Search

ABSTRACT Based on decades of increasing deer effects on local biodiversity, agricultural damage, and deer–vehicle collisions, we implemented a suburban white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) research and management program in 2007 on Cornell University lands in Tompkins County, New York, USA. We attempted to reduce deer numbers by surgically sterilizing female deer in the 445‐ha suburban core campus via tubal ligation and ovariectomy. From 2007 to 2013, we sterilized 93 deer and radiocollared 67 adult females to monitor fawning. Tubal ligation and ovariectomy surgeries appeared to prevent birth in 96% and 100% of treated female deer, respectively. We implemented a camera survey, used a mark–resight model in Program NOREMARK to estimate annual deer abundance, and observed no reduction in female abundance by winter 2013. Conversely, we noted a 38% and 79% decrease of total adult females and fawns visible in sampled photographs, respectively, and an 873% increase in adult male visitation to camera traps on core campus. Surgical sterilization appeared to be ineffective for reducing the abundance of a geographically open population of white‐tailed deer in the absence of lethal management. We do not recommend surgical sterilization as a stand‐alone method for communities wishing to pursue mitigation of deer impacts with nonlethal approaches. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

Abstract Over the last decade, wildlife professionals in the New York City (NY, USA) metropolitan area have increasingly turned to controlled archery hunts to reduce overabundant suburban deer populations. The success of these deer management programs (DMPs) depends on a willing pool of hunters motivated to meet harvest goals. This requires maintaining hunter satisfaction both now, and in the future when successful herd reduction will result in fewer opportunities for deer harvest. With the goal of providing local deer managers with feedback from hunters partaking in DMPs, we used surveys designed to evaluate why members hunted, why they joined DMPs, members' views on deer management, and ultimately, their satisfaction with controlled hunts. Members were primarily motivated to hunt by the chance to see wildlife, opportunities for recreation, and a passion for archery. Most (71%) reported that their enjoyment had increased since first joining a DMP and satisfaction was not linked to harvest opportunity or success. Nevertheless, we documented several trends that threaten the long‐term sustainability of DMPs. First, 78.2% of survey respondents were over the age of 40, possibly suggesting fewer younger recruits into DMPs. Second, the opportunity to hunt previously unhunted land, a transitory incentive, was the most common reason for participating in DMPs. Third, respondents whose DMP doe harvest was limited by choosing to spend time on private, non‐DMP land were also more likely to have seen fewer deer on DMP lands (G‐test = 13.2, df = 4, P = 0.01). This suggests that effort will decline as deer herds decline. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

Abstract Given an increase of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations in many urban and suburban areas, deer management has become increasingly controversial. We surveyed deer biologists at state conservation agencies to compare opinions regarding urban and suburban deer management with those found in public surveys. We emailed a survey to deer biologists in 41 states to investigate what agencies are doing to control urban deer, which management techniques have been used in the past and are currently being used, and which techniques are believed to be most effective. Urban and suburban deer populations were increasing in most states (75.8%); accordingly, most biologists (97%) believed that urban and suburban deer were a problem in their state. Sixty‐five percent of biologists have not surveyed local communities for their opinions on deer and deer management. Managed archery hunts (85% of states), sharpshooting (68%), and managed firearm hunts (59%) were the most utilized methods during the past 5 years. Biologists ranked managed firearm hunts (54%) as the most preferred method for deer control, followed by managed archery hunt (39%) and sharpshooting (39%). Ninety‐one percent of biologists listed deer–vehicle accidents and damage to gardens as primary reasons for managing urban deer populations. Most biologists (88%) indicated that urban and suburban deer management in their state was overall effective. Biologists and public constituents agree on the primary reasons to manage deer, yet their preferences for management options vary greatly. We recommend state agencies survey constituents regarding their beliefs and concerns about deer management beyond questions that simply address the acceptability of management techniques. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

In response to increases in human-wildlife conflicts in urban and suburban environments, many states have established nuisance wildlife control operator (NWCO) programs, Criticism has been leveled at such programs for insufficient emphasis on nonlethal means, particularly the exclusion and translocation of nuisance small and medium-sized mammals, We determined den site selection of lactating raccoons (Procyon lotor) after exclusion and subsequent release from a human residence, Fifteen of 20 females extracted from suburban residences returned to another house at least once. Of the den sites selected 2 months postrelease, 59% were in man-made structures, Our data suggest that most female raccoons removed and excluded from human dwellings will select another house if released on site, We contend this behavior is facilitated by suburban homeowners who fail to take the initiative to prevent entry of wildlife into their homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Population estimates of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are critical to advancing the process of community-based deer management. One of the first questions raised by residents of suburban areas is "How many deer live in our community?" Our objective was to evaluate the reliability and cost of helicopter-mounted Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) in detecting and counting a suburban white-tailed deer population as com- pared to road counts. We conducted 4 separate road counts 1 hour prior to sunset between June 2001-January 2002. The average number of deer counted based on road counts was 229 (SE = 1 0.04). We conducted 3 separate flights using a helicopter-mounted FLIR between 2000-2330 hours on 9 January 2002. The average number of deer counted using FUR was 214 (SE = 18.7). Both population survey methods yielded similar results (P = 0.46). We recommend using FLIR in suburban areas dominated by private property where ground access or site distances may be limited, or where conducting a road count at a slow rate of speed may cause traffic congestion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]