<<

December 2016 WSFNR-16-51

The Impact of Predators on in the Southeast

David A. Osborn and Mark D. McConnell

In the Southeast, white-tailed deer have multiple predators and individuals sometimes are killed by those predators. However, healthy deer herds can and do coexist in places with abundant predators. Although it is easy to dismiss the role of predators as purely negative when regarding deer management, it is important to remember that predators are a natural and normal part of a healthy, well-managed ecosystem. To assume predators have no beneficial purpose in deer management is to ignore the facts. However, when predator populations become too abundant and affect our deer management goals, an open discussion regarding the appropriate management action is justified. Predator reductions via trapping/shooting, management, and/ changes in deer harvest are all possible options that require careful and calculated review of available facts. The answer is not a landscape without predators. That approach has led to drastic overabundance of deer populations that degrade habitat for many wildlife species. In this document we will discuss the current state of knowledge (i.e. scientific evidence) about predators as related to white-tailed deer in the Southeast, what management options are available, and the effectiveness of those options.

DEFINING WHITETAIL PREDATORS In general, deer predators are -sized, or larger, mam- mals and sometimes even the American . rarely prey on deer but sometimes kill fawns when larger -related predators ( and ) are missing. Deer Predators Feral are opportunistic feeders which might occasion- The primary deer predators in the Southeast are typically ally prey on fawns, but research has not shown them to be coyotes, , and black with the exception of cou- important predators of deer. In the very limited areas gars and red wolves where they exist. Other predators such as foxes, feral pigs, domestic and kill deer where they are found in the Southeast, red wolves and infrequently and do not pose a serious threat to deer popula- are deer- specialists. In the absence of tions. larger and coyotes, bobcats can be the main predator of fawns and sometimes adult deer. Domestic dogs some- times kill deer but probably have little effect on deer num- bers. Although reported in the northern 43, it is rare for black bears to kill adult white-tailed deer. How- ever, since first reported in 1982 35, black bears are known to be important predators of fawns in some locations. Across the Southeast, coyotes are a major predator of deer. It was once believed coyotes killed only fawns and old or sick adult deer. Evidence now suggests that coyotes sometimes prey on all segments of the deer herd. Howev- er, recent research has shown they likely take few adult deer 26. Photo: Shane Roberts How Researchers Monitor Predators The most obvious signs that deer predators exist on a property likely are foot prints (i.e., tracks) and scat (feces). Learning to identify tracks and scat is the first step to predator identification. Wildlife biologists use man-made track stations to inventory predators. In addition, they collect scat to determine predator diets and sometimes to collect DNA samples. From these DNA samples they can identify predator species and sometimes even individual bobcats, coyotes or other predators 17. Individual identification is important when research- ers try to estimate the total number of pred- Photo: Will Gulsby ators at a location and when they study an individual’s distribution across the land- Researchers prepare a predator track station by creating a 3-feet diameter scape. circle of hydrated lime and placing an attractant in the center of the circle.

Unpaved roadways frequently are traveled by preda- tors and provide a good location to search for tracks and scat. Predator tracks can be identified based on shape, size and relative placement. For example, members of the dog family all make tracks showing four toes and the toe nail marks usually are visible. tracks typically are more round than dog tracks but also show four toes with the toe nail marks miss- ing. Scat identification can be difficult when diets of the predator species are similar. However, cats have a habit of covering their scat by scratching together

mud and debris. Members of the dog family might scratch near scat but they don’t make an effort to cover it. scat changes in shape, size and con-

sistency depending on seasonal changes in diet.

In addition to tracks and scat, it is possible to make other direct and indirect observations of predators. Where coyotes exist, their high-pitched barking and howling at night is a sure sign of their presence. Re- Adapted from Pocket Guide to searchers sometimes perform howling surveys to monitor abundance. Although elusive, preda- tors occasionally can be seen while driving through a property, from a deer stand, or from trail camera pho- tos. However, these observations tell researchers lit- Researchers most often use track and scat surveys to monitor tle about predator abundance. The detection of pred- predator abundance. For coyotes they sometimes also use howl- ators on a property does not necessarily mean they ing surveys. are having a large negative effect on the deer herd. In fact, under certain circumstances predators might be helping to better manage the property’s deer herd. Deer Carcasses Finding a dead deer that has been fed up- on doesn’t necessarily mean it was killed by a predator. In fact, predators frequent- ly feed on deer that died from other caus- es. In addition, a deer killed by one pred- ator might be fed on by another. There- fore, researchers must be careful to not rush to judgement when they find a suspi- cious deer carcass. When they need to make an educated guess regarding which predator killed a deer, they use a system- atic approach. They first examine the kill site for detectable patterns that might help Photo: Daniel Crawford identify the predator. For example, was Researchers measure the distance between tooth puncture wounds to help de- the carcass dragged or carried to secluded termine which predator killed this deer. cover and fed on without much scattering of remains? If so, a cat or black bear 46 might be involved . Alternatively, if coyotes were For herds with typical production of fawns, removal involved, remains likely would have been scattered of some fawns by predators can help prevent exces- 46 over a much larger area . Did the predator leave be- sive herd growth when the harvest of adult females is hind its tracks, scat, or hair? Researchers often skin too low. However, when predators kill too many the carcass and examine it for puncture wounds and fawns or when predator-related mortality is combined other tissue damage. Predators sometimes can be dis- with excessive hunter harvest of adult females it can tinguished by the location and other characteristics of lead to localized declines in deer numbers. bite and marks. For example, when fawns are killed by coyotes they typically have bite marks on their head and/or neck with occasional bite marks on The only way to know if a property has a predator their backs, or elsewhere 47. Sometimes, when fawns problem is to monitor characteristics of the deer herd are killed by coyotes, the only evidence is blood, a over time. Researchers use trail cameras and hunter few tufts of hair and crumbs of flesh, bone, or fat 47. observations to estimate the number of bucks, does Bobcats also bite the head, neck or throat but are more and fawns. Of particular importance is the fawn re- likely to leave claw marks on the back, sides and cruitment rate (number of fawns surviving to 6 shoulders 39. In addition, bobcats often cover the car- months of age per adult doe). Just because a proper- cass remains with live or dead vegetation 28. When ty has deer predators it doesn’t necessarily mean it black bears kill fawns, bone fragments might be the has low fawn recruitment. only remains left at the feeding site 32. Domestic dogs typically feed very little on the carcass and they hap- hazardly bite the deer to kill it. Monitoring changes in a deer herd requires a degree of quality control. For example, trail camera surveys must follow a strict protocol to prevent erroneous con- clusions 19. Common mistakes are a lack of consisten- Changes in the Deer Herd cy in the timing of cameras being deployed from year Landowners and hunters should avoid jumping to the to year, failure to maintain adequate bait (corn) at conclusion that they have a predator problem just be- camera sites, and different numbers of cameras being cause there are predators on their property. Remem- used each year. These unintentional mistakes could ber, some amount of is normal for all wild- lead to a misunderstanding about the state of a deer life. In addition, deer die from other natural causes herd. Generally speaking, 1 camera per 100 acres for even when predators don’t exist. From a deer man- 14 consecutive days will provide the best estimate of agement standpoint, losing a few deer to predators population characteristics 19. doesn’t have much noticeable effect on a deer herd. that when more fruit occurred in coyote scat, the chance of finding deer fawns in the same scat de- creased. Therefore, the more fruit coyotes ate, the less deer fawns they ate 8. This does not necessarily suggest that managing for , fruits and other alternative coyote foods will result in reducing coyote

predation on fawns. It is a possibility but more re- search is needed.

Bobcat — Rodents and are the most common foods of bobcats. However, deer can be an important food in certain locations 6. Occurrence of deer in scats collected from central did not differ by season because of high use of deer during Photo: Jennifer Ward both the summer fawning season and the fall-winter season 6. A UGA study conducted in University researchers collected this coyote scat and dis- northeastern also found peaks in deer use by sected its contents to reveal what plants and were bobcats during fawning and deer hunting seasons 45. eaten. Although bobcats kill and eat deer, food habit studies have shown use of deer by bobcats occurs much less PREDATOR FOOD HABIT STUDIES frequently than use by co-existing coyotes 6. In Flori- da, only 4 of 87 bobcat scats contained deer remains, Wildlife researchers learn what predators eat by stud- all collected during the fawning season 29. In Arkan- ying the contents of their stomachs and scat. In gen- sas, deer remains were found in only 11 of 150 bobcat eral, these food habit studies provide a good idea of stomachs 13. Of the stomachs containing deer, 8 were predator diets. However, remember that predators collected during the November and December deer- sometimes eat deer they find dead and the remains of hunting season suggesting that bobcats might have hunter-harvested deer. In addition, predator diets taken advantage of wounded deer and scavenged car- change seasonally with some foods being important casses of hunter-harvested deer. only during a particular season.

Coyote — A University of (UGA) study conducted in western documented fawns to be the most common animal food item of coyotes during May and June despite low deer num- bers at that location 40. A study conducted in Ala- bama, Mississippi, and Tennessee found the number of fawns in the diets of coyotes was di- rectly related to deer herd density with more fawns eaten when deer numbers were greater 3. A UGA study documented similar results even when the area with the high-density deer herd contained relatively more alternative coyote foods 23. In other words, coy- otes not only opportunistically killed fawns when they were available, they actually selected for them even when other foods were common. However, research conducted by UGA in southern Georgia found the occurrence of small (rabbits and rodents) in Photo: David Osborn coyote scat decreased the chances of finding adult Food habit studies have shown that plants constitute the deer in the same scat 8. The researchers also found majority of black bear diets, as suggested by the abundance of fruit parts in this bear scat. Black Bear — A UGA study conducted in southeastern found that plant parts made up most of black bear diets each month with deer remains found only in small amounts in May, July and October 30. Other food habit studies in the eastern U.S. also reported little or no use of deer by black bears with providing the greatest amount of animal-based dietary protein 2, 12, 31. However, a black bear food habit study from reported deer to be an important food during seasons when other sources of protein were unavailable 4.

DEER SURVIVAL STUDIES Photo: Becky Shuman Researchers study the survival of deer Researchers study fawn survival by capturing fawns and fitting them with radio- by placing collars around their necks transmitting collars. This technology enables them to known when and where a which emit a signal when the deer collard fawn has died. doesn’t move for several hours and is presumed dead. As discussed above, when a dead deer is found, researchers then attempt to determine Bobcat — A Florida study examined both food habits why it died. That isn’t always easy. Fortunately, of bobcats and survival of 66 radio-collared fawns 29. with a large enough sample of collared deer it’s still Although they concluded that deer were not a very possible to obtain pretty reliable evidence. Also, new important component of bobcat diets based on scat DNA technology can identify a predator from a sam- analyses, bobcats killed 11 of their collared fawns. In ple of its saliva. Therefore, researchers sometimes another Florida study, bobcats killed 33 radio-collared swab the wound site and the head and neck of a dead fawns and 6 adult deer 28. A UGA study on Kiawah deer in hopes of collecting a saliva sample. Island, South Carolina monitored survival of 134 ra- dio-collared fawns 37. In the absence of coyotes, bob- Coyote — In a South Carolina study involving 91 ra- cats killed 70 of the fawns with a single adult male dio-collared fawns, 56 (80% of deaths) likely were radio-collared bobcat likely responsible for many of killed by coyotes 24. A UGA study conducted in those deaths. It appears that although deer are not the southwestern Georgia collared 47 fawns of which primary food of most bobcats, some bobcats learn to coyotes killed 11 34. A few other deer survival studies prey on deer and can be effective at killing them, es- have similarly shown that coyote predation can be the pecially fawns. primary source of fawn deaths and predation by coy- otes might limit fawn recruitment in the Southeast 39, 33, 22 Black Bear — Radio-collared fawns and adult deer . As testimony to the ability of coyotes to prey have been reportedly killed by black bears in northern upon adult deer in the Southeast, a North Carolina locations 32, 27, 1, 5, 43. However, until recently no stud- study recently reported 4 of their 28 radio-collared 9 ies had documented black bear predation on deer in adult female deer were killed by coyotes . However, the Southeast. A UGA study in recently over a 7-year period, a South Carolina study docu- used DNA analysis of 45 fawns killed by predators to mented few, if any, deaths of 138 radio-collared year- confirm that 15 were killed by black bears 41. Black ling and adult females as a result of coyotes in spite of bears killed more fawns at this location than did either high coyote abundance 26. bobcats or coyotes. east Alabama showed that re- moving almost all coyotes and bobcats before fawning season when combined with no harvest of does allowed that deer popu- lation’s fawn numbers to in- crease dramatically 45. Howev- er, in central Georgia, UGA re- searchers documented increases in fawn numbers at only 1 of their 2 study sites regardless of similar efforts to remove coy- otes on both sites 16. In addi- tion, a South Carolina study documented continued declines in fawn numbers despite a con- sistent, large-scale predator re- moval program 33. Another South Carolina study reported only modest recovery of fawn Photo: John Hickman numbers after predator removal and believed coyote control alone was an ineffective management tool 25.

Predator removal can be expensive, difficult to ac- PREDATOR REMOVAL STUDIES complish despite much effort, and it might have no effect on prey numbers 25, 11, 44. However, when com- Food habit and deer survival studies have clearly bined with reduced harvest of adult females and habi- demonstrated that deer are an important food to some tat management, predator removal might help to sta- predators and the predators often are effective at kill- bilize or increase deer numbers on some properties 33, ing deer. However, those studies only looked at the 10. Because predators can repopulate an area within a effect of predators on individual deer, not the entire few months to a year after a large removal 11, it likely herd. Therefore, researchers have designed studies to is necessary to conduct an annual removal just before measure deer herd productivity with and without each fawning season to realize an increase in fawn predators. These studies have measured fawn recruit- recruitment. ment before and after removing coyotes, bobcats and sometimes other medium-sized carnivores. OTHER PREDATOR STUDIES Research conducted in demonstrated removal It is obvious that predators can directly affect individ- of 80% of the predators (132 coyotes and 18 bobcats) ual deer and possibly deer herds when they injure or resulted in a 70% increase in fawn numbers the first kill deer. Predators also might have an indirect effect year and 43% increase the second year when com- on deer by creating an environment of fear associated pared to an area without predator removal 18. An Ok- with predation risk. Recent UGA research tested the lahoma study reported a 154% increase in fawns after effects of coyotes on deer behavior 7. By building 4 years of intensive removal of coyotes 42. A UGA large pens which excluded predators (predator exclo- study, on a large property in southern Georgia with a sures) they were able to create predator-free refuges low-density deer herd, measured fawn numbers after for deer. They then measured deer behavior inside removing 34-43% of the estimated coyote population and outside of the exclosures. When deer co-existed from a coyote-removal zone 21. Data collected in with coyotes (i.e., those outside of the exclosures) February, after the coyote removal, suggested there they increased their vigilance and spent less time were twice as many fawns per adult doe (0.97) in the feeding when compared to deer within the relative removal zone as in a similar non-removal zone (0.45 safety of the predator exclosures. Therefore, preda- fawns:doe). Another UGA study conducted in north- tors might have a negative effect on herd health. HABITAT-RELATED STUDIES ers must first be sure the habitat is providing enough Research conducted in the Midwest and quality nutrition and cover. Is the deer herd in bal- reported that habitat characteristics related to fawn ance with the available habitat? If not, then removing escape cover influenced fawn survival 38, 36. In other predators will only make the problem worse. If a words, fawns were less likely to be captured if they landowner is uncertain about the quality of their habi- had thick understory vegetation like grasslands and tat or health of their deer herd, it’s best for them to to escape to when chased by preda- ask for help from a state wildlife agency biologist. tors 15. Irregularly shaped forest patches with a lot of He or she also can help deer harvest quotas. As a edge also were related to increased fawn survival 38. general rule, 20-40% of the sexually mature females In theory land managers could inventory available must be removed each year to prevent excessive pop- fawn escape cover and modify the habitat as needed ulation growth. However, if fawn recruitment is low to increase fawn survival. Unfortunately, similar because of losses to predators, the harvest quota for studies have shown no survival benefit related to for- adult females might need to be reduced to allow more est patch shape or vegetation density 14, 25. Although fawns to be born the following year. Similarly, if it seems logical that quality and arrangement of es- doe harvest is too high and has reduced fawn recruit- ment to a level where the effect of predators is great- cape cover could influence fawn survival, habitat modifications for this purpose need further evaluation er, then a reduction in doe harvest is necessary. In situations where predator control has proven ineffec- before they are prescribed. tive, a reduction in doe harvest may offset losses to predation. While maintaining a heavy doe harvest is Some studies have suggested that containing usually recommended to maintain deer populations at abundant fruits during fawning season may buffer healthy levels, the situation can be quite different coyote predation on fawns by providing a readily when predators are minimizing your ability to available alternative food at that time of year 40, 20, 8. achieve deer management goals. Researchers have recommended reduced doe harvest to increase fawn Although the relationship between fruit crops and 33, 9 fawn predation has not been rigorously tested, man- recruitment and aside from habitat management, aging for quality, early successional habitat will ben- this may be the only viable option when predator efit deer and other wildlife with similar needs; there- control is ineffective. In some cases, both a reduction fore, it is always a viable strategy. in hunter harvest and predator removal might be nec- essary to stabilize a declining deer herd. Again, it is impossible to know which management option is best MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS for a particular property without closely monitoring the deer herd. It is unlikely that predators limit population growth of highly productive deer herds with relatively low natural mortality. Unfortunately, in some studies, 70- Predator trapping is labor intensive and requires a 100% of fawns died each year of natural causes in- long term commitment. Removing a few random cluding predation. In these situations, predation like- coyotes will not affect fawn recruitment. In addition, ly is limiting population growth and reducing the per- predator removal is expensive. It is reasonable to as- centage of the herd available for hunting. When oth- sume that a professional trapper will an aver- er forms of natural mortality are combined with pred- age of $123 to $199 per coyote removed 24. ator- and hunting-related deaths of females, some deer population declines are inevitable. If trail cam- era surveys and hunter observations suggest a deer In the studies mentioned above, predator numbers herd is stable or growing in spite of predators, there is (especially coyotes) typically recovered to their pre- no reason to take actions against predation. In fact, vious levels after a year or two of population reduc- predators might help to better manage the deer herd tion. This trend is the rule, rather than the exception by reducing deer numbers. When information sug- and illustrates the need to continuously maintain trap- gests that fawn recruitment is low, predation might be ping effort and effectiveness in to maintain any a problem. However, before turning to predator con- benefit gained from it. Recent research out of South trol as a solution for poor fawn recruitment, landown- Georgia shows that coyote population size typically 4. Bull, E. L., T. R. Torgersen, and T. L. Wertz. 2001. The does not decline even with consistent, annual removal importance of vegetation, insects, and neonate ungu- efforts 11. This is largely a result of immigration of lates in black bear diets in northeastern Oregon. North- new coyotes to the area. Therefore, overall reduction west Science 75: 244-253. in coyote population size may not be an achievable 5. Carstensen, M., G. D. Delgiudice, B. A. Sampson, and goal. However, timely, targeted coyote removal ef- D. W. Kuehn. 2009. Survival, characteristics, forts during fawning season could increase fawn sur- and cause-specific mortality of white-tailed deer neo- vival in some situations. nates. Journal of Wildlife management 73: 175-183. 6. Chamberlain, M. J. and B. D. Leopold. 1999. Dietary patterns of sympatric bobcats and coyotes in central In most parts of the Southeast, numerous fee-based, Mississippi. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of predator control companies exist that can be contract- the Southeastern Association of and Wildlife ed to trap and shoot predators. However, based on Agencies 53: 204-219. the research mentioned above regarding the effective- ness of this approach, the costs may or may not out- 7. Cherry, M. J., L. M. Conner and R. J. Warren. 2015. weigh the benefits. Careful consideration regarding Effects of predation risk and group dynamics on white- the cost-benefit of predator reduction should take tailed deer foraging behavior in a longleaf pine savan- place before implementation. na. Behavioral Ecology 26: 1091-1099. 8. Cherry, M. J., K. L. Turner, M. B. Howze, B. S. Cohen, L. M. Conner and R. J. Warren. 2016. Coyote diets in The single most important thing a landowner can do a longleaf pine ecosystem. Wildlife Biology 22: 64-70. for deer on their property is provide quality habitat. 9. Chitwood, M. C., M. A. Lashley, C. E. Moorman, and C. Deer can eat 5-10 pounds of forage per day and re- S. DePerno. 2014. Confirmation of coyote predation quire an abundance of high quality vegetation to on adult female white-tailed deer in the southeastern maintain healthy body condition. Healthier does have United States. Southeastern Naturalist 13:N30-N32. more fawns and healthy fawns survive better. Ensur- ing adequate food and cover for a deer population 10. Chitwood, M. C., M. A. Lashley, J. C. Kilgo, C. E. through timber management via thinning, prescribed Moorman, and C. S. DePerno. 2015. White-tailed deer fire, or old management is the first step in main- population dynamics and adult female survival in the taining a healthy and productive deer herd. If food presence of a novel predator. Journal of Wildlife Man- and cover requirements are being met, and deer har- agement 79: 211-219. vest levels are appropriate, and a decline in the deer 11. Conner, L. M. and G. Morris. 2015. Impacts of meso- herd due to predators has been documented, the deci- predator control on conservation of mesopredators and sion to manage predators needs to be evaluated. their prey. PloS ONE 10(9): e0137169.doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0137169.

12. , T. C. and M. R. Pelton. 1983. Seasonal nutri- LITERATURE CITED tion of black bears in the Na- tional Park. International conference on bear research

and management. Pp. 94-101. 1. Ballard, W. B., H. A. Whitlaw, S. J. Young, R. A. Jen- 13. Fritts, S. H. and J. A. Sealander. 1978. Diets of bob- kins, and G. J. Forbes. 1999. Predation and survival of cats in with special reference to age and sex white-tailed deer fawns in northcentral New Bruns- differences. Journal of Wildlife Management 42: 533- wick. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:574-579. 539. 2. Beeman, L. E. and M. R. Pelton. 1980. Seasonal foods 14. Grovenburg, T. W., C. C. Swanson, C. N. Jacques, R. and feeding ecology of black bears in the Smoky W. Klaver, T. J. Brinkman, B. M. Burris, C. S. DePer- Mountains. International Conference on Bear Research no, and J. A. Jenks. 2011. Survival of white-tailed and Management. Pp. 141-147. deer neonates in and South Dakota. Journal 3. Blanton, K. M. and E. P. Hill. 1989. Coyote use of of Wildlife Management 75: 213-220. white-tailed deer fawns in relation to deer density. Pro- ceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern 15. Grovenburg, T. W., K. L. Monteith, R. W. Klaver and Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 43: 470-478. J. A. Jenks. 2012. Predator evasion by white-tailed fawns. Animal Behavior 84: 59-65. 10.1002/wsb.708.

16. Gulsby, W. D., C. H. Killmaster, J. W. Bowers, J. D. 27. Kunkel, K. E. and L. D. Mech. 1994. and bear Kelly, B. N. Sacks, M. J. Statham and K. V. Miller. predation on white-tailed deer fawns in northern Minne- 2015. White-tailed deer fawn recruitment before and sota. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 1557-1565. after an experimental coyote removal in central Georgia. 28. Labisky, R. F. and M. C. Boulay. 1998. Behaviors of Wildlife Society Bulletin 39: 248-255. bobcats preying on white-tailed deer in the . American Midland Naturalist 139: 275-281. 17. Gulsby, W. D., C. H. Killmaster, J. W. Bowers, J. S. Laufenberg, B. N. Sacks, M. J. Statham, and K. V. Mil- 29. Land, A. D., D. S. Maehr, J. C. Roof, and J. W. ler. 2016. Efficacy and precision of fecal genotyping to McCown. 1993. Mortality patterns of female white- estimate coyote abundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin tailed deer in southwest Florida. Proceedings of the DOI: 10.1002/wsb.712. Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47: 176-184. 18. Guthrey, F. S. and S. L. Beasom. 1977. Responses of and nongame wildlife to predator control in South 30. Landers, J. L., R. J. Hamilton, A. S. Johnson, and R. L. Texas. Journal of Range Management 30: 404-409. Marchinton. 1979. Foods and habitat of black bears in southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Man- 19. Hamrick, B., B. Strickland, S. Demarais, W. McKinley, agement 43: 143-153. and B. Griffin. 2013. Conducting camera surveys to estimate population characteristics of white-tailed deer. 31. Maehr, D. S. and J. R. Brady. 1984. Food habits of Mississippi State University Extension Service Publica- Florida black bears. Journal of Wildlife Management tion 2788. 48: 230-235. 20. Howze, M. B. 2009. The effect of predation on white- 32. Matthews, N. E. and W. F. Porter. 1988. Black bear tailed deer recruitment at the Joseph W. Jones Ecologi- predation on white-tailed deer neonates in the central cal Research Center. M.S. Thesis. University of Geor- Adirondacks. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66: 1241- gia, Athens, GA. 1242. 21. Howze, M. B., L. M. Conner, R. J. Warren, and K. V. 33. McCoy, J. C., S. S. Ditchkoff, J. B. Raglin, B. A. Colli- Miller. 2009. Predator removal and white-tailed deer er, and C. Ruth. 2013. Factors influencing survival of recruitment in southwestern Georgia. Proceedings of white-tailed deer fawns in coastal South Carolina. Jour- the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association nal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4: 280-289. of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 63: 17-20. 34. Nelson, M. A., M. J. Cherry, M. B. Howze, R. J. War- 22. Jackson, A. M. and S. S. Ditchkoff. 2013. Survival ren, and L. M. Conner. 2015. Coyote and bobcat preda- estimates of white-tailed deer fawns at Fort Rucker, tion on white-tailed deer fawns in a longleaf pine eco- Alabama. American Midland naturalist 170: 184-190. system in southwestern Georgia. Journal of the South- eastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2: 23. Kelly, J. D., W. D. Gulsby, J. W. Bowers, and K. V. 208-213. Miller. 2015. Seasonal and spatial variation in diets of coyotes in central Georgia. Journal of the Southeastern 35. Ozoga J.J. and L. J. Verme. 1982. Predation by black Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2: 296-302. bears on newborn white-tailed deer. Journal of Mam- malogy 63: 695-696. 24. Kilgo, J. C., H. S. Ray, M. Vukovich, M. J. Goode, and 36. Piccolo, B. P., T. R. Van Deelen, K. Hollis-Etter, R. E. C. Ruth. 2012. Predation by coyotes on white-tailed Warner and C. Anchor. 2010. Behavior and survival of deer neonates in South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife white-tailed deer neonates in two suburban forest pre- Management 76: 1420-1430. serves. Canadian Journal of Zoology 88: 487-495. 25. Kilgo, J. C., M. Vukovich, H. Scott Ray, C. E. Shaw, 37. Roberts, S. B. 2007. Ecology of white-tailed deer and and C. Ruth. 2014. Coyote removal, understory cover, bobcats on Kiawah Island, South Carolina: implications and survival of white-tailed deer neonates. Journal of for suburban habitat preservation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Wildlife Management 78: 1261-1271. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 26. Kilgo, J. C., M. Vukovich, M. J. Conroy, H. Scott Ray, 38. Rohm, J. H., C. K. Nielsen, and A. Woolf. 2007. Sur- and C. Ruth. 2016. Factors affecting survival of adult vival of white-tailed deer fawns in Southern Illinois. female white-tailed deer after coyote establishment in Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 851-860. South Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin. DOI:

39. Saalfeld, S. T. and S. S. Ditchkoff. 2007. Survival of neonatal white-tailed deer in an exurban population.

Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 940-944.

40. Schrecengost, J. D., J. C. Kilgo, D. , H. Scott Ray, and K. V. Miller. Seasonal food habits of the coy- ote in the South Carolina Coastal Plain. Southeastern Naturalist 7: 135-144.

41. Shuman, R. M. 2016. Population dynamics of white- tailed deer on Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana. M.S. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 42. Stout, G. G. 1982. Effects of coyote reduction on white -tailed deer productivity on Fort Sill, . Wild- life Society Bulletin 10: 329-332. 43. Svoboda, N. J., J. L. Belant, D. E. Beyer, J. F. Duquette, H. K. Stricker, and C. A. Albright. predation of an adult white-tailed deer. 22: 91-94. 44. Treves, A., M. Krofel and J. McManus. 2016. Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14: 380-388. 45. VanGilder, C. L. 2008. Effects of an intensive predator removal on white-tailed deer recruitment in northeastern Alabama. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 63: 11-16. 46. Wade, D. A. and J. E. Bowns. Procedures for evaluat- ing predation on and wildlife. Texas Agricul- tural Extension Service Publication Number B-1429. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 47. White, M. 1973. Description of remains of deer fawns killed by coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy 54: 291-293.

Cover photos by Terry Spivey, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org; Joy Viola, Northeastern University, Bug- wood.org; Rob Routledge, Sault College, Bugwood.org; and Alfred Viola, Northeastern University, Bug- wood.org.

The University of Georgia is committed to principles of equal opportunity and affirmative action.