Methods for Managing Deer in Populated Areas A PRODUCT OF THE HUMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICTS WORKING GROUP 1 SPONSORED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Table of Contents Preface……………………………………..….3 Introduction………………......................... History of Deer…………. Carrying Capacity………… Consequences of overabundance... Role of Wildlife Agencies……………… Surveys and Monitoring…………… Roadside Spotlight Counts……..… Distance Sampling…………… Fecal Pellet Counts…………… Aerial Counts-Manned Aircraft Aerial Counts-Unmanned Aircraft. Thermal Imagery Counts……… Game Camera Surveys………… Citizen Surveys………………. Staff Surveys…………… Deer Management options………………. Damage Control Methods… Fencing………………………………. Repellents……………………………. Scare Tactics………………………. Planting Alternatives……………… Harassment………………………… Feeding…………………………….. Roadside Warning Devices………. Roadway Design…………………… Mitigation Options………………… Regulated Public Hunting…………………………….. Sharpshooting……………………. Live Capture Techniques… Fertility Control………… Summary and Resources………………… Literature Cited……………. 2 IntroductionPreface [Cite your source here.] common issues and identifies common management practices with their associated benefits and challenges. Because wildlife agencies often adopt management practices for dealing with urban deer conflicts for reasons that are not associated with the efficacy of the practice itself (e.g., social acceptance), this document is not designed to endorse specific practices over others. Instead, this document is designed to describe the various management practices in use, as well as the benefits and challenges associated with each practice and to provide defensible management options to North American agency leadership as they determine which practices will be employed in a particular state, province, region, or situation. In addition, this document can help articulate current information What is the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies regarding urban deer conflict situations to (AFWA)? administrators, leaders and legislators that oversee urban areas.. The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies represents North America’s fish and wildlife agencies Acknowledgements to advance sound, science-based management and While many state and provincial agencies have conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats in managed deer for over a half a century, managing the public interest. deer in populated areas poses many new challenges that don’t exist with rural deer management. This The Association represents its members on Capitol document was compiled using many of the leading Hill and before the Administration to advance wildlife biologists in North America with expertise in favorable fish and wildlife conservation policy and managing deer-human conflict situations. Special funding and works to ensure that all entities work thanks go to: collaboratively on the most important issues. Geoff Westerfield (Ohio Division of Wildlife), Erin Shank (Missouri Department of Conservation), The Association also provides member agencies with Carole Stanko (New Jersey Division of Fish & coordination services on cross-cutting as well as Wildlife), Justin Shannon (Utah Division of Wildlife species-based programs that range from birds, fish Resources), Ben Layton (Tennessee Wildlife habitat and energy development to climate change, Resource Agency), Orrin Duvuvuei (New Mexico wildlife action plans, conservation education, Department of Game and Fish), Emma Vost (Nova leadership training and international relations. Scotia Department of Natural Resources), Michael Boudreau (Nova Scotia Department of Natural Working together, the Association’s member Resources), Nathan Snow (USDA/APHIS/Wildlife agencies are ensuring that North American fish and Services-National Wildlife Research Center), Richard wildlife management has a clear and collective voice. Heilbrun (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department), Bryant White (Association of Fish and Wildlife Purpose of document Agencies), Brian Wakeling (Nevada Department of Wildlife Game), Thomas Decker (US Fish & The Human Wildlife Conflicts Working Group of the Wildlife Service), and Mike O’Brien ( Nova Scotia Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies formed a Department of Natural Resources). This document task force to document methods used to manage deer was requested, reviewed, and approved by the conflicts within areas of high human densities. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ (AFWA) Throughout the document we will refer to these areas Human-Wildlife Conflict Working Group and as “urban” areas. However, deer conflict situations Wildlife Resource Policy Committee on behalf of arise in suburban, ex-urban, and other areas of high the AFWA.. human densities and the content of this document applies to those areas as well. This document offers management options to communities and agency leadership for resolving common human conflicts with urban deer. It provides an overview of the 3 History of deer management When managing deer in populated areas, the question of how many deer should be in a given area is a North America is inhabited by white-tailed, mule, crucial question. Three types of carrying capacities and black-tailed deer. While all species have seen may be considered in this context: biological, their populations fluctuate with changes in ecological, and social-cultural. anthropogenic management, deer are a flagship Biological Carrying Capacity (BCC) - The success story.It is estimated that the white-tailed deer simplest concept is to consider the population in the U.S. was only about 300,000 in the maximum number of deer that the habitat 1930s. Today, that population has grown to an could support on a continuous, long-term estimated 30 million; a 1,000 fold increase in less basis. This level is referred to as the than 100 years. Deer are managed under the North biological carrying capacity of the American model of wildlife conservation and they population. The biological carrying capacity provide many societal benefits. Deer are the most however may not be the actual desired level. sought- after game animal on the North American A deer population at biological carrying continent and all North American deer species are capacity will be able to sustain itself, but enjoyed as a healthy and nutritious table fare. Prior to deer numbers at this level may influence European settlement, white-tailed deer were common plant and animal communities in this throughout most of North America providing meat association. The biological carrying capacity and hides to the native Americans. However, during in urban areas may be much higher than in a the late 1800s, unregulated hunting, including wild environment due to the increased commercial market hunting, led to the extirpation of availability of artificial sources of forage white-tailed deer throughout much of its range. and water. During the early to mid-1900s, led by a widespread Ecological Carrying Capacity (ECC) - The conservation movement across North America, many population level at which deer do not wildlife agencies initiated reintroduction efforts to negatively influence native plants and reestablish white-tailed deer populations. Those animals and allow for the natural succession reintroduction efforts lead to quickly growing white- of the habitat is referred to as the ecological tailed deer populationsThis growth continued carrying capacity. Prior to the 1500s and th throughout the 20 century, and white-tailed deer major European settlement of North adapted to living in areas of higher human America, deer densities were likely 3.1- populations to take advantage of reduced predation 4.2/km2 throughout their range (McCabe and increased forage resources. This growth and McCabe 1984, McCabe and McCabe eventually led to increasing deer populations in many 1997). Research in the eastern half of North areas highly populated by humans. America indicates ecological carrying While white-tailed deer have demonstrated the capacity for white-tailed deer in the range of greatest numeric challenge in this urban situation, 3- 10 deer/km2 (Healy 1997, Schmitz and mule deer and black-tailed deer have adapted Sinclair 1997). Beyond these densities, deer similarly and created identical challenges in portions browse impacts the regeneration of certain of their range. State and provincial agencies have plant life which in turn impacts other had to: wildlife species which also depend on those Reassess how traditional deer habitats (DeCalesta, 1994, Tilghman 1989). management techniques can be Deer numbers at this level can still present used in these populated areas challenges like deer-vehicle collisions or Develop new deer management damage to artificial landscapes and gardens. strategies for these populated areas Social-Cultural Carrying Capacity (SCC or Encourage research into additional CCC) - The deer population level at which deer management tools for the local human population can tolerate or managing deer in populated areas accept the problems associated with a deer Learn how best to work with herd is commonly referred to as the social or government officials and city cultural carrying capacity. In most cases leaders together to address when managing deer in populated areas, concerns regarding deer local human residents will determine the social carrying capacity for the deer herd The Concept of Carrying Capacity and the desired deer population. Because of the variety of tolerances of multiple 4 stakeholders for deer within a particular (Ixodes spp.). These ticks require