Document Actions
Are there other choices besides hunting for controlling deer numbers?
In addition to hunting, several options exist to control deer numbers including allowing nature to take its course, relocation, fencing, repellents, fertility control, supplemental food, sharpshooters, and reintroduction of predators. Allowing nature to take its course means deer herds grow without regulated hunting until deer reach the upper limit the local habitat can sustain. Deer at upper density limits are in relatively poor health, prone to starvation and disease, and exhibit lower birth rates. There are significant costs associated with the “hands off” approach including negative impacts on plants, other wildlife, and the local deer herd.
Relocation programs involve trapping, immobilizing, and moving deer to new areas. The program is labor intensive and expensive with costs ranging from $400-800 per deer. Relocation is hard on deer with an approximate 40% survival rate. Deer are susceptible to handling trauma and stress-related illnesses. Finding locations to move deer to involves land-use, liability, and disease control concerns. In recent times, it has also been difficult to find sites willing to accept relocated deer.
Fencing and repellents are effective when “the financial gain from protection is equal to or greater than the cost of implementation.” Fences require regular maintenance and may not be cost effective for large sites. In addition, fencing deer out of some parts of the forest increases their pressure on the unfenced portions. Nonetheless, fencing is sometimes the only certain option for protecting favored plants and ensuring the growth of seedlings during a timber harvest sequence.
Repellents require frequent applications and only work during mild weather. As a result, repellents are not as effective in northern states during winter months. In addition, when food sources are scarce, deer ignore repellents.
Fertility control agents reduce doe productivity. Some contraceptives require frequent doses making them impractical and expensive. Other contraceptives require trapping and immobilizing does. As with relocation, does are susceptible to trauma and stress-related illnesses. Overall, fertility control agents are effective in small, carefully-regulated deer herds and impractical with free-ranging herds.
Supplemental food encourages additional population growth. It works with small deer herds and is counterproductive with deer herds at their upper population limits relative to their habitat. Supplemental foods are also expensive. Work conducted in Michigan indicates that it costs from $37 to $53 per deer to run a winter-feeding program1. Feeding concentrates deer, possibly increasing the risk of disease transmission and predation of deer by dogs and coyotes. Recently, food plots are replacing supplemental food to improve deer herd quality. Food plots replicate natural grasslands by providing a variety of plants that thrive in diverse seasons and conditions. Unlike supplemental food stations, food plots are large reducing the risk of concentrated deer, deer transmission, and canine predation.
Sharpshooters are effective for urban deer removal programs where hunting is not feasible. They are less effective in rural areas where sharpshooters replace hunters to control deer populations thereby reducing access to hunters and local economies experience loss of income from hunters.
Reintroduction of predators is an often-cited deer control option. Historically, coyotes, wolves, mountain lions, and bears along with hunting controlled deer populations. While wolves and mountain lions were eliminated from the United States, bears and coyotes remain and prey on fawns as well as weak or sick deer. Concerns for livestock, pets, and humans make restoration of wolves and mountain lions impractical in the eastern United States.
To learn more about deer management options, read An Evaluation of Deer Management Options by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department.
1 Ozoga, J.J, and L. J. Verme, 1982. Physical and reproductive characteristics of a supplementally fed white-tailed deer herd. J. Wildl Manage. 46 (2): 281-301.