For voters who care about animals and want the strongest laws possible to protect them.

Deer Ecology:

The white‐tailed deer is a keystone herbivore that has, very successfully, co‐evolved with forests for 3.4‐3.9 million years, through periods of ecological upheaval, not a mythical balance. Deer are an important factor in creating, and sustaining, natural diversity (Smithsonian); they are an important vector in seed dispersal, for native plants, and for some human‐introduced invasives. So are birds.

Once hunting starts, towns become entangled in the perpetual killing of deer, recreational or otherwise. There will be unintended ecological consequences. When killing begins, rarely are ethical and humane imperatives addressed. The killing of the natural deer population within your community will lead to higher reproduction, a changed age structure, setting in motion a cascade of events.

At the very least, practices that stimulates deer fertility should be abandoned. This includes opening forest canopies, controlled burns, or clear‐ cutting. Habitat management is based on white‐tailed deer breeding ecology. Scientists uniformly report that well‐fed does breed earlier, and bear more fawns. (Abler et al, J. Wildl. Manage, 40 (3): 1976)

In natural (unhunted) populations, birth and death rates reach a balance, so that the net rate of increase becomes zero and the populations numbers stabilize at some equilibrium level (Putman 1989).

If deer are seeking refuge within the community, look at nearby areas where deer hunts (permit, depredation, etc.) might be taking place as the culprit. It's important to look at where the white‐tail is pushed and pulled, by hunting, by habitat enhancement, and by conservation politics. In response to killing programs, female deer increase their home range by an average of 30% (Henderson, Warren et al 2000). Hunting increases birth rates, or keeps rates high.

The editors of the Smithsonian publication, The Science of Overabundance, counsel caution: We therefore caution that in the absence of adequate empirical understanding of forest ecosystem dynamics, management should not continue to reduce deer numbers systematically in order to enhance woody tree production because this may have dire consequences for the entire ecosystem.

In the absence of hunting, birth rates decline. In areas where managers halt habitat development (deer‐preferred crops, early succession), the result is fewer deer. White‐tailed deer on poorer range showed ovulation rates 67% of those attained by deer on good range (Julander et al 1961)

Recent studies, other considerations, and deer ecology:

1. A 2008 study at Ohio State University found that the presence of deer is actually helpful to other animal species, and that programs to reduce their populations may be detrimental to a regions biodiversity. “Culling deer may cascade into affecting plants, salamanders and other creatures in ways we can’t even imagine," said OSU researcher Katherine Greenwald. GREENWALD, K. R., PETIT, L. J. and WAITE, T. A. (2008), Indirect Effects of a Keystone Herbivore Elevate Local Animal Diversity. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 72: 1318‐1321. doi: 10.2193/2007‐491 LINK: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/deer.htm

Ohio State University Research News, “Snakes, Salamanders, and Other Creatures Thrive in Areas with Higher Deer Populations.” Katherine Greenwald is co‐author of the above, linked study, “Indirect Effects of a Keystone Herbivore Elevate Local Animal Diversity” Ohio State Research: “We need to be aware of what’s happening in these forest ecosystems. Culling deer may cascade into affecting plants, salamanders, and other creatures in ways we can’t even imagine. So before we start removing deer we should study what’s really happening in these areas because there are a whole host of other issues that go along with culling,” she said.

2. A 2010 Yale University study found that deer are not a leading factor in determining variation in vegetation impacts across western Connecticut: The empirical basis for presumptions that white‐tailed deer cause forest regeneration failure is limited. Source: “Regional‐Scale Assessment of Deer Impacts on Vegetation Within Western Connecticut, USA,” A. Rutherford and O. Schmitz.m Journal of Wildlife Management 74(6):1257–1263; 2010; DOI: 10.2193/2009‐068 Regional‐Scale Assessment of Deer Impacts on Vegetation Within Western Connecticut, USA, ANGELA C. RUTHERFORD, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 370 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA OSWALD J. SCHMITZ, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 370 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA Abstract: High densities of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are believed to cause broad‐scale forest regeneration failure and loss of plant diversity. But, the empirical basis for such presumptions is limited. We, therefore, conducted a survey in western Connecticut,USA, woodlots to examine how spatial variation in deer densities influences variation in impacts on plant species abundance, identity and diversity, and tree regeneration. We also used a Geographic Information System to quantify trends between land‐cover type and deer density. Deer density was not correlated with any vegetation or land use variable. This suggests that deer density is not a leading factor determining variation in vegetation impacts across western Connecticut. See full study here: http://www.mediafire.com/view/umuk8pqdx7ne77a/G‐ RutherfordSchmitz2010.pdf

3. Studies in Virginia (Cross and McShea et al 2003) found that deer affect “only the smaller stage classes of trees likely to die due to other limiting factors” and do not, as the Service plan says, affect forest canopy diversity unless other disturbances, many proposed by the Service, are present. We include an extended excerpt below. Forest Succession: “A Case Study of White‐tailed Deer Impacts in Virginia” Paul C. Cross, William McShea, Thomas M. Smith

Conclusion: There are particular points in time when the direction and speed of forest succession is sensitive to deer browsing. In the absence of large‐scale disturbances the forest canopy is resistant to change despite large amounts of under‐story herbivory. In these situations, it may take several hundred years for browsing to effect a switch in the dominant components of the canopy. This is due to the low resource availability and type III survivorship curve exhibited by most tree species. Deer affect only the smaller stage classes of trees likely to die due to other limiting factors.

Source: A 2008 Connecticut Extension Service study reported that "smaller canopy trees seemed to benefit from deer browsing." (some larger do not) Species diversity was generally higher outside of deer exclosures.

4. Another study showed that some forest understory‐dwelling birds benefit from deer‐grazing, and that the presence of deer decreased populations of rodents that preyed on ground birds nests. Source: The impact of herbivory by deer on forest bird communities in Japan, Acta Zoologica Sinica 52(Supplement): 684‐686, 2006 LINK: http://www.actazool.org/temp/{3D9750D2‐E344‐41DA‐A4D0‐19D7115A718E}.pdf Quote from above study/link (P. 686): For example, McShea (2000) demonstrated that deer decreased the survival of rodents by eating acorns, thereby increasing the number of birds as a result of a drop in nest predation by rodents. Therefore, deer herbivory has both positive and negative effects on forest ecosystems, just as it has on forest bird communities. Determining the number of deer that would maintain the most diverse forest ecosystem is a complicated but challenging problem.

5. 2004 studies conclude that "white‐tailed deer represent a significant and previously unappreciated vector of seed dispersal across the North American landscape, probably contributing an important long‐distance component to the seed shadows of hundreds of plant species, and providing a mechanism to help explain rapid rates of plant migration."

Article: http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~vellend/Myers_Vellend_etal_Oecologia_2004.pdf Myers JA, Vellend M, Gardescu S, Marks PL. Oecologia. 2004 Mar;139(1):35‐44. Epub 2004 Jan 22. Oecologia. 2004 Mar;139(1):35‐44. Epub 2004 Jan 22. Seed dispersal by white‐tailed deer: implications for long‐distance dispersal, invasion, and migration of plants in eastern North America. Myers JA1, Vellend M, Gardescu S, Marks PL.

Abstract: For many plant species in eastern North America, short observed seed dispersal distances (ranging up to a few tens of meters) fail to explain rapid rates of invasion and migration. This discrepancy points to a substantial gap in our knowledge of the mechanisms by which seeds are dispersed long distances. We investigated the potential for white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus Zimm.), the dominant large herbivore in much of eastern North America, to disperse seeds via endozoochory. This is the first comprehensive study of seed dispersal by white‐tailed deer, despite a vast body of research on other aspects of their ecology. More than 70 plant species germinated from deer feces collected over a 1‐year period in central New York State, USA. Viable seeds included native and alien herbs, shrubs, and trees, including several invasive introduced species, from the full range of habitat types in the local flora. A mean of >30 seeds germinated per fecal pellet group, and seeds were dispersed during all months of the year. A wide variety of presumed dispersal modes were represented (endo‐ and exozoochory, wind, ballistic, ant, and unassisted). The majority were species with small‐seeded fruits having no obvious adaptations for dispersal, underscoring the difficulty of inferring dispersal ability from diaspore morphology. Due to their broad diet, wide‐ranging movements, and relatively long gut retention times, white‐tailed deer have tremendous potential for effecting long‐distance seed dispersal via ingestion and defecation. We conclude that white‐tailed deer represent a significant and previously unappreciated vector of seed dispersal across the North American landscape, probably contributing an important long‐distance component to the seed shadows of hundreds of plant species, and providing a mechanism to help explain rapid rates of plant migration.

6. Researchers who allowed white‐tailed deer to feed on plots of saplings while keeping other plots off‐limits found that the healthiest communities, where young trees were diverse and vigorous, grew where deer foraged. Reference: DiTommaso A, Morris S, Parker J, Cone C, Agrawal A. Deer Browsing Delays Succession by Altering Aboveground Vegetation and Belowground Seed Banks. Plos ONE [serial online]. March 2014;9(3):1‐9.

7. Deer also prevent forest fires. http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/19/tiny‐fungi‐replay‐the‐fall‐of‐the‐giant‐ beasts/#.UUjC2x4kX1I.reddit