Table 4.4. Adult female age structure from hunter-killed and captured 

 mule deer, expressed as percentages in each age class. 



Age in Years 



Year N 1 2 3-6 7+ 



28 37 



54 17 



37 20 



40 30 



37 11 



41 23 



36 18 



50 10 



47 18 



35 17 



38 17 



33 6 



42 10 

 40 12 

 85 11 



43 17 



For example, yearlings were relatively poorly represented in 

 the population during autumn 1962 and 1963 (Table 4.4) as 

 expected based on relatively poor fawn recruitment during 1961 

 and 1962 as compared with 1960 and 1963. Poor recruitment of 

 the 1983 and 1984 cohorts was also indicated by the hunter- 

 killed samples (Table 4.4). 



There was little difference in age structure for a period 

 of high harvest rates for females (1960-1964) and a period of 

 no harvest of females (1978-1981, Table 4.4). Females had not 

 been legally harvested for 6 years prior to autumn 1981. The 

 period of 1978-1981 was a time of population growth and young 

 deer were well represented in the population. 



Modeled estimates of age structure each year from 1968 

 through 1986 are shown in Fig. 4.9. The model added the 

 number of fawns recruited from each cohort starting with 1960, 

 and annually reduced those numbers based on estimates of 

 hunting and winter losses and dispersal, before advancing it 

 to the next age class. Age-specific differences in mortality 

 (Chapter 6) were also considered. For years when data were 



96 



