Download pdf - Brian Underwood

8/14/2019 Brian Underwood

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brian-underwood 1/40

H. Brian Underwo od , USGS-Pa tuxe nt W ild l ife Researc h

Ce nter, 4 26 I l lic k Hall, State Un ive rsit y of Ne w Yo rk ,

Colleg e o f E nv iron me ntal Scie nce & For estry , S yracuse, N Y

1321 0

Urban Deer Management:Urban Deer Management:

Challenges & OpportunitiesChallenges & Opportunities



Topics

•The Phenomenon

•The Issues•The Options

•The Challenges

•The Opportunities



Dee r In O ur Mid st

• Where did “suburban” deer come from?

• Biological Mechanism?

• What theory doesn’t tell us





AND NOW.AND NOW.



Th is is My Sto ry(and I ’m st ic king to it )

1) Extensive land uses (includingsuburbanization) have replaced intensiveland uses over the last 100 years

3) Forest cover (%) increases as land usebecomes more extensive

5) Predation risk decreases with increasingforest cover

7) Harvest rate (%) decreases withincreasing forest cover



19001900 19501950

20002000 20502050







Birth FractionBirth Fraction

Forest CoverForest Cover

Land Use IntensityLand Use Intensity

Death FractionDeath Fraction

Predation RiskPredation Risk−−++DeerDeer

PopulationPopulation

Systems ModelSystems Model



Mortality Release Irruption

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Year of Simulation

Percent

Forest

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Number of

Deer

PF

DP



Role o f R efug es & Pa rks

• Parks and Refuges played a majorrole in re-establishing deer acrossthe Great Lakes Region

• Many refuges established in theyears following the GreatDepression

• These refuge populations becamethe “sources” of deer for adjacentlands as habitat suitabilityincreased



URBAURBANN

RURARURA

LL

SuitableSuitable

UnsuitableUnsuitable







C O V

E R

C O V

E R F O O D

F

O O D

WATERWATER











What Theory Doesn’t Tell Us

• These are “no crash” irruptions becausefood and water are not limiting…onlycover is limiting.

• Suburban/urban landscapes subsidizedeer populations through access to highquality food resources (e.g., ag lands,fertilized lawns, golf courses, PROW,mast producing trees).

• Leads to overabundance in the“ecological” sense.



ISSUES

• Deer Vehicle CollisionsDeer Vehicle Collisions

(DVCs)(DVCs)

• “ “ Damage” to vegetationDamage” to vegetation

• Lyme DiseaseLyme Disease





Legend

DVA Locations

Open Water

Developed, Open Space

Grassland/Herbaceous

Woody Wetlands

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands

3 0 3 6 9 121.5

Kilometers

DVC locationsDVC locations

Each year, deer-Each year, deer-

vehicle crashesvehicle crashes

cause morecause more

than 200than 200

deaths and tensdeaths and tens

of thousands ofof thousands of

injuries, whileinjuries, whileracking up $1.1racking up $1.1

billion inbillion in

propertyproperty

damages.damages.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Map_of_New_York_highlighting_Onondaga_County.svg



Howlett Hill, Marcellus, NY Howlett Hill, Marcellus, NY





LandCover

agriculture: 33.7%

forested: 25.7%

development: 18.6%

wetlands/open water:13.8%

scrub: 6.9%

field: 0.7%

4 ,60 0 0 4, 600 9,2 00 13 ,80 0 18 ,40 02,300

Meters

Legend

Open Water

Developed, Open Space

Developed, Low Intensity

Developed, Medium Intensity

Developed, High Intensity

Barren Land

Deciduous Forest

Evergreen Forest

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/Herbaceous

Pasture/Hay

Cultivated Crops

Woody Wetlands

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands











The Opt ions

• Manage the“impact” only

– Exclusion orshunting

• Manage the

population– Direct reduction

– Fertility Control



Man ag in g Imp act

• Excluding deer from protectedareas has been the long-standing

first response to increasingnumbers

• Shunting deer impact to other, less

valuable areas has been essentiallyignored as a viable managementtool

If you build it…..If you build it…..



Man ag in g Pop ul at ions I

32,285

15,972

20,2505,000

36,359

16,581Processing

Site/Equip Prep

Training

Equip/Supplies

Shooting Team

Security

Total cost ~ $126,447 for 288 deer ($439 per deer)

Cleveland Metro ParksCleveland Metro Parks



Managing White-Tailed DeerManaging White-Tailed Deerin Suburban Environmentsin Suburban Environments

A Technical GuideA Technical Guide

Anthony J. DeNicola, Kurt C. VerCauteren,

Paul D. Curtis, and Scott E. Hygnstrom



Man ag in g Pop ulat ions II

• State of the Art is still a multiple-exposure, single shot, remotely delivered

vaccine

• Scope is about 200 females

• 90% contraception rate for 10 yr willreduce a population by one-half

• Access is a key limiting factor

Fertility ControlFertility Control





Th e C hallen ge s• Nuisance abatement in a

pluralistic society is divisivebusiness

• Some stakeholder groups feeldisenfranchised because theydon’t hold core values

• Must be absolutely transparentprocess for buy-in



Th e O pportun it ie s

• Chance to be pro-active

• Engage Regional/Local PlanningAgencies

• Work with landowner/homeownergroups

• Generate boilerplate for local

municipalities’ planning and zoningboards



Concl usio ns

• Suburban/Urban deer are aSuburban/Urban deer are a product of natural processes of product of natural processes of contemporary landscapescontemporary landscapes

• Deer “expanded” their range intoDeer “expanded” their range intosuitable habitats that had peoplesuitable habitats that had peoplein them tooin them too

• Nuisance issues predominateNuisance issues predominate

discussion of management discussion of management • Traditional options are limited Traditional options are limited

• We need to expand our sphere of We need to expand our sphere of influence to “prevent” futureinfluence to “prevent” future problems problems