HomeMy WebLinkAboutA020 - Evaluation of Deer Management by Whitetails Unlimited ----------
))) OPT10mca
y,`�,` ra ,^�' ''x i ,a �' :;v"� m � :a a %"i k,, t x= %x' ' :✓'h""' 'i f T+,` ^'« ., `
,, -t" 4
C rTAn Ev y s `fi°xj � �4
• •
of Deler Management
r
POPULATION GROWTH AND THE
T1 eer populations have the potential for rapid growth.
T he white-tailed deer Odocoileusvir inia Under normal circumstances,does two years old or older
( — )nus is the most D produce twins annually,while yearling does typically produce
abundant and best-known large herbivore in the United States. Whitetails are valued and appreciated by large seg-
single fawns. On excellent range,adult does can produce trip-
ments of society. State and provincial wildlife agencies are lets,yearlings can produce twins and fawns can be bred and give
responsible for the management of this invaluable resource. birth during their first year of life.In the absence of predation
Considerable confusion and controversy exists concern- or hunting,this kind of reproduction can result in a deer herd
ing white-tailed deer management. The objective of this doubling its size in one year. This fact was illustrated on the
booklet is to explain the rationale behind deer management 1,146-acre George Reserve in southern Michigan when the
and to discuss the utility of various management options. deer herd grew from six to 162 individuals in six years (1928-
1933)(23). More recently,the George Reserve herd grew from
10 deer in 1975 to 212 deer in 1980(24).
A BRIEF HISTORY OF DEER
There are natural limits to the number of deer that a given
MANAGEMENT IN
parcel of habitat can support.These limits are a function of the
During colonial times,the Northeast was dominated by ex- quantity and quality of deer forage and/or the availability of
tensive tracts of mature forest. Early records suggest that good winter habitat. The number of deer that a given parcel
white-tailed deer were present in moderate numbers at the can support in good physical condition over an extended
time. Deer populations were small and scattered by the turn of period of time is referred to as"Biological Carrying Capacity"
the 20th century, primarily as a result of habitat loss due to (BCC). Deer productivity causes populations to exceed BCC,
extensive forest clearing and unregulated market hunting. In unless productivity is balanced by mortality. When BCC is ex-
the early 1900s,deer were so scarce in much of the U.S. that ceeded,habitat quality decreases and herd physical condition
sightings were often reported in local newspapers. declines. Biologists use herd health indices and population
Passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act density indices to assess the status of a herd relative to BCC.
(better known as the Pittman-Robertson Program) in 1937
marked the beginning of modern-day wildlife management in The importance of compatibility between land-use
the United States. This act earmarked income from an already practices and deer populations in urban areas of the
existing excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition for use in U.S.justifies consideration of another aspect of car-
wildlife development,research and land acquisition. rying capacity. "Cultural Carrying Capacity"(CCC)
can be defined as the maximum number of deer that
Early deer management efforts featured protection can coexist compatibly with local human populations
from unregulated exploitation. Today, efforts are (10). Cultural carrying capacity is a function of the
directed toward the maintenance of deer populations sensitivity of local human populations to the pres-
at levels intended to: (1) ensure the present and ence of deer.
future well-being of the species and its habitat, (2)
provide a sustained yield of deer for use by licensed This sensitivity is dependent on local land-use practices,
hunters,and(3)allow for compatibility between deer local deer density and the attitudes and priorities of local
populations and human land-use practices,as well as human populations. Excessive deer/vehicle collisions,agricul-
with other plant and animal communities. tural damage and home/gardener complaints all suggest that
_ CCC has been exceeded. It is important to note that even low
deer densities can exceed CCC; a single deer residing in an
airport landing zone is too many deer. As development
continues in many areas of the U.S.,the importance of CCC as
White-tailed deer require adequate food,water,cover,and a management consideration will increase.
living space in a suitable arrangement in order to ensure
their healthy survival. Deer eat a wide variety of herbaceous
and woody plants,in accordance with their nutritional value
and their local and seasonal availability. Water requirements s previously indicated,deer populations have the ability
are met through the drinking of water and from the consump- to grow beyond BCC. When BCC is exceeded,competi-
tion of succulent vegetation. Good habitat provides shelter tion for limited food resources results in overbrowsing (6,7).
from extreme temperatures and precipitation,as well as pro- Severe overbrowsing alters plant species composition,distri-
tection and concealment from predators. bution, and abundance, and reduces understory structural
II
diversity (due to the inability of seedlings to establish them- flexible method available for regional deer population man-
selves). These changes may have a deleterious impact on local agement,and therefore rely on it as their primary management
animal communities,which depend on healthy vegetative sys- tool. Through the use of regulated hunting,biologists strive to
tems for food and cover. In time, overbrowsing results in maintain deer populations at desirable levels or to adjust them
reduced habitat quality and a long-term reduction in BCC. in accordance with local biological and/or social needs. They
Coincident with overbrowsing is a decline in herd health. This do this by manipulating the size and sex composition of the
decline is manifest in decreased body weights,lowered repro- harvest,season type,season timing,season length,number of
ductive rates, lowered winter survival, increased parasitism, permits and land-access policies.
and increased disease prevalence (11). In the absence of a Values associatedwith white-tailed deer management are
marked herd reduction,neither herd health nor habitat quality diverse and extensive(16). Ecological benefits derived from
will improve,as each constrains the other. Such circumstances regulated hunting include protection of our environment from
enhance the likelihood of die-offs due to disease and starva- overbrowsing(2,4),protection of flora and fauna that may be
tion. negatively impacted by deer overpopulation and the mainte-
nance of healthy, viable deer populations (13,23) for our
Deer overabundance often leads to a high frequency benefit and that of future generations. Social benefits which
of deer/vehicle collisions,as well as excessive damage result from regulated hunting include: increased land-use
` to commercial forests, agricultural crops, nursery compatibility stemming from fewer land-use/deer conflicts,
stock and landscape plantings (17,21). In addition, human safety benefits resulting from reduced deer/vehicle
preliminary studies suggest that a correlation exists incidents,diverse educational and recreational opportunities,
between high deer densities and the incidence of and emotional benefits associated with a continued presence
Lyme disease, an arthritic disease that can be con- of healthy deer herds. Regulated hunting provides economic
tracted by humans (1). benefits in the form of hunting-related expenditures. Re-
searchers estimated nationwide deer hunter expenditures during
1975 at$1.01 billion.Estimated values received by hunters and
e non hunters was$1.8 billion and$5.4 billion,respectively. The
lo
ng
` total annual flow of values from the white-tailed deer in the
United States was estimated to be $8.2 billion (34). An
The potential for deer populations to exceed carrying ca- economic evaluation of regulated deer hunting should also in-
pacity, to impinge on the well-being of other plant and clude costs that would be incurred in the absence of population
animal species,and to conflict with land-use practices as well management. As an example, the cost of agricultural com-
as human safety and health necessitates effective herd manage- modities, forest products, and automobile insurance would
ment. Financial and logistical constraints require that deer likely increase if deer populations were left unchecked.
management be practical and fiscally responsible.
DEER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS OPTION
TO TAKE ITS COURSE
j n the absence of regulated hunting,deer herds would grow
f 1 until they reached the upper limit at which they could be
sustained by local habitat. Herds at this"upper density limit"
consist of deer in relatively poor health(7). High density herds
such as these are prone to cyclic population fluctuations and
catastrophic losses(23). In the U.S.,such herds would be in-
compatible with local human interests and land-use practices.
Disease and starvation problems in the Great Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge,New Jersey(31);damage to ornamentals on
Block Island,Rhode Island;vegetation destruction at Crane
v u i
Beach, Massachusetts; roadkill problems in Princeton, New
Jersey; and forest regeneration difficulties on Connecticut's
\ m 4i Yale Forest,are but a few examples of the deleterious impacts
of a"hands off'deer management policy. Allowing nature to
r take its course could result in a significant negative impact on
other plant and animal species as well as local deer herds. In
extreme cases, the balance achieved by "hands off' manage-
ment may be local herd extinction(32).
It is important to note that humans have had a dramatic
OPTION I -USE REGULATED HUNTING AS
A DEER MANAGEMENT TOOL I impact on the ecology of the U.S. Among other things,they
have altered landscapes,changed and manipulated plant com-
Regulated hunting has been proven to be an effective deer munities, displaced large predators, eliminated a variety of
population management tool(13,23). In addition,it has native species, and introduced numerous exotics. Natural
been shown to be the most efficient and least expensive tech- system and regulatory processes have changed as a result of
nique for removing deer(28). U.S.wildlife management agen- these impacts. Adopting a"hands off'policy will not restore
ties recognize deer hunting as the only effective,practical and U.S.ecosystems to a pristine state.
III
Deer seem to have evolved under intense predation and —
hunting pressure. In precolonial times many Native American The poor physical condition of deer from an over-
tribes hunted deer year-round and depended on them as their populated range,and the behavior of some deer from
primary food source (22). Mountain lions,wolves,bobcats, overpopulated urban settings, predispose them to
and bears all utilized the precolonial deer resource. The high starvation, accidents and dog predation following
reproductive capability of present-day herds likely reflects relocation into new surroundings.
intense predation and hunting in the past. As a consequence,
it would seem inaccurate to describe a deer herd in today's An additional concern associated with relocation of
environment, with few if any predators and no hunters, as deer,especially from an overpopulated range,is the
"natural." In fact,active management in the form of regulated potential for spreading disease. The presence of
hunting seems to be a more natural option than the"hands off' Lyme disease in some areas of the United States
approach. Active deer population management offers distinct makes this a timely consideration.
ecological,social,and economic benefits to society. Few such
claims can be made for the"hands off'option. In fact,there are In conclusion, trap-and-transfer options have proven to
significant costs associated with the"hands off'approach to be impractical and prohibitively expensive. As a consequence,
deer management. they have no value in the management of free-ranging herds.
They may have limited value in the control of small,insular
J herds where deer are tame and/or hunting is not applicable.
OPTION 4 -USE FENCING AND REPELLENTS
TO MANAGE CONFLICTS WITH
EE
T o the extent that fencing and repellents are practicable,
! wildlife agencies regularly recommend them to address
• site-specific problems. Application of repellents and/or fenc-
ing can only be justified economically when the financial gain
.. ��.� yielded by protection is equal to or greater than the cost of
:- implementation. Research conducted in New York's Hudson
�, , , • Valley revealed that it costs approximately$70 per/acre/year
r to implement an orchard repellent spray program(8). Similar
work conducted in Connecticut nurseries indicated that repel-
lent costs(equipment and labor excluded)ranged from$10 to
OPTION 3-T• $396 per acre for a single application(5). In New York,it was
• • • • determined that it cost approximately$18 per/acre/year(when
pro-rated over a 10-year period) to protect a 25-acre parcel
This option would include the use of trapping,netting and/ with a moderately priced, high-tensile electric fence. Under
or immobilization for the purpose of capturing and relo- the same circumstances,it would cost$60 per/acre/year to use
cating deer. Trap-and-transfer efforts have proven to be labor an eight-foot woven-wire fence(9). Economic,personal,and
intensive and prohibitively expensive. Research conducted aesthetic considerations typically restrict the use of these
with an urban deer herd in Wisconsin(14)resulted in capture techniques to cost effective applications.
costs ranging from$113 to$570 per deer($412 per deer for all There are constraints that limit the applicability ofvarious
capture methods combined).Similar work conducted on Long damage abatement techniques. High-tensile electric fencing j
Island, new Hampshire, and Angel Island, California (26) requires regular maintenance and is best suited to areas of !
resulted in costs of$800 and$431 per deer,respectively. good soil depth and moderate terrain. Electric fences suffer
Aside from problems of cost and logistics,large scale trap- from seasonal problems associated with poor grounding due
and-transfer programs would require release sites capable of to heavy snows and dry soil conditions. In addition,electric
absorbing large numbers of relocated deer. Such areas are fences are inappropriate for use in areas where frequent human
lacking in the U.S. The potential negative impact that translo- contact is likely. Effective repellent programs require fre-
cated deer could have on local BCC and/or CCC is an addi- quent applications because rapidly growing shoots quickly
tional concern. Land-use conflicts caused by translocated deer outgrow protection and repellents weather rapidly. Spray y
could lead to questions of liability. repellents can only be applied effectively during mild weather,
Deer are susceptible to traumatic injury during handling. so their value during winter months is restricted. Additional
Trauma losses average approximately four percent during limits on repellent use stem from plant damage concerns,
trap-and-transfer efforts. Capture myopathy,a stress-related labeling restrictions,equipment problems(heavy binding agents
disease that results in delayed mortality of captured deer, is and repellent slurries clog equipment),and difficulties result-
thought to be an important(and often overlooked)mortality ing from noxious and/or unaesthetic product residues.
factor. Delayed mortality as high as 26 percent has been Repellent performance is highly variable and seems to be
reported (29). negatively correlated with deer density. Work conducted in
Survival rates of relocated deer are frequently low. Trap- New York and Connecticut indicates that repellent perform-
and-transfer efforts in California, New Mexico and Florida ance is highly variable. This seems to result from the fact that
resulted in losses of 85,55,and 58 percent,respectively,from repellents are behavior modifiers; they perform well under
four to 15 months following relocation. (26). moderate pressure but may be ignored when alternative deer
IV
foods are scarce. Electric fence performance is variable as well,
apparently due to differences in deer pressure and fence qual-
ity.
There are distinct limitations on the applicability of fenc-
ing and repellent options. As an example, neither technique
has value in addressing concerns relating to wide-scale deer
impacts on plant and animal communities. These techniques
were designed to supplement, not replace, deer population
management. As a consequence, they are best employed
within the context of a comprehensive deer management program
In the absence of population regulation, deer damage will
increase in severity and the efficacy of abatement techniques
will decline.
Fertilitycontrol agents(synthetic progestins and estrogens)
have been evaluated for use in deer population control. ID
Research conducted on a captive deer herd in Ohio indicates SUPPLEMENTAL ALLEVIATE ,
ITH BCC AND CCC
that oral and intramuscular doses of diethylstilbestrol (DES)
significantly reduces deer productivity. However, the reduc- T mplementation of a supplemental feeding program would
tion was insufficient to contain local herd growth(12). In Ken- 1 be counterproductive to control efforts directed at free-
tucky,oral doses of microencapsulated DES successfully inter- ranging herds because it would encourage additional popula-
rupted deer pregnancies,but high dose requirements,aversion tion growth (6). In addition, supplemental feeding on a
to treated bait,and post treatment breeding,precluded effec- regionwide basis would be logistically and economically im-
tive herd control(18). Additional research revealed that oral practical. Work conducted in Michigan and Colorado indi-
doses of melengestrol acetate (MGA) effectively inhibited cates that it costs from$37 to$53 per deer to run an ad libitum
deer reproduction,but daily treatment requirements made the winter feeding program (3, 27). In Colorado, supplemental
technique impractical for use on free-ranging deer herds(30). feeding of mule deer cost $183 per animal saved. While the
Concerns pertaining to oral contraception in deer in- program did reducewinter deer mortality,it failed to eliminate
elude: cost and logistics of bait distribution,dosage control, substantial losses. Colorado researchers concluded that sup-
and ingestion of bait by non-target wildlife. Based on these plemental feeding can be justified for use during emergency
concerns, and past research, oral contraception programs circumstances (e.g.,exceptionally severe winter weather)but
seem to be impractical and ill-advised. not as a routine method for boosting local BCC. In addition,
the researchers believed that such a program was only practical
when deer were densely concentrated on readily accessible
Several studies have shown intramuscular treatments range. Researchers in Michigan concluded that"nutritional
and implants of fertility control agents to be effective supplementation"had potential value as a management tool,
in preventing deer pregnancies (19, 20). Nonethe- but that it would only work within the context of"strict herd
less, the limited life expectancy of implants, the ex- control"(27). In many areas of the United States,supplemen-
pense involved in extensive capture and recapture tal feeding would lead to conflicts with CCC. In addition, it
efforts(20),and the difficulty of treating an adequate would enhance the likelihood of disease transmission between
portion of the herd,suggest that large-scale implant deer and predation of deer by dogs.
programs would be impractical and ineffective.
Supplemental feeding fails to address the cause of
overpopulation.In fact,it actually compounds future
Unresolved questions relating to the use of implants in- deer population problems. As a result,it would seem
elude the effect of long-term steroid exposure on deer and the reasonable to reject supplemental feeding as an alter-
impact of steroid treated carcasses on consumers in the food native to active deer population management.
chain(33).
Recent advances in wildlife contraception have facilitated
"remote delivery"of antifertility agents to feral horses via dartHERDS
guns(33). Remote delivery,and recent progress on antifertil WITH SHARPSHOOTERS
-
ity vaccines,improve the prospect for limited applications of
wildlife contraception in the future. m he use of sharpshooters would concede the need for popu-
In conclusion,fertility control in deer is largely untested j lation regulation. Such a task would likely require shoot-
and requires additional research (15). Fertility control may ing throughout the year,in order to control regional popula-
have value for use on small insular deer populations under tion growth. Even on a small scale, this option would be
carefully regulated conditions,but will not provide an alterna- expensive relative to hunting. According to the results of an
tive to hunting for the control of free-ranging herds (15). urban deer removal program conducted in Wisconsin(14)the
While effective fertility control agents have been identified cost averaged$74 per animal shot over bait. This cost included
their use on free-ranging herds would be impractical. 13.5 hours of labor for each deer removed,at a cost of$3.65 per
V
hour. An evaluation of techniques employed to control an been estimated that approximately 2.3 million Indians occu-
enclosed deer herd in Ohio revealed that sharpshooting was a pied the precolonial range of the white-tail and that they
less efficient method of deer removal than controlled hunting harvested 4.6 to 6.4 million whitetails annually (22). The
(28). If a sharpshooter program was instituted,local econo- human species clearly constitutes an efficient and natural deer
mies would experience a loss of income from hunters (34) predator. Ecological and social constraints preclude the rein-
paying to control deer numbers (Connecticut deer hunters troduction of large predators in much of the U.S.
injected approximately$600 per harvested deer into the state
economy,excluding permit expenditures). Finally,the use of
sharpshooters would be exceedingly controversial in those CONCLUSION
situations where regulated hunting could be conducted, be-
cause it would deny citizens access to a renewable public Fifty years of research
resource. and management expe-
a. hence have shown regu-
lated hunting to be an
` ' ' • ' ecologically sound,so-
cially beneficial, and
n moderate fluctuating environments, a complement of fiscally responsible
moderately g P method of managing
I effective predators in 24 .
P stability ( ) r �� - deer populations. Op-
However,in general terms,predator/prey interactions are highly ' ' lions routinelysu -
variable 25 and tend to stabilize populations at relatively high g
( )� PoP YBested as alternatives to
Al
densities (23). Wolves and mountain lions are examples of r a regulated hunting are
efficient deer predatorswhich have been eliminated from much typically limited in ap-
of the U.S. Both species are frequently suggested as candidates plicability,prohibitively expensive,logistically impractical,or
for reintroduction to control deer herds. technically infeasible. As a consequence,wildlife profession-
Restoration of wolves and mountain lions is unfea- als have come to recognize regulated hunting as the fundamen-
sible in much of the U.S. because it is too densely tal basis of successful deer management.
populated by humans to provide suitable habitat for AN EVALUATION OF DEER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS was coauthored by
these species. In addition, it is unlikely that rural Mark R. Ellingwood, a Deer Biologist for the Connecticut Department of
residents of the U.S.would tolerate large predators at Environmental Protection,Wildlife Bureau and member of the New England
levels dense enough to limit deer populations because ChapteroftheWildlifeSocietyandtheNortheastDecrTechnicalCommittee;and
Suzanne L Catrmano,Public Awareness Biologist for the Connecticut Depart-
such predators also readily consume livestock. Pre- mentof Environmental Protection,Wildlife Bureau and former Chairmanofthe
dation of non-target species including native wildlife New England Chapter of the Wildlife Society's Education Committee.
and pets, as well as concerns for human safety,are
but a few examples of the conflicts that would arise as ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a result of predator reintroductionS. This publication was collectively developed by the New England Chapter of'Ihe
Wildlife Society and the Northeast Deer Technical Committee. The Northeast
Predator-prey relationships are complex and the impact Wildlife Administrators Association (composed of the Northeastern United
of predators on herbivore populations is variable. Although States and Canadian Province wildlife agency heads)encouraged,examined and
P P P g approved this publication.
many answers are lacking,several points can be made concern-
While numerous professional biologists have critically reviewed drafts of this
ing deer and their predators in the U.S. Coyotes,bobcats,and document,the following individualshave made particularly notable contributions:
bears are potential deer predators that currently reside in the Dr.James Applegate Wildlife Dept.,Rutgers Univ);Dr.Arnold Boer(New
U.S. These species appear to be opportunists that capitalize Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Branch);Dr.Robert Brooks(U.S.Forest Serv.N.E.
on specific periods of deer vulnerability. None of these preda- Exper.station),James Cardoza(Mass.Fish and Wildlife Dept.);Dr.Robert
tors has demonstrated a consistent ability to control deer Deblinger('Ibe Trustees of Reservations);Georgette Healy(Past Assist.to Jour.
Wildl. Manage. Editor); Dr.William Healy (U.S, Forest Serv. N.E.Exper.
populations. Where coyotes,bobcats,and bears are common, station);Paul Herig(Conn.Dept.Envir.Protect.Wildlife Bureau);William
deer herds often exceed BCC and/or CCC. Coyote populations IIesselton(Fed.Aid,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Serv.);Jay McAninch(Institute for
have increased and their range has expanded in the U.S.during Ecosystem Studies);Ronald Regan(Vermont Fish and Wildlife Dept.);Lori
the past 20 years. In many areas,both deer and coyote popu- Suprock(Rhode Island Div.ofFish and Wildlife);Dr.StevenWdliams(Mass.Fish
lations have increased simultaneously. In northern New England, and Wildlife Dept.);and Scot Williamson(New Hampshire Fish and Game
some biologists do suspect coyotes are partly responsible for Dept.).
declining deer numbers. Yet in other areas,changes in deer Production of the first printing of An Evaluation Of Deer Management Options
populations appear unrelated to coyote density. In many was coordinated and paid for by the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection,Wildlife Bureau.The secondprintingwas paid forby the U.S.Fishand
circumstances, coyotes and bears represent serious agricul- Wildlife Service Federal Aid Administration Funds,FY89.
tural pests. As a consequence, they are frequently less wel- The New England Chapter of Wildlife Society is an association of professional
come in the U.S.than white-tailed deer. wildlife biologists from Connecticut,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,Rhode
Even in the presence of predator-induced stable deer Island and Vermont devoted to stewardship and enlightened appreciation of
herds,a population reduction may be desirable from an eco- wildlife and its environments.
logical or social perspective. The fact that a deer herd has sta- The Northeast Deer Technical Committee,a group comprised of professional
bilized is no guarantee that such a herd is in balance with CCC deer biologists from the northeastern United States and eastern Canadian
or BCC. Provinces,is committed to the study and wise management of our deer resources.
Heavy predation coupled with year-round hunting by Na- Copyright 1988 Publication No.DR-Il
tive Americans was the norm for precolonial deer herds. It has
VI
f.
4
REFERENCES CITED
I.Anderson,J.F.,R.C.Johnson,L.A.Magnarelli,F.W.Hyde,and J.E.Myers. 18.Matschke,G.H.1977.Microencapsulated diethylstilbestrol as an oral con-
1987. Prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi and Babesia microti in mice on traceptive in white-tailed deer.J.Wildl.Manage.41(1):87-91.
islands inhabited by white-tailed deer.J. Applied and Environ. Microbiol. 19.Matschke,G.H.1977.Fertility control in white-tailed deer by steroid im-
53(4):892-894. plants.J.Wildl.Manage.41(4):731-735.
2.Arnold,DA.and L.J.Verme.1963.Ten years'observation of an enclosed 20.Matschke,G.H.1980.Efficacy of steroid implants in preventing pregnancy
deer herd in northern Michigan.Trans.North Am.Wildl.and Nat.Resour. in white-tailed deer.J.Wildl.Manage.44(3):756-758.
Conf.28:422-430. 21.Matschke,G.H.,D.S.deCalesta,and J.D.Harder.1984.Crop damage and
3.Baker,D.L.,and N.T.Hobbs.1985.Emergency feeding of mule deer during control.Pages 647-654 in L.K.Halls,ed.White-tailed deer ecology and man-
winter:Tests of a supplemental ration.J.Wildl.Manage.49(4):934-942. agement.A Wildlife Management Institute book.Stackpole Books,Harris-
4.Behrend,D.F.,G.F.Mattfeld,W.N.Tierson and F.E.Wiley,111.1976.Deer burg.Pa.
density control for comprehensive forest management.J.For.68:695-700. 22.McCabe,R.E.and T.R.McCabe.1984.Of slings and arrows:An historical
5.Conover,M.R.1984.Effectiveness of repellents in reducing deerdamage in retrospection.Pages 19-72 in L.K.Halls,ed.White-tailed deer ecology and
nurseries.Wildl.Soc.Bull.12(4):399-404. management.A Wildlife Management Institute book.Stackpole Books,Har-
6.Dasmann,W.1971.If deer are to survive.A Wildlife Management Institute risburg,Pa.
book.Stackpole Books,Harrisburg,Pa.128 pp. 23.McCullough,D.R.1979.The George Reserve deer herd:population ecol-
7.Dasmann,W.1981.Wildlife biology.2nd ed.John Wiley and Sons,Inc.New ogy of a K-selected species.Ann Arbor:Univ.Michigan Press.271 pp.
York,N.Y.203 pp. 24.McCullough, D.R. 1984.Lessons from the George Reserve,Michigan.
8.Ellingwood,M.R.,J.B.McAninch,and R.J.Winchcombe.1983.Evaluating Pages 211-242 in L.K.Halls,ed.White-tailed deerecology and management.A
the costs and effectiveness of repellent applications in protecting fruit or- Wildlife Management Institute book.Stackpole Books,Harrisburg,Pa.
chards. Page 69 in Proc. of The First Eastern Wildlife Damage Control 25.Mech,L.D.1984.Predators and predation.Pages 189-200 in L.K.Halls,ed.
Conference,Ithaca,N.Y. White-tailed deerecology and management.A Wildlife Management Institute
9. Ellingwood,M.R. and J.B.McAninch. 1984. Update on the Institute of book.Stackpole Books,Harrisburg,Pa.
Ecosystem Studies deer damage control project.Trans.Northeast DeerTech- 26.O'Bryan,M.K.and D.R.McCullough.1985.Survival of black-tailed deer
10. Committee.M.R. n. following relocation in California.J.Wildl.Manage.49(1):115-119.
10.Ellingwood, R.and J.V.Spignesi.1986.Management of an urban deer 27.Ozoga,J.J.,and L.J.Verme.1982.Physical and reproductive characteris-
herd and the concept of cultural carrying capacity. Trans. Northeast Deer tics of a supplementally fed white-tailed deer herd. J. Wildl. Manage.
Technical Committee.22:42-45.
11.Eve,J.H. 1981. Management implications of disease. Pages 413-433 in 28. Palmer, 1.
W.R.Davidson,ed.Diseases and parasites of white-tailed deer.Southeastern Re Plmer, D.T., D.A. Andrews, R.O. Winters, and J.W. Francis. 1980.
Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study,Univ.Georgia,Athens. Removal techniques to control an enclosed deer herd. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
12.Harder,J.D.and T.J.Peterle.1974.Effect of DES on reproductive per- 29.R 9-33.
formance of white-tailed deer.J.Wildl.Manage.38(2):183-196. 29.Rongstad,O.J.,and R.A.McCabe.1984.Capture techniques.Pages 655-
13. Hesselton, W.T., C.W. Severinghaus and J.E. Tanck. 1965. Population 686 in L.K.Halls,Ed.White-tailed deer ecology and management.A Wildlife
dynamics of deer at the Seneca Army Depot.N.Y.Fish and Game J.12:17-30. Management Institute book.Stackpole Books,Harrisburg.Pa.
14. Ishmael, W.E. and O.J. Rongstad. 1984. Economics of an urban deer w Boughton,R.D. ldl. Effects of oral MGA on reproduction in captive
h
removal program.Wildl.Soc.Bull.12(4):394-398. white-tailed deer.J.Wildl.Manage.43(2):428-436.
15.Kirkpatrick,J.F.,and J.W.Turner,Jr.(1988).Contraception as an alterna- 31.Rue,L.L.III. ,Inc. The Deer of North America.An Outdoor Life book.
Crown Publishers,Inc.
tive to traditional deer management techniques.In S. Lieberman,ed.Deer New York.463 pp.
management in an urbanizing region. The Humane Society of the United 28.Smith,R.P.1986.The beaver basin story.Deer and Deer Hunting.9(5):22-
States,Washington,D.C.(in press).
16.Langenau,E.E.Jr.,S.R.Kellert,and J.E.Applegate.1984.Values in man- 33.Turner,J.W.Jr.and J.F.Kirkpatrick,(1988).New methods for selective
contraception in wild animals.In U.S.Seal,ed.Contraception in wildlife(in
agement.Pages 699-720 in L.K.Halls,Ed.White-tailed deerecologyand man-
agement.A Wildlife Management Institute book Stackpole Books,Harris- Press).
burg,Pa. 34.Williamson,L.L.and G.L.Doster.1981.Socio-economic aspects of white-
17. Marquis,D.A.,and R.Brenneman. 1981.The impact of deer on forest tailed deer diseases.Pages 434-439 in W.R.Davidson,ed.Diseases and para-
vegetation in Pennsylvania.USDA Forest Service General Tech.Rep.NE-65, sites of White-tailed deer.Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study,
Northeast For.Exp.Stn.7pp. Univ.Georgia,Athens.
PHOTO CREDITS Page II: Scott Hanrahan Page V: Tom Feld
Cover: Steve Maslowski,Scott Hanrahan Page Imo. WhitettailsUnlimited,Inc. Page VI: William S.Lea
Page VII: William S. Lea
VII
§..
D.E.E.R.
axew.E...n..0 6 Ewi----PROGRAM
This booklet was reformatted,printed in color
ET,'�t and text revised with permission of
s� .r the authors.
Whitetails Unlimited,Inc.
LIM��O National Headquarters
PO Box 720,Sturgeon Bay,WI 54235
1-800-274-5471