Beaver

Data Analysis
and
Field Research 2005
Paul W Saunders
Wildlife Division
Newfoundland and Labrador
 Rational
• Concerns about current and historical
beaver populations has been raised in
previous Furbearer Management
p g p
plans.
• These concerns were brought forth
primarily
p y by
y trappers
pp on the Northern
Peninsula, Zone 11, and indicated that
populations in this area had declined to a
point
i t where
h it b
became uneconomical i l tto
pursue further trapping activities.
 Hypotheses
• Hypothesis 1: The observed trends in
catch rates could be explained by changes
g beaver p
in the average price p
paid by
y yyear.
• Hypothesis 2: The breakdown in
relationshipp between p price and catch rate
after 2002 could be explained if existing
populations declined to the point where
h
harvest t could
ld nott be
b increased
i d even with
ith a
substantial increase in price.
 Review of Existing Beaver Data
• The period from 1995 – 2004 included
sufficient information for the analysis of
trends for all beaver management zones
on the island of Newfoundland.
 Data Sources
• WMIS
– Active Trappers per Year
• Arcgis
– Area Trapped by Zone
• Trapper Returns
• Furbearer Management
g Working
g Files
– Average Pelt Prices
– Catch Rates p
per Zone
Analysis of Existing Beaver Data
• To standardize the data
data, due to the size
difference in beaver management zones,
harvest data was converted to the catch
rate per Km2 for each zone by year.
• To make it easier to see any trends
apparent in the data, trendlines using forth
order polynomials for best fit
fit, were
constructed and plotted using excel
 Fig. 1 Catch Rate of Beaver per km2 of Active Traplines by Zone

Catch /KM2 Active Traplines

Zone 11 Active KM2 Zone 10 Active KM2 Zone 9 Active KM2 Zone 8 Active KM2
Zone 7 Active KM2 Zone 6 Active KM2 Zone 5 Active KM2 Zone 4 Active KM@
Zone 3 Active KM2 Zone 2 Active KM2 Zone 1 Active KM2
0.25

0.2

0.15
Catch Rate/KM2

0.1

0.05

0
1995 96
1995-96 1996 97
1996-97 1997 98
1997-98 1998 99
1998-99 1999 00
1999-00 2000 01
2000-01 2001 02
2001-02 2002 03
2002-03 2003 04
2003-04 2004 05
2004-05
Year
 Fig. 2 Trendlines for the Catch Rate per km2 of Active Traplines by Zone.

Catch /KM2 Active Trendlines

Poly. (Zone 11 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 10 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 9 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 8 Active KM2)
Poly. (Zone 7 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 6 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 5 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 4 Active KM@)
Poly. (Zone 3 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 2 Active KM2) Poly. (Zone 1 Active KM2)
0.25

0.2

0.15
h Rate/KM2
Catch

2
0.1 R = 0.9119

2
0.05 R = 0.9557
2 2
0.5321
0.8168
R2 = 0.2119
R2 = 0.6421
R = 0.7229
0.5814
2
R2 = 0.8504
R = 0.7054

2
R = 0.8844
0
1995 96
1995-96 1996 97
1996-97 1997 98
1997-98 1998 99
1998-99 1999 00
1999-00 2000 01
2000-01 2001 02
2001-02 2002 03
2002-03 2003 04
2003-04 2004 05
2004-05
Year
 Fig. 3 Average Beaver Pelt Price for the Period 1995-2004

A
Average P
Price
i Beaver
B
Average Price
Poly. (Average Price)
35

30

2
R = 0.7375
25

20
Price

15

10

0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Year
 Nu
umber Harvested
19
63

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
-6
19 4
65
-6
19 6
67
-6
19 8
69
-7
19 0
71
-7
19 2
73
-7
19 4
75
-7
19 6
77
-7
19 8
79
-8
19 0
81
-8
19 2
83
-8
19 4
85
-8

Year
19 6
87
-8
19 8
89
-9
19 0
91
Beaver Harvest 1963 - 2004

-9
19 2
Fig. 4 Beaver Harvest 1963 – 2004

93
-9
19 4
95
-9
19 6
97
-9
19 8
99
-0
20 0
01
-0
20 2
03
-0
4
Series1
Table 1 Regression Analysis Catch Rate km2 and Annual Beaver Pelt Price

Regression Analysis
1995-2002 1995-2004
Zone R Square P-Value R Square P-Value
1 0.13856 0.363847 0.003244 0.875788
2 0.459559 0.064656 0.129894 0.306279
3 0.192984 0.276149 0.220607 0.170792
4 0.404221 0.090195 0.392131 0.052748
5 0.241301 0.216394 0.069794 0.460766
6 0.332128 0.134846 0.112165 0.344172
7 0.531048 0.040302 0.185927 0.213441
8 0.440591 0.072675 0.064902 0.477497
9 0.6712 0.012831 0.285175 0.111836
10 0.573787 0.029486 0.182625 0.218006
11 0.650475 0.015581 0.188432 0.210038
AllNF 0.574724 0.029275 0.192732 0.204326
 Discussion of Results:
• All beaver management zones on the island of
Newfoundland have experienced a decline in
catch rates since 1995.
• 1995 – 2004 catch rate was positively related to
price (r2 = 0.19, P = 0.20) but did not show a
significant relationship.
• 1995 -2002 a strong positive relationship
b
becomes apparent ((r2 = 0.57,
0 P=0 0.029).
029)
Discussion of Results: (con’t)
(con t)
• This relationship was significant for 8
zones for the period 1995 -2002 but for
onlyy 1 zone when data for 2003 and 2004
was added.
• Averageg pprice for beaver was the highest
g
in 2003, $32.33.
• Did not approach
pp the catch rates seen in
1995 and 1996 when the average price
was lower.
Discussion of Results: (con’t)
(con t)
• Support for hypothesis 2: the total area
trapped on the island has increased since
1995 (r2 = 0.63,
0 63 P = 0.005)
0 005)
• The corresponding catch rate per km2 for
this period declined
declined, (r2 = 0
0.61,
61 P = 0
0.007)
007)
 Fig. 5 Total Area of Beaver Taplines Trapped on the Island 1995 – 2004

T l Area
Total A Trapped
T d km2
k 2
All Zones
Total Area Trapped km2
Linear (Total Area Trapped km2)
56000

2
55000 R = 0.6389

54000

53000

52000
km2

51000

50000

49000

48000

47000
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Year
 Fig. 6 Catch Rate per km2 Island of Newfoundland, 1995 -2004

Catch Rate per km2 Catch Rate km2

Island of Newfoundland Linear (Catch Rate km2)
0.1

0.09

0.08

0.07
er Caught per km2
2

0.06

0.05
Numbe

0.04

2
0.03 R = 0.6188

0 02
0.02

0.01

0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Year
 Supporting Field Research
• To answer questions concerning current
beaver population densities and its
relationship to observed catch rates a
representative survey of beaver traplines
was conducted
conducted.
• Surveys to be coupled with personal
interviews of associated trappers
trappers.
 Supporting Field Research
• 2 traplines from 2 zones will be surveyed
using helicopter.
– Zone 11
• Trapline # 568 (80.9 km2) and 334 (101.1 km2)
– Zone 10
• Trapline# 598 (88.8 km2) and 287 (80.2 km2)
 Supporting Field Research
• Population Status for each trapline was
derived according to Bergerud et. al.,
1961.
1961
– <1 inactive lodge/active lodge – Increasing
– 1-2
1 2 inactive lodges/active lodge – Stable
– >2 inactive lodges/active lodges - declining
 Supporting Field Research
• Population density for each trapline was
derived according to Bergerud et. al.,
1961.
1961
– Low <.2 active lodges Km2
– Medium .2-.4
2 4 active lodges Km2
– High >.4 active lodges Km2
Supporting Field Research

Zone Trapline Area Active Active/km2 Inactive Ratio inactive/active Density Status
11 568 80.9 2 0.02 11 5.50 low declining
11 334 101.1 9 0.09 21 2.33 low declining
10 598 88.8 17 0.19 57 3.35 low declining
10 287 80.2 18 0.22 22 1.22 medium stable

Zone Year Location Active/Km2 Ratio inactive/active Density Status

11 1961 Salmon River 1.16 1.70 High Stable
11 1969 Ten Mile Lake 0.08 1.90 Low Stable
11 1969 Main Brook 0.23 1.30 Medium Stable
10 1961 Deer Lake 0.15 1.60 Low Stable
10 1969 Silver Mountain 0.04 1.00 Low Stable
 Supporting Field Research
• Population on 3 traplines surveyed are
declining 1 is borderline stable.
• Density of beaver in Zone 11 has declined
but some improvement can be seen in
Zone 10.
• The ratio of inactive lodges/active lodges
g significantly
has not changed g y since the
1960’s.(x2=6.00, df=4, zone 11 and
x2=1.65, df=4, Zone 10)
 Beaver Km2
Zone 10 and Zone 11

1.4

12
1.2

1938
0.8 1940
Beaver Km2

1941
1961
06
0.6 1969
2005

0.4

0.2

0
10 11
Fur Zone
 Supporting Field Research
• Deciduous browse not available in Zone
11.
• Main species coverage in Zone 11 is grass
or coniferous. In Zone 10 main species
coverage is coniferous
coniferous, deciduous or
shrub.
 Beaver Survey 2005

60

50

40
Number of Lodges

Zone 11 334
Zone 11 568
30
Zone 10 598
Zone 10 287

20

10

0
fir spruce alder birch aspen popular other
Main Browse Species
 Beaver Survry 2005

70

60

50
P e rrc e n t C o v e ra g e

40 Zone 11 334
Zone 11 568
Zone 10 598
30 Zone 10 287

20

10

0
coniferous deciduous cutover shrub grass
Species Composition
 Supporting Field Research
• In Zone 11 we have beaver lodges in
small ponds located in the center of bogs.
May be related to lack of deciduous
browse.
• Large number of lodges in Zone 10
located on streams. This is not the same
for Zone 11 where most stream banks
have become meadows.
 Beaver Survey 2005

50

45

40

35
Number of Lodges

30
Zone 11 334
Zone 11 568
25
Zone 10 598
Zone 10 287
20

15

10

0
stream pond bog barren
Lodge Locaion
 Conclusions
• Beaver density in Zone 11 has declined
from historical levels. Densities in Zone
g y
10 have remained stable or slightly
increased.
• Habitat differences between Zone 11 and
Zone 10 were apparent.
• Movement of into bogs g in Zone 11 could
be related to lack of available browse
species.
 Conclusions
• The number of beaver taken in on Zone 10
traplines are does not reflex lodge density.
• The number of beaver taken on Zone 11
traplines appears to be a function of lodge
density.
density
 Beaver Catch by Trapline

40

35

30

25
N u m b e r o f B e a v e rrs

Zone 11 334
Zone 11 568
20
Zone 10 287
Zone 10 598
15

10

0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
 Future Research
• Personal interviews with trappers to be
conducted in January.
• Habitat difference between Zone 10 and
Zone 11 to be evaluated in the Spring and
Summer 2006
2006.
• Beaver productivity to be determined in
b th Z
both Zones iin 2006
2006.