Damage Control

There is so much written about the nuisance problem with deer.

swallowtail2-716x1024This page covers broad descriptions of the deer problem in areas of our country, best practices, and some suggestions of solutions.

  • Long Island White-tailed Deer Damage Management Demonstration Project Report, Prepared by: United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, August 2014
      Currently Suffolk County’s deer herd is roughly twice the carrying capacity, putting pressure on agricultural production, property, human health and safety, and natural resources.
      White-tailed deer are a vector of several prevalent and serious tick borne diseases on the East End of Long Island, including Lyme disease, ehrlichiosis, Powassan, Southern Tick Associated Rash Illness (STARI), and Babesiosis. Overpopulations of deer overbrowse and severely impact natural resources such as the understory of forests, preventing new growth from occurring and impacting native flora, small mammals, birds, and insects. This destruction of understory plants prevents regeneration of forests, increases erosion, and changes forest composition.
  • White-tailed Deer: Best practices for nuisance wildlife control operators: A training manual, NYS DEC and Cornell Cooperative Extension
  • White-Tailed Deer in Rhode Island, Rhode Island DEM Division of Fish and Wildlife,
  • Managing Deer Damage, Indiana Department of Natural Resources
  • An Integrated Approach To Deer Damage Control, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
  • Deer Damage Control, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
  • Controlling Deer Damage In Wisconsin, UW Extension
  •  

    On a slightly different topic- mitigating deer-vehicle crashes:

  • PREDICTING RISK FOR DEER – VEHICLE COLLISIONS USING A SOCIAL MEDIA BASED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM, Issues in Information Systems, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp.170-181, 2012
  • Methods to Identify and Prioritize Deer-Vehicle Crash Locations, Deer Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse, June 2011This project was funded by the Deer-Vehicle Crash Information and Research Center (DVICR) Center Pooled Fund. The project focused on the methods used to identify, predict, and/or prioritize the location of deer-vehicle crash “hot spots”
  • Deer-Vehicle Crash, Ecological, and Economic Impacts of Reduced Roadside Mowing, Deer Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse, May 2012The primary goal of this project was to learn more about potential safety, ecological, and economic impacts of reduced roadside mowing, to identify and describe roadside vegetation management policies currently in place throughout the United States, and to quantify DVC impacts of reduced roadside mowing.
  • Roadkill Observation Collection System (ROCS) Support Project Deer Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse, January 2012The purpose of ROCS is to identify areas with high number of WVCs (wildlife-vehicle collisions) via a spatial cluster analysis, can be used to conduct cost-benefit analyses for mitigation, and has the potential for other useful evaluations.
  • DEER-VEHICLE CRASH COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX: A DECISION AND CHOICE RESOURCE, Final Report, Midwest Regional University Transportation Center, Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearinghouse, University of Wisconsin-Madison, June 2004
  • Deer Damage Hurts the Pocketbook, Hancock County Extension Agent, WVU Extension Service, Nov 1999The survey showed that 39% of property owners had experienced damage attributed to deer; 61% reported no deer damage. The estimated total deer damage cost to Weirton property owners in 1998 of $1,447,584 would amount to $150.13 for every household if the cost was shared equally. However, the actual average cost was $384.99 since only 39% (3,760) of the property owners had damages caused by deer. (NOTE: 1999 dollars)
  • Reducing Deer Browse Damage, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2009Some behaviors deer exhibit that may be useful in developing a deterrent plan. Learns to tolerate:
    • bad taste or smell,
    • colored strobe lights,
    • sirens and loud noises;
    • Jumps high (up to 12 feet with sufficient motivation) or far (up to 30 feet with sufficient motivation), but not both at same time;
    • Crawls through openings as small as 7.5 inches;
    • More likely to jump fences in woodlands than in open areas;
    • Learns to remove bud caps and netting protecting terminal buds;
    • Follows customary paths to known food sources;
    • Tests for weaknesses in any a nd all barriers, repeatedly;
    • Nibbles young stems emerging from tube protectors and chemical repellents.

Comments are closed