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.