Peer Reviewed White-Tailed Deer Management Practices on Private Lands in Arkansas BRET A. COLLIER, 1,2 Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA DAVID G. KREMENTZ, United States Geological Survey Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA Abstract Development of management plans for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) requires that states examine how multiple biological and regulatory factors (i.e., season timing, hunting access, bag limits) influence populations. In the southeastern United States, harvest restrictions often exceed state regulations on private lands. Thus, better information regarding harvest management on private lands is needed by wildlife agencies when developing management plans. We received responses from 1,184 white-tailed deer hunting camps registered in the Arkansas Deer Camp Program (DCP) to evaluate management practices used on private lands in Arkansas. We found that 60% of respondents used harvest restrictions in excess of state regulations. Most differences in harvest restrictions were attributed to involvement in Quality Deer Management (QDM) programs. Harvest restrictions also differed by property ownership class and deer management unit (DMU). Hunting camps were more likely to be under QDM when working with Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) biologists. Camps under QDM were more likely to use restrictions limiting harvest of adult males. Aggregate effects of localized management (e.g., age- and sex-specific harvest) may influence population structure over broad geographic scales. Therefore, comprehensive management planning and evaluation of white-tailed deer harvest regulations must consider the multitude of harvest practices implemented by private land managers. We recommend that state wildlife management agencies conduct population studies to determine impacts of localized harvest restrictions on population dynamics occurring at broader geographic areas. (WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN 34(2):307–313; 2006) Key words Arkansas, Deer Camp Program, Odocoileus virginianus, population management, Quality Deer Management, regulations, selective harvest, survey, white-tailed deer. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) population manage- ment is a challenge for state wildlife agencies (hereafter agencies). State wildlife agencies use hunting regulations to manipulate population age structure, sex ratio, or size to levels that are biologically and socially desirable (Demarais et al. 2000). Concomitantly, as with many species, harvest management practices are controversial, rarely justified though scientific experimentation, and frequently confounded by limited knowl- edge of underlying biological processes (Nichols et al. 1995, Williams and Johnson 1995). White-tailed deer management planning historically was based on information collected from harvested individuals (Roseberry and Woolf 1991). This is a nonrepresentative sample of the true population (Carpenter 2000, Ditchkoff et al. 2000). Although this approach may not be optimal for management (Lubow et al. 1996), it is successfully used by some state wildlife agencies. Harvest management programs using selective harvest criteria (Carpenter and Gill 1987, Strickland et al. 2001) may increase bias towards specific age–sex classes, further reducing an agency’s ability to base regulatory planning on harvest data. In Arkansas, statewide harvest regulations attempt to restrict the harvest of young male deer by imposing an antler restriction (Carpenter and Gill 1987, Strickland et al. 2001). This is accomplished by restricting the male harvest to those individuals with 3 points on a single beam. Approximately 95% of white- tailed deer harvest is on private lands (D. Harris, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Ark., USA, personal commu- nication). Accordingly, in Arkansas harvest management decisions have been based on data mostly obtained from private lands. While considerable research has been directed at determining opinions and preferences of hunters and landowners toward population management (Diefenbach et al. 1997, Green et al. 1997, Stout et al. 1997, Lauber and Knuth 2004), little information is available regarding the processes used by these groups to manipulate localized white-tailed deer populations to meet these expectations. At small scales it may not be biologically meaningful to scrutinize harvest-induced changes in age structure, sex ratio, or abundance given mobility of individual deer. However, activities at the local scale when compounded over a region or state have greater potential to influence dynamics of white-tailed deer populations. Limited availability of public lands for wildlife-related recreation and increased hunter interest in white-tailed deer management (Woods et al. 1996) have caused many sportsmen to become involved in hunting organizations on private lands. The Arkansas Deer Camp Program (DCP) was developed to provide landowners and/or hunting camps on private lands (privately owned or leased) with management assistance from Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) biologists. For a hunting camp to be involved in the DCP, the camp must own or lease 200 acres and have 6 members. Hunting camps involved in DCP benefit from increased AGFC technical assistance from private land biologists on harvest and habitat management and are allowed to check harvested deer onsite rather than at local check stations. Information on harvest management practices used on private lands is necessary to assist agencies with regulatory processes. 1 E-mail: bret@tamu.edu 2 Present address: Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA Collier and Krementz  Private Land Deer Management 307