Download - Deer Management Options
Deer Management Options
This discussion will deal with the various options available to
manage deer populations Collaborative Deer Management Outreach
Initiative Deer Mgmt. Options in NY- Geographic Scale
Management Option Geographic Scale Property Community Town WMU
State Recreational Hunting (DMPs) Deer-Vehicle Collisions:
Non-lethal methods Controlled Hunts Fertility Control Fencing/
Repellants Sharp-shooting/ T&T, T&K DMAP Deer Damage
Permits Deer Mgmt. Focus Areas General Targeted Here are the
various options well be discussing during this segment of our
webinar. Shown are the various geographic scales over which deer
management options are best applied. The options become
increasingly targeted as land area diminishes. Options that work on
a small, targeted scale are usually too costly, manpower intensive,
or impractical over large geographic areas.Well discuss all the
options shown here in this presentation. Letting Nature Take its
Course
White-tailed Deer Reproductive Potential Adult Fawn Left unchecked,
deer herdsquickly outgrow habitat Long-term habitat damage High
numbers incompatiblewith human interests Deer may be in poor health
Large populationfluctuations Lets start with doing nothing as an
option to manage deer populations. Some folks would like to see
nature take its course with deer populations, but a total absence
of management would be counter to our mission.That is to assure
that wildlife species remain secure and healthy, and that people
are not caused to suffer inordinately from wildlife. Deer are very
prolific and a single buck and doe, with no mortality, can grow
into 64 deer in six years.Without deer removal, herds would quickly
rise to levels incompatible with people and their activities and
interests. At these high densities in forested areas, deer may be
in relatively poor health, but in suburban areas, deer may actually
be in good health even at very high densities due to abundant and
diverse food sources, like your arborvitae bushes. When at the
upper limit of what the habitat can support, and with no
management, deer numbers could fluctuate wildly as well. Letting
Nature Take its Course
Many examples of harmful effects of non- management: Great Swamp
Natl Wildlife Refuge, NJ- starvation Block Island, RI- severe
ornamental damage Princeton, NJ- deer/vehicle collisions Monhegan
Island MN- increased tick abundance Yale Forest, CT- reduced forest
regeneration Removing human management does not return things to a
natural condition. There are many documented examples of the
harmful effects of the no management option, a few of which are
shown here. Deer have evolved for ages under intense predation and
hunting pressure.A strategy of doing nothing will not return the
system to a natural state, as it was pre-colonization when mountain
lions and wolves were present.Man has assumed the role of chief
predator on deer.Well address the reintroduction of large predators
a little later. Repellents and Fencing
Site-specific problems only Repellent effectiveness varies
Commercial products may be costly Fencing better for larger and
denser sites Many types of fences Both methods work best along with
populationmanagement Repellents and/or fencing are often tried to
reduce the harmful effects of too many deer.Repellent
effectiveness, however, varies with deer density, season,
alternative foods, hunting pressure, plant palatability, and
frequency of application.Plus, repellents will only be effective at
low deer densities. Although many commercial repellents exist, they
are usually costly, and often no better than dried blood meal, or
home mixtures containing putrescent eggs (thats rotten eggs for
those of you who behaved yourselves on Halloween). Physical
exclusion via fencing is a better strategy for larger or more
densely-populated sites, and there are many designs and cost
levels.Its often difficult however, for landowners to look past the
initial cost of installation and consider long-term cost
effectiveness.Some relatively inexpensive electrical fence designs
exist that run on batteries, are portable, and are of fairly low
visual impact.Landowners should check with their local municipality
when considering deer fencing, as fence type and height may be
regulated, or prohibited. Scaring as a technique is not listed
here, but can be lumped in with repellents in terms of
effectiveness, and most of the same factors apply.Varying the
timing and type of scaring will be most effective, as deer,
especially suburban deer, soon become accustomed to routine.
Devices that move, produce loud noises, flashing lights, and
spraying water, all can be purchased or made. Domestic dogs can be
surprisingly effective at keeping deer at bay, but should not be
allowed to run loose.Both fencing and repellents work best in
conjunction with a population management program. Non-Lethal Means
of Reducing Deer-Vehicle Collisions
Much has been tried;conclusive studies oftendifficult to find
Wildlife crossings andfencing currently the onlymethods proven
effective In areas with overabundant deer, reducing deer-vehicle
collisions is often a primary goal of communities, public health
agencies, law enforcement, and wildlife managers, and non-lethal
means are often sought. However, wildlife crossings, such as
bridges and widened culverts, and exclusionary fencing are the only
two methods that have been studied rigorously enough to be called
truly effective. Non-Lethal Means of Reducing Deer-Vehicle
Collisions
Two methods provenineffective:deer flaggingmodels and whistles Many
other methods tried, butall either need more researchor appear
ineffective. There are two methods of non-lethal control that have
been studied enough to be proven ineffective in reducing
deer-vehicle collisions: deer-flagging models, and car
whistles.Many other things have been tried, as you can see here,
but most either need further study or appear to be ineffective.
Need more research or appear ineffective: In-vehicle technologies
Roadway lighting Speed limit reductions De-icing alternatives Decoy
feeding stations Deer crossing signs Roadside reflectors Roadway
design Roadside clearing Providing Supplemental Food
Properly managed deer herds dont need it Artificially raises
biological carrying capacity Logistically difficult Expensive
Fosters disease transmission, vehicle collisions and predation
Over-browsing of nearby vegetation As a management strategy,
supplemental feeding to reduce winter starvation losses, is a bad
idea and seldom effective over the long term.Its also illegal in
New York State. Allowing more deer to survive, above and beyond
what resources nature can provide on her own (what biologists call
the Biological Carrying Capacity), may initially seem like a noble
thing to do.However when feeding is discontinued- and rest assured
it will be discontinued at some point when money or manpower or
enthusiasm runs out- adequate natural food supplies will be lacking
to carry the extra deer through winter.Winter feeding is also
illogical, as it encourages population growth while at the same
time acknowledging that there are too many deer for the natural
habitat to support on its own. It is also difficult to reach all
deer with a winter feeding program, especially in remote areas, due
to sheer numbers and logistics.And any time animals congregate in
large numbers, there is more animal to animal contact and an
increased risk of disease transmission.Lastly, drawing large
numbers of deer artificially to a location leads to overbrowsing of
nearby natural vegetation, and the negatives that come with that.
Trap & Transfer Logistically complex and expensive
Not always easy to find relocation sites Injury and capture
myopathy; survival rates may be low Possibility of spreading
disease May have some value, but generally impractical andtoo
expensive for free-ranging deer Trap and transfer includes
trapping, netting, and/or chemically immobilizing deer for the
purpose of capture and relocation.Its an operation that requires
substantial financial and logistical commitments in equipment and
trained personnel to pull off. Often it is difficult to find
relocation sites for captured deer, as communities may see
acceptance of deer as adding to an existing problem.There also
could be liability issues should a released deer cause injury or
damage in its new home. Survival rates of translocated deer may be
low as well. Deer may be injured during capture and transport, and
are susceptible to capture myopathy, a stress-related condition
that results in the delayed death of captured deer.This is an
important but often overlooked mortality factor in captured deer.
Capture myopathy is usually an issue for deer that are
nutritionally stressed. Lastly, moving deer from place to place
could spread disease, if the deer being moved should have an
unidentified and transmissible condition. Trap & Transfer may
have some value in the control of small isolated herds, but the
technique is generally impractical and prohibitively expensive for
free-ranging deer. Sharpshooting/Trap and Kill
May be useful in urban and suburban areas Quickest reduction method
Expensive; local taxpayers pay Venison usually donated Less
efficient than controlled hunting Can be controversial Denies
citizens recreation and venison Sharpshooting and/or trap &
kill, are often mentioned as ways to reduce deer numbers in urban
or suburban settings, especially when sufficient land for hunting
is lacking, and these methods are the quickest way to reduce a deer
population. One study done in Ohio determined sharpshooting to be
less efficient than controlled hunting though, when total costs
were evaluated. With these methods, deer are shot or trapped over
bait (usually shelled corn), typically by trained law enforcement
or wildlife agency personnel.But these methods are expensive, and
local taxpayers usually foot the bill.Venison from sharpshooting or
trap and kill programs is usually donated to food banks. In areas
where hunting is feasible (and even where it is not), sharpshooting
and trap & kill are often quite controversial.Not only do some
residents object to killing deer over bait, but these methods deny
citizens access to a renewable resource, and they eliminate the
recreational value of hunting. Can reproduction be managed?
Fertility Control Can reproduction be managed? Currently there are
only two methods for rendering a doe infertile: Immunocontraception
Surgical sterilization Lets look at each. Immunocontraception
Stopping normal fertilization or ovulation by the introduction of
an injected vaccine Two main types: PZP (Porcine Zona Pellucida)
GnRH (Gonadotropic Releasing Hormone) Both work by inducing the
production of antibodies that attack the does own system,
preventing fertilization or ovulation Fertility control is also
often brought up in discussions about non-lethal forms of deer
population management.Perhaps the most well-known form of fertility
control in deer is immunocontraception, or the use of
vaccines.There are two main types of immunocontraceptives that have
been used in deer, PZP, and GnRH and well look at them on the next
few slides.Both work by promoting antibody formation, but through
different mechanisms.A third type of chemical fertility control
exists, which is steroidally-based, but it carries significant
health risks for consumers of the treated venison.It is unlikely
that the EPA would ever register these steroid-based
immunocontraceptives.Chemical fertility control agents need to be
administered via intramuscular injection. Immunocontraception Both
work at individual level
Other issues with PZP Deer must be captured and tagged High
proportion of deer (90%+) must be treated Need annual boosters None
registered for use in NYS Considered experimental; permits needed
Viable only for small, isolated deer herds. Physiologically, both
types of immunocontraceptive vaccines effectively inhibit
reproduction in deer, but there are significant limitations. Deer
must be captured and tagged to determine which animals have been
treated.This increases the chance of injury in deer, and increases
equipment and manpower costs.A very high proportion of deer (90%+)
must be treated to see results even within a few years.IC vaccines
also require annual boosters to maintain effectiveness over time,
which means researchers must be able to tell treated deer from
non-treated, and keep up with the treatment schedule.No IC vaccines
are currently registered by NYSDEC or USDA for use in NYS.And as we
said, any use of immunocontraceptives in deer is considered
experimental and requires a DEC research permit. Because of these
limitations, immunocontraception remains a viable option only for
small isolated deer herds, and must be intensively and
carefullycarried out to be effective.It is costly, does nothing for
the existing population, must be done annually, and carries health
risks should anyone consume treated animals.In the case of PZP,
breeding activity is prolonged, burning critical energy that will
be needed to make it through winter.Lastly, everything must be done
under the auspices of a permit and as a bona fide research project.
Surgical Sterilization
One and done Veterinarians only Cost about $1,000 each,but rises
rapidly Experimental only;permits needed High proportion of
deer(90%+) must be treated Surgical sterilization is relatively new
as a method of deer population control, but because its a one and
done affair, it has much higher effectiveness than chemical
contraceptive methods.Although you might wonder why, once captured,
youd want to release a deer back into its overcrowded habitat, the
basic premise of surgical sterilization is that the treated and
released deer will still occupy her spot in the herd and habitat
(without being able to breed), preventing other deer from
emigrating in to fill the void. But like immunocontraception,
surgical sterilization is very scale-dependent and only viable for
small isolated populations.Surgery must be done by NYS-licensed
veterinarians, and although the long-term costs are less than those
for IC, the costs are still substantial.Costs rise rapidly as you
approach 80% of animals treated, as the most wary animals remain,
and it takes more effort to capture that last 20%.Cost per deer
treated is typically $1,000 per deer early on, but can quickly
rise. Like IC, surgical sterilization is still experimental, can
only be done under permit from DEC, and as bona fide research.Also
like IC, a high proportion of females (90%+) need to be treated to
see results within a few years. Predator Reintroduction
Wolves, mountain lions Can control a deer herd, but usually only at
lower deer densities Predator-prey interactions often complex and
variable Much of New York unsuitable habitat Must be biologically
feasible and sociallyacceptable The reintroduction of large
predators like wolves and mountain lions is an attractive option
supported by folks who would like to see a natural solution to deer
overpopulation, but it would need to be both biologically feasible
and socially acceptable. Portions of the state might possibly be
biologically feasible, but there is no guarantee these predators
would stay where you put them.Socially, the reintroduction of large
predators is highly unlikely to gain enough support.There would be
big concerns over the safety of humans, livestock, and pets.
Coyotes, bobcats, and bears do take deer, but not enough to control
deer populations at anything more than very low densities.It would
be very difficult to overcome the social barriers with this option.
Regulated Hunting Proven effective, efficient and inexpensive
All state agencies use Flexible Deer ManagementPermits (DMPs) main
tool Controlled hunts anoption May not be appropriate ordesired in
all locations (i.e. urban\suburban) Hunting is a method of deer
control that over time has proven itself to be effective, efficient
and inexpensive (its actually income-producing).Its also the main
tool used by all wildlife agencies in the U.S. for deer management.
Hunting is also flexible.There are many ways it can be configured
to meet particular management goals. Season length, season type,
bag limits, and the number of DMPs issued by unit are among the
things that can be manipulated. Controlled hunts may be a more
palatable option in certain areas, where there are concerns over
safety.These are hunts on which certain extra conditions are placed
to accomplish certain extra goals, such as increased safety, less
disturbance to other user groups, or data collection. There is a
fine line though, between hunter participation in controlled hunts
and loading them up with so many hoops that hunters are discouraged
from participating. Of course the only way to manage a deer
population is through the harvest of female deer, which are the
reproductive base of the population.In NY and elsewhere, this is
accomplished through the careful issuance of Deer Management
Permits, also known as DMPs or doe permits.This is done on a
Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) basis annually. Because of the
difficulty in telling adult females from fawns in the fall,
however, DMPs are actually valid for the taking of any antlerless
deer. Regulated Hunting May be additional options for hunting in
future(may need legislative or regulatory changes, though) Many
societal and ecological benefits of regulatedhunting: Gina Dermody
Many proven benefits of regulated hunting to society and the
environment above and beyond simple regulation of deer numbers:
Protection of forest and landscape plants from overbrowsing;
increased forest plant and animal diversity Maintenance of healthy
deer populations for future generations Fewer land-use conflicts
Fewer deer-vehicle collisions Lowered human disease risks Economic
benefits to communities Aesthetic and emotional benefits Regulated
Hunting Deer Management Focus Areas (DMFAs)
To assist communities manage overabundant deer Additional season
and antlerless tags In Tompkins Co Co.around Ithaca Deer Management
Focus Areas are a relatively new way to concentrate deer hunting
effort in and around communities with overabundant deer. There is
currently a DMFA in Tompkins County around Ithaca in portions of
three different WMAs.DMFA permit holders may shoot up to two
antlerless deer per day during the general hunting seasons, and two
per day during the special DMFA season, held for three weeks in
January. Regulated Hunting Deer Management Assistance Program
(DMAP)
Antlerless deer only Essentially a DMP for individual land parcels
Site-specific management Improves landowner-sportsman relations
Most issued for agricultural damage, but othercategories exist DMAP
stands for Deer Management Assistance Program.The dual goals of
DMAP are to provide site-specific damage relief to landowners, and
to improve relations between landowners and sportsmen.You can think
of a DMAP permit as basically just a DMP (or doe permit) for a
particular property or group of contiguous properties.Tags are for
antlerless deer only.Most DMAP permits are issued to farmers to
help reduce deer damage, but other application categories exist as
seen here.DMAP permits are for when deer problems can wait till
normal hunting season to be handled.Typically, the landowner
distributes his or her DMAP tags to hunters he feels can
successfully take deer on his property, be they family, friends, or
new acquaintances.About 5% of the yearly deer harvest in the state
comes from DMAP permits, and as with our other types of deer
hunting permits, hunters must report to us what they take. Also
for: Forest regeneration Municipalities Natural Communities Custom
deer management Land adjacent to unhuntable public land > 250
acres Deer Damage Permits (DDPs)
Mainly for farming, when damage cant wait tillseason Antlerless
deer only, with rare exceptions Many standard conditions
Participation in Venison Donation Program stronglyencouraged Only
2.5% of statewide deer take;3.6 deer/permit DDPs used more and more
for suburban deermanagement; cheaper than sharpshooting Deer Damage
Permits, what some call nuisance permits, are for deer damage
occurring outside season dates, and are issued to individual farms
to help with problems that cant wait till normal hunting season. By
law, we are obligated to issue a DDP if we feel shooting deer will
help problem. DDPs are for antlerless deer only as well, except for
rare cases when a permit is issued for bucks that are causing
antler rubbing damage to Christmas trees or nursery stock.Most deer
on DDPs are taken during late summer.There are many conditions
permittees must follow, including number of deer allowed,
restricted shooting hours, tagging and reporting requirements, and
implement restrictions. The statewide harvest on Deer Damage
Permits, is only about 2.5% of the total state deer harvest
annually.The average number of deer taken on DDPs is about three
and a half per farm, and participants are strongly encouraged to
donate deer taken to the Venison Donation program. Deer Harvest
Management in NY- Geographic Scale
Management Intensity Geographic Scale Property Community Town WMU
State Recreational Hunting (DMPs) Deer Mgmt. Focus Areas Extended
Seasons Post-Season Hunts DMAP Damage Permits Multi-WMU or WMU
Aggregate Regulations Just saying that hunting is used for deer
management in NY, while accurate, is pretty general though. Heres a
graphic much like the one we showed before, but this time showing
the scale at which the different hunting options are best applied.
As weve seen, deer are managed by hunting at many different levels
and through many different programs. Note that some programs have
applicability at multiple geographic levels and that management
intensity rises as geographic scale diminishes. We didnt talk about
post-season hunts because its pretty self descriptive, but the ECL
also allows for extended seasons, like the January firearms season
on Long Island, and post season hunts to address local management
needs. Community-based Deer Management
To finish up our discussion of deer control options, we need to
talk about one more topic. One of the hottest topics in wildlife
management in NY as well as the rest of the northeast is how
communities can overcome their urban and suburban deer problems.In
these areas, there are special factors that must be considered such
as intense landscape damage, firearms discharge ordinances, limited
hunting acreage, and heightened human safety concerns. The
Community-based Deer Management Process
Recognition of deer problem The ideal process should include the
following steps, but there are no hard and fast rules.The process
may bog down at any level, so patience is key. To start, there has
to be recognition within the community there is a deer problem
Recognition of a Deer Problem
High awareness of the issue within the community Clarification of
the problem Belief within the community that a problem existsand
something should be done The recognition of a deer problem usually
starts with a heightened awareness of the issue within the
community. Resolution of a community deer problem may not progress
beyond the recognition stage if there are not enough people in the
community that think there is a problem.There may be a problem, but
it may not rise to the level of needing to do something.Or there
may be more than one problem; for example, deer-vehicle collisions
and landscape damage.The problem should be clarified , and broken
down into its purest form to be properly addressed.For example, too
many deer isnt necessarily a problem, but too many deer-vehicle
collisions is. The Community-based Deer Management Process
Recognition of deer problem Define management objectives The ideal
process should include these steps, but there are no hard and fast
rules.The process may bog down at any level, so patience is key.
Define Management Objectives
Should relate to the problem (i.e., impacts) Does not require
knowing how many deer live in the community Easily measured Clear
objectives are critical- otherwise you wont know if youve
succeeded.Objectives should relate directly to the identified
problem, and should beimpacts-based.That means that improving the
negative things deer are doing should be the focus of attention and
when it comes time for evaluation. It doesnt matter how many deer
there are if negative impacts arent there.A lot of deer in and of
itself is not a problem, so knowing the exact number of deer in a
community isnt usually required.Nevertheless, population surveys
are among the first things folks call for so some education might
be in order.A good objective must also be easily measured.For
example, a 20% reduction in cases of Lyme disease, or deer-vehicle
collisions from 120 per year down to 40. Now The Community-based
Deer Management Process
Recognition of deer problem Define management objectives The ideal
process should include these steps, but there are no hard and fast
rules.The process may bog down at any level, so patience is key.
Identify acceptable management methods Identify Management
Methods
Acceptable to the community Reasonable cost Time to results
Potential for success The methods used to reach your objectives
should relate directly to the objectives.Selection factors include
cost, potential for success (however success is defined), time to
results, and the big one, public acceptance.The minimum standard
communities should strive for is what we call grudging consent.This
means that folks may not like what is agreed upon, but they go
along with it (grudgingly) because they feel their voice has been
heard, and they respect the decision-making process and how it has
been carried out.Any more support than grudging consent is gravy
and should be celebrated, because youve apparently done something
right! The Community-based Deer Management Process
Recognition of deer problem Define management objectives The ideal
process should include these steps, but there are no hard and fast
rules.The process may bog down at any level, so patience is key.
Identify acceptable management methods Select management actions
The Community-based Deer Management Process
Recognition of deer problem Define management objectives
Implementation The ideal process should include these steps, but
there are no hard and fast rules.The process may bog down at any
level, so patience is key. Identify acceptable management methods
Select management actions The Community-based Deer Management
Process
Recognition of deer problem Evaluation Define management objectives
Implementation The ideal process should include these steps, but
there are no hard and fast rules.The process may bog down at any
level, so patience is key. Identify acceptable management methods
Select management actions The Community-based Deer Management
Process
Recognition of deer problem Evaluation Define management objectives
Implementation The ideal process should include these steps, but
there are no hard and fast rules.The process may bog down at any
level, so patience is key. Identify acceptable management methods
Select management actions We can build capacity. . . Success is
Possible! in institutions
in communities in individuals Although it may take awhile (some
communities have been at it for years), success is possible.No one
should expect a total absence of deer-related problems, except in
the rarest of circumstances.Once a community has mastered the
process, they have greater ability, called capacity, to deal with
other, totally unrelated challenges as well. Success is Possible!
Help is Available There is a lot of literature available on
community based deer management, and many case studies to learn
from.Communities dont need to reinvent the wheel (although for some
reason many feel they need to) because the problems deer cause are
for the most part, universal.Dissemination and absorption of
information is a critical aspect of this process, and often a
community needs to wait a while as those that are less educated on
the subject catch up.There is no place in a community-based deer
management process for the withholding of information, political
agendas, or grandstanding.