Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species?

Abstract Remote camera use by hunters offers the potential to collect citizen‐derived data on multiple species using hunter surveys, but the effectiveness of this approach is untested. We examine whether observations from remote cameras that hunters use at their black bear (Ursus americanus) bait si...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Conservation Science and Practice
Main Authors: Ellen M. Candler, William J. Severud, Dean E. Beyer Jr, Brian Frawley, Joseph K. Bump
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2022
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.570
https://doaj.org/article/4c3dab98c8a54cc190cbb2d95f4fd539
id ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:4c3dab98c8a54cc190cbb2d95f4fd539
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:4c3dab98c8a54cc190cbb2d95f4fd539 2023-05-15T15:50:50+02:00 Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species? Ellen M. Candler William J. Severud Dean E. Beyer Jr Brian Frawley Joseph K. Bump 2022-01-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.570 https://doaj.org/article/4c3dab98c8a54cc190cbb2d95f4fd539 EN eng Wiley https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.570 https://doaj.org/toc/2578-4854 2578-4854 doi:10.1111/csp2.570 https://doaj.org/article/4c3dab98c8a54cc190cbb2d95f4fd539 Conservation Science and Practice, Vol 4, Iss 1, Pp n/a-n/a (2022) baiting black bear camera trap hunter survey hunting index Ecology QH540-549.5 General. Including nature conservation geographical distribution QH1-199.5 article 2022 ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.570 2022-12-31T16:31:20Z Abstract Remote camera use by hunters offers the potential to collect citizen‐derived data on multiple species using hunter surveys, but the effectiveness of this approach is untested. We examine whether observations from remote cameras that hunters use at their black bear (Ursus americanus) bait sites and reported via hunter surveys are an effective method to monitor species. We compared data collected from pseudo‐bear bait sites established for this study to hunter established bear bait site observations from the same study area. We also quantified observations reported on hunter surveys as a landscape index alternative to white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hunter indices, gray wolf (Canis lupus) surveys, and mustelid (Mustelidae) trapper indices. We did not detect a difference in hunter‐reported camera observations versus our observations for four of the six species recorded at pseudo‐bear bait sites. Hunters were over nine times more likely to report photographing wolves and nearly one third as likely to report photographing mustelids. We observed a relationship between trapper survey‐derived mustelid indices and the camera‐derived index, but not for deer or wolves. Foremost, these results emphasize the need to further evaluate the utility of remote camera data derived from hunters. The widespread use of remote cameras by hunters, the low‐cost of hunter surveys, and the potential to collect accurate community composition and occurrence/presence indices, points to the value of adding questions to hunter surveys regarding multiple species of interest. Article in Journal/Newspaper Canis lupus gray wolf Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Conservation Science and Practice 4 1
institution Open Polar
collection Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles
op_collection_id ftdoajarticles
language English
topic baiting
black bear
camera trap
hunter survey
hunting
index
Ecology
QH540-549.5
General. Including nature conservation
geographical distribution
QH1-199.5
spellingShingle baiting
black bear
camera trap
hunter survey
hunting
index
Ecology
QH540-549.5
General. Including nature conservation
geographical distribution
QH1-199.5
Ellen M. Candler
William J. Severud
Dean E. Beyer Jr
Brian Frawley
Joseph K. Bump
Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species?
topic_facet baiting
black bear
camera trap
hunter survey
hunting
index
Ecology
QH540-549.5
General. Including nature conservation
geographical distribution
QH1-199.5
description Abstract Remote camera use by hunters offers the potential to collect citizen‐derived data on multiple species using hunter surveys, but the effectiveness of this approach is untested. We examine whether observations from remote cameras that hunters use at their black bear (Ursus americanus) bait sites and reported via hunter surveys are an effective method to monitor species. We compared data collected from pseudo‐bear bait sites established for this study to hunter established bear bait site observations from the same study area. We also quantified observations reported on hunter surveys as a landscape index alternative to white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hunter indices, gray wolf (Canis lupus) surveys, and mustelid (Mustelidae) trapper indices. We did not detect a difference in hunter‐reported camera observations versus our observations for four of the six species recorded at pseudo‐bear bait sites. Hunters were over nine times more likely to report photographing wolves and nearly one third as likely to report photographing mustelids. We observed a relationship between trapper survey‐derived mustelid indices and the camera‐derived index, but not for deer or wolves. Foremost, these results emphasize the need to further evaluate the utility of remote camera data derived from hunters. The widespread use of remote cameras by hunters, the low‐cost of hunter surveys, and the potential to collect accurate community composition and occurrence/presence indices, points to the value of adding questions to hunter surveys regarding multiple species of interest.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Ellen M. Candler
William J. Severud
Dean E. Beyer Jr
Brian Frawley
Joseph K. Bump
author_facet Ellen M. Candler
William J. Severud
Dean E. Beyer Jr
Brian Frawley
Joseph K. Bump
author_sort Ellen M. Candler
title Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species?
title_short Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species?
title_full Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species?
title_fullStr Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species?
title_full_unstemmed Untrapped potential: Do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species?
title_sort untrapped potential: do bear hunter cameras accurately index nontarget species?
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2022
url https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.570
https://doaj.org/article/4c3dab98c8a54cc190cbb2d95f4fd539
genre Canis lupus
gray wolf
genre_facet Canis lupus
gray wolf
op_source Conservation Science and Practice, Vol 4, Iss 1, Pp n/a-n/a (2022)
op_relation https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.570
https://doaj.org/toc/2578-4854
2578-4854
doi:10.1111/csp2.570
https://doaj.org/article/4c3dab98c8a54cc190cbb2d95f4fd539
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.570
container_title Conservation Science and Practice
container_volume 4
container_issue 1
_version_ 1766385854305009664