined (Table 2). Fifty-six percent of the (46 of 82) bears killed during the six years of the hunt have been harvested in unit 291 (Figure 1). Therefore, the Nevada Department of Wildlife will be restructuring the open units for the upcoming 2017 in an attempt to distribute hunter effort. Open units have been separated into three unit groups: 192, 194, 196 and 195; 201, 202, 204 and 206; and with unit 291as a single unit.

Page 144: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

BLACK BEAR

126

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Area 19males

Area 19 fem Area 20males

Area 20 fem Area 29males

Area 29 fem

Age

(yrs

)

Tota

l Har

vest

Black Bear Harvest in Nevada

Avg. Age of Harvest

Table 2: Hunter harvest data 2011–2016.

a Illegally killed bear but used hounds

Data from all successful hunters 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Last

3 years

3 yr Harvest criteria

indicator

All Years

Male bears killed 9 10 10 12 8 5 25 54

Female bears killed 5 1 4 6 6 6 18 28

% females in harvest 36% 9% 29% 33% 43% 55% 42% Heavy

harvest 34%

Mean age males (years) 5.9 5.1 6.1 7 8.5 10.0 7.1 Light

harvest 6.3

Mean age females (years) 6.9 9.0 7.8 10.5 6.5 8.0 7.4 Light

Harvest 7.0

Mean age all (years) 5.9 5.5 6.6 8.2 7.6 8.9 7.5 6.5

Male:female ratio 1.8 10.0 2.5 2.0 1.3 0.8 1.4 1.9

Hunter success rate 31% 24% 31% 40% 31% 24% 34% 30%

Hunter effort in days/kill 8.3 8.7 7.8 5.1 6.7 8.8 6.6 7.4

Average days scouted 7.0 2.1 4.0 2.9 2.5 4.3 2.9 4.0

Average days hunted 8.3 8.7 8.4 5.1 6.7 8.8 6.6 7.5

Hunt Method: Dogs

or Other

12 2

7 4

8 6a

13 5

9 5

8 3

30 13

57 25

Page 145: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

BLACK BEAR

127

Figure 2: Statewide human-bear conflicts by 5-year block (1500+ complaints in 2007 withdrawn)

Figure 3: Human-bear conflicts by county, 2016.

Carson City , 7%

Douglas County,

42% Washoe County,

45%

Outlying Areas,

6%

0

100

200

300

400

500

20 34 103

178

282

485

Average number of

complaints/ 5yr blocks

Conflicts In 2016 human-bear conflicts decreased 70% (170) compared to the conflicts recorded in 2015 (566). The main attributing factor to the decrease was the favorable climatic conditions that occurred during the winter months 2015-2016. This provided an abundance of natural foods for bears. Annual conflicts vary in number depending on climatic conditions and other factors, but when the conflict history is viewed in 5-year periods, it is clear they have continued to rise (Figure 2). The year that stands out as an anomaly was 2007, when over 1,500 complaints were received.

The majority of complaints received are of bears accessing garbage or other sources of human foods. Other common complaints were of bears damaging apiaries, breaking into garbage enclosures or sheds, damage to fruit trees, breaking into homes and vehicles or just a bear frequenting a particular area. Per Nevada Department of Wildlife policy, the usual course of action is to first advise the complainant on how to avoid future conflicts by removing access to all human sources of food. For those people living in or near the urban-wildland interface, tolerance of wildlife is also encouraged. Traps are often set in non-conflict and conflict situations so that the bears may be sampled, marked for future identification and subjected to hazing techniques.

The fall months of September–November are predominantly when most calls were received however, with a good berry and pine nut crop, fall complaints were fewer in 2016 (30%). Reported conflicts in 2016 were predominantly from Washoe County (45%;Figure 3). Personal property damage for the year was reported at o $16,300; however, it should be noted that most people don’t report damage unless it is substantial and even these figures are not always reported. Including recaptures and multiple captures per event, 63 individual bears were handled on approximately 71 capture events. Of the 71, 43 were first-event bears (those not previously captured or handled). Additionally, some bears were caught incidental to ongoing complaints but not necessarily as conflict bears.

Most bears were either caught in culvert traps or by free-ranging capture techniques. Seventeen cubs of the year were handled. Twenty-six first-event bears were marked and released while 17 were documented as mortalities on the initial incident (e.g., unknown bears hit by vehicles, hunt, etc;Table 3). Mortalities There were 23 documented mortalities recorded this year (Table 3), 6 of these were marked bears. Two bears were killed by the Nevada Department of Wildlife for public safety concerns. One unmarked cub of the year was killed by an unrelated adult female in Incline Village.

Page 146: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

BLACK BEAR

128

Table 3: Documented mortalities of black bears in Nevada, 2006–2015. (Marked Nevada bears killed in other states are excluded -28 since 2001).

Mortality Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total (1997–

present) Hit by Car 35 6 8 8 3 9 12 18 21 8 217

Public Safety 10 17 3 12 8 4 5 1 9 2 95 3 – Strikes 1 6 3 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 19

Hunt NA NA NA NA 14 11 14 18 14 11 82 Depredation 5 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 35

Illegal 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 Other 8 2 1 3 6 4 9 9 5 2 64

Yearly Total 62 32 15 34 33 31 42 49 49 23 519 Cumulative

Total (since 1997) 211 243 258 292 325 356 398 447 496 519

Population Status and Trend Viable populations of black bears exist in the Carson Range of the Sierra Nevada, the Pine Nut Mountains, Virginia Range, Peavine Mountain, Pine Grove Hills, Wassuk Range, Sweetwater Mountains, East Walker River area, and likely the Virginia Mountains and the Excelsior Range. Random sightings and captures in historical habitat have been documented and these instances are increasing, however it is unlikely viable populations exist in these areas at this time. One can conclude from these analyses and long-term trends in the data set, along with empirical data collected from captured bears, sightings and mortalities that Nevada’s black bear population is increasing in distribution, both numerically and geographically. However, this numerical growth has been slowing the last few years, possibly indicating biological carrying capacity has been reached.

Page 147: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

APPENDIX

Harvest, Survey, and Population Tables

Page 148: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

            

Page 149: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

i

APPENDIX - TABLE OF CONTENTS Harvest, Survey, and Population Tables

TABLE 1. 2016 MULE DEER POINT CLASS BY UNIT AND UNIT GROUP ............................................... 1 

TABLE 2. 2016 MULE DEER JUNIOR HUNT HARVEST UNIT GROUP .................................................... 4 

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP .................................................... 5 

TABLE 4. % FOUR-POINT OR BETTER MULE DEER HARVEST BY UNIT GROUP, 2006 – 2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 14 

TABLE 5. 2016 PRONGHORN HARVEST BY UNIT FOR ALL HUNTS ...................................................... 16 

TABLE 6. 2016 PRONGHORN HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP ....................................... 19 

TABLE 7. 2016 PRONGHORN BUCK HORN LENGTH BY UNIT GROUP ................................................. 24 

TABLE 8. PRONGHORN HORN TRENDS - % OF BUCKS 15+ INCHES BY UNIT GROUP ..................... 25 

TABLE 9. 2016 ELK HARVEST BY UNIT AND UNIT GROUP FOR ALL HUNTS ....................................... 26 

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP ...................................................... 28 

TABLE 11. 2016 BULL ELK HARVEST ANTLER LENGTH BY UNIT GROUP ........................................... 38 

TABLE 12. % BULL ELK MAIN BEAM ANTLER 50+ INCHES BY UNIT GROUP 2008-2016 .................... 39 

TABLE 13. 2016 BIGHORN SHEEP HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP............................... 40 

TABLE 14. BIGHORN SHEEP RAM HARVEST HISTORY .......................................................................... 44 

TABLE 15. 2016 MOUNTAIN GOAT HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP .............................. 49 

TABLE 16. MOUNTAIN GOAT HARVEST HISTORY BY UNIT AND YEAR, 2000-2016 ............................ 50 

TABLE 17. 2016 BLACK BEAR DRAW AND HUNT RESULTS ................................................................... 52 

TABLE 18. FALL 2016 AND SPRING 2017 MULE DEER SURVEY COMPOSITION ................................. 53 

TABLE 19. LATE SUMMER/FALL/WINTER 2016 PRONGHORN SURVEY COMPOSITION .................... 54 

TABLE 20. LATE SUMMER/FALL 2016 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP SURVEY COMPOSITION ............. 55 

TABLE 21. LATE SUMMER/FALL 2016 CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP SURVEY COMPOSITION ........................................................................................................................... 56 

TABLE 22. SUMMER/WINTER/EARLY SPRING 2016-2017 ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP SURVEY COMPOSITION .............................................................................................. 56 

TABLE 23. JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2017 MOUNTAIN GOAT SURVEY COMPOSITION .................. 57 

TABLE 24. FALL/WINTER 2016-2017 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK SURVEY COMPOSITION ..................... 57 

TABLE 25. 2017 MULE DEER POPULATION ESTIMATES ........................................................................ 58 

TABLE 26. 2017 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK POPULATION ESTIMATES .................................................... 59 

TABLE 27. 2017 PRONGHORN POPULATION ESTIMATES ..................................................................... 60 

TABLE 28. 2017 DESERT BIGHORN POPULATION ESTIMATES ............................................................ 61 

TABLE 29. 2017 CALIFORNIA BIGHORN POPULATION ESTIMATES ..................................................... 62 

TABLE 30. 2017 ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN POPULATION ESTIMATES .......................................... 62 

TABLE 31. 2017 MOUNTAIN GOAT POPULATION ESTIMATES .............................................................. 62 

TABLE 32. BIG GAME POPULATION ESTIMATE HISTORY 1982 - 2017 ................................................. 63 

TABLE 33. BIG GAME TAG SALES AND HARVEST HISTORY BY SPECIES, 1987 - 2016 ..................... 64 

TABLE 34. NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION TAG SALES, SPORT HARVEST AND HUNTER SUCCESS, 1978 - 2016 .............................................................................................................. 65 

TABLE 35. NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION DEPREDATION HARVEST .......................................................... 66 

TABLE 36. HUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................. 67 

Page 150: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

            

Page 151: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 1. 2016 MULE DEER POINT CLASS BY UNIT AND UNIT GROUP

Unit of Bucks by Antler Points Unit Buck Unit Group % 4+ TOTALHarvest Does Female Male 1 2 3 4 5 6+ Total Buck Total pts DEER

011 2 2 5 10 12 1 30012 2 1 5 6 2 1 15013 3 1 6 9 10 1 27unk^ 0 72 46% 79014 7 1 22 17 19 59 59 32% 66015 6 6 4 2 18 18 33% 18021 1 5 14 20 3 2 44 44 57% 45022 1 2 8 19 28 4 61 61 52% 62031 8 3 36 56 59 11 1 166 166 43% 174032 5 9 27 39 21 1 97 97 23% 102033 3 2 8 14 3 27 27 63% 30034 1 3 8 14 21 3 49 49 49% 50035 2 1 1 17 14 18 2 2 54 54 41% 57041 3 9 13 2 27042 2 2 2 1 7unk^ 0 34 53% 34043 11 1 3 1 22 18 18 2 1 62044 3 3 16 5 1 25045 2 3 4 11 18046 5 1 9 15 6 31unk^ 0 136 32% 161051 23 4 8 38 65 84 7 3 205 205 46% 232061 54 10 10 68 82 64 2 3 229062 110 3 11 13 119 153 163 17 3 468064 15 1 2 20 21 17 3 63066 12 1 2 17 13 20 2 54067 170 2 19 2 26 44 50 16 2 140068 95 5 11 1 19 41 56 9 3 129unk^ 0 1,083 40% 1,602065 1 3 8 12 24 2 1 50 50 54% 51071 27 1 1 17 21 25 2 66072 19 2 2 14 26 42 5 1 90073 17 2 1 20 14 29 5 68074 10 1 1 7 8 16075 31 4 3 18 53 64 13 3 154076 5 3 7 16 26 1 3 56077 23 1 3 1 9 12 23 4 2 51078 1 1 1 1079 5 1 2 2 2 1 7091 0unk^ 0 509 51% 664081 1 10 27 5 5 47 47 79% 48101 37 4 12 78 65 67 18 3 243102 67 5 6 30 120 135 128 7 6 426103 5 1 8 42 21 13 2 1 87104 5 5 21 17 14 1 1 59105 3 2 5

Fawns

A-1

Page 152: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 1. 2016 MULE DEER POINT CLASS BY UNIT AND UNIT GROUP

Unit of Bucks by Antler Points Unit Buck Unit Group % 4+ TOTALHarvest Does Female Male 1 2 3 4 5 6+ Total Buck Total pts DEER

Fawns

106 3 4 10 17107 1 1 2 3108 3 1 2 21 10 15 1 1 50109 5 1 1 5 3 1 9unk^ 0 899 32% 1,041111 25 3 33 97 85 76 11 4 306112 1 1 1 2 9 1 14113 1 5 12 6 1 1 26unk^ 0 346 32% 375114 6 2 1 7 9 17 4 38115 20 2 15 18 28 1 1 63unk^ 0 101 50% 131121 1 1 43 51 47 7 149 149 36% 150131 1 5 33 83 66 9 3 199132 2 2 11 31 33 7 2 86133 1 1 6 5 4 2 17134 4 1 5unk^ 0 307 43% 312141 5 1 8 23 23 20 2 2 78142 1 5 5 4 14143 1 11 13 19 5 1 49144 7 2 12 51 51 40 5 2 161145 4 1 6 13 7 11 1 38 340 33% 362151 1 6 6 9 11 1 1 34152 13 1 1 7 11 11 3 33153 4 4 8154 7 2 5 8 11 2 28155 16 2 3 1 13 8 10 32156 2 1 2 5 8unk^ 0 143 41% 188161 7 1 4 32 35 43 4 118162 4 6 16 40 47 5 1 115163 1 2 6 3 8 2 21164 1 1 2 5 9 1 17unk^ 0 271 44% 286171 3 2 4 22 9 10 2 47172 1 1 1 13 11 5 1 31173 15 2 8 41 41 31 1 1 123unk^ 0 201 25% 225181 6 1 8 15 20 1 1 45182 1 3 1 5183 1 14 14 5 2 35184 1 1 3 4 7 2 17 102 41% 111192 12 11 15 3 41 41 44% 41

A-2

Page 153: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 1. 2016 MULE DEER POINT CLASS BY UNIT AND UNIT GROUP

Unit of Bucks by Antler Points Unit Buck Unit Group % 4+ TOTALHarvest Does Female Male 1 2 3 4 5 6+ Total Buck Total pts DEER

Fawns

194 1 3 8 32 3 7 53196 3 10 20 4 2 39 92 74% 93195 1 1 4 4 7 1 2 19 19 53% 20201 1 3 8 12 6 29204 1 1 1 1 4unk^ 0 33 21% 34202 1 2 12 16 7 1 1 39205 3 3206 1 2 3 4 9207 1 1208 1 1 53 28% 55203 1 8 15 17 11 4 1 56 56 29% 57211 1 10 9 5 1 25212 7 4 4 2 17213 1 1 43 28% 44221 4 2 25 34 54 3 7 125222 10 1 4 33 45 51 10 1 144223 5 3 9 11 22 8 2 55unk^ 0 324 49% 344231 5 1 2 27 64 97 21 13 224 224 58% 230241 8 9 18 5 10 50242 1 3 13 17 5 5 44243 1 1245 3 3unk^ 0 98 64% 98251 1 1 4 19 2 2 29252 2 2 31 81% 31261 2 1 3262 2 1 9 19 20 5 3 57263 1 1 2264 0265 0 62 47% 64271 1 2 5 3 11272 2 1 9 3 1 1 17 28 46% 28291 4 10 17 9 4 40 40 33% 44

TOTAL 988 25 112 270 1,596 2,068 2,319 325 136 6,714 41% 7,839

^unable to verify correct unit of harvest in hunt group

SPECIAL TAGHOLDER HARVEST BY UNITHUNT UNIT # HUNT UNIT # HUNT UNIT #PIW 015 1 PIW 194 4 SILVER 195 1PIW 021 2 PIW 196 3 HERITAGE 231 1PIW 062 1 PIW 221 2 HERITAGE 081 1PIW 081 1 PIW 222 1 DREAM 021 1

PIW 231 1PIW 242 1

A-3

Page 154: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 2. 2016 MULE DEER JUNIOR HUNT HARVEST BY UNIT GROUP

Tag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter %UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success Bucks

011 - 013 57 40 39 2 to 1 87% 21 62% 73%014 65 40 40 2 to 1 95% 22 58% 68%015 18 10 10 2 to 1 70% 3 43% 100%021 48 10 10 5 to 1 100% 9 90% 89%022 42 25 25 2 to 1 92% 14 61% 94%031 63 60 60 1 to 1 97% 45 78% 81%032 45 55 54 1 to 1 93% 25 50% 80%033 19 15 15 2 to 1 100% 11 73% 73%034 16 15 15 1 to 1 87% 9 69% 89%035 29 35 35 1 to 1 83% 20 69% 89%041, 042 17 15 15 2 to 1 100% 9 60% 100%043 - 046 114 110 110 1 to 1 95% 59 57% 79%051 121 130 130 1 to 1 98% 81 63% 89%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 508 475 477 1 to 1 93% 301 68% 90%065 24 15 15 2 to 1 93% 13 93% 92%071 - 079, 091 239 190 190 2 to 1 95% 152 84% 91%081 30 15 15 2 to 1 93% 13 93% 100%101 - 108 231 225 225 1 to 1 91% 131 64% 75%111 - 113 193 170 169 2 to 1 97% 108 66% 75%114, 115 70 70 70 1 to 1 91% 38 59% 74%121 66 55 54 2 to 1 96% 34 65% 97%131 - 134 176 130 130 2 to 1 93% 79 65% 95%141 - 145 131 155 155 1 to 1 95% 110 75% 84%151 - 155 87 100 100 1 to 1 91% 49 54% 78%161 - 164 158 150 150 1 to 1 90% 78 58% 84%171 - 173 131 140 139 1 to 1 90% 63 50% 67%181 - 184 80 75 75 1 to 1 96% 31 43% 73%192 50 15 15 4 to 1 80% 11 92% 100%194, 196 165 25 25 7 to 1 100% 20 80% 95%195 28 10 10 3 to 1 100% 5 50% 80%201, 204 30 10 10 3 to 1 90% 9 100% 90%202, 205 - 208 28 20 20 2 to 1 85% 13 76% 83%203 43 40 40 1 to 1 95% 26 68% 96%211, 212 20 20 19 1 to 1 100% 10 53% 89%221 - 223 257 200 199 2 to 1 94% 108 58% 82%231 184 85 84 3 to 1 96% 62 77% 92%241 - 245 120 30 30 4 to 1 97% 21 72% 100%251 - 253 17 30 30 1 to 1 100% 11 37% 100%261 - 268 42 25 25 2 to 1 92% 18 78% 89%271, 272 23 15 15 2 to 1 100% 8 53% 100%291 43 20 19 3 to 1 95% 12 67% 67%TOTALS 3,828 3,070 3,063 2 to 1 94% 1,862 65% 85%

Tags for Hunt - Available tags at season opener - accounts for tags returned for any reason and alternate tags issuedDemand - # of "Apps" per tag during 1st draw% Return - Percent of hunter questionnaires received compared to total tags available for hunt

% Hunter Success - # of successful hunters divided by # of returns

Demand

Apps - # of unsuccessful 1st choice applicants plus successful 1st - 5th choice applicants for given unit group Tags Quota - Available tags approved by the Commission

% Hunter Success - based on # of successful hunters divided by Tags for Hunt (formula includes correction factor for unreported harvest)

A-4

Page 155: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+pts

RESIDENT PIW ANTLERED MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 1000STATEWIDE 4,279 22 22 195 to 1 86% 14 74% 57%

HERITAGE MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 1100 AND 1201 STATEWIDE 2 2 100% 2 100% 100%

SILVER STATE MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 1300STATEWIDE 4,485 1 1 4485 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%

DREAM TAG MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 1500STATEWIDE 1 1 100% 1 100% 100%

011, 013 5 100% 2 40% 100%015 2 100% 0 0%031 14 100% 6 43% 33%032 7 86% 5 83% 60%034 7 100% 5 71% 100%035 3 100% 1 33% 0%041 2 100% 2 100% 100%051 13 85% 11 100% 82%062 6 100% 5 83% 60%073 2 100% 2 100% 50%101 - 103 34 97% 29 88% 72%114 , 115 7 100% 2 29% 100%121 1 100% 1 100% 100%131 - 133 23 100% 16 70% 81%141 - 144 10 80% 6 75% 83%152, 154 5 100% 5 100% 100%172, 173 5 100% 5 100% 20%231 63 90% 35 61% 69%241, 242, 245 16 81% 7 54% 100%

TOTALS 225 93% 145 69% 73%

RESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 1331011 - 013 Early 374 69 65 6 to 1 95% 25 40% 40%011 - 013 Late 281 19 16 15 to 1 88% 11 79% 45%014 Early 263 70 67 4 to 1 97% 17 26% 18%014 Late 300 40 37 8 to 1 97% 19 53% 42%015 102 30 30 4 to 1 77% 7 30% 0%021 586 40 40 15 to 1 95% 27 71% 67%022 421 55 53 8 to 1 94% 25 50% 56%031 559 170 163 4 to 1 98% 98 62% 43%032 239 130 127 2 to 1 94% 54 45% 19%

Demand

RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT MULE DEER LANDOWNER DAMAGE COMPENSATION HUNT 1115 AND 1215

A-5

Page 156: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+ptsDemand

033 Early 84 30 30 3 to 1 97% 7 24% 57%033 Late 73 11 10 7 to 1 90% 6 67% 67%034 125 35 35 4 to 1 94% 25 76% 48%035 149 50 50 3 to 1 98% 24 49% 38%041, 042 161 40 40 5 to 1 100% 16 40% 63%043 - 046 Early 395 150 148 3 to 1 95% 42 30% 24%043 - 046 Late 235 50 50 5 to 1 98% 18 37% 33%051 600 250 246 3 to 1 96% 81 34% 40%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 E 2220 1150 1121 2 to 1 95% 530 50% 31%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 L 1308 130 126 11 to 1 97% 85 70% 54%065 518 50 50 11 to 1 90% 33 73% 52%071 - 079, 091 Early 1310 350 342 4 to 1 96% 220 67% 43%071 - 079. 091 Late 1131 85 83 14 to 1 99% 65 79% 72%081 360 35 34 11 to 1 94% 23 72% 83%101 - 109 Early 948 700 688 2 to 1 93% 232 36% 17%101 - 109 Mid 794 700 691 2 to 1 94% 267 41% 25%101 - 109 Late 541 130 126 5 to 1 98% 79 64% 49%111 - 113 Early 1073 375 369 3 to 1 96% 194 54% 23%111 - 113 Late 358 40 39 9 to 1 95% 27 73% 67%114, 115 Early 151 85 82 2 to 1 100% 27 33% 41%114, 115 Late 71 35 35 3 to 1 94% 10 30% 40%121 Early 366 110 110 4 to 1 95% 78 75% 29%121 Late 214 15 14 15 to 1 100% 13 93% 54%131 - 134 Early 898 275 258 4 to 1 91% 140 60% 29%131 - 134 Late 499 30 29 17 to 1 100% 21 72% 76%141 - 145 Early 491 325 315 2 to 1 93% 143 49% 26%141 - 145 Late 177 40 40 5 to 1 100% 31 78% 52%151 - 156 Early 289 200 200 2 to 1 95% 63 33% 38%151 - 156 Late 126 25 24 6 to 1 100% 16 67% 38%161 - 164 Early 726 325 318 3 to 1 96% 122 40% 36%161 - 164 Late 394 40 39 10 to 1 100% 22 56% 64%171 - 173 Early 505 350 344 2 to 1 94% 93 29% 24%171 - 173 Late 222 100 97 3 to 1 95% 30 33% 10%181 - 184 394 180 178 3 to 1 94% 59 35% 32%192 257 30 29 9 to 1 93% 11 41% 55%194, 196 2069 55 52 38 to 1 96% 45 90% 78%195 251 20 17 13 to 1 88% 11 73% 55%201, 204 247 25 25 10 to 1 100% 16 64% 25%202, 205, 206 204 55 54 4 to 1 94% 29 57% 21%203 182 70 70 3 to 1 99% 25 36% 36%211, 212 131 45 43 3 to 1 93% 23 58% 39%221 - 223 Early 917 250 245 4 to 1 96% 103 44% 34%221 - 223 Mid 424 150 143 3 to 1 97% 60 43% 33%221 - 223 Late 735 25 24 30 to 1 96% 18 78% 89%

A-6

Page 157: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+ptsDemand

231 1699 150 147 12 to 1 98% 98 68% 43%241 - 245 1194 90 80 14 to 1 96% 58 75% 62%251 - 253 104 42 37 3 to 1 100% 12 32% 83%261 - 268 464 50 48 10 to 1 98% 35 74% 51%271, 272 118 30 30 4 to 1 97% 14 48% 43%291 279 50 50 6 to 1 98% 23 47% 17%

TOTALS 30,306 8,256 8,053 4 to 1 95% 3,706 48% 36%

RESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER MUZZLELOADER HUNT 1371011 - 013 14 2 2 7 to 1 100% 0 0%014 40 10 8 4 to 1 100% 1 13% 100%015 6 2 2 3 to 1 50% 0 0%021 25 2 2 13 to 1 100% 0 0%022 21 4 4 6 to 1 100% 4 100% 25%031 33 10 10 4 to 1 100% 5 50% 40%032 12 7 7 2 to 1 100% 2 29% 0%033 5 3 3 2 to 1 100% 0 0%034 6 3 2 2 to 1 100% 2 100% 0%035 22 10 9 3 to 1 89% 3 38% 67%041, 042 7 3 3 3 to 1 67% 1 50%043 - 046 30 15 14 2 to 1 100% 4 29% 75%051 39 30 27 2 to 1 96% 7 27% 14%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 237 95 91 3 to 1 98% 39 44% 51%065 22 5 5 5 to 1 100% 1 20% 100%071 - 079, 091 146 40 38 4 to 1 100% 13 34% 62%081 82 5 5 17 to 1 100% 4 80% 100%101 - 109 183 150 148 2 to 1 97% 49 34% 33%111 - 113 77 20 20 4 to 1 100% 12 60% 42%114, 115 108 40 38 3 to 1 95% 16 44% 63%121 21 7 7 3 to 1 100% 4 57% 0%131 - 134 180 35 32 6 to 1 100% 27 84% 37%141 - 145 48 25 25 2 to 1 92% 9 39% 67%151 - 156 23 15 13 2 to 1 100% 4 31% 75%161 - 164 102 35 35 3 to 1 97% 17 50% 47%171 - 173 86 70 70 2 to 1 96% 13 19% 15%181 - 184 37 20 20 2 to 1 100% 7 35% 57%192 31 15 14 3 to 1 100% 5 36% 40%194, 196 54 6 6 9 to 1 100% 2 33% 50%195 14 2 2 7 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%201, 204 16 2 2 8 to 1 100% 0 0%202, 205, 206 9 6 6 2 to 1 100% 4 67% 25%211, 212 10 8 7 2 to 1 57% 3 75% 0%221 - 223 86 25 23 4 to 1 96% 12 55% 67%231 108 20 19 6 to 1 95% 10 56% 80%

A-7

Page 158: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+ptsDemand

241 - 245 42 4 3 11 to 1 100% 2 67% 100%251 - 253 10 5 5 2 to 1 100% 3 60% 67%261 - 268 10 2 2 5 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%271, 272 11 10 10 2 to 1 100% 3 30% 67%291 11 2 2 6 to 1 100% 1 50%

TOTALS 2,024 770 741 3 to 1 97% 291 41% 46%

RESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER ARCHERY HUNT 1341011 - 013 36 15 13 3 to 1 92% 1 8% 100%014 37 10 9 4 to 1 89% 1 13% 0%015 7 4 4 2 to 1 100% 1 25%021 57 25 25 3 to 1 92% 1 4% 0%022 48 15 14 4 to 1 100% 6 43% 83%031 30 20 18 2 to 1 100% 4 22% 50%

032A 52 60 56 1 to 1 98% 8 15% 13%033 5 4 4 2 to 1 75% 0 0%034 20 15 13 2 to 1 100% 4 31% 50%

035A 19 35 32 1 to 1 97% 5 16% 0%041, 042 23 15 16 2 to 1 100% 3 19% 33%043 - 046 91 90 88 2 to 1 90% 9 11% 33%051 122 120 117 2 to 1 92% 14 13% 50%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 358 300 294 2 to 1 93% 62 23% 39%065 30 7 7 5 to 1 71% 0 0%071 - 079, 091 Early 213 160 160 2 to 1 92% 33 22% 39%071 - 079. 091 Late 111 20 20 6 to 1 100% 5 25% 80%081 8 2 2 4 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%

101 - 109 EarlyA 270 325 290 1 to 1 93% 39 14% 44%101 - 109 Late 58 15 14 4 to 1 86% 3 25% 100%111 - 113 99 35 35 3 to 1 97% 15 44% 13%114, 115 95 95 95 1 to 1 93% 11 13% 73%121 Early 37 25 23 2 to 1 100% 10 43% 40%121 Late 31 6 4 6 to 1 100% 2 50% 50%131 - 134 174 35 33 5 to 1 94% 15 48% 40%141 - 145 135 140 137 1 to 1 94% 29 22% 17%151 - 156 66 65 64 2 to 1 91% 6 10% 17%161 - 164 204 160 152 2 to 1 96% 21 14% 52%

171 - 173A 169 170 167 1 to 1 93% 12 8% 25%181 - 184 54 50 47 2 to 1 96% 2 4% 0%192 Early 27 15 13 2 to 1 85% 1 9% 0%192 Late 51 25 25 3 to 1 100% 7 28% 43%194, 196 Early 81 15 15 6 to 1 100% 7 47% 71%194, 196 Late 112 15 15 8 to 1 100% 9 60% 78%195 33 3 3 11 to 1 100% 1 33% 100%201, 202, 204 - 206 Early 13 8 8 2 to 1 100% 0 0%

A-8

Page 159: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+ptsDemand

201, 204 Late 18 10 10 2 to 1 90% 3 33% 0%202, 205, 206 Late 9 6 6 2 to 1 50% 2 67% 50%

203 EarlyA 43 30 31 2 to 1 100% 2 6% 100%203 Late 36 30 28 2 to 1 89% 1 4% 0%211, 212 16 15 12 2 to 1 83% 5 50% 20%221 - 223 133 75 66 2 to 1 92% 15 25% 73%231 149 45 42 4 to 1 90% 14 37% 50%241 - 245 52 10 10 6 to 1 90% 2 22% 0%251 - 253 11 10 10 2 to 1 100% 3 30% 67%261 - 268 47 10 10 5 to 1 90% 5 56% 80%271, 272 15 10 10 2 to 1 100% 1 10% 0%291 15 7 7 3 to 1 100% 4 57% 50%

TOTALS 3,520 2,377 2,274 2 to 1 93% 405 19% 42%

RESIDENT ANTLERLESS MULE DEER DEPREDATION HUNT 1101114, 115 Early 20 5 5 4 to 1 100% 3 60%114, 115 Late 35 30 30 2 to 1 93% 16 57%TOTALS 55 35 35 2 to 1 94% 19 58%

EMERGENCY ANTLERLESS MULE DEER HUNT 1104 067, 068 Early 2,073 500 497 5 to 1 91% 160 35%067, 068 Late 1,063 500 499 3 to 1 92% 66 14%TOTALS 3,136 1,000 996 4 to 1 92% 226 25%

RESIDENT ANTLERLESS MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 1181043 - 046 65 25 25 3 to 1 88% 12 55%051 45 35 35 2 to 1 89% 17 55%061 - 064, 066 - 068 Early 229 225 222 2 to 1 98% 134 61%061 - 064, 066 - 068 LateA 120 225 224 1 to 1 95% 129 61%071 - 079, 091A 213 250 247 1 to 1 94% 140 60%101, 102, 109 248 200 195 2 to 1 93% 104 57%152A 27 35 34 1 to 1 91% 13 42%155A 28 35 35 1 to 1 97% 21 62%

TOTALS 975 1,030 1,017 1 to 1 94% 570 59%

NONRESIDENT PIW ANTLERED MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 1200STATEWIDE 2,983 3 3 995 to 1 100% 3 100% 67%

NONRESIDENT GUIDED ANTLERED MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 1235011 - 013 Early 6 4 3 2 to 1 100% 0 0%011 - 013 Late 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%014 Early 7 3 3 3 to 1 100% 2 67% 100%014 Late 8 1 1 8 to 1 100% 0 0%015 3 1 1 3 to 1 100% 0 0%021 13 1 1 13 to 1 100% 1 100% 0%022 11 2 2 6 to 1 100% 2 100% 100%031 9 8 8 2 to 1 88% 6 86% 50%

A-9

Page 160: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+ptsDemand

032 5 5 5 1 to 1 100% 2 40% 100%033 Early 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 0 0%033 Late 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100% 0%034 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 0 0%035 3 3 3 1 to 1 100% 2 67% 50%041, 042 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100% 0%043 - 046 Early 6 9 6 1 to 1 100% 5 83% 20%043 - 046 Late 3 3 3 1 to 1 100% 3 100% 67%051 10 10 10 1 to 1 100% 6 60% 67%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 E 61 45 44 2 to 1 100% 26 59% 73%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 L 63 5 4 13 to 1 75% 3 100% 100%065 10 2 2 5 to 1 100% 2 100% 50%071 - 079, 091 Early 68 17 17 4 to 1 100% 14 82% 57%071 - 079. 091 Late 51 4 3 13 to 1 100% 3 100% 67%081 16 1 1 16 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%101 - 109, Early 21 42 21 1 to 1 100% 13 62% 62%101 - 109 Mid 42 43 42 1 to 1 100% 16 38% 81%101 - 109, Late 13 8 8 2 to 1 100% 5 63% 20%111 - 113 Early 21 15 15 2 to 1 87% 7 54% 100%111 - 113 Late 4 1 1 4 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%114, 115 Early 6 4 4 2 to 1 100% 1 25% 100%114, 115 Late 3 1 1 3 to 1 100% 1 100% 0%121 Early 9 7 7 2 to 1 100% 7 100% 71%121 Late 3 1 1 3 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%131 - 134 Early 13 13 13 1 to 1 100% 9 69% 78%131 - 134 Late 2 1 1 2 to 1 100% 0 0%141 - 145 Early 15 15 15 1 to 1 93% 9 64% 56%141 - 145 Late 5 2 0 3 to 1 151 - 156 Early 9 9 9 1 to 1 100% 4 44% 75%151 - 156 Late 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%161 - 164 Early 12 12 12 1 to 1 100% 7 58% 71%161 - 164 Late 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100% 0%171 - 173 Early 2 4 2 1 to 1 100% 0 0%171 - 173 Late 8 8 8 1 to 1 88% 4 57% 50%181 - 184 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 0 0%192 16 2 2 8 to 1 100% 2 100% 50%194, 196 2 1 1 2 to 1 100% 0 0%202, 205, 206 5 2 2 3 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%203 3 2 2 2 to 1 100% 0 0%211, 212 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100% 0%221 - 223 Early 37 12 11 4 to 1 100% 7 64% 86%222 - 223 Mid 20 6 6 4 to 1 100% 2 33% 100%221 - 223 Late 105 1 1 105 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%231 31 7 7 5 to 1 100% 6 86% 50%

A-10

Page 161: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+ptsDemand

241 - 245 307 4 4 77 to 1 100% 3 75% 100%

251 - 253 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%

261 - 268 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%271, 272 2 2 2 1 to 1 100% 2 100% 50%291 1 2 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%

TOTALS 1,081 362 327 3 to 1 98% 196 61% 67%

NONRESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 1331011 - 013 Early 92 5 5 19 to 1 100% 3 60% 33%011 - 013 Late 108 2 2 54 to 1 100% 2 100% 100%014 Early 73 5 5 15 to 1 100% 3 60% 33%014 Late 119 3 3 40 to 1 100% 1 33% 0%015 81 2 2 41 to 1 50% 1 100% 100%021 169 3 3 57 to 1 100% 2 67% 100%022 72 4 4 18 to 1 100% 4 100% 25%031 168 10 10 17 to 1 100% 8 80% 75%032 60 10 10 6 to 1 100% 5 50% 60%033 Early 24 2 2 12 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%033 Late 60 2 2 30 to 1 100% 2 100% 100%034 52 3 3 18 to 1 100% 3 100% 0%035 24 5 4 5 to 1 100% 3 75% 67%041, 042 24 4 4 6 to 1 100% 3 75% 100%043 - 046 Early 36 15 15 3 to 1 93% 6 43% 33%043 - 046 Late 33 5 5 7 to 1 100% 3 60% 33%051 149 25 24 6 to 1 100% 15 63% 80%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 E 408 85 77 5 to 1 97% 50 67% 60%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 L 446 10 10 45 to 1 90% 5 56% 100%065 87 3 2 29 to 1 100% 2 100% 100%071 - 079, 091 Early 248 20 19 13 to 1 100% 11 58% 82%071 - 079. 091 Late 387 6 5 65 to 1 100% 5 100% 80%081 414 3 3 138 to 1 100% 2 67% 50%101 - 109, Early 176 50 47 4 to 1 94% 27 61% 37%101 - 109, Mid 114 40 40 3 to 1 100% 26 65% 35%101 - 109, Late 271 7 7 39 to 1 100% 7 100% 57%111 - 113 Early 163 25 23 7 to 1 96% 11 50% 73%111 - 113 Late 108 4 4 27 to 1 100% 2 50% 0%114, 115 Early 27 5 5 6 to 1 100% 3 60% 33%114, 115 Late 50 3 3 17 to 1 100% 2 67% 50%121 Early 52 5 4 11 to 1 75% 1 33% 100%121 Late 30 2 2 15 to 1 100% 2 100% 100%131 - 134 Early 119 15 14 8 to 1 93% 10 77% 50%131 - 134 Late 209 2 2 105 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%141 - 145 Early 62 20 20 4 to 1 100% 16 80% 50%141 - 145 Late 41 2 2 21 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%

A-11

Page 162: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+ptsDemand

151 - 156 Early 54 10 10 6 to 1 100% 7 70% 57%151 - 156 Late 24 2 2 12 to 1 100% 2 100% 0%161 - 164 Early 97 25 23 4 to 1 96% 13 59% 62%161 - 164 Late 75 4 4 19 to 1 100% 1 25% 0%171 - 173 Early 80 25 22 4 to 1 95% 10 48% 40%171 - 173 Late 25 8 6 4 to 1 100% 3 50% 33%181 - 184 47 10 9 5 to 1 89% 6 75% 33%192 23 3 3 8 to 1 100% 3 100% 100%194, 196 526 4 4 132 to 1 100% 1 25% 100%195 14 2 2 7 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%201, 204 25 2 2 13 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%202, 205, 206 40 6 6 7 to 1 100% 6 100% 67%203 21 6 6 4 to 1 100% 3 50% 33%211, 212 42 3 3 14 to 1 100% 2 67% 50%221 - 223 Early 99 15 13 7 to 1 92% 6 50% 83%222 - 223 Mid 68 15 15 5 to 1 100% 12 80% 50%221 - 223 Late 2162 2 2 1081 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%231 458 15 13 31 to 1 100% 9 69% 89%241 - 245 725 6 6 121 to 1 100% 3 50% 67%251 - 253 31 4 4 8 to 1 100% 2 50% 100%261 - 268 17 4 4 5 to 1 75% 3 100% 0%271, 272 27 2 2 14 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%291 32 5 4 7 to 1 75% 2 67% 50%

TOTALS 9,468 590 557 17 to 1 97% 347 64% 56%

NONRESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER MUZZLELOADER HUNT 1371011 - 013 14 2 1 7 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%014 10 2 1 5 to 1 100% 0 0%015 15 2 2 8 to 1 50% 0 0%021 33 2 2 17 to 1 100% 2 100% 100%022 17 2 1 9 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%031 11 2 2 6 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%032 7 2 2 4 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%033 6 2 2 3 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%034 7 2 2 4 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%035 10 2 2 5 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%041, 042 0 2 1 1 to 1 100% 0 0%043 - 046 6 2 2 3 to 1 100% 0 0%051 13 3 3 5 to 1 100% 2 67% 50%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 37 5 4 8 to 1 100% 3 75% 0%065 10 2 1 5 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%071 - 079, 091 26 2 2 13 to 1 50% 0 0%081 127 2 1 64 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%101 - 109 38 4 3 10 to 1 67% 1 50% 0%111 - 113 13 2 2 7 to 1 100% 2 100% 100%

A-12

Page 163: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+ptsDemand

114, 115 91 3 3 31 to 1 100% 2 67% 100%121 7 2 0 4 to 1 0% 0131 - 134 35 4 4 9 to 1 100% 3 75% 100%141 - 145 8 3 3 3 to 1 100% 2 67% 100%151 - 156 3 2 1 2 to 1 100% 1 100% 0%161 - 164 15 4 4 4 to 1 100% 1 25% 0%171 - 173 16 4 4 4 to 1 100% 1 25% 0%181 - 184 6 2 2 3 to 1 100% 2 100% 50%192 7 2 2 4 to 1 50% 1 100% 0%194, 196 10 2 2 5 to 1 100% 0 0%195 0 2 2 1 to 1 100% 0 0%201, 204 10 2 2 5 to 1 100% 2 100% 50%202, 205, 206 12 2 2 6 to 1 50% 1 100% 100%211, 212 11 2 2 6 to 1 100% 0 0%221 - 223 39 2 2 20 to 1 100% 0 0%231 67 2 2 34 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%241 - 245 74 2 2 37 to 1 50% 0 0%251 - 253 6 2 2 3 to 1 50% 1 100% 100%261 - 268 0 2 2 1 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%271, 272 4 2 2 2 to 1 100% 0 0%291 5 2 2 3 to 1 100% 0 0%

TOTALS 826 94 83 9 to 1 92% 38 50% 63%

NONRESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER ARCHERY HUNT 1341011 - 013 20 2 2 10 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%014 8 2 1 4 to 1 100% 0 0%015 3 2 2 2 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%021 12 3 3 4 to 1 100% 0 0%022 4 2 2 2 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%031 15 2 2 8 to 1 100% 0 0%032 16 7 9 3 to 1 67% 0 0%033 7 2 2 4 to 1 100% 0 0%034 6 2 2 3 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%

035A 8 4 6 2 to 1 100% 0 0%041, 042 0 2 1 to 1 --043 - 046 11 9 8 2 to 1 100% 1 13% 100%051 20 15 15 2 to 1 93% 3 21% 33%061, 062, 064, 066 - 068 79 30 30 3 to 1 97% 7 24% 14%065 9 2 2 5 to 1 50% 0 0%071 - 079, 091 Early 56 15 12 4 to 1 100% 3 25% 33%071 - 079. 091 Late 31 2 1 16 to 1 100% 0 0%081 42 2 2 21 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%

101 - 109 EarlyA 124 30 51 5 to 1 98% 10 20% 40%101 - 109 Late 30 2 2 15 to 1 100% 1 50% 100%111 - 113 15 4 3 4 to 1 100% 0 0%

A-13

Page 164: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 3. 2016 MULE DEER HARVEST BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success % 4+ptsDemand

114, 115 27 10 6 3 to 1 83% 2 40% 50%121 Early 12 3 3 4 to 1 67% 0 0%121 Late 22 2 2 11 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%131 - 134 105 4 4 27 to 1 100% 2 50% 100%141 - 145 20 15 16 2 to 1 94% 4 27% 0%151 - 156 12 7 7 2 to 1 100% 1 14% 0%161 - 164 47 20 14 3 to 1 86% 3 25% 67%

171 - 173A 28 15 16 2 to 1 88% 1 7% 0%181 - 184 6 6 5 1 to 1 100% 1 20% 100%192 Early 4 2 2 2 to 1 100% 2 100% 0%192 Late 4 2 2 2 to 1 50% 1 100% 100%194, 196 Early 25 2 1 13 to 1 100% 0 0%194, 196 Late 102 2 2 51 to 1 50% 1 100% 0%195 5 2 2 3 to 1 50% 0 0%201, 202, 204 - 206 Early 8 2 2 4 to 1 100% 0 0%201, 204 Late 2 2 2 1 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%202, 205, 206 Late 4 2 2 2 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%203 Early 2 5 2 1 to 1 100% 0 0%203 Late 4 4 4 1 to 1 100% 0 0%211, 212 4 2 1 2 to 1 100% 0 0%221 - 223 54 8 6 7 to 1 100% 0 0%231 145 5 5 29 to 1 60% 3 100% 67%241 - 245 111 2 2 56 to 1 100% 2 100% 100%

251 - 253 4 2 2 2 to 1 50% 0 0%261 - 268 3 2 2 2 to 1 2 100% 50%271, 272 1 2 0 1 to 1 291 2 2 2 1 to 1 100% 1 50% 0%

TOTALS 1,279 273 271 5 to 1 93% 59 24% 41%

Demand - # of "Apps" per tag during 1st draw% Return - Percent of hunter return cards received compared to total tags for hunt

% Hunter Success - # of successful hunters divided by # of returns

ALeftover tags from 1st Draw were available to resident and nonresident applicants during 2nd Draw or remaining first come first serve applications.

Apps - # of unsuccessful 1st choice applicants plus successful 1st - 5th choice applicants for given unit group

Tag Quota - # tags available during 1st drawTags for Hunt- Available tags at season opener - accounts for tags returned for any reason and alternate tags issued

A-14

Page 165: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 4. % FOUR-POINT OR BETTER MULE DEER HARVEST BY UNIT GROUP, 2006 - 2016

Unit Group 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016011- 013 51% 47% 59% 56% 51% 56% 40% 38% 38% 43% 46%014 59% 38% 49% 60% 51% 48% 54% 41% 40% 25% 32%015 52% 40% 50% 44% 53% 59% 47% 42% 36% 42% 33%021 63% 60% 50% 48% 42% 56% 47% 45% 46% 65% 57%022 50% 48% 48% 50% 48% 73% 67% 57% 51% 52% 52%031 51% 44% 46% 54% 46% 36% 39% 48% 50% 48% 43%032 36% 39% 34% 43% 38% 24% 27% 32% 34% 24% 23%033 51% 45% 38% 44% 51% 49% 26% 36% 44% 33% 63%034 59% 49% 36% 75% 62% 56% 45% 64% 45% 43% 49%035 46% 49% 63% 60% 67% 40% 39% 45% 30% 34% 41%041, 042 42% 41% 55% 58% 55% 43% 21% 27% 55% 46% 53%043 - 046 38% 47% 49% 47% 47% 34% 32% 33% 35% 33% 32%051 34% 39% 39% 46% 33% 29% 27% 38% 40% 40% 46%061,062,064,066-068 44% 47% 47% 47% 44% 49% 46% 40% 39% 39% 40%065 60% 64% 72% 64% 65% 71% 58% 58% 51% 54% 54%071 - 079, 091 42% 41% 38% 43% 41% 40% 40% 33% 33% 40% 51%081 59% 58% 59% 84% 71% 78% 65% 71% 87% 81% 79%101 - 108 34% 33% 33% 39% 39% 37% 30% 28% 27% 29% 32%111 - 113 29% 21% 27% 32% 27% 31% 24% 26% 25% 31% 32%114, 115 57% 43% 44% 46% 48% 59% 40% 41% 45% 44% 50%121 32% 20% 31% 32% 28% 32% 22% 36% 32% 31% 36%131 - 134 50% 43% 44% 53% 43% 56% 45% 43% 42% 44% 43%141 - 145 28% 29% 37% 36% 40% 35% 27% 30% 28% 23% 33%151, 152, 154, 155 38% 40% 48% 54% 49% 42% 32% 31% 37% 28% 41%161 - 164 40% 29% 46% 47% 34% 35% 34% 39% 30% 39% 44%171 - 173 36% 33% 41% 45% 33% 36% 26% 33% 28% 33% 25%181 - 184 28% 37% 49% 41% 40% 39% 37% 32% 36% 40% 41%192 43% 51% 35% 35% 46% 17% 41% 54% 38% 41% 44%194, 196 66% 61% 62% 59% 54% 68% 64% 61% 60% 72% 74%195 49% 35% 35% 46% 52% 38% 66% 25% 74% 36% 53%201, 204 39% 43% 30% 45% 17% 25% 42% 19% 23% 30% 21%202, 205-208 43% 31% 44% 46% 38% 53% 27% 49% 46% 28% 28%203 37% 38% 28% 34% 26% 35% 33% 42% 39% 38% 29%211, 212 24% 29% 33% 42% 64% 30% 39% 44% 55% 29% 28%221 - 223 47% 37% 48% 48% 48% 48% 42% 43% 37% 40% 49%231 57% 51% 61% 69% 61% 65% 55% 55% 54% 61% 58%241 - 245 52% 56% 66% 65% 76% 74% 62% 62% 65% 69% 64%251 - 253 40% 54% 72% 54% 31% 65% 56% 53% 74% 67% 81%261 - 268 13% 7% 25% 40% 52% 27% 35% 27% 40% 57% 47%271, 272 57% 35% 55% 70% 90% 44% 54% 45% 65% 62% 46%291 42% 51% 40% 41% 46% 23% 22% 46% 34% 36% 33%Statewide 40% 38% 41% 46% 42% 42% 37% 37% 37% 38% 41%

*Includes harvest from all hunts and weapon classes combined

A-15

Page 166: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 5. 2016 PRONGHORN HARVEST BY UNIT FOR ALL HUNTS

Adults BucksYrlg Adult Unit Group Unit Unit Group

UNIT Does Female Male Bucks Bucks Total Total Total011 65 65 65 65012 37 37013 24 24014 26 87 26 87015 39 39 39 39021 14 14022 27 41 27 41031 57 3 1 9 83 83 153 153032 12 4 39 55034 4 1 24 63 29 84033 50 50 50 50035 14 44 44 58 58041 15 2 63 80042 13 1 2 1 40 103 57 137043 17 17044 11 11045 2 2046 12 42 12 42051 53 53 53 53061 30 2 6 29 67062 21 1 9 32 63064 11 3 1 18 33071 13 1 1 1 14 30073 27 1 3 6 27 120 64 257065 13 1 2 3 51 70142 1 2 3144 51 0 73066 4 25 25 29 29067 31 3 5 34 73068 35 4 6 50 84 95 168072 11 1 1 28 41074 3 26 29075 12 1 2 39 93 54 124076 19 19077 7 7079 2 2081 5 5091 2 35 2 35

All PronghornFawns

A-16

Page 167: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 5. 2016 PRONGHORN HARVEST BY UNIT FOR ALL HUNTS

Adults BucksYrlg Adult Unit Group Unit Unit Group

UNIT Does Female Male Bucks Bucks Total Total Total

All PronghornFawns

078 3 1 4 8105 3 1 1 6 11106 6 1 3 5 15107 1 1 1 3121 30 1 1 57 73 89 126101 4 1 3 8102 6 3 11 20103 6 2 1 9104 16 15 31108 9 1 1 1 7 19109 1 1 2 4144 13 1 2 4 13 52 33 124111 9 2 1 54 66112 1 7 8113 3 1 16 20114 10 1 21 98 32 126115 17 17231 17 17242 34 0 34131 21 2 2 4 41 70145 6 11 17163 9 9164 9 70 9 105132 23 23133 12 12134 8 8245 2 45 2 45141 26 4 4 11 42 87143 8 1 1 11 21151 24 2 4 14 44152 21 1 2 6 14 44153 20 3 4 6 15 48154 5 2 2 8 17155 23 2 1 1 19 46156 29 1 5 18 141 53 360161 22 22162 6 28 6 28171 10 10172 5 5173 7 22 7 22

A-17

Page 168: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 5. 2016 PRONGHORN HARVEST BY UNIT FOR ALL HUNTS

Adults BucksYrlg Adult Unit Group Unit Unit Group

UNIT Does Female Male Bucks Bucks Total Total Total

All PronghornFawns

181 13 13182 4 4183 10 10184 21 48 21 48202 4 4204 1 5 1 5203 2 2291 3 5 3 5205 13 13206 10 10207 2 2208 1 26 1 26211 2 2212 3 3213 2 7 2 7221 8 8222 7 7223 5 5241 5 25 5 25251 23 23 23 23

TOTAL 630 30 46 118 1,780 2,604

HERITAGE, SILVER STATE, DREAM AND PIW TAGHOLDER HARVEST BY UNIT

HUNT UNIT # HUNT UNIT #PIW 022 1 Heritage 068 1PIW 076 1 Silver 077 1PIW 184 1 Dream 144 1PIW 161 1PIW 241 1

A-18

Page 169: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 6. 2016 PRONGHORN HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters Success

RESIDENT PIW ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 2000STATEWIDE 2,038 5 5 408 to 1 100% 5 100%

HERITAGE ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 2100 & 2200STATEWIDE -- 2 2 100% 1 50%

SILVER STATE ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 2300STATEWIDE 1,898 1 1 1898 to 1 100% 1 100%

DREAM TAG ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 2500STATEWIDE -- 1 1 100% 1 100%

031 7 71% 5 100%032 7 71% 5 100%034 3 100% 2 67%035 4 100% 4 100%044 3 33% 1 100%051 4 100% 4 100%062 5 80% 3 75%065, 103 2 50% 1 100%068 2 50% 1 100%073 2 100% 2 100%114, 115 1 0% 0 --115 2 50% 0 0%121 2 50% 1 100%144 1 100% 1 100%153, 156 3 100% 3 100%155 1 100% 1 100%161, 173 3 100% 2 67%164 3 100% 2 67%172 11 64% 6 86%184 -- -- --251 1 100% 1 100%

TOTALS 67 76% 45 88%

RESIDENT BUCK ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 2151011 392 75 69 6 to 1 96% 46 70%012 - 014 836 110 100 8 to 1 96% 71 74%015 378 65 61 6 to 1 93% 31 54%021, 022 1,248 40 38 32 to 1 100% 31 82%031 554 130 122 5 to 1 95% 70 60%

Demand

RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT BUCK ANTELOPE LANDOWNER COMPENSATION HUNT 2115 AND 2215

A-19

Page 170: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 6. 2016 PRONGHORN HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters SuccessDemand032, 034 487 130 116 4 to 1 96% 51 46%033 Early 456 35 28 14 to 1 100% 17 61%033 Late 127 35 30 4 to 1 97% 22 76%035 223 65 63 4 to 1 100% 34 54%041, 042 Early 777 60 55 13 to 1 98% 44 81%041, 042 Late 218 60 57 4 to 1 100% 41 72%043 - 046 209 45 43 5 to 1 95% 33 80%051 291 55 52 6 to 1 98% 37 73%061, 062, 064, 071, 073 820 130 126 7 to 1 93% 101 86%065, 142, 144 365 60 58 7 to 1 98% 47 82%066 161 30 30 6 to 1 100% 21 70%067, 068 440 90 87 5 to 1 94% 69 84%072, 074, 075 432 110 107 4 to 1 96% 82 80%076, 077, 079, 081, 091 412 35 34 12 to 1 100% 28 82%078, 105 - 107, 121 335 70 68 5 to 1 100% 60 88%101 – 104, 108, 109, 144 309 45 44 7 to 1 98% 35 81%111 – 114 667 110 105 7 to 1 98% 87 84%115, 231, 242 300 30 30 10 to 1 97% 23 79%131, 145, 163, 164 376 70 65 6 to 1 94% 57 93%132 – 134, 245 413 50 46 9 to 1 98% 35 78%141, 143, 151 - 156 593 170 164 4 to 1 96% 117 74%161, 162 273 30 30 10 to 1 80% 23 96%171 - 173 148 25 23 6 to 1 100% 20 87%181 - 184 251 40 39 7 to 1 97% 35 92%202, 204 61 7 7 9 to 1 100% 5 71%203, 291 30 5 5 6 to 1 100% 3 60%205, 206, 207, 208 99 25 24 4 to 1 96% 21 91%211 - 213 35 5 4 7 to 1 100% 4 100%221 – 223, 241 334 20 20 17 to 1 100% 18 90%251 295 20 20 15 to 1 100% 20 100%

TOTALS 13,345 2,082 1,970 7 to 1 96% 1,439 76%

RESIDENT BUCK ANTELOPE MUZZLELOADER HUNT 2171011 8 6 6 1 to 1 100% 2 33%

012 - 014 14 4 4 4 to 1 100% 2 50%

015 9 2 2 5 to 1 100% 0 0%

021, 022 18 4 4 5 to 1 100% 3 75%

033 12 2 2 6 to 1 100% 0 0%065, 142, 144 19 6 6 4 to 1 100% 1 17%

078, 105 - 107, 121 10 3 2 4 to 1 100% 1 50%101 – 104, 108, 109, 144 8 2 2 4 to 1 100% 2 100%

111 – 114 13 5 5 3 to 1 100% 1 20%

115, 231, 242 5 2 2 3 to 1 100% 0 0%

A-20

Page 171: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 6. 2016 PRONGHORN HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters SuccessDemand131, 145, 163, 164 8 2 2 4 to 1 100% 2 100%

132 - 134, 245 4 2 2 2 to 1 100% 1 50%

221 – 223, 241 9 2 2 5 to 1 100% 2 100%

TOTALS 137 42 41 4 to 1 100% 17 41%

RESIDENT BUCK ANTELOPE ARCHERY HUNT 2161011 41 25 21 2 to 1 95% 11 55%012 - 014 54 15 11 4 to 1 91% 3 30%015 36 10 8 4 to 1 100% 3 38%021, 022 70 3 2 24 to 1 100% 2 100%031 18 10 7 2 to 1 100% 4 57%032, 034 53 35 28 2 to 1 100% 3 11%033 29 10 8 3 to 1 100% 6 75%035 16 10 10 2 to 1 100% 3 30%041, 042 65 10 8 7 to 1 100% 6 75%043 - 046 17 10 10 2 to 1 100% 2 20%051 44 35 34 1 to 1 97% 9 27%061, 062, 064, 071, 073 56 25 25 3 to 1 96% 7 29%065, 142, 144 25 15 13 2 to 1 100% 4 31%066 10 6 6 2 to 1 100% 1 17%067, 068 33 25 24 1 to 1 88% 7 33%072, 074, 075 43 35 32 1 to 1 88% 1 4%076, 077, 079, 081, 091 17 8 6 3 to 1 100% 1 17%078, 105 - 107, 121 17 10 9 2 to 1 100% 7 78%101 – 104, 108, 109, 144 22 10 10 3 to 1 100% 5 50%111 – 114 42 15 15 3 to 1 100% 3 20%115, 231, 242 26 10 10 3 to 1 90% 8 89%131, 145, 163, 164 18 4 4 5 to 1 100% 2 50%132 – 134, 245 22 7 7 4 to 1 100% 4 57%141, 143, 151 - 156 49 45 41 1 to 1 88% 5 14%161, 162 11 7 5 2 to 1 100% 2 40%171 - 173 8 3 3 3 to 1 100% 0 0%181 - 184 25 15 15 2 to 1 100% 5 33%203, 291 4 1 1 4 to 1 100% 1 100%205, 206, 207, 208 15 10 9 2 to 1 100% 2 22%211 - 213 4 3 3 1 to 1 100% 3 100%221 – 223, 241 20 8 8 3 to 1 100% 2 25%251 20 2 2 10 to 1 100% 2 100%

TOTALS 930 437 395 3 to 1 96% 124 33%

RESIDENT DOE ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 2181031 317 100 100 4 to 1 95% 71 75%032, 034 123 35 33 4 to 1 94% 21 68%

A-21

Page 172: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 6. 2016 PRONGHORN HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters SuccessDemand035 67 15 15 5 to 1 100% 14 93%041, 042 436 40 40 11 to 1 98% 35 90%061 - 064, 071, 073 459 190 189 3 to 1 97% 138 75%065, 142, 144 102 40 40 3 to 1 98% 27 69%066 32 10 10 4 to 1 90% 4 44%067, 068 249 120 117 3 to 1 97% 85 75%072, 073, 074 104 50 49 3 to 1 86% 32 76%078, 105 - 107, 121 131 60 60 3 to 1 97% 53 91%101 – 104, 108, 109, 144 148 90 90 2 to 1 94% 67 79%111 - 114 173 40 37 5 to 1 95% 27 77%114, 115, Baker Ranch 17 10 8 2 to 1 75% 3 50%131, 145 117 50 49 3 to 1 98% 34 71%141, 143, 152, 154, 155 323 200 198 2 to 1 95% 124 66%151, 153, 156 226 130 129 2 to 1 97% 98 78%

TOTALS 3,024 1,180 1,164 3 to 1 96% 833 75%

NONRESIDENT BUCK ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 2251011 149 8 7 19 to 1 86% 4 67%012 – 014 195 15 14 13 to 1 100% 10 71%015 147 7 7 21 to 1 100% 5 71%021, 022 289 5 5 58 to 1 100% 3 60%031 133 15 15 9 to 1 93% 7 50%032, 034 135 15 13 9 to 1 100% 7 54%033 Early 1,309 5 4 262 to 1 100% 2 50%033 Late 133 4 4 34 to 1 100% 3 75%035 40 8 8 5 to 1 100% 8 100%041, 042 Early 161 7 6 23 to 1 100% 6 100%041, 042 Late 37 7 6 6 to 1 100% 5 83%043 - 046 23 5 5 5 to 1 100% 5 100%051 48 6 6 8 to 1 100% 6 100%061 - 064, 071, 073 110 15 15 8 to 1 80% 12 100%065, 142, 144 49 7 7 7 to 1 100% 5 71%066 40 3 3 14 to 1 100% 3 100%067, 068 113 10 9 12 to 1 100% 8 89%072, 074, 075 91 10 10 10 to 1 100% 7 70%076, 077, 079, 081, 091 203 4 4 51 to 1 100% 4 100%078, 105 - 107, 121 50 8 8 7 to 1 100% 6 75%101 – 104, 108, 109, 144 51 5 5 11 to 1 100% 5 100%111 – 114 77 10 9 8 to 1 100% 8 89%115, 231, 242 38 3 3 13 to 1 100% 3 100%131, 145, 163, 164 54 8 7 7 to 1 100% 7 100%132 - 134, 245 31 5 5 7 to 1 100% 4 80%141, 143, 151 - 156 105 20 19 6 to 1 95% 16 89%161, 162 47 3 3 16 to 2 100% 2 67%

A-22

Page 173: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 6. 2016 PRONGHORN HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % # Succ. % Hunter

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Hunters SuccessDemand171 - 173 22 3 2 8 to 2 100% 2 100%181 - 184 29 4 3 8 to 1 100% 3 100%205, 206, 207, 208 16 3 2 6 to 1 100% 2 100%221 – 223, 241 41 2 2 21 to 1 50% 1 100%251 42 3 2 14 to 1 100% 2 100%

TOTALS 4,008 233 218 18 to 1 97% 171 81%

NONRESIDENT BUCK ANTELOPE ARCHERY HUNT 2261011 10 3 2 4 to 1 100% 2 100%012 – 014 14 2 2 7 to 1 100% 1 50%015 10 1 0 10 to 1 0 --021, 022 10 1 0 10 to 1 0 --031 6 1 1 6 to 1 100% 1 100%032, 034 16 4 4 4 to 1 100% 1 25%033 92 1 1 92 to 1 100% 0 0%035 2 1 1 2 to 1 100% 0 0%041, 042 27 1 1 27 to 1 100% 1 100%051 6 4 3 2 to 1 100% 0 0%061 - 064, 071, 073 6 3 3 2 to 1 100% 0 0%065, 142, 144 3 2 1 2 to 1 100% 0 0%067, 068 10 3 2 4 to 1 100% 0 0%072, 074, 075 8 5 4 2 to 1 100% 2 50%076, 077, 079, 081, 091 4 1 1 4 to 1 100% 0 0%078, 105-107, 121 2 1 1 2 to 1 100% 0 0%101 – 104, 108, 109, 144 4 1 1 4 to 1 100% 1 100%111 – 114 6 2 1 3 to 1 0% 0 --115, 231, 242 3 1 1 3 to 1 100% 1 100%131, 145, 163, 164 4 1 0 4 to 1 0 --132 - 134, 245 5 1 1 5 to 1 100% 1 100%141, 143, 151 - 156 7 5 3 1 to 1 100% 3 100%171 - 173 3 1 1 3 to 1 100% 0 0%181 - 184 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100%205, 206, 207, 208* 1 1 1 1 to 1 100% 1 100%

TOTALS 260 48 37 6 to 1 97% 16 44%

Apps - # of unsuccessful 1st choice applicants plus successful 1st - 5th choice applicants for given unit group

Demand - Number of Apps for every one tag sold

% Return - Percent of hunt questionnaires received compared to total tags available for hunt

% Hunter Success - Number of successful hunters divided by the number of returns

Tags for Hunt - Available tags at season opener - accounts for tags returned for any reason and alternate tags issued;

A-23

Page 174: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 7. 2016 PRONGHORN BUCK HORN LENGTH BY UNIT GROUP

Unit <6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17+011 1 4 4 5 6 9 16 14 5 1 65 31%012 - 014 1 3 4 6 14 28 18 8 5 87 36%015 1 3 1 4 6 6 7 8 2 1 39 28%021, 022 1 10 11 8 8 3 41 46%031 3 1 2 1 6 12 21 18 9 5 1 79 19%032, 034 2 1 2 4 8 15 8 11 8 2 61 34%033 1 1 2 1 5 8 15 10 5 2 50 34%035 1 2 1 6 9 11 4 8 2 44 23%041, 042 1 4 3 3 11 13 25 27 11 3 101 41%043 - 046 1 1 2 5 5 6 7 10 3 40 33%051 1 2 1 6 7 11 13 8 2 1 52 21%061,062,064,071,073 1 2 2 1 7 3 13 21 32 18 16 4 120 32%065, 142, 144 2 4 6 22 13 2 1 50 32%066 1 1 1 5 2 7 6 1 24 58%067, 068 1 1 4 3 2 9 25 18 15 3 81 44%072, 074, 075 2 3 7 10 15 21 25 8 1 92 37%076,077,079,081,091 1 1 1 5 10 8 9 1 36 50%078, 105 - 107, 121 1 2 1 1 1 2 6 16 24 14 4 72 25%101–104,108,109,144 1 1 3 5 13 14 9 7 1 54 31%111 – 114 1 1 2 4 12 17 28 16 12 5 98 17%115, 231, 242 1 2 1 4 6 12 5 3 34 24%131, 145, 163, 164 1 1 4 4 17 15 15 10 67 37%132 – 134, 245 1 1 1 2 13 11 11 4 1 45 36%141, 143, 151 - 156 1 3 7 9 21 23 34 29 10 137 28%161, 162 4 7 9 5 2 1 28 29%171 - 173 1 1 1 3 5 5 3 1 20 20%181 - 184 2 1 3 1 7 10 8 9 3 44 27%202, 204 1 1 2 1 5 20%203, 291 1 1 2 1 5 20%205, 206, 207, 208 2 1 2 8 5 6 1 1 26 8%211 - 213 2 2 1 2 7 29%221 – 223, 241 1 2 5 5 5 4 3 25 28%251 1 1 1 3 8 9 23 74%TOTALS 4 5 11 27 33 56 96 196 336 429 349 177 33 1752 32%

BUCK HORN LENGTH IN INCHES Unit Group Totals

% 15+ inches

Horn length measured by hunter of the longest horn to the nearest inch for bucks harvested from Horns Longer than Ear Hunts. Statewide 98% response rate on measuring the horn.

A-24

Page 175: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 8. PRONGHORN HORN TRENDS - % OF BUCKS 15+ INCHES BY UNIT GROUP

Unit Group 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016011 30% 41% 46% 39% 32% 22% 28% 30% 31%012 - 014 34% 44% 27% 38% 32% 15% 31% 35% 36%015 35% 31% 49% 37% 31% 10% 21% 25% 28%021, 022 38% 68% 55% 53% 41% 32% 55% 39% 46%031 29% 32% 32% 20% 27% 20% 18% 27% 19%032, 034 30% 36% 39% 37% 29% 27% 19% 18% 34%033 60% 66% 62% 55% 36% 19% 44% 48% 34%035 45% 35% 38% 27% 14% 16% 6% 18% 23%041, 042 41% 53% 44% 34% 40% 31% 26% 39% 41%043 - 046 50% 40% 10% 24% 13% 33%051 17% 23% 36% 40% 20% 24% 21% 30% 21%061, 062, 064, 071, 073 16% 26% 30% 30% 26% 23% 31% 39% 32%065, 142, 144 48% 30% 52% 54% 33% 42% 39% 38% 32%066 44% 50% 47% 67% 29% 48% 36% 46% 58%067, 068 34% 24% 32% 30% 27% 24% 31% 33% 44%072, 074, 075 38% 33% 33% 33% 21% 28% 35% 35% 37%076, 077, 079, 081, 091 48% 62% 51% 40% 43% 50% 54% 60% 50%078, 105 - 107, 121 20% 26% 22% 35% 26% 8% 27% 19% 25%101 – 104, 108, 109, 144 26% 37% 27% 27% 21% 25% 34% 45% 31%111 – 114 14% 13% 14% 15% 13% 14% 8% 10% 17%115, 231, 242 18% 31% 48% 11% 40% 20% 22% 24% 24%131, 145, 163, 164 30% 29% 31% 35% 20% 27% 38% 29% 37%132 – 134, 245 33% 43% 53% 41% 32% 38% 37% 40% 36%141, 143, 151 - 156 46% 29% 32% 29% 31% 28% 24% 17% 28%161, 162 47% 60% 38% 23% 32% 35% 20% 41% 29%171 - 173 18% 44% 35% 36% 12% 27% 14% 21% 20%181 - 184 26% 54% 30% 29% 13% 19% 21% 21% 27%202, 204 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 20%203, 291 67% 25% 20% 0% 0% 25% 0% 20%205, 206, 207, 208 17% 0% 18% 7% 17% 13% 20% 25% 8%211, 212 50% 0% 100% 67% 29%221 – 223, 241 32% 26% 28% 24% 12% 14% 31% 33% 28%251 46% 64% 50% 76% 53% 46% 60% 42% 74%Statewide 32% 36% 37% 34% 28% 24% 27% 30% 32%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016% 1

5+ in

ch h

orne

d bu

cks

Statewide Pronghorn Buck Horn Length Trend

A-25

Page 176: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 9. 2016 ELK HARVEST BY UNIT AND UNIT GROUP FOR ALL HUNTS

Male Unit Group Unit Group TOTAL

Unit Cows Calves Calves Antlerless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Bull Total %6+pts ELK051 1 1 2 2 100% 3061 68 8 8 1 1 12 23 1071 106 5 2 189 23 1 1 2 9 27 7 116 50% 305062 73 7 3 6 1 2 17 6064 3066 23 2 2 3 1 5 2067 29 3 2 1 2 18 4068 20 1 166 4 1 1 4 1 81 70% 247065 4 4 0 4072 234 17 13 2 2 6 39 137 16073 67 8 6 1 1 11 5074 35 1 3 9 1unk^ 2 383 233 72% 616075 62 2 6 70 2 1 10 25 5 43 70% 113076 65 6 4 7 1 7 24 2077 89 7 8 6 4 1 10 50 7079 10 5081 116 7 10 322 5 4 1 4 47 4 189 74% 511078 4 2105 13 1 2 2 7 2106 2107109 7 1 26 1 2 3 23 70% 49091 0 4 2 6 100% 6101 4 2 3 4102 9 1 5 4103 1 1 15 1 3 5 28 46% 43104 1 1 1 2 1108 5 1 1 2121 33 1 40 1 8 21 6 45 71% 85108 1 1 4131 35 1 2 1 2 4 15 4132 5 44 1 3 1 36 75% 80111 117 4 5 1 2 2 2 24 70 15112 6 2 4 1113 32 3 1 2 1 8 2114 42 1 1 2 8115 18 1 1 5 10 5unk^ 230 1 1 170 73% 230144 1 1 3 1145 10 11 5 1 11 9% 22161 9 1 1 2 4 12 1162 62 1 1 1 2 13 20 3163 3 2 1

Female Number of Left Antler Points

A-26

Page 177: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 9. 2016 ELK HARVEST BY UNIT AND UNIT GROUP FOR ALL HUNTS

Male Unit Group Unit Group TOTAL

Unit Cows Calves Calves Antlerless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ Bull Total %6+pts ELK

Female Number of Left Antler Points

164 2 1171 1173 2 1unk^ 79 2 69 64% 148221 31 1 13 28 7222 98 5 4 2 1 2 1 17 37 8223 11 3 2 1unk^ 1 153 120 68% 273231 103 12 7 122 2 5 29 52 15 103 65% 225241 1242 4 4 1 100% 5262 0 1 1 1 3 33% 3

TOTAL 1,675 88 96 1,859 81 21 12 32 262 737 134 1,279 68% 3,138^ unable to verify correct unit of harvest in hunt group

HERITAGE, SILVER STATE, DREAM, AND PIW TAGHOLDER HARVEST BY UNIT

HUNT UNIT # HUNT # UNIT #PIW 162 1 Heritage 1 221 1PIW 221 1 221 1PIW 222 1

Dream

UNIT HUNT111 Silver State

A-27

Page 178: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts Beam

PIW RESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4000STATEWIDE 2,224 3 3 742 to 1 100% 100% 67% 33%

HERITAGE ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4100 and 4200STATEWIDE 2 2 100% 50% 100% 100%

SILVER STATE ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4300STATEWIDE 4,964 1 1 4,964 to 1 100% 100% 100% 100%

DREAM ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4500STATEWIDE 1 1 100% 100% 100% 100%

ELK INCENTIVE ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4131 AND 4231061, 071 1 100% 100% 100% 0%

072, 073, 074 5 100% 100% 80% 40%

075 6 67% 67% 67% 67%

076, 077, 079, 081 29 97% 76% 90% 27%

104, 108, 121 1 100% 0% -- --

111-115 4 100% 100% 100% 75%

221 - 223 11 100% 55% 67% 17%

231 5 80% 60% 100% 100%

241, 242 1 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTALS 63 94% 73% 86% 39%

ELK INCENTIVE MUZZLELOADER HUNT 4133 AND 4233061, 071 4 100% 50% 100% 50%

072, 073, 074 4 100% 100% 100% 75%

075 9 100% 100% 89% 29%

111 - 115 1 100% 100% 100% 0%

221 - 223 1 100% 0% -- --

TOTALS 19 100% 74% 94% 43%

ELK INCENTIVE ARCHERY HUNT 4132 AND 4232072, 073, 074 2 0% -- -- --

076, 077, 079, 081 10 90% 30% 100% 33%

104, 108, 121 1 0% -- -- --

111 - 115 9 100% 56% 100% 80%

221 - 223 3 100% 67% 100% 100%

231 5 100% 20% 0% 0%

TOTALS 30 87% 37% 91% 64%

Demand

A-28

Page 179: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts BeamDemand

RESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON DEPREDATION HUNT 4102101 - 103 Early 684 50 49 14 to 1 96% 37% 44% 6%

101 - 103 Late 218 50 49 5 to 1 96% 20% 50% 0%

144, 145 Early 357 10 8 36 to 1 100% 50% 50% 0%

144, 145 Mid 115 15 15 8 to 1 100% 7% 0% 0%

144, 145 Late 49 10 10 5 to 1 100% 60% 50% 0%

TOTALS 1,423 135 131 11 to 1 97% 30% 46% 3%

RESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4151051 285 5 5 57 to 1 100% 40% 100% 100%

061, 071 Early 464 55 48 9 to 1 96% 58% 44% 4%

061, 071 Late 163 65 59 3 to 1 97% 46% 69% 8%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Early 447 50 44 9 to 1 98% 52% 91% 13%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Late 226 50 47 5 to 1 89% 49% 82% 23%

065 76 2 2 38 to 1 100% 0% -- --

072, 073, 074 Early 774 200 181 4 to 1 96% 50% 71% 20%

072, 073, 074 Late 374 180 169 3 to 1 96% 34% 46% 11%

075 Early 76 20 19 4 to 1 95% 47% 33% 11%

075 Late 42 20 17 3 to 1 100% 47% 50% 13%

076, 077, 079, 081 Early 849 95 89 9 to 1 94% 63% 78% 19%

076, 077, 079, 081 Late 371 90 89 5 to 1 94% 61% 85% 20%

078, 105 - 107, 109 Early 127 10 8 13 to 1 100% 75% 83% 33%

078, 105 - 107, 109 Late 68 7 7 10 to 1 100% 71% 80% 20%

091 243 8 7 31 to 1 100% 86% 100% 83%

104, 108, 121 271 45 44 7 to 1 100% 64% 61% 25%

108, 131, 132 258 60 57 5 to 1 100% 46% 81% 15%

111 - 115 Early 1,439 115 104 13 to 1 97% 63% 75% 41%

111 - 115 Late 436 105 104 5 to 1 97% 54% 62% 30%

161 - 164, 171 - 173 Early 450 50 45 9 to 1 96% 51% 68% 33%

161 - 164, 171 - 173 Late 237 50 46 5 to 1 98% 50% 43% 33%

221 - 223 Early 1,086 80 76 14 to 1 97% 62% 63% 40%

221 - 223 Late 407 75 73 6 to 1 90% 48% 61% 27%

231 Early 793 60 58 14 to 1 98% 67% 62% 33%

231 Late 308 60 58 6 to 1 98% 62% 53% 19%

241, 242 49 4 3 13 to 1 100% 0% -- --262 229 4 4 58 to 1 100% 50% 0% 0%

TOTALS 10,548 1,565 1,463 7 to 1 96% 53% 66% 24%

A-29

Page 180: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts BeamDemand

RESIDENT ANTLERED ELK MUZZLELOADER HUNT 4156061, 071 137 25 24 6 to 1 100% 42% 80% 40%

062, 064, 066-068 114 15 14 8 to 1 93% 57% 88% 50%

072, 073, 074 266 80 76 4 to 1 95% 43% 94% 45%

075 40 15 14 3 to 1 100% 50% 100% 14%

076, 077, 079, 081 70 20 19 4 to 1 89% 58% 100% 30%

078, 105 - 107, 109 41 6 6 7 to 1 100% 83% 60% 20%

104, 108, 121 25 8 8 4 to 1 100% 38% 100% 33%

108, 131, 132 22 4 4 6 to 1 75% 25% 0% 0%

111 – 115 109 30 28 4 to 1 100% 32% 44% 0%

161 - 164, 171 - 173 194 15 15 13 to 1 100% 73% 73% 73%

221 - 223 89 20 19 5 to 1 100% 63% 55% 33%

231 86 12 12 8 to 1 100% 33% 100% 0%

241, 242 5 2 1 3 to 1 100% 0% -- --262 11 1 0 11 to 1 -- -- -- --

TOTALS 1,209 253 240 5 to 1 97% 48% 81% 36%

RESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ARCHERY HUNT 4161061, 071 70 40 36 2 to 1 89% 14% 100% 60%

062, 064, 066 - 068 45 20 20 3 to 1 85% 10% 100% 50%

072, 073, 074 108 50 45 3 to 1 96% 20% 78% 44%

075 17 10 10 2 to 1 100% 50% 100% 20%

076, 077, 079, 081 97 40 38 3 to 1 100% 26% 90% 40%

078, 104, 105 - 107, 109 35 6 6 6 to 1 100% 33% 100% 50%

104, 108, 121 48 10 10 5 to 1 100% 70% 100% 57%

108, 131, 132 60 15 14 4 to 1 93% 36% 80% 40%

111 – 115 258 35 34 8 to 1 100% 32% 91% 64%161 - 164, 171 - 173 85 25 23 4 to 1 96% 30% 86% 57%221 - 223 218 30 25 8 to 1 92% 52% 92% 36%231 168 25 25 7 to 1 100% 28% 86% 29%

241, 242 5 1 0 5 to 1 -- -- -- --

262 24 1 1 24 to 1 100% 100% 100% 0%

TOTALS 1,238 308 287 5 to 1 95% 29% 90% 45%

RESIDENT SPIKE ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4651061, 071 Early 88 35 34 3 to 1 97% 35%

061, 071 Mid 60 50 50 1 to 1 96% 16%

061, 071 Late 53 40 40 1 to 1 90% 30%

A-30

Page 181: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts BeamDemand062, 064, 066 - 068 Early 70 35 35 2 to 1 97% 14%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Mid 57 50 49 1 to 1 98% 14%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Late 57 35 34 2 to 1 71% 18%

076, 077, 079, 081 Early 74 20 19 4 to 1 100% 47%

076, 077, 079, 081 Mid 35 20 20 2 to 1 95% 35%

076, 077, 079, 081 Late 55 20 20 3 to 1 95% 35%

078, 105-107, 109 24 6 6 4 to 1 100% 50%

TOTALS 573 311 307 2 to 1 93% 25%

RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON DEPREDATION HUNT 4107081 1st 78 55 54 1 to 1 93% 26%

081 2nd 83 70 70 1 to 1 97% 40%

081 3rd 71 70 69 1 to 1 99% 55%

081 4th 65 65 65 1 to 1 97% 40%

101 - 103 92 75 74 1 to 1 91% 14%

121 1st 60 40 39 2 to 1 90% 10%

121 2nd 23 20 20 1 to 1 90% 30%

121 3rd 28 20 20 1 to 1 85% 20%

144, 145 1st 18 10 10 2 to 1 90% 20%

144, 145 2nd 12 10 10 1 to 1 100% 40%

144, 145 3rd 10 10 10 1 to 1 100% 30%

144, 145 4th 20 20 20 1 to 1 90% 10%

TOTALS 560 465 461 2 to 1 94% 31%

RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4181051 85 8 8 11 to 1 100% 13%

061, 071 Early 732 300 297 3 to 1 96% 32%

061, 071 Mid 166 95 90 2 to 1 92% 28%

061, 071 Late 207 130 128 2 to 1 85% 16%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Early 596 325 317 2 to 1 95% 26%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Mid 94 20 19 5 to 1 100% 16%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Late 319 175 174 2 to 1 77% 17%

065 57 10 9 6 to 1 100% 44%

072 Early 326 225 204 1 to 1 95% 24%072 Mid 169 150 146 1 to 1 96% 21%

072 Wilderness 186 200 196 1 to 1 92% 45%

073 Early 44 30 29 1 to 1 97% 31%

073 Mid 37 30 30 1 to 1 93% 20%

A-31

Page 182: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts BeamDemand074 Early 53 35 33 2 to 1 97% 12%

074 Mid 33 30 29 1 to 1 100% 21%

075 Early 63 35 34 2 to 1 100% 26%

075 Mid 41 30 30 1 to 1 90% 23%

072 - 075 Late 657 475 474 1 to 1 88% 28%

076, 077, 079, 081 Early 646 160 158 5 to 1 92% 28%

076, 077, 079, 081 Mid 217 130 124 2 to 1 95% 35%

076, 077, 079, 081 Late 342 100 100 4 to 1 93% 60%

078, 105 - 107, 109 180 50 49 4 to 1 98% 49%

104, 108, 121 281 40 39 8 to 1 97% 51%

108, 131, 132 Early 180 50 50 4 to 1 96% 38%

108, 131, 132 Late 96 45 45 3 to 1 78% 27%

111, 112 Early 973 140 138 7 to 1 95% 30%

111, 112 Late 319 95 95 4 to 1 92% 43%

113 Early 77 50 50 2 to 1 92% 34%

113 Late 60 40 40 2 to 1 98% 18%

114, 115 Early 195 100 95 2 to 1 97% 19%

114, 115 Late 96 70 70 1 to 1 96% 34%

161 - 164 Early 319 90 89 4 to 1 94% 10%

162 Wilderness 57 40 40 3 to 1 100% 45%

161 - 164 Late 314 120 120 1 to 1 92% 24%

221 Early 236 55 53 5 to 1 98% 23%

221 Late 73 10 10 8 to 1 90% 0%

222, 223 Early 564 130 128 5 to 1 97% 30%

222 Early Wilderness 50 30 28 2 to 1 96% 68%

222, 223 Late 243 60 60 5 to 1 93% 33%

222 Late Wilderness 48 30 30 2 to 1 87% 37%

231 Early 530 50 50 11 to 1 96% 38%

231 Wilderness 34 25 25 1 to 1 100% 32%

231 Mid 214 65 65 4 to 1 86% 22%

231 Late 218 100 100 3 to 1 87% 18%

241, 242 Early 28 5 5 6 to 1 60% 60%241, 242 Late 11 5 5 3 to 1 100% 20%

TOTALS 10,466 4,188 4,108 3 to 1 92% 29%

A-32

Page 183: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts BeamDemand

RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK MANAGEMENT ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4481Mule Deer Hunt 1331061 - 064, 066 - 068 Early 1,128 1,150 585 94% 6%

061 - 064, 066 - 068 Late 651 25 24 88% 0%

071 - 077, 079, Early 811 350 200 95% 27%

071 - 077, 079, Late 630 85 41 95% 27%

101 - 103 Early 219 400 168 95% 2%

101 - 103 Mid 211 400 188 95% 1%

101 - 103 Late 119 150 30 100% 3%

131 - 132 456 100 98 91% 8%

161-164 Early 407 130 124 98% 10%

161-164 Late 220 20 19 100% 11%

221 - 223 Early 495 100 99 97% 17%

221 - 223 Mid 227 40 37 97% 24%

231 945 75 73 97% 34%

Bull Elk Hunt 4151

075 Early 42 20 11 100% 0%

075 Late 21 20 13 100% 23%108, 131, 132 120 5 5 100% 0%

TOTALS 6,702 3,070 1,715 95% 11%

RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK MUZZLELOADER HUNT 4176062, 064, 066 - 068 80 40 38 2 to 1 97% 21%

072 157 130 125 1 to 1 98% 25%

073 26 25 23 1 to 1 91% 9%

074 10 6 6 2 to 1 100% 33%

075 29 25 25 1 to 1 100% 24%

076, 077, 079, 081 100 75 74 1 to 1 95% 31%

078, 105 - 107, 109 22 7 7 4 to 1 100% 0%

104, 108, 121 26 5 5 6 to 1 100% 60%

108, 131, 132 45 15 15 3 to 1 100% 7%

111, 112 108 50 50 3 to 1 98% 42%

A-33

Page 184: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts BeamDemand113 22 20 20 1 to 1 100% 45%

114, 115 49 40 39 1 to 1 100% 33%

161 – 164 68 35 35 2 to 1 100% 6%

221 - 223 117 50 47 3 to 1 96% 40%

231 120 35 35 4 to 1 94% 40%241, 242 2 2 2 1 to 1 100% 50%

TOTALS 981 560 546 2 to 1 97% 28%

RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK MANAGEMENT MUZZLELOADER HUNT 4476Mule Deer Hunt 1371

061 - 064, 066 - 068 96 20 20 100% 30%

071 - 077, 079 95 30 24 100% 46%

101 - 103 36 150 30 97% 0%

131, 132 78 10 10 100% 10%

161-164 49 25 19 95% 5%

231 64 15 14 93% 29%

TOTALS 418 250 117 97% 20%

RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK ARCHERY HUNT 4111061, 071 77 50 48 2 to 1 92% 6%

062, 064, 066 - 068 56 50 48 1 to 1 94% 4%

072 89 85 84 1 to 1 93% 7%

073 8 8 8 1 to 1 88% 13%

074 7 10 10 1 to 1 80% 0%

075 8 15 14 1 to 1 100% 7%

076, 077, 079, 081 97 80 75 1 to 1 99% 21%

078, 105 - 107, 109 18 10 10 2 to 1 100% 0%104, 108, 121 17 5 5 4 to 1 100% 60%108, 131, 132 39 10 10 4 to 1 90% 50%111, 112 143 50 48 3 to 1 92% 33%113 23 20 19 1 to 1 100% 21%

A-34

Page 185: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts BeamDemand114, 115 60 45 45 1 to 1 96% 16%161 – 164 66 40 40 2 to 1 93% 13%221 - 223 129 50 49 3 to 1 98% 18%231 135 40 38 4 to 1 97% 11%241, 242 3 2 2 2 to 1 100% 0%

TOTALS 975 570 553 2 to 1 95% 15%

RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK MANAGEMENT ARCHERY HUNT 4411Mule Deer Hunt 1341

061 - 064, 066 - 068 131 60 59 92% 5%

071 - 077, 079, Early 139 160 83 92% 2%

071 - 077, 079, Late 50 20 9 100% 0%

101 – 103 Early 57 50 48 88% 0%

101 – 103 Late 8 15 2 100% 0%

131, 132 124 10 10 90% 0%

161-164 93 20 20 95% 5%231 103 15 15 87% 7%

TOTALS 705 350 246 91% 3%

NONRESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4251061, 071 Early 85 7 5 13 to 1 100% 100% 60% 40%

061, 071 Late 39 8 7 5 to 1 86% 100% 100% 50%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Early 124 5 5 25 to 1 100% 80% 100% 50%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Late 76 5 5 16 to 1 100% 60% 100% 33%072, 073, 074 Early 200 20 19 10 to 1 100% 79% 87% 36%072, 073, 074 Late 136 20 19 7 to 1 100% 68% 83% 15%075 Early 30 4 4 8 to 1 75% 50% 50% 50%076, 077, 079, 081 Early 282 13 13 22 to 1 100% 62% 75% 38%076, 077, 079, 081 Late 107 10 10 11 to 1 100% 70% 71% 0%078, 105 - 107, 109 Early 47 1 1 47 to 1 100% 100% 100% 100%078, 105 - 107, 109 Late 16 1 1 16 to 1 100% 100% 100% 100%104, 108, 121 66 6 6 11 to 1 100% 83% 80% 40%

A-35

Page 186: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts BeamDemand108, 131, 132 49 7 7 7 to 1 100% 57% 50% 25%111 - 115 Early 1,693 14 14 121 to 1 100% 79% 82% 64%111 - 115 Late 326 9 9 37 to 1 100% 89% 86% 25%161 - 164, 171 - 173 Early 188 6 4 32 to 1 75% 25% 100% 100%161 - 164, 171 - 173 Late 61 6 5 11 to 1 100% 20% 100% 0%221 - 223 Early 522 9 8 58 to 1 100% 50% 100% 50%221 - 223 Late 125 8 8 16 to 1 100% 63% 60% 60%231 Early 217 7 6 31 to 1 100% 50% 67% 0%231 Late 72 7 6 11 to 1 83% 100% 100% 80%

TOTALS 4,461 173 162 26 to 1 98% 70% 82% 39%

NONRESIDENT ANTLERED ELK MUZZLELOADER HUNT 4256061, 071 52 3 3 18 to 1 100% 67% 100% 50%062, 064, 066 - 068 80 2 2 40 to 1 100% 100% 100% 50%072, 073, 074 287 10 9 29 to 1 100% 78% 100% 57%076, 077, 079, 081 12 2 2 6 to 1 100% 0% -- --104, 108, 121 10 1 1 10 to 1 100% 0% -- --111 – 115 119 3 3 40 to 1 100% 0% -- --161 - 164, 171 - 173 504 2 2 252 to 1 100% 100% 100% 50%221 - 223 26 3 2 9 to 1 100% 0% -- --231 34 2 2 17 to 1 100% 0% -- --

TOTALS 1,124 28 26 41 to 1 100% 50% 100% 54%

NONRESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ARCHERY HUNT 4261061, 071 20 4 4 5 to 1 100% 0% -- --

062, 064, 066 - 068 18 2 2 9 to 1 100% 0% -- --

072, 073, 074 92 7 7 14 to 1 100% 57% 100% 100%

076, 077, 079, 081 44 5 5 9 to 1 100% 40% 50% 100%

078, 105-107, 109 19 1 1 19 to 1 100% 0% -- --

104, 108, 121 15 2 2 8 to 1 100% 100% 50% 50%

111 – 115 1,047 4 4 262 to 1 100% 25% 100% 100%

161 - 164, 171 - 173 51 3 3 17 to 1 100% 0% -- --

221 - 223 262 3 3 88 to 1 100% 33% 100% 100%231 113 3 3 38 to 1 100% 67% 100% 100%

TOTALS 1,681 34 34 50 to 1 100% 35% 83% 92%

A-36

Page 187: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 10. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUPTag Tags % % Hunter %50+in

UNIT GROUP Apps Quota For Hunt Return Success %6+pts BeamDemand

NONRESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON HUNT 4281061, 071 Early 77 45 42 2 to 1 95% 48%

061, 071 Mid 21 15 15 1 to 1 100% 47%

061, 071 Late 29 20 19 1 to 1 100% 21%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Early 70 35 33 2 to 1 100% 36%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Mid 14 3 3 5 to 1 100% 0%

062, 064, 066 - 068 Late 44 15 15 3 to 1 47% 27%

072 Early 41 35 32 1 to 1 97% 38%

072 Mid 25 25 23 1 to 1 100% 57%

072 - 075 Late 86 50 49 2 to 1 92% 39%

111, 112 Early 70 20 20 4 to 1 95% 45%

111, 112 Late 47 15 15 4 to 1 100% 53%

231 Early 23 10 10 3 to 1 100% 60%

231 Mid 12 10 10 1 to 1 90% 70%231 Late 23 20 20 1 to 1 85% 40%

TOTALS 582 318 306 2 to 1 93% 42%

ANTLERLESS ELK PRIVATE LANDS HUNT 4781077, 081 16 16 100% 63%231 10 10 80% 10%

TOTALS 26 26 92% 42%

Field Descriptions:

% Return - Percent of hunt questionnaires received compared to total tags available

Demand - # of "Apps" for every one tag sold (i.e., 4 to 1 means 4 applicants applied in Main Draw for every 1 tag sold)

% Hunter Success - based on # of successful hunters divided by Tags for Hunt (a portion of nonreturns are assumed to be successful based on past trends); If % Return rate is below 60%, % Hunter Success are too inaccurate to report.

Apps - # of unsuccessful 1st choice applicants plus successful 1st - 5th choice applicants for given unit group

Tags For Hunt - Available tags at season opener - accounts for tags returned for any reason and not all issued to alternates and including tags leftover after the main draw to both residents and nonresidents

A-37

Page 188: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 11. 2016 BULL ELK HARVEST ANTLER LENGTH BY UNIT GROUP

Unit Group 5"- 29" 30"- 43" 44"-49" 50"+ Total 5"- 29" 30"- 43" 44"-49" 50"+051 0 0 0 2 2 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 55061, 071 40 34 23 18 115 99% 35% 30% 20% 16% 36062, 064, 066 - 068 19 18 28 16 81 100% 23% 22% 35% 20% 40072, 073, 074 16 88 65 60 229 98% 7% 38% 28% 26% 43075 3 16 11 9 39 91% 8% 41% 28% 23% 41076, 077, 079, 081 28 63 60 38 189 100% 15% 33% 32% 20% 41078, 104, 105 107, 109 3 5 7 7 22 96% 14% 23% 32% 32% 43091 0 0 1 5 6 100% 0% 0% 17% 83% 50101, 102, 103 4 17 6 1 28 100% 14% 61% 21% 4% 37104, 108, 121 4 12 13 15 44 98% 9% 27% 30% 34% 45108, 131, 132 4 10 15 7 36 100% 11% 28% 42% 19% 43111-115 10 44 46 66 166 98% 6% 27% 28% 40% 45144, 145 1 5 4 0 10 91% 10% 50% 40% 0% 40161 - 164, 171 - 173 3 19 14 28 64 93% 5% 30% 22% 44% 46221, 222, 223 6 34 32 47 119 99% 5% 29% 27% 39% 45231 4 39 30 30 103 100% 4% 38% 29% 29% 44241, 242 0 0 0 1 1 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 55262 0 3 0 0 3 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 34

TOTAL 145 407 355 350 1,257 98% 12% 32% 28% 28% 43

Count of Antlers by Class Size%

Response

Percent of Antlers by Class Size Avg Main Beam

Length*

*Antler length is obtained from measurements of the longest main beam reported on harvest questionnaires. Average main beamlength is rounded to the nearest inch.

A-38

Page 189: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 12. 2016 ELK HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP

Unit Group 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016051 100% 100%

061, 071 16% 18% 23% 17% 12% 10% 10% 15% 16%

062, 064, 066 - 068 50% 29% 49% 55% 24% 27% 34% 26% 20%

072, 073, 074 29% 33% 33% 31% 32% 23% 30% 26% 26%

075 11% 12% 18% 11% 37% 13% 12% 28% 23%

076, 077, 079, 081 23% 28% 28% 27% 23% 18% 33% 20% 20%

078, 104, 105 107, 109 60% 40% 63% 58% 40% 42% 42% 41% 32%

091 25% 40% 33% 100% 33% 0% 67% 25% 83%

101, 102, 103 11% 38% 22% 23% 14% 15% 5% 11% 4%

104, 108, 121 27% 43% 29% 48% 34% 38% 42% 29% 34%

108, 131, 132 21% 33% 40% 38% 20% 16% 70% 30% 19%

111-115 28% 28% 28% 39% 40% 46% 48% 48% 40%

144, 145 30% 20% 33% 11% 0%

161 - 164, 171 - 173 31% 26% 18% 40% 40% 40% 44% 32% 44%

221 - 223 24% 25% 27% 28% 32% 34% 47% 43% 39%

231* 18% 25% 24% 36% 42% 40% 39% 35% 29%

241, 242 100%

262 0% 0% 67% 0% 33% 0% 20% 20% 0%

Statewide 25% 27% 29% 32% 29% 26% 34% 30% 28%

*For 2008-2015, includes 50+ inch main beams from Unit Group 241, 242.

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% 5

0+ in

ch a

ntle

red

bulls

of t

otal

Statewide Bull Elk Antler Length Trend

A-39

Page 190: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 13. 2016 BIGHORN SHEEP HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP

Tag % # Succ. % HunterGroup Apps Quota Returns Hunters Success Avg Age 160+

RESIDENT PARTNERSHIP IN WILDLIFE (PIW) DESERT BIGHORN RAM HUNT 3000Statewide 2,558 1 2,558 to 1 100% 1 100%

HERITAGE DESERT BIGHORN RAM HUNT 3100 and 3200Statewide 2 100% 2 100%

SILVER STATE DESERT BIGHORN RAM HUNT 3300Statewide 4,318 1 4,318 to 1 100% 1 100%

DREAM DESERT BIGHORN RAM HUNT 3500Statewide 1 100% 1 100%

RESIDENT DESERT BIGHORN RAM HUNT 3151044, 182 432 12 36 to 1 92% 11 92% 5.5 3045, 153 139 6 24 to 1 100% 6 100% 5.5 1131, 164 84 5 17 to 1 100% 5 100% 5.3132 30 2 15 to 1 100% 1 50% 6.0133, 245 28 3 10 to 1 100% 3 100% 8.0 1134 43 4 11 to 1 100% 4 100% 6.6161 Early 129 4 33 to 1 100% 3 75% 5.3161 Late 74 3 25 to 1 100% 3 100% 5.3 1162, 163 142 8 18 to 1 100% 8 100% 5.9 5173 89 5 18 to 1 100% 4 80% 4.8 1181 594 14 43 to 1 100% 14 100% 6.6 9183 312 9 35 to 1 100% 7 78% 6.6 3184 117 4 30 to 1 100% 2 50% 5.0202, 204 174 6 29 to 1 100% 5 83% 6.2205 180 13 14 to 1 100% 11 85% 7.2 5206, 208 79 6 14 to 1 100% 5 83% 5.0207 62 8 8 to 1 100% 7 88% 5.3211 75 9 9 to 1 100% 10 111% 6.3 2212 Early 114 9 13 to 1 100% 8 89% 7.0 1212 Late 59 9 7 to 1 100% 8 89% 7.0213 128 16 8 to 1 100% 16 100% 6.4223, 241 44 3 15 to 1 100% 3 100% 5.3241 24 3 8 to 1 100% 3 100% 5.7243 79 5 16 to 1 100% 4 80% 6.3 1244 99 5 20 to 1 100% 4 80% 8.0 1252 231 8 29 to 1 100% 7 88% 7.6 2253 1,551 9 173 to 1 100% 9 100% 6.6 9254 27 3 9 to 1 100% 3 100% 7.3 2261 52 5 11 to 1 100% 4 80% 6.0 1262 205 5 41 to 1 100% 5 100% 6.7 3

Demand

A-40

Page 191: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 13. 2016 BIGHORN SHEEP HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP

Tag % # Succ. % HunterGroup Apps Quota Returns Hunters Success Avg Age 160+Demand263 310 5 62 to 1 100% 4 80% 6.3 6264, 265 93 6 16 to 1 100% 5 83% 6.8 1266 82 1 82 to 1 100% 0 0%267 190 7 28 to 1 100% 7 100% 6.7 2268 1,580 26 61 to 1 100% 25 96% 7.3 19271 204 11 19 to 1 100% 8 73% 7.6 2272 47 2 24 to 1 100% 0 0%280 31 3 11 to 1 100% 2 67% 9.0 1

281 39 6 7 to 1 100% 6 100% 6.4 3282 32 5 7 to 1 100% 5 100% 7.5 5283, 284 46 5 10 to 1 100% 2 40% 8.0 3286 23 2 12 to 1 100% 2 100% 7.0 1TOTAL 8073 280 29 to 1 100% 249 89% 94

NONRESIDENT DESERT BIGHORN RAM HUNT 3251044, 182 266 2 133 to 1 100% 2 100% 5.5 3161 177 2 89 to 1 100% 2 100% 5.3 1173 122 1 122 to 1 100% 1 100% 4.8 1181 559 2 280 to 1 100% 2 100% 6.6 9183 238 2 119 to 1 100% 2 100% 6.6 3184 76 1 76 to 1 100% 1 100% 5.0205 195 2 98 to 1 100% 2 100% 7.2 5207 84 2 42 to 1 100% 2 100% 5.3211 86 2 43 to 1 100% 2 100% 6.3 2213 370 4 93 to 1 100% 4 100% 6.4261 101 1 101 to 1 100% 1 100% 6.0 1262 222 1 222 to 1 100% 1 100% 6.7 3263 671 1 671 to 1 100% 1 100% 6.3 6267 514 1 514 to 1 100% 1 100% 6.7 2268 3,864 4 966 to 1 100% 4 100% 7.3 19271 516 2 258 to 1 100% 2 100% 7.6 2283, 284 141 1 141 to 1 100% 1 100% 8.0 3TOTAL 8,202 31 265 to 1 100% 31 100%

RESIDENT DESERT BIGHORN EWE HUNT 3181212 48 35 2 to 1 89% 24 69%213 47 35 2 to 1 100% 27 79%253 23 18 2 to 1 100% 13 72%268 71 45 2 to 1 98% 27 60%TOTAL 189 133 2 to 1 96% 91 69%There were 22 tagholders across all units that retained their tags but did not hunt

A-41

Page 192: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 13. 2016 BIGHORN SHEEP HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP

Tag % # Succ. % HunterGroup Apps Quota Returns Hunters Success Avg Age 160+DemandNONRESIDENT DESERT BIGHORN EWE HUNT 3281212 6 4 2 to 1 100% 3 75%213 12 4 3 to 1 100% 3 75%253 5 2 3 to 1 100% 2 100%268 8 5 2 to 1 100% 5 100%TOTAL 31 15 3 to 1 100% 13 87%

RESIDENT PARTNERSHIP IN WILDLIFE (PIW) CALIFORNIA BIGHORN RAM HUNT 8000Statewide 2,368 1 2,368 to 1 100% 1 100%

HERITAGE CALIFORNIA BIGHORN RAM HUNT 8100 & 8200Statewide 1 100% 1 100%

DREAM CALIFORNIA BIGHORN RAM HUNT 8500Statewide 1 0 to 1 100% 1 100%

RESIDENT CALIFORNIA BIGHORN RAM HUNT 8151012 540 4 135 to 1 100% 3 75% 6.0 1014 223 4 56 to 1 100% 3 75% 7.7021, 022 487 4 122 to 1 100% 4 100% 6.0031 1,515 2 758 to 1 100% 2 100% 7.8 2032 1,399 9 156 to 1 100% 9 100% 7.4 5033 125 2 63 to 1 100% 1 50% 4.0034 536 8 67 to 1 100% 8 100% 6.4 1035 153 5 31 to 1 100% 5 100% 6.4 2041 535 1 535 to 1 100% 1 100% 9.0 1051 277 4 70 to 1 100% 4 100% 6.8 1066 126 1 126 to 1 100% 1 100% 6.0068 461 5 93 to 1 100% 5 100% 6.0 2TOTAL 6,377 49 131 to 1 100% 46 94% 15

NONRESIDENT CALIFORNIA BIGHORN RAM HUNT 8251012 738 1 738 to 1 100% 1 100% 6.0 1031 4,013 1 4,013 to 1 100% 1 100% 7.8 2032 1,437 2 719 to 1 100% 2 100% 7.4 5034 830 1 830 to 1 100% 1 100% 6.4 1

TOTAL 7,018 5 1,404 to 1 100% 5 100%

RESIDENT CALIFORNIA BIGHORN EWE HUNT 8181Statewide 104 10 11 to 1 100% 6 60%

A-42

Page 193: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 13. 2016 BIGHORN SHEEP HUNT RESULTS BY HUNT AND UNIT GROUP

Tag % # Succ. % HunterGroup Apps Quota Returns Hunters Success Avg Age 160+Demand

RESIDENT ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN RAM HUNT 9151 Avg Age 170+114 2,719 4 680 to 1 100% 1 25% 6.0115 914 1 914 to 1 100% 1 100% 5.0

TOTAL 3,633 5 727 to 1 100% 2 40% 0

% Return - Percent of hunter questionnaires received compared to total tags available

160+/170+ - # of rams scoring 160+ B&C points for Desert and California and 170+ for Rocky Mountain subspecies from all tagholders (resident and nonresident) for given unit group.

Avg Age - Average age of rams from all tagholders for given unit group including residents and nonresidents.

% Hunter Success - based on # of successful hunters divided by Tags for Hunt (includes did not hunts)

Apps - # of unsuccessful 1st choice applicants plus successful 1st - 5th choice applicants for given group Demand - # of "Apps" for every one tag sold (i.e., 4 to 1 means 4 applicants applied in Main Draw for every 1 tag sold)

A-43

Page 194: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 14. BIGHORN SHEEP RAM HARVEST HISTORYYear/ # Tags Percent Average Average Average Maximum

Unit Group Issued Success Days Hunted Age B&C Score B&C Score

DESERT BIGHORN1997 109 74% 7.9 6.1 145 5/8 170 6/81998 115 83% 7.3 5.8 152 1/8 1721999 127 92% 5.8 6.0 147 4/8 179 2/82000 132 86% 5.9 6.3 147 4/8 173 2/82001 143 86% 5.8 6.2 150 5/8 178 2/82002 140 80% 6.4 6.3 148 4/8 183 2/82003 133 90% 6.2 6.4 150 7/8 1732004 138 92% 6.1 6.1 150 3/8 174 6/82005 149 91% 4.7 6.5 153 1/8 176 5/82006 154 92% 5.5 6.7 152 3/8 177 6/82007 172 87% 6.1 6.4 149 5/8 172 7/82008* 173 88% 5.8 6.3 152 3/8 178 5/82009* 193 89% 5.2 6.2 153 4/8 177 4/82010* 216 86% 5.7 6.5 154 1/8 189 6/82011* 222 87% 4.9 6.6 153 6/8 181 6/82012 281 86% 5.7 6.5 154 182 2/82013 275 91% 5.8 6.3 153 2/8 182 3/82014 287 89% 4.6 6.4 152 2/8 183 3/82015 307 93% 4.7 6.4 152 5/8 1822016 311 92% 4.4 6.5 153 6/8 182 7/8

Total/Avg 3,777 86% 5.9 6.3 151 4/8 189 6/8* Includes Rocky Mtn or possibly hybrid Desert/Rocky Rams harvested in Unit 131

55.25.45.65.866.26.46.66.87

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008* 2010* 2012 2014 2016

Aver

age

Ram

Age

# of

Tag

s

YEAR

Desert Bighorn Ram Tags and Age Data

# Tags Age

A-44

Page 195: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 14. BIGHORN SHEEP RAM HARVEST HISTORYYear/ # Tags Percent Average Average Average Maximum

Unit Group Issued Success Days Hunted Age B&C Score B&C ScoreDESERT BIGHORN 2006 - 2016044, 182 96 91% 5.0 5.5 147 7/8 172 7/8045, 153 27 93% 6.9 5.8 149 3/8 165 6/8131*, 164* 44 93% 5.4 5.8 146 6/8 189 6/8132 12 92% 7.4 6.1 150 165 7/8133, 245 33 70% 6.6 6.2 150 7/8 165 7/8134 55 84% 5.6 5.6 148 2/8 161 2/8161 122 88% 5.6 6.2 153 172 7/8162, 163 54 91% 3.8 5.7 151 4/8 167173 57 86% 5.5 6.3 148 6/8 175 3/8181 110 94% 4.8 6.9 158 1/8 175183 99 98% 3.7 6.0 154 1/8 168 3/8184 59 81% 5.9 5.5 145 5/8 164 3/8202, 204 45 91% 3.3 5.7 148 1/8 165205 85 88% 5.8 6.3 152 4/8 177 2/8205, 207 10 90% 6.2 6.2 145 1/8 157 5/8206, 208 36 81% 5.4 6.4 148 6/8 164 6/8207 76 95% 4.5 5.6 147 164 7/8211 77 94% 4.9 6.6 146 5/8 166212 93 96% 3.6 7.1 149 4/8 167 5/8213 111 92% 3.3 6.1 140 5/8 158 4/8221 6 83% 2.7 6.0 149 4/8 158223, 241 28 75% 8.5 5.7 149 6/8 170241 14 57% 9.9 5.8 154 2/8 176 5/8243 35 57% 7.9 6.7 152 182 3/8244 43 88% 7.0 7.5 155 5/8 175 6/8252 71 94% 5.5 6.9 161 2/8 179 2/8253 81 99% 3.9 7.4 167 1/8 181 7/8254 29 90% 6.7 7.3 149 7/8 167 6/8261 64 84% 5.6 7.0 150 6/8 168 3/8262 65 88% 5.5 7.3 160 1/8 177263 104 96% 6.2 6.6 160 6/8 181 1/8264, 265 45 96% 5.3 6.3 150 6/8 169 3/8266 38 92% 4.7 5.9 150 5/8 174 2/8267 75 99% 3.8 6.7 157 181 6/8268 251 95% 4.3 6.6 156 3/8 183 3/8271 98 90% 5.5 6.6 153 1/8 175 4/8272 26 54% 9.4 5.6 151 6/8 176 2/8280 36 50% 6.1 7.8 154 2/8 167 6/8281 50 82% 5.4 7.2 153 6/8 169 7/8282 39 85% 6.2 6.5 156 3/8 174 5/8283, 284 63 75% 8.0 6.5 155 171 2/8286 28 89% 6.5 5.9 154 3/8 182 7/8

A-45

Page 196: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 14. BIGHORN SHEEP RAM HARVEST HISTORYYear/ # Tags Percent Average Average Average Maximum

Unit Group Issued Success Days Hunted Age B&C Score B&C Score

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN1996 2 50% 10.0 10.0 165 6/8 165 6/81997 3 67% 7.3 8.5 164 6/8 169 1/81998 5 100% 1.4 7.6 169 6/8 176 2/81999 5 100% 6.4 7.4 159 1762000 4 100% 4.3 7.5 164 2/8 173 3/82001 3 67% 5.7 6.0 174 2/8 178 1/82002 3 100% 3.0 6.7 167 6/8 183 1/82003 6 100% 4.7 6.8 168 1/8 183 4/82004 6 83% 3.2 8.0 176 7/8 189 4/82005 6 83% 8.5 7.4 174 5/8 178 2/82006 6 83% 2.7 7.0 170 1/8 190 5/82007 9 100% 3.2 6.1 172 190 5/82008 13 92% 6.4 6.8 169 4/8 191 5/82009 11 100% 3.8 7.9 172 2/8 195 4/82010 4 100% 3.0 5.8 153 6/8 160 1/82011 5 60% 8.0 7.7 159 5/8 167 2/82012 8 88% 5.1 7.0 158 174 7/82013 7 100% 6.3 6.6 153 3/8 1702014 5 80% 12.0 7.0 150 154 6/82015 4 25% 12.0 7.0 146 5/8 146 5/82016 5 40% 11.6 5.5 151 5/8 155 6/8Total 120 86% 5.7 7.1 165 4/8 195 4/8

55.566.577.588.599.510

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Aver

age

Ram

Age

# of

Tag

s

Year

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Hunt Data

# Tags Average Age

A-46

Page 197: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 14. BIGHORN SHEEP RAM HARVEST HISTORYYear/ # Tags Percent Average Average Average Maximum

Unit Group Issued Success Days Hunted Age B&C Score B&C Score

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN 2005 - 2016074 19 95% 5.0 6.6 157 5/8 176 7/8091 4 100% 6.5 7.8 155 6/8 169 3/8114 21 57% 10.8 6.2 149 5/8 170115 6 83% 10.0 8.0 157 7/8 172 5/8

1996 33 88% 6.1 7.6 151 4/8 170 2/81997 36 86% 6.6 6.9 147 4/8 175 2/81998 41 78% 6.1 6.8 149 6/8 1671999 47 77% 6.8 6.2 144 6/8 167 2/82000 43 91% 5.5 6.9 145 5/8 166 5/82001 37 92% 5.0 7.4 148 5/8 184 7/82002 41 83% 5.8 6.4 146 3/8 165 7/82003 39 87% 6.1 6.8 148 6/8 168 7/82004 35 91% 5.7 7.3 152 2/8 1662005 39 90% 7.1 6.6 149 5/8 167 1/82006 42 88% 7.3 6.8 151 5/8 171 3/82007 43 100% 6.4 6.8 147 4/8 165 2/82008 42 95% 6.1 7.1 152 3/8 172 4/82009 48 98% 7.0 7.3 155 3/8 169 6/82010 52 100% 6.4 7.4 156 175 1/82011 57 95% 6.2 7.0 153 6/8 173 2/82012 59 90% 6.1 7.0 149 169 4/82013 67 91% 6.4 7.2 153 5/8 171 7/82014 66 88% 6.1 7.0 153 1/8 1742015 63 89% 5.3 6.8 153 172 7/82016 57 95% 6.7 6.8 152 1/8 172 3/8

Total/Avg 987 90% 6.2 7.0 151 184 7/8

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

A-47

Page 198: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 14. BIGHORN SHEEP RAM HARVEST HISTORYYear/ # Tags Percent Average Average Average Maximum

Unit Group Issued Success Days Hunted Age B&C Score B&C Score

012 97 86% 7.1 7.3 152 7/8 169 7/8014 34 94% 5.9 6.5 144 5/8 166 2/8021, 022 27 96% 5.9 6.4 151 166 6/8031 80 99% 3.8 7.3 158 1/8 173 4/8032 99 97% 5.1 7.4 155 5/8 175 1/8033 47 87% 9.2 7.1 149 164 4/8034 89 96% 5.4 7.5 154 2/8 172 4/8035 31 87% 7.8 6.9 148 5/8 168 7/8041 3 100% 10.7 8.0 147 2/8 172 3/8051 28 96% 9.3 6.5 151 2/8 171 3/8066 20 85% 6.9 6.8 153 1/8 167 7/8068 39 97% 7.5 5.4 144 6/8 165 4/8

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN 2006 - 2016

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Aver

age

Ram

Age

# of

Tag

s

YEAR

California Bighorn Hunt Data

# Tags Ram Age

A-48

Page 199: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 15. 2016 MOUNTAIN GOAT HUNT RESULTS BY UNIT GROUP

% # Succ. % Hunter % MaleUNIT GROUP Apps Tags Returns Hunters Success Harvest

RESIDENT MOUNTAIN GOAT HUNT 7151101 2,152 4 538 to 1 100% 3 75% 67%

102* 1,692 8 212 to 1 100% 7 88% 86%

103 561 1 561 to 1 100% 1 100% 100%

TOTAL 4,405 13 339 to 1 100% 11 85% 82%

Demand - # of "Apps" for every one tag sold % Return - Percent of hunter questionnaire records received compared to total tags sold

Demand

% Hunter Success - based on # of successful hunters divided by Tags Sold

Apps - # of unsuccessful 1st choice applicants plus successful 1st - 5th choice applicants for given unit group

% Male Harvest - Percent of Billy (male) mountain goats of total harvest

A-49

Page 200: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 16. MOUNTAIN GOAT HARVEST HISTORY BY UNIT AND YEAR, 2002 - 2016

Year HarvestAverage

AgeAverage Left Horn

Average Right Horn

Average Days Hunted

Unit 101 - East Humboldt Range2002 7 4.6 8.4 8.6 2.12003 8 3.5 8.6 8.6 1.92004 6 2.7 8.3 8.3 1.62005 5 3.0 7.9 7.9 2.22006 5 4.5 8.1 7.9 2.02007 5 4.8 8.8 8.9 1.82008 5 5.0 9.1 9.1 2.82009 7 7.0 9.2 9.3 1.72010 6 6.8 8.2 7.8 3.82011 3 3.0 8.3 8.3 2.02012 2 5.5 8.3 8.2 3.02013 1 4.0 8.3 8.4 5.02014 5 7.0 8.4 8.5 1.82015 6 6.2 8.0 8.2 2.22016 3 5.3 8.2 7.8 10.5

5-Year Avg. 3 6.1 8.2 8.3 4.5

Long-term Avg. 5 4.9 8.5 8.4 2.8

Unit 102 - Ruby Mountains2002 11 5.1 9.1 9.0 2.92003 13 5.0 9.1 9.2 5.22004 12 5.3 8.6 8.9 5.12005 18 4.6 8.7 8.6 2.62006 18 4.0 8.5 8.7 3.92007 22 4.9 9.0 8.9 2.62008 21 3.9 8.6 8.4 4.42009 20 4.5 8.7 8.8 3.42010 13 5.6 8.6 8.9 3.92011 7 4.9 8.8 8.9 3.32012 3 4.7 8.4 8.6 6.72013 4 6.3 8.5 7.3 4.02014 6 5.5 8.6 7.0 3.22015 5 5.0 8.1 8.8 7.42016 7 6.1 8.8 9.1 5.4

5-Year Avg. 5 5.7 8.5 8.1 5.0

Long-term Avg. 12 4.8 8.8 8.7 4.1

A-50

Page 201: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 16. MOUNTAIN GOAT HARVEST HISTORY BY UNIT AND YEAR, 2002 - 2016

Unit 103 - Pearl Peak Area, Southern Ruby Mountains

Year HarvestAverage

AgeAverage Left Horn

Average Right Horn

Average Days Hunted

2002 1 4.0 7.6 7.5 4.02003 1 2.0 7.8 7.5 2.02004 1 4.0 9.3 9.5 4.02005 1 5.0 7.0 9.0 1.02006 2 7.0 9.4 8.9 3.52007 2 4.5 9.0 8.9 3.02008 1 3.0 9.0 9.3 7.02009 1 8.0 9.3 9.3 3.02010 1 3.0 9.3 8.9 6.02011 1 5.0 9.0 9.0 3.02012 1 6.0 9.9 9.9 7.02013 1 5.0 9.0 9.3 2.02014 1 6.0 9.4 8.3 2.02015 1 2.0 7.3 7.5 6.02016 1 6.0 8.5 8.1 6.0

5-Year Avg. 1 5.0 8.3 8.3 7.3Long-term Avg. 1 4.9 8.7 8.7 4.7

ALL UNITS

YearHunter

Success # of Tags Harvest # of Billies # of Nannies%

Nannies2002 78% 23 19 18 1 5%2003 96% 23 22 19 3 14%2004 83% 24 20 17 3 15%2005 85% 28 24 22 2 8%2006 90% 29 26 23 3 12%2007 100% 29 29 23 6 21%2008 93% 29 27 21 6 22%2009 96% 28 27 19 8 30%2010 100% 20 20 12 8 40%2011 100% 11 11 8 3 27%2012 100% 6 6 4 2 33%2013 86% 7 6 4 2 33%2014 100% 12 12 9 3 25%2015 100% 12 12 11 1 8%2016 85% 13 11 8 3 27%

Total/Avg. 92% 346 320 258 62 19%

A-51

Page 202: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 17. 2016 BLACK BEAR DRAW AND HUNT RESULTS

Tags # % # Did # Succ. % HunterUnit Group Apps Tags Avail Returns Returns not Hunt Hunters Success

RESIDENT BLACK BEAR HUNT 6151Statewide 2,358 41 40 58 to 1 39 98% 5 10 26%

NONRESIDENT BLACK BEAR HUNT 6251Statewide 142 4 4 36 to 1 4 100% 0 1 25%

BLACK BEAR HARVEST RESULTS

YEAR Gender HarvestMales 5

Females 6

Apps - # of unsuccessful applicants plus successful applicants in main draw.

Demand - # of "Apps" for every one tag sold.

% Return - Percent of hunter questionnaires received compared to total tags sold

BLACK BEAR HARVEST BY UNIT

UNIT # Bears

192 0194 0291 11

TOTAL 11

Demand

% Hunter Success - based on # of successful hunters divided by tag returns

2016

Mean Age

Tags Avail - Available tags at season opener - accounts for tags returned for any reason and alternate tags issued

8.5

6.5

3-yr AverageAge

8

Average Days Hunted by Successful Tagholders

8.810

A-52

Page 203: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 18. FALL 2016 AND SPRING 2017 MULE DEER SURVEY COMPOSITION2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017

UNIT FALL Bucks: Fawns: Fawns: Spring Fawns:GROUP TOTAL 100 Does 100 Does 100 Adults TOTAL 100 Adults

011 - 013, 033 250 31 46 35 203 36014 120 29 43 33 149 32015 -- -- -- -- 485 40021 -- -- -- -- 530 36022 -- -- -- -- 137 41031 157 33 66 50 879 39032 167 34 68 51 136 43034 52 25 61 49 74 51035 249 22 63 52 276 35041, 042 -- -- -- -- -- --043 - 046 592 37 43 32 432 41051 234 33 51 39 807 43061,062,064, 066-068 6,495 32 70 53 2,990 28065 -- -- -- -- -- --071 - 079, 091 4,964 28 32 25 2,635 20081 -- -- -- -- -- --101 - 109 5,438 26 41 33 7,556 26111 - 113 3,012 38 44 32 2,416 31114 - 115 394 52 46 30 548 36121 1,444 28 50 39 1,700 33131 - 134 -- -- -- -- 732 39141 - 145 1,677 33 56 42 1,946 40151, 152, 154-156 650 35 61 45 1,037 31161 - 164 -- -- -- -- 789 32171 - 173 1,018 30 61 47 743 33181 - 184 109 22 40 33 69 33192 -- -- -- -- 236 41194, 196 -- -- -- -- 717 46195 -- -- -- -- -- --201 - 206 1,117 16 32 28 -- --203 -- -- -- -- -- --211, 212 -- -- -- -- -- --221 - 223 1,202 30 41 32 2,036 35231 1,632 29 63 49 1,388 40241 - 244 798 44 37 26 -- --251 - 253 -- -- -- -- -- --261 - 268 -- -- -- -- -- --271, 272 -- -- -- -- -- --291 -- -- -- -- -- --2016-17 TOTALS 31,771 30 48 37 31,646 312015-16 TOTALS 14,811 33 54 41 36,496 29

Spring fawn/100 adults ratios that are higher than its fall ratio are assumed to be biased higUnits with ( -- ) were not surveyed.

A-53

Page 204: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 19. LATE SUMMER/FALL/WINTER 2016 PRONGHORN SURVEY COMPOSITION

2016 2016 2015BUCKS: FAWNS: FAWNS:

UNIT GROUP BUCKS DOES FAWNS TOTAL 100 DOES 100 DOES 100 DOES011 47 124 50 221 38 40 45012 - 014 132 309 161 602 43 52 50015 69 235 124 428 29 53 42021 - 022 22 72 29 123 31 40 33031 18 79 16 113 23 20 43032, 034, 035 49 215 95 359 23 44 34033 63 212 79 354 30 37 44041, 042 97 258 115 470 38 45 40043-046 108 215 78 401 50 36 50051 19 95 26 140 20 27 40061 - 064, 071, 073 231 528 276 1,035 44 52 47065, 142, 144 144 277 131 552 52 47 45066 -- -- -- --067 - 068 163 475 184 822 34 39 34072, 074, 075 119 353 136 608 34 39 34076, 077, 079, 081, 091 92 199 50 341 46 25 35078, 105 - 107, 121 135 243 108 486 56 44 41101 - 104, 108 97 188 69 354 52 37 33111 - 114 232 500 226 958 46 45 30115, 231, 242 40 88 26 154 46 30 47131, 145, 163, 164 108 266 102 476 41 38 26132 - 134, 245 45 129 43 217 35 33 21141, 143, 151 - 155 402 756 364 1,522 53 48 43161, 162 28 110 31 169 26 28 --171 - 173 20 84 24 128 24 29 --181 - 184 70 199 109 378 35 55 45202, 204 7 16 7 30 44 44 26203, 291 12 24 9 45 50 38 26205, 206 16 65 25 106 25 39 32211 - 213 8 24 10 42 33 42 --221 - 223, 241 40 82 34 156 49 42 43251 48 134 37 219 36 28 --2016 TOTALS 2,681 6,554 2,774 12,009 41 42 392015 TOTALS 2,713 7,060 2,727 12,500 38 39 39

Units with (--) were not surveyed.

A-54

Page 205: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 20. LATE SUMMER/FALL 2016 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP SURVEY COMPOSITION

2016 2016 2015UNIT RAMS: LAMBS: LAMBS:

GROUP RAMS EWES LAMBS TOTAL 100 EWES 100 EWES 100 EWES044, 182 -- -- -- -- -- -- 60045/153 43 68 31 142 63 46 50131, 164 13 34 14 61 38 41 5

132 14 30 13 57 47 43 43133, 245 26 70 23 119 37 33 --

134 30 54 19 103 56 35 33153 -- -- -- -- -- -- --161 -- -- -- -- -- -- 41162 -- -- -- -- -- -- 29163 44 65 27 136 68 42 --173 -- -- -- -- -- -- 33181 105 172 81 358 61 47 41183 106 189 70 365 56 37 51184 38 77 34 149 49 44 37195 32 56 11 99 57 20 42202 25 63 26 114 40 41 49204 5 6 2 13 83 33 --

205, 207 88 183 93 364 48 51 47206, 208 36 81 27 144 44 33 40

211 56 127 49 232 44 39 30212 118 162 70 350 73 43 32213 100 201 96 397 50 48 29

223, 241 (Hikos) 39 72 15 126 54 21 44241 (Delamars) 22 46 6 74 48 13 62

243 -- -- -- -- -- -- 41244 37 63 24 124 59 38 --252 55 108 11 174 51 10 6253 73 90 25 188 81 28 --254 -- -- -- -- -- -- 29261 47 82 12 141 57 15 --262 47 99 13 159 48 13 5263 66 160 13 239 41 8 6264 13 48 3 64 27 6 --265 -- -- -- -- -- -- --266 -- -- -- -- -- -- 4267 -- -- -- -- -- -- 13268 167 161 69 397 104 43 43

269 (River Mtns) 73 121 18 212 60 15 6271 -- -- -- -- -- -- 30272 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6280 20 57 18 95 35 32 35281 44 76 33 153 58 43 64282 30 63 24 117 48 38 18

283, 284 59 102 26 187 58 26 38286 30 58 26 114 52 45 40

2016 TOTALS 1,701 3,044 1,022 5,767 56 342015 TOTALS 1,601 2,789 901 5,291 57 32

Units with (--) were not surveyed.

A-55

Page 206: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

2016 2016 2015

RAMS/ LAMBS/ LAMBS/

UNIT GROUP RAMS EWES LAMBS TOTAL 100 EWES 100 EWES 100 EWES

011, 013 10 36 13 59 28 36 36

012 10 37 19 66 27 51 28

014 7 23 11 41 30 48 34

021, 022 9 17 6 32 53 35 --

031 31 32 18 81 97 56 64

032 50 95 52 197 53 55 49

033 16 28 11 55 57 39 37

034 7 50 23 80 14 46 35

035 24 44 35 103 55 80 48

041 12 18 8 38 67 44 48

051 6 76 21 103 8 28 25

066 15 24 5 44 63 21 4

068 33 48 14 95 69 29 51

2016 TOTALS 230 528 236 994 44 452015 TOTALS 248 533 208 989 47 39

2016-17 2016-17 2015-16RAMS/ LAMBS/ LAMBS/

UNIT GROUP RAMS EWES LAMBS TOTAL 100 EWES 100 EWES 100 EWES074 3 11 4 18 27 36 0091 10 13 1 24 77 8 --101 -- -- -- -- -- -- --102 -- -- -- -- -- -- 77114 13 17 5 35 77 29 48115 3 11 6 20 27 55 150

2016-17 TOTALS 29 52 16 97 56 312015-16 TOTALS 19 45 25 89 42 56

Units with (--) were not surveyed.

TABLE 22. SUMMER/WINTER/EARLY SPRING 2016 - 2017 ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP SURVEY COMPOSITION

TABLE 21. LATE SUMMER/FALL 2016 CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP SURVEY COMPOSITION

A-56

Page 207: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 23. JANUARY 2017 MOUNTAIN GOAT SURVEY COMPOSITION

2017 2016

KIDS/ KIDS/UNIT GROUP ADULTS KIDS TOTAL 100 ADULTS 100 ADULTS

101 40 3 43 8 13

102 78 15 93 19 15

103 -- -- -- -- 432016 TOTALS 118 18 136 152015 TOTALS 93 11 104 12

2016-2017 2016-2017 2015-2016

BULLS/ CALVES/ CALVES/UNIT GROUP BULLS COWS CALVES TOTAL 100 COWS 100 COWS 100 COWS

051 73 44 26 143 166 59 32

061, 071 1,032 1,986 724 3,742 52 37 53

062, 064, 066-068 92 257 108 457 36 42 45

065 16 6 22 38 41

072, 074 339 366 120 825 93 33 56

073 48 181 53 282 27 29 51

075 17 78 36 131 22 46 60

076, 077, 079, 081 167 430 172 769 39 40 50

078,104, 105-107 76 44 20 140 173 46 55

091 24 59 30 113 41 51 --

104,108,121 98 236 77 411 42 33 37

108,131 - 132 17 32 14 63 53 44 38

111-115, 221, 222, 223 489 1,360 527 2,376 36 39 45

161 - 164 111 202 85 398 55 42 49

171 - 173 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

231 83 61 34 178 136 56 52

241, 242 5 16 11 32 31 69 71

262 33 87 26 146 38 30 302016-2017 Totals 2,704 5,455 2,069 10,228 50 382015-2016 Totals 2,207 5,270 2,547 10,024 42 48

Units with (--) were not surveyed.

TABLE 24. FALL/WINTER 2016 - 2017 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK SURVEY COMPOSITION

A-57

Page 208: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 25. 2017 MULE DEER POPULATION ESTIMATES

2017 2016UNIT GROUP ESTIMATE* ESTIMATE*011 - 013 1,200 1,500014 900 1,200015** 270 260021** 490 400022 700 750031 1,800 1,800032*** 1,150 1,100033 400 500034*** 290 280035 850 850041, 042 750 750043 - 046 2,900 2,700051 2,500 2,500061,062,064, 066 - 068 9,200 10,200065 800 800071 - 079, 091 8,900 9,700081 900 900101 - 108 14,000 15,000111 - 113 5,200 4,500114 - 115 1,600 1,500121 2,700 2,600131 - 134 4,300 4,000141 - 145 4,200 4,000151, 152 ,154, 155 2,200 2,350161 - 164 4,100 4,650171 - 173 4,200 4,200181 - 184 1,250 1,250192** 420 420194, 196** 1,000 900195 500 500201, 204** 600 650202, 205 - 208** 500 500203 600 600211, 213 400 400221 - 223 4,150 4,150231 3,300 3,400241 - 245 1,100 850251 - 254 400 400

A-58

Page 209: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 25. 2017 MULE DEER POPULATION ESTIMATES

261 - 268 500 400271, 272 240 240291 600 600TOTAL 92,000 94,000Percent Change -2%

**Estimate based on apportionment of an interstate herd***Estimate includes deer that primarily inhabit agricultural fields

TABLE 26. 2017 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK POPULATION ESTIMATES

2017 2016UNIT GROUP ESTIMATE* ESTIMATE*051 180 90061, 071** 1,500 2,500062, 064, 066 - 068** 550 850065 120 100072, 073, 074 2,800 2,300075 220 190076, 077, 079, 081 1,300 1,700078, 105 - 107, 109 350 370091 400 400104, 108, 121 700 700108, 131, 132 330 380111 - 115, 221, 222, 223 4,500 4,700145 30 40161 - 164 850 900171 - 173 140 140231 450 500241, 242 150 130262 180 180TOTAL 15,000 16,000Percent Change -6%

**Estimate based on apportionment of an interstate herd. Apportionment derived by spatialanalysis of telemetry data from radio collared elk seasonally occupying Nevada, Idaho, andthe Duck Valley Indian Reservation.

*Estimates - Values generated from computer models that reconstruct age and sex classesbased on sampled herd composition, harvest data, and population demographic variables.The confidence limits around these estimates may be as high as + or - 20%.

*Estimates - Values generated from computer models that reconstruct age and sex classesbased on sampled herd composition, harvest data, and population demographic variables.The confidence limits around these estimates may be as high as + or - 20%.

A-59

Page 210: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 27. 2017 PRONGHORN POPULATION ESTIMATES2017 2016

UNIT GROUP ESTIMATE* ESTIMATE*011 850 1,100012-014 1,700 1,600015 850 800021, 022 550 450031 1,500 1,600032, 034, 035 2,000 2,900033** 1,200 1,100041, 042 1,900 1,800043 - 046 650 600051 700 800061, 062, 064, 071, 073 2,100 2,000065, 142, 144 900 800066 430 430067, 068 1,200 1,200072, 074, 075 1,200 1,300076, 077, 079, 081, 091 600 550078, 105 - 107, 121 1,100 1,000101 - 104, 108, 109, 144 1,000 1,100111 - 114 1,600 1,500115, 231, 242 450 450131, 145, 163, 164 900 900132 - 134, 245 600 600141, 143, 151 - 156 2,500 2,100161, 162 370 370171 - 173 370 350181 - 184 650 650202, 204 110 110203, 291 70 70205 - 208 310 310211 - 213 90 80221 - 223, 241 390 380251 210 240

TOTAL 29,000 29,000Percent Change 0%

*The confidence limits around these estimates may be as high as + or - 20%.

**Estimate represents approximately 50% of the total pronghorn that inhabit the Sheldon NWR that are accessible during the hunting season.

A-60

Page 211: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

2017 2016 2017 2016UNIT GROUP ESTIMATE* ESTIMATE* UNIT GROUP ESTIMATE* ESTIMATE*

044, 182 450 400 280 120 120045 230 210 281 220 220

131, 164 130 120 282 140 130132 100 100 283, 284 250 250

133, 245 130 110 286 130 130134 210 210 TOTAL 10,100 9,700153 20 20 Percent Change 4%161 400 380162 50 50163 300 280173 190 190181 450 380183 450 320184 170 150195 120 100202 200 200204 70 60

205, 207 700 650206, 208 300 300

211 450 430212 360 390213 490 480

223, 241 180 230243 160 150244 130 120252 230 250253 220 220254 80 80261 160 170262 150 150263 230 170264 80 80

265, 266 110 130267, 268 900 950

269 (River Mtns) 220 200271 300 310272 90 100

TABLE 28. 2017 DESERT BIGHORN POPULATION ESTIMATES

*Estimates - Values generated from computermodels that reconstruct age and sex classesbased on sampled herd composition, harvestdata, and population demographic variables.The confidence limits around these estimatesmay be as high as + or - 20%.

A-61

Page 212: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

2017 2016UNIT GROUP ESTIMATE* ESTIMATE*

011, 013 70 90012 140 140014 140 140

021, 022 110 120031 130 110032 350 300033 90 80034 270 270035 210 190041 55 50051 150 180066 30 40068 110 110

TOTAL 1,900 1,800Percent Change 6%

2017 2016UNIT GROUP ESTIMATE* ESTIMATE*

074 20 15091 25 25101 25 15102 35 35114 90 90115 40 30

TOTAL 240 210Percent Change 14%

2017 2016UNIT GROUP ESTIMATE* ESTIMATE*

101 65 85102 200 200103 45 45

TOTAL 310 330Percent Change -6%

*Estimates - Values generated from computer models that reconstruct age and sex classesbased on sampled herd composition, harvest data, and population demographic variables.The confidence limits around these estimates may be as high as + or - 20%.

TABLE 29. 2017 CALIFORNIA BIGHORN POPULATION ESTIMATES

TABLE 30. 2017 ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN POPULATION ESTIMATES

TABLE 31. 2017 MOUNTAIN GOAT POPULATION ESTIMATES

A-62

Page 213: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 32. BIG GAME POPULATION ESTIMATE HISTORY, 1982 - 2017ROCKY

MULE DESERT CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN MOUNTAINYEAR DEER ANTELOPE ELK BIGHORN BIGHORN BIGHORN GOAT1982 140,000 10,500 3,1001983 120,000 11,000 3,2001984 129,500 11,500 3,1001985 155,500 12,000 3,3001986 180,000 12,500 3,5001987 220,000 13,000 3,5001988 240,000 13,500 3,6001989 212,000 14,000 3,7001990 202,000 15,000 2,000 3,800 480 1401991 180,000 16,500 2,400 4,000 530 1501992 183,500 18,000 2,700 4,100 650 190 1901993 148,500 16,000 2,900 4,800 700 210 2001994 115,000 15,000 3,100 4,700 800 220 2101995 118,000 15,500 3,500 4,500 900 230 2201996 120,000 15,000 4,000 4,900 1,000 230 2301997 125,000 14,500 4,600 5,000 1,100 240 1701998 132,000 15,000 5,000 5,200 1,200 250 2001999 134,000 14,500 5,500 5,300 1,300 250 2402000 133,000 16,000 5,900 4,900 1,400 210 2802001 129,000 17,000 6,400 4,900 1,400 190 3202002 108,000 18,000 6,600 5,300 1,500 210 3402003 109,000 18,000 7,200 5,000 1,500 240 3502004 105,000 18,500 7,400 5,200 1,500 290 3702005 107,000 20,000 8,000 5,500 1,500 340 4002006 110,000 21,500 8,200 5,800 1,600 360 4102007 114,000 24,000 9,400 6,200 1,700 480 4202008 108,000 24,000 9,500 6,600 1,700 500 4502009 106,000 24,500 10,900 7,000 1,800 550 4702010 107,000 26,000 12,300 7,400 1,900 240 3402011 109,000 27,000 13,500 7,600 2,100 230 3102012 112,000 28,000 15,100 8,600 2,000 220 2902013 109,000 28,500 16,500 8,900 2,100 260 3402014 108,000 27,500 17,500 8,900 1,900 260 3402015 99,000 28,500 18,500 9,600 1,900 230 3502016 94,000 29,000 16,000 9,700 1,800 210 3302017 92,000 29,000 15,000 10,100 1,900 240 310

10-YR AVG 104,000 27,000 14,500 8,400 1,900 290 350

%Diff to AVG -12% 7% 3% 20% 0% -17% -11%

A-63

Page 214: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 33. BIG GAME TAG SALES AND HARVEST HISTORY BY SPECIES, 1987 - 2016

DEER ANTELOPE ELKYEAR TAGS HARVEST TAGS HARVEST TAGS HARVEST TAGS HARVEST TAGS HARVEST TAGS HARVEST TAGS HARVEST1987 39,347 21,497 1,039 722 129 105 134 112 3 3 2 0 2 21988 51,011 26,784 1,342 949 182 91 136 114 4 3 2 2 2 11989 34,847 17,782 1,378 980 200 103 133 111 3 3 2 0 4 41990 31,346 16,715 1,475 1,115 243 141 134 91 3 3 2 2 4 41991 26,584 12,442 1,913 1,311 240 141 126 85 5 5 1 1 6 61992 28,138 14,273 1,925 1,416 210 164 113 92 10 10 -- -- 6 51993 16,017 6,276 1,569 1,020 215 176 123 102 12 12 -- -- 7 71994 17,460 7,315 1,299 979 240 157 125 87 20 14 -- -- 10 101995 20,014 8,114 1,387 878 306 183 126 90 25 19 2 2 12 111996 24,717 11,070 1,211 820 510 292 126 94 32 28 2 1 9 81997 20,186 8,263 1,173 805 783 389 113 85 35 30 3 2 6 61998 24,077 9,672 1,283 871 1,119 468 113 93 41 33 5 5 12 121999 24,023 11,020 1,521 1,173 1,274 577 126 110 47 36 5 5 11 102000 26,420 12,499 1,615 1,191 1,621 804 132 113 43 39 4 4 18 162001 23,813 9,791 1,518 1,121 1,359 701 143 124 37 34 3 2 23 222002 17,484 6,899 1,682 1,166 1,836 887 140 112 41 34 3 3 23 182003 14,892 5,982 1,846 1,278 1,821 1,055 133 119 39 34 6 6 23 222004 16,010 6,560 1,921 1,323 1,972 1,008 138 127 35 32 6 5 24 232005 16,920 7,112 2,393 1,608 2,616 1,246 148 135 38 34 6 5 28 242006 18,167 8,346 2,705 1,876 2,360 1,161 154 142 41 36 6 5 29 262007 18,599 8,743 2,737 1,847 3,080 1,396 172 150 43 43 9 9 29 292008 16,997 7,025 2,476 1,638 2,723 1,315 175 152 42 40 13 12 29 272009 16,728 6,837 2,757 1,814 2,972 1,420 193 172 48 47 11 11 28 272010 17,134 6,949 2,987 1,928 3,545 1,680 216 186 52 52 4 4 20 202011 14,919 5,834 3,121 1,973 4,838 2,007 222 194 57 54 5 3 11 112012 24,257 10,112 3,721 2,225 6,035 2,461 281 241 59 53 8 7 6 62013 22,992 9,367 3,814 2,336 7,936 2,857 275 251 67 61 7 7 7 62014 22,643 8,978 3,953 2,453 11,016 3,474 287 258 66 58 5 4 12 122015 20,998 9,155 4,105 2,595 11,271 3,365 307 285 63 56 4 1 12 122016 18,111 7,885 4,100 2,653 11,131 3,149 311 280 54 51 5 2 13 11

10-YR AVG 19,338 8,089 3,377 2,146 6,455 2,312 244 217 55 52 7 6 17 16%Diff to AVG -6% -3% 21% 24% 72% 36% 28% 29% -2% -1% -30% -67% -22% -32%

BIGHORN RAMDESERT

BIGHORN GOATMOUNTAINCALIFORNIA ROCKY MTN

BIGHORN RAM

A-64

Page 215: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

Resident Nonresident Total Resident Nonresident Total Resident Nonresident Total1978 - 1979 146 38 184 18 8 26 12% 21% 14%1979 - 1980 235 46 281 30 17 47 13% 37% 17%1980 - 1981 313 61 374 24 14 38 8% 23% 10%1981 - 1982 527 62 589 36 24 60 7% 39% 10%1982 - 1983 519 61 580 41 20 61 8% 33% 11%1983 - 1984 329 50 379 57 21 78 17% 42% 21%1984 - 1985 352 107 459 60 46 106 17% 43% 23%1985 - 1986 394 96 490 54 29 83 14% 30% 17%1986 - 1987 345 114 459 51 36 87 15% 32% 19%1987 - 1988 416 91 507 41 37 78 10% 41% 15%1988 - 1989 383 124 507 65 53 118 17% 43% 23%1989 - 1990 439 184 623 75 77 152 17% 42% 24%1990 - 1991 318 112 430 55 33 88 17% 29% 20%1991 - 1992 507 112 619 78 47 125 15% 42% 20%1992 - 1993 348 149 497 75 75 150 22% 50% 30%1993 - 1994 405 139 544 99 74 173 24% 53% 32%1994 - 1995 403 151 554 89 72 161 22% 48% 29%1995 - 1996 432 186 618 73 61 134 17% 33% 22%1996 - 1997 480 137 617 80 63 143 17% 46% 23%1997 - 1998 870 137 1,007 122 88 210 14% 64% 21%1998 - 1999 643 124 767 73 67 140 11% 54% 18%1999 - 2000 680 109 789 71 55 126 10% 50% 16%2000 - 2001 883 169 1,052 104 90 194 12% 53% 18%2001 - 2002 838 98 936 104 63 167 12% 64% 18%2002 - 2003 1,060 131 1,191 89 39 128 8% 30% 11%2003 - 2004 1,133 221 1,354 119 73 192 11% 33% 14%2004 - 2005 1,186 206 1,392 62 43 105 5% 21% 8%2005 - 2006 1,021 162 1,183 70 46 116 7% 28% 10%2006 - 2007 1,366 121 1,487 95 39 134 7% 32% 9%2007 - 2008 1,521 200 1,721 94 51 145 6% 26% 8%2008 - 2009 3,484 284 3,768 83 34 117 2% 12% 3%2009 - 2010 3,873 302 4,175 80 51 131 2% 19% 3%2010 - 2011 3,942 275 4,217 96 50 146 2% 18% 3%2011 - 2012 4,067 297 4,364 72 31 103 2% 10% 2%2012 - 2013 4,735 354 5,089 122 60 182 3% 17% 4%2013 - 2014 4,968 358 5,326 85 33 118 2% 9% 2%2014 - 2015 5,325 384 5,709 73 26 99 1% 7% 2%2015 - 2016 5,332 392 5,724 113 60 173 2% 15% 3%2016 - 2017 5,346 446 5,792 115 64 179 2% 14% 3%

59,564 6,790 66,354 2,943 1,870 4,8131,527 174 1,701 75 48 1234,259 329 4,589 93 46 139

Harvest Hunter Success

TABLE 34. NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION TAG SALES, SPORT HARVEST, AND HUNTER SUCCESS, 1978 - 2016

10-Year Avg

TotalsAvg. (40 yrs)

YearTag Sales

A-65

Page 216: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 35. NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION DEPREDATION HARVEST(Conducted by APHIS and Private Citizens)

Males Females Unknown Total1976 - 1977 10 7 1 181977 - 1978 17 7 0 241978 - 1979 16 8 0 241979 - 1980 12 11 0 231980 - 1981 19 3 0 221981 - 1982 20 17 0 371982 - 1983 11 10 0 211983 - 1984 13 12 0 251984 - 1985 12 16 0 281985 - 1986 16 9 0 251986 - 1987 22 15 0 371987 - 1988 21 20 0 411988 - 1989 26 23 0 491989 - 1990 23 24 0 471990 - 1991 37 20 0 571991 - 1992 27 22 0 491992 - 1993 32 17 0 491993 - 1994 21 15 0 361994 - 1995 16 8 0 241995 - 1996 13 10 0 231996 - 1997 11 9 0 201997 - 1998 12 10 0 221998 - 1999 8 3 0 111999 - 2000 8 8 0 162000 - 2001 5 10 0 152001 - 2002 8 11 0 192002* - 2003 7 6 0 132003* - 2004 16 12 0 282004* - 2005 9 7 0 162005* - 2006 15 4 0 192006* - 2007 10 9 0 192007* - 2008 18 19 0 372008* - 2009 10 16 0 262009* - 2010 16 15 0 312010 - 2011 13 17 2 322011 - 2012 12 17 1 302012 - 2013 8 12 1 212013 - 2014 9 10 1 202014 - 2015 8 9 1 182015 - 2016 22 12 0 342016 - 2017 11 10 0 21

620 500 7 112715 12 0 27

Year

TotalAverage

*includes lions taken for NDOW predator management projects

A-66

Page 217: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 36. HUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTIONS

HUNT NUMBER HUNT DESCRIPTION

1000 RESIDENT PARTNERSHIP IN WILDLIFE ANTLERED MULE DEER ALL WEAPONS 1100 RESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ANY MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1101 RESIDENT DEPREDATION ANTLERLESS MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1104 RESIDENT EMERGENCY DEPREDATION ANTLERLESS MULE DEER 1107 RESIDENT JUNIOR ANY MULE DEER ALL WEAPONS 1115 RESIDENT LANDOWNER DAMAGE COMPENSATION ANTLERED MULE DEER ALL

WEAPONS 1181 RESIDENT ANTLERLESS MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1300 SILVER STATE ANY MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1331 RESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1341 RESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER ARCHERY 1371 RESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER MUZZLELOADER 1200 NONRESIDENT PARTNERSHIP IN WILDLIFE ANTLERED MULE DEER ALL WEAPONS 1201 NONRESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ANY MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1215 NONRESIDENT LANDOWNER DAMAGE COMPENSATION ANTLERED MULE DEER

ALL WEAPONS 1235 NONRESIDENT GUIDED ANTLERED MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1331 NONRESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1341 NONRESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER ARCHERY 1371 NONRESIDENT ANTLERED MULE DEER MUZZLELOADER 1400 RESIDENT EMERGENCY ANTLERLESS MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1401 RESIDENT EMERGENCY ANTLERLESS MULE DEER ANY LEGAL WEAPON 1500 NEVADA DREAM ANTLERED MULE DEER ALL WEAPONS 2000 RESIDENT PARTNERSHIP IN WILDLIFE HORNS LONGER THAN EARS ANTELOPE

ALL WEAPONS 2100 RESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ANY ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON 2104 RES. EMERGENCY HORNS SHORTER THAN EARS ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON 2106 RES. EMERGENCY HORNS LONGER THAN EARS ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON 2101 RESIDENT DEPREDATION HORNS SHORTER THAN EARS ANTELOPE 2115 RESIDENT LANDOWNER DAMAGE COMPENSATION HORNS LONGER THAN EARS

ANTELOPE ALL WEAPONS 2151 RESIDENT HORNS LONGER THAN EARS ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON 2161 RESIDENT HORNS LONGER THAN EARS ANTELOPE ARCHERY 2171 RESIDENT HORNS LONGER THAN EARS ANTELOPE MUZZELOADER 2181 RESIDENT HORNS SHORTER THAN EARS ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON 2200 NONRESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ANY ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON 2215 NONRESIDENT LANDOWNER DAMAGE COMPENSATION HORNS LONGER THAN

EARS ANTELOPE ALL WEAPONS 2251 NONRESIDENT HORNS LONGER THAN EARS ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON 2261 NONRESIDENT HORNS LONGER THAN EARS ANTELOPE ARCHERY 2300 SILVER STATE ANY ANTELOPE ANY LEGAL WEAPON 2500 NEVADA DREAM HORNS LONGER THAN EARS ANTELOPE ALL WEAPONS 3000 RESIDENT PARTNERSHIP IN WILDLIFE ANY RAM NELSON (DESERT) BIGHORN 3100 RESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ANY RAM NELSON (DESERT) BIGHORN SHEEP 3151 RESIDENT ANY RAM NELSON (DESERT) BIGHORN SHEEP ANY LEGAL WEAPON

A-67

Page 218: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 36. HUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTIONS

HUNT NUMBER HUNT DESCRIPTION

3181 RESIDENT ANY EWE NELSON (DESERT) BIGHORN SHEEP ANY LEGAL WEAPON 3200 NONRESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ANY RAM NELSON (DESERT) BIGHORN 3251 NONRESIDENT ANY RAM NELSON (DESERT) BIGHORN ANY LEGAL WEAPON 3281 NONRESIDENT ANY EWE NELSON (DESERT) BIGHORN SHEEP ANY LEGAL

WEAPON 3300 SILVER STATE ANY RAM NELSON (DESERT) BIGHORN ANY LEGAL WEAPON 3500 NEVADA DREAM ANY RAM NELSON (DESERT) BIGHORN SHEEP ALL WEAPONS 4000 RESIDENT PARTNERSHIP IN WILDLIFE ANTLERED ELK ALL WEAPONS 4100 RESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ELK WITH AT LEAST ONE ANTLER 4102 RESIDENT DEPREDATION ANTLERED ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4104 RESIDENT EMERGENCY DEPREDATION ANTLERLESS ELK 4106 RESIDENT EMERGENCY DEPREDATION ANY ELK 4107 RESIDENT DEPREDATION ANTLERLESS ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4111 RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK ARCHERY 4131 RESIDENT INCENTIVE ANY ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4132 RESIDENT INCENTIVE ANY ELK ARCHERY 4133 RESIDENT INCENTIVE ANY ELK MUZZLELOADER 4151 RESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4156 RESIDENT ANTLERED ELK MUZZLELOADER 4161 RESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ARCHERY 4176 RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK MUZZLELOADER 4181 RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4200 NONRESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ELK WITH AT LEAST ONE ANTLER 4211 NONRESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK ARCHERY 4231 NONRESIDENT INCENTIVE ANY ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4232 NONRESIDENT INCENTIVE ANY ELK ARCHERY 4233 NONRESIDENT INCENTIVE ANY ELK MUZZLELOADER 4251 NONRESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4256 NONRESIDENT ANTLERED ELK MUZZLELOADER 4261 NONRESIDENT ANTLERED ELK ARCHERY 4276 NONRESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK MUZZLELOADER 4281 NONRESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4300 SILVER STATE ANY ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4411 RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK MANAGEMENT ARCHERY 4476 RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK MANAGEMENT MUZZLELOADER 4481 RESIDENT ANTLERLESS ELK MANAGEMENT ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4500 NEVADA DREAM ANTLERED ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 4641 RESIDENT SPIKE ELK ARCHERY 4651 RESIDENT SPIKE ELK ANY LEGAL WEAPON 5132 RESIDENT EITHER SEX MOUNTAIN LION 5232 NONRESIDENT EITHER SEX MOUNTAIN LION 6151 RESIDENT BLACK BEAR ANY LEGAL WEAPON 6251 NONRESIDENT BLACK BEAR ANY LEGAL WEAPON

A-68

Page 219: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

TABLE 36. HUNT NUMBER DESCRIPTIONS

HUNT NUMBER HUNT DESCRIPTION

7000 RESIDENT PARTNERSHIP IN WILDLIFE ANY MOUNTAIN GOAT 7151 RESIDENT ANY MOUNTAIN GOAT ANY LEGAL WEAPON 7251 NONRESIDENT ANY MOUNTAIN GOAT ANY LEGAL WEAPON 8000 RESIDENT PARTNERSHIP IN WILDLIFE ANY RAM CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP 8100 RESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ANY RAM CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP 8151 RESIDENT ANY RAM CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP ANY LEGAL WEAPON 8181 RESIDENT ANY EWE CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP ANY LEGAL WEAPON 8200 NONRESIDENT WILDLIFE HERITAGE ANY RAM CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP 8251 NONRESIDENT ANY RAM CALIFORNIA BIGHORN ANY LEGAL WEAPON 8500 NEVADA DREAM ANY RAM CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP ALL WEAPONS 9151 RESIDENT ANY RAM ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP ANY LEGAL WEAPON 9251 NONRESIDENT ANY RAM ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP ANY LEGAL

WEAPON

A-69

Page 220: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

            

Page 221: STATE OF NEVADA publication will be made available in an alternative format upon request. Nevada Department of Wildlife receives funding through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!_(

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

051

163

066 081

041022

194

212

183

104 121154

173

133

231

115

223

268

271

251

242

011

012013

014

015

021

031033

032

034 035

046

043

042 044 045

061

062

064

065

067

078

071072

073075

076

077

091079

106102

103

107

105

108111

112113

114

131

134132

142

143 144

145

153 152

155

161162

164171

172

181

184182

192

195196

201 204

202

203

206

211

221

222

241

243

244

245

286

252

253

261262

263

264

265

266

267280 281

282 283

284

109

269

151

156

272

101068

205

207

213

254

208

141

291

Elko

BattleMountain

Winnemucca

Reno Fallon

CarsonCity

Hawthorne

Tonopah

Eureka

Ely

Las Vegas

§̈¦15

§̈¦15

§̈¦80

§̈¦80

£¤93

£¤95

£¤50 £¤50

£¤6

£¤95

£¤93

£¤95

£¤93

£¤395

!_( Capital

!. Large City

Management Units

Closed to Hunting

Interstate / US Highway

FApril 21, 2017

0 25 50 75 10012.5Miles

Projection: UTM Zone 11 North, NAD83

G a m e M a n a g e m e n t U n i t s 2017NEVADA

This map is for reference only. It is the users responsibility to know the unit boundarieson the ground and to determine the identity of the land owner prior to use. No warrantyis made by the Nevada Department of Wildlife as to the accuracy, reliability, orcompleteness of the data for individual use or aggregate use with other data.