Lethal & Non-Lethal Deer
Management Options
May 26, 2011
Jonathan Kays,
Extension Specialist-Natural Resources
University of Maryland Extension
George Timko,
Deer Biologist - MD Dept of Natural Resources
Wildlife & Heritage
Suggested Resources
 Managing Deer Damage in Maryland
(EB354C) - free online
 http://extension.umd.edu/local/index.cfm
 Website:
 www.naturalresources.umd.edu
 Publications library, Wildlife and
Insect Damage tab
 Other deer damage management
publications
What We Will Cover
 Problems with overabundant deer populations
 IPM Options for Deer Damage Management
 Implementing community deer management
 Questions
Problems With Overabundant Deer
 Damage to Personal Property –
 Gardens, Landscaping, Agriculture & Woodlands
 Damage to Forest Health
 Deer - Vehicle Collisions
 Disease Transmission to Humans (Lyme)
 Herd Health
Deer browsing can ruin landscapes.
Photo by Rob Gibbs
Agricultural
 Lands removed from
production (not
economical)
 Horticultural plants
impacted
Comparing Grain Crop Losses from Deer
1997 and 2005
1997
University MD Study –
Kevin McNew
Region
Western
Central
Southern
Upper ES
Lower ES
Total
2005
(USDA, National Ag Statistics
Office, MD Office)
Estimated
Economic Loss
(million $)
195
Estimated Economic Loss
(million $)
.3
6.3
2.4
6.5
15.8
9.2
$37,941
3.6
1.4
1.2
$8.9
Damage to Forest Ecosystems
& Biodiversity
From: DeCalesta, 1994
Impact on human suffering and
property from deer-vehicle
collisions
MD Deer Vehicle Collisions
(reported by insurance companies)
 1 in every 141 MD
Year
# of
collisions
$ estimate
@ $2,000 each
2002-03
26,169
$52.3 million
2003-04
21,968
$43.9 million
2004-05
22,820
$45.6 million
2005-06
27,925
$55.6 million
motorists will have a
collision with a deer
in the next 12
months.
 18% increase in
deer-vehicle
collisions in last 5
years.
Deer whistles on vehicles do not work and provide
a false sense of security.
Disease Transmission to Humans
Lyme Disease Life Cycle
(Deer are an essential component)
From: Lyme Disease, by M. Brittingham,
Penn State Ext. Cir. 366
Deer Population Dynamics
Need to harvest 40-50% of does to
maintain population till next year
Decision Considerations
for Applying Wildlife Damage Management for Deer
 Non-lethal Options
 Fencing
 Repellents
 Vegetation Management
 Lethal Options
 Population Management
 Traditional hunting
 Managed hunts or sharpshooters
 Deer contraception not practical if used alone
Wildlife Damage Management
(WDM) Approach for Deer
Favorite Deer Foods (Trees)
 Japanese maple
 balsam fir
 pear
 Norway maple
 Leyland cypress
 cherry
 white pine
 plum
 apple
 hemlock
 crabapple
Resistance of Ornamentals to Deer Damage (UME fact sheet 655)
Rarely Damaged Trees
 Allegheny serviceberry
 Douglas fir
 heritage birch
 San Jose / American holly
 Japanese falsecypress
 Colorado blue spruce
 Japanese cedar
 flowering / Korean
 Scotch pine
dogwood
 honeylocust
Resistance of Ornamental to Deer Damage (UME fact sheet 655)
Forest Stewardship Program
 Combine native habitat with
deer harvesting to maintain
balance.
 If over 10 acres, contact your
state forester
Wildlife Damage Management
(WDM) Approach for Deer
Things to Know About Using Repellents...
 They will fail – 7 to 13 weeks.
 Work by odor, taste or combo
 Apply before damage occurs
 Different areas – different results.
 Change repellents annually.
 Availability of other foods a factor.
 Short-term solution
Repellents NOT for Use on Edible Plants
New growth requires application more often.
Mode of Action
Active Ingredient
Odor
Putrescent egg-based
Taste
Longevity
7 weeks or
more
Name brands
• Deer-away
• Deer guard
• Liquid Fence
Taste
Fungicide
Thiram-based
7 weeks or
more
• Bonide Chew-Not
• Deerbuster deer repellent
& turf fungicide
Odor
Taste
Edible animal
Protein, fish
7 weeks or
more
• Plantskydd
• Repellex
• Bobbex
Taste
Benzldiethyl
Ammonium benzoate
BITREX
7 weeks or
more
• Tree Guard
• Ropel, Repel
Odor
Taste
Combination
preparations
Egg, garlic, pepper,
BITREX
7 weeks or
more
• Deerbuster Deer 1
Repellent study in Montgomery Count
2000 - 2002…
Difference in Browse of Treated and Untreated Plants
(Montgomery County 2000-2002)
Dog in a box
activated by motion
detector barks
louder as animal
approaches
Beware of Snake
Oil! Research does
not support use of
these devices!
Ultrasonic generator hooked up to
motion detector
Dogs contained by
buried electric fence
Pairs of dogs can protect
20-30 acres
Wildlife Damage Management
(WDM) Approach for Deer
Solidlock Fixed-Knot Fencing
Fence of choice by most
Plastic Fencing
 Light
 Low cost
 Easy to install
 Blends in with wooded
backdrop
Black plastic fencing blends in with a wooded
backdrop. Flagging tied to fence to alert deer.
Deer will go through
fence making holes that
are easily fixed by
attaching spare pieces.
Electric chargers
 High voltage, low


A/C- powered


Battery/solarpowered
impedance
Small computers with 4565 pulses/min
Short Duration - 0.003 per
second
AC, DC, battery, solar
powered units available
Always use AC power if
possible.
Polytape & Polywire
A plastic filament material
with strands of wire
interwoven that carry an
electric charge. Very flexible
and easy to use.
Applications: Gardens & Crops
…snow.
Wildlife Damage Management
(WDM) Approach for Deer
The most economical and
practical method of deer
population regulation is...
…hunting.
Deer Fertility Control
 Contraception
 Gonacon
 Only Drug Approved by EPA
 MDA Pesticide Applicators Requirements
 MD DNR Deer Cooperator Requirements
 Animal Marking/Tagging Required (EPA)
 Two Research Projects In MD*
 80% Effective - 1st Year, 50% - 2nd Year
 $15 Dose / $1,000 Per Deer Capture, Handling *
 Not Practical Unless Used With A Population Reduction Program
 Cost Bourne by Community
Deer Fertility Control
 Surgical Sterilization
 Ovariectomy
 One Research Project In MD, 2011*
 33 Deer Treated
 Veterinarian Expertise Required
 $1,200 Per Deer / Capture, Handling, Surgery*
 Cost Bourne by Community
 Not Practical Unless Used With A Population Reduction
Program
Deer Fertility Control
MD DNR Will Review The Merits Of Any Proposal On A Case By
Case Basis
Use Regulated Hunting to Control Deer Numbers
Hunting Seasons
 September 15 – January 31
 Archery: entire period
 Muzzleloader: 2 weeks
 Firearms: 2 weeks
 Crossbow Season expanded
 Region B (Urban Area)
increased to unlimited
antlerless bag limit for
archery
Controlled or Managed Hunting
A safe, practical method to remove deer from refuges in/near
suburban areas.
Pros:
 Can Be Inconspicuous,
Effective & Safe
 Deer Learn fear of humans
 DNR Approval Required
 Meat can be donated
 Inexpensive
Cons:
 Written permission within
150 yards of dwelling
 Coordinate with local
authorities
 Community Consensus
 Years to reduce population,
Not a one-time deal
Sharpshooting
 Rapid population reduction in local areas
 Safe, controlled hunting environment
 Used when there are serious safety concerns
 Very expensive
Deer Cooperators:
An effective alternative to remove deer from suburban areas.
 Pros:





Safe
Deer learn fear of humans
Permitted Cooperators
Meat must be donated to needy
Fast population reduction
 Cons:





150 yards from occupied dwelling w/out permission
Community consensus
Expensive: up to $400 per deer
Coordinate w / local police
Not a one-time deal
Deer Management Permits (DMP’s)
(Formerly Crop Damage Permits)
MD DNR Wildlife Service can issue permits to commercial
growers of agricultural and tree crops.
 Used any time of year. Permission can be given to others to
use permits.
 If you have a written forest stewardship plan you are
eligible for crop damage permits.
MD Reported Deer Mortality, 2010
(estimates)
Deer Coop. Permits
(Sharpshooting)
Deer Management Permits “Crop
Damage Permits”
Deer-Vehicle Collisions
Hunting
1400
8,000
25,000
99,000
Waiving Safety Zone from Nearby Dwelling
 To hunt must be 150 yards from nearest dwelling
 Can be waived if written permission provided by owner of
nearby property
 Enables hunting in subdivisions or similar areas.
Move to Community-based Deer
Management
Provides greater flexibility in the management of deer
populations where traditional management methods are
not an option.
Stages in Evolution of CBDM
Concern
Involvement
Evaluation
Issue
Implementation
Choice
Alternatives
Consequences
Six Models of Community
Base Deer Management
 Community vote
 Environmental impact statement
 (EIS)/public consultation
 Agency partnership
 Homeowners’ association
 Citizen action
 Citizen–agency partnership
Community Deer Management
 Requires a community come together to develop
consensus on problem and options.
 Best approach is a small group that represents different
stakeholders.
 Public meetings do not lend themselves to good
outcomes.
 Need to consider non-lethal and lethal options
Move to Community Based Deer
Management
 Research-based information, not decisions based on
emotion.
 Good educational programs for homeowners, producers,
professionals, etc.
 Resolve and commitment of local political officials.
 On the ground implementation essential for the long
term.
Examples of Community-Based Mgt
 Gibson Island
 Loch Raven Reservoir
 City of Rockville
 Moyone Reserve
 Homeowner associations
 Local Government organizations
 Municipalities
 County-based citizen task forces
Task Force Progress to Working Group
 Representative stakeholders
 Resolution from local government
 Deer Survey of county residents
 Understanding deer biology, interactions, conflicts, and
impacts
 Deer management options & effectiveness, cost, etc
 Summary & recommendations
 Best success if county or municipality proves personnel to
implement a long term deer management plan through
working group.
Citizen Task Force Reports in MD
Available online at
naturalresources.umd.edu
www.naturalresources.umd.edu
Interested in More information?
Jonathan Kays
301-432-2767 x323
jkays@umd.edu
www.naturalresources.umd.edu
George Timko
301-432-4307
gtimko@dnr.state.md.us
www.dnr.state.md.us/Wildlife